of montana's resources. .. it is a product of competition. we is a product of supply and demand in a product of the capitalist system, so this light that you had on their about the

natural gas, the reduction in natural gas wells is because this is working. because r&d did work, because we did applied in the field because we have commercialized it to the point that now we have got plenty of natural gas and in fact we have got so much natural gas we need to start using more of it and if you want to cut down on some of that cold, we will send you some natural gas. >> we should be able to use more of that natural gas. as i put up there on the slide could be a game-changer that that is a huge opportunity to increase our energy security in pupil to put policies in place however to get that into the marketplace. thank you all very much. >> anybody like a copy of karen's presentation, she will be happy to supply that for you. thank you karen. you can see is a very interesting topic, something very important to the state by nation and in our nation for gornick speaker is kathleen mcginty and kathleen is a founding partner of pair technology partners, llc firm

focused on the commercialization of clean technology and an operating partner at alamance llc, a private equity from investing in the early and mid-state clean technology companies. in july 2008 ms. mcginty step down as secretary of defense of an apartment as chair of the pennsylvania energy development authority, where she helped bring more than $1 billion in new investment and creating some 3,000 new jobs. your service in pennsylvania ms. mcginty chaired of the white house council of environmental quality under president clinton and under the environmental advisers to then senator al gore. please welcome kathleen mcginty. kathleen. [applause] good to see you again. >> thank you very much governors and for hanging in there, the tail end of this very good

session that you have had and to governor barbour for hosting us all, thank you very much. his vinnie fine seven malkin we have had. i wanted to share i guess especially in light of the tremendous expertise here all of you, many of you governors, governor switzer for example have tremendous expertise in things energy and can hold forth in great detail as best as any of us can, so they are just three points i thought i would share today. before i do i did want to both complement karen on her presentation and comment on a couple of things she had to say. on nuclear programs for example, one of the cats that i wear today is as a director on the board of directors of a company called nrg. you might have heard of energy, energy. we have been in the news especially since last october since there is a banter of a little bit of an interest by

exelon in nrg and we have our shareholders meeting about that very proposition tomorrow but we happen to be the first to file, to build a new nuclear plants in the united states and from anne r.g.'s perspective this administration has been very thorough and forward looking on nuclear program moving right along with the loan guarantees so we are very pleased and what we see. on the oil and gas, i want to echo some of the comments made to my experience, especially when previously as secretary of ddp and pennsylvania, we oversee a very robust, we'll versailles robust oil and gas program. our experience is it is all about price for the wind the price is high the investment is there and as the price of oil went up, we saw a tremendous explosion of the interest in developing the oil and gas resources that we have so that by the time i step down as secretary last year, we actually

were permitting 8,000 new wells every year, so for me the big driver is price and if the cost is there the prices there, the investments will follow. let me come to a couple of points that i would love to share with all of you today. first as a country we have been a little bit fickle about the energy agenda. it is on our minds and if we pay attention in one year and the price comes down and we have other things that occupy our attention so first an argument that we need to stick and stay with this agenda for the second, not only that we need to, but that we should want to, that this is about offense and not just defense in terms of what is coming at us in the global energy economy. and third, that if we do steak and stay, that there is a very significant upside for us, our economy and our security in pursuing a robust energy agenda. coming back to the top, in terms

of we need to stick and stay here. oil, we saw the oil price spikes of last year. we have a sense right now, the crisis is over, the prices come down and it certainly has from the $140 a barrel but while we haven't been paying attention we have the price of energy since its low in february. if you look at the global picture in terms of oil resources, what we are saying is that as compared to the '70s where it was very much about geopolitics, it is much more about the geology. it is much more about the fundamentals then things that goal today. so, the international energy agency for example, for the first time ever last year went and examined each of the 800 major oilfields in the world, and their report was that those field still producing, yes but

very much on the decline. in fact, at the risk of predicting where. >> translator: , their estimate was just to keep pace with current levels of production of oil, that we would need to find 4x, saudi arabia's current production annually. if you figure in we are anticipated growth in demand does that number looks like 6x. those are makar numbers. we can look individual oilfields. one that is of particular interest and concern to the united states, mexico's major field is the cantrell field. importance to us because until recently mexico was the second leading supplier of oil and because oil is such an important part of mexico's budget and an 14 keeping a strong and

sustainable neighbor to our self. two years ago the country of mexico reported that in seven years they would be out of oil for export from that cantor ralph field and since then, the level of production has declined even more rapidly. while all of this is happening, there is a tendency for us to think oil prices spike, it must just be a conspiracy. ed most as the price setting for god must be that cartel planas again and certainly there is probably some piece of all of that going on, but if you look at it again, karen focusing on the facts at the time said that we were looking at $140 a barrel of oil, it was just at that time that we had more oil rigs deployed across the face of the planet than ever before in

history. nobody was hiding the ball. are we-- know. it is a good prediction to say that we might be out of cheap oil? that is looking increasingly unlikely. if that is the situation with oil, many of you have coal reserves and your state certainly pennsylvania still the fourth leading producer of coal in the united states, and there we have had the sense that colas and leslie abundant and endlessly cheap. now that was a good bet for many, many years until something happened. the something was the government of china announcing that they had become a net importer of coal. building 40,000 megawatts a year of new generating capacity very substantially driving up demand, especially for a high btu, number appalachian coal, so that

$40 a ton you can always bet on in terms of the price of coal overnight became $140 a ton and companies were paying $140,000 a day in the port of baltimore, in order to reserve a barge space to move that call into increasingly lucrative and pricey markets. so, cold too, some very substantial upward pressure on prices. natural gas has been mentioned here too and there, we do have a substantial new opportunity especially in the unconventional gas formations, the marcellus, the barnett, the haynesville formations. these gas formations are proving much more robust than even had been anticipated and potentially developable at a cheaper cost than had been anticipated.

but, he writes think a note of caution is in order. gas can and should especially these new formations, be put to work in our economy but it shouldn't be about putting all of our energy eggs in any single basket and specifically natural gas, we did that before. in the early 90's the prediction was we had a tremendous oversupply of gas, the price of gas would be two bucks in mcf forever and ever, so there was a rush to focus singularly on natural gas powered electricity generation, a tremendous buildout in natural gas plants but then as the governor said, that two bucks and mcf became high double digits and then was $13 in mcf and now we have a lot of stranded gas assets. so, in terms of diversifying our

energy resources and expecting that as economic growth returns and returns in a robust way, while we can't give the precise prediction, the better odds are that that price of energy doesn't look like a smooth slope. it looks like a hockey stick with those prices shooting back up. so one, we need to stick with an energy agenda. second, it is in our interest. this is about offense, not just defense. why is it in our interest? you know the statistics on transportation fuels. we are exporting a whole stimulus package worth of dollars every year, $700 billion in order to buy those transportation fuels from overseas. those dollars better invested in our own economy. but what is the story with electricity? there we potentially have the makings of a perfect storm. free things. first, very substantial increase

in demand for electricity. as we are living in bigger houses, as all of our gadgets are ever fancier and as all of us are always plug in, so a huge increase in the demand for electricity at a time when two things are true. our fleet of power plants is on average old and getting older. in pennsylvania for example, we are the second biggest generator of electrical energy in the country. much of our fleet is 562 even 70 years old. there and with that, our regional transmission operators, the guys and gals who dropped the transmission and distribution system are reporting a tremendous strain on the grid, declining reserve margins were for reliability purposes, we like to have 30% reserve margin.

those numbers now are down 210, 12, 13%. add those three things together and again, investment in the energy space is a must for our economy, our security and for avoiding what we are seeing today, which is every year a billion dollars plus of economic loss because of poor power quality, because of black out, because of brownouts in because of the loss of productive activity in the economy. fair and finally, if we stick with this energy agenda, there is a tremendous upside for our economy and our security. one, the answer on the flip side of the problems i have just identified, but in three ways, the building out and diversifying our energy resources will be a boon to our economy. first and foremost, i think

americans agree and all of you have been leading, we need to make things in this country again. we can make things in this country again. steel, we can make in this country. of this stuff we can make, there are few things that are more vital to our security and our economy than our energy infrastructure, so let's put people to work in building that out. second, if we do build up that diversity of the energy resources, what we see this is the cost curbs on those technologies coming down substantially. and so, as you look at the renewable and the conventional energy resources that we can build today, you see prices levelling out like for example, ira will speak to carbon-captured coal.

caused her carbon-captured coal are on the order of about $6,000 a kilowatt. well, how was swindon solar comparing do coal from that perspective? when today installed cost of 1500 to $2,500 of kw. solar is a bit higher at 5,000 to $8,000 a kilowatt depending on where you are in the country. but even that is in league with new nuclear plants that we can build, which are coming in at about 7,000 to $8,000 a kilowatt, so what we see is with the investments we have made to improve these technologies already, the cost curves are coming down and the availability of energy options is increasing for us. last point in terms of why it makes sense to diversify energy resources and to bring those resources on line, we have an

idea that renewable energy is expensive and no energy is free and there is the capital costs in building any and every kind of energy and i just shared with you some of those numbers. the up-front cost is one piece of the equation, but what about the cost or the price realized by the customer? here, looking at electricity markets and how they are structured is key and in particular, wholesale energy prices are governed by costs on the margin. those costs in turn are governed almost exclusively by fuel costs. when you bring wind, solar and hydro resources for example into the generation mix, you have resources with his hero fuel cost, then driving into the

wholesale price of power and what effect does that have? it brings the cost of electricity down. not just in theory, but in fact what we are seeing for example in texas, where there has been a very substantial investment in wind energy. in west texas now, 11% of the time, the spot market price for electricity is his hero or negative. a pretty good deal if you can get it. that is not an argument to say all eggs should be wind or solar. it is to say though that these resources, all of them have an important role to play and if we are smart about putting dollars across the spectrum in our energy resources, yes there is an up-front cost, but there is a

payout in employment, in affordability and in driving our economy forward. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you katie for a wonderful presentation and we have time for "a questioner to from any of the governors. >> let me just follow up. governor culver from iowa. >> thank you very much for the presentation. utahans about our opportunity to make things, and i think there is a lot of low-hanging fruit right now, certainly in the midwest and in other parts of the country related to renewables. for example in iowa, we have created in the last two and a half to three years, 2300 green-collar jobs, all brand new jobs. we are making towers, at

turbines and blades. and that is all new, economic development, new investment. we have nine when the energy companies that have come to iowa. the supply chain is following them. but, my concern is that we need the federal government to set a renewable electricity standard, so that we encourage more use of alternatives. i agree we have to have a diversified portfolio. we need it all. but, we have a window right now, certainly in the next couple of months in washington where we have got, we can have this debate about climate change and cap-and-trade and all of that but i think we need to go aggressively for something i think all of us can agree on, is a minimum standard for renewable electricity. and iowa we have had a codified,

renewable electricity standard since the early 80s. we are now producing 15% in part because of that standard, a 15% in 2009 just from wind alone. we have 20-- 2900 turbines operating in our state. every state could do that. i mean, it might be solar, it might be geothermal, it might be wind but we have to, have not heard any discussion about the urgency related to what i think is the easiest way in america to create a green-collar job. if we are serious about creating one more green-collar job is to pass that renewable electricity standard that i think, and i don't know exactly what it is that we have to certainly raise the bar. otherwise we risk losing what we have, and so i hear all of this

talk about making things and creating these new jobs of the future and here it is. we have got an amazing workforce ready to do it. they are talented. they are ready, they are excited, they are capable. we have community college graduates with an associate's degree making $50,000 a year coming out of these programs and i was and they can go anywhere in the world to work but if we don't have the parallel state and federal policies, we are going to miss this opportunity of the 21st century. >> governor i think your points are right on the market, and i share our own experience in pennsylvania. we very similar story, when he stepped out and put a priority on clean energy, we have now grown a manufacturing sector that is not a new economy versus old economy. it is giving a productive economic opportunity to the skill sets we have always said. we know how to build things.

but 3,000 jobs is what we have realized, and i think the importance that you are talking about in terms of a renewable portfolio standard, what we are talking about there is working with the market. because, in earlier days in the '90s for example, the idea was, if you bill that they will come. well, that wasn't true then and investors who got burned with that kind of idea are not buying it now. the importance of the portfolio standards is it takes that market risk away. if you build it, there will be a market and i think especially where we find ourselves right now where we have some bit of liquidity coming back in the financial sector, but certainly not enough, if there is an overhang of risk and uncertainty those dollars will not be invested in the reverse is true. if we can provide that strong market signal, the investment

will follow. thank you. >> thank you katie. thank you katie so much. let's give her our appreciation there. [applause] at this time i would like to ask your host governor, haley barbour to come forward and introduce our next speaker. >> i'm glad to introduce one of my citizens. nucor steel, god bless them as a great facility in suburban jackson mrs. bee and another facility in our state. >> and tamika is the ceo of newt core which was mentioned earlier, is the largest manufacturer of steel in the united states as well as the largest recycler in north america. he has got a little different view on energy policy. he is one of the country's biggest energy consumers in the private sector. deanne. [applause]

>> good morning. everybody going to stick around for not only mind but ira's? we are going to be here as long as we have an audience or as least as long as the cameras are rolling. two things i would like to start off with. number one, karen, thank you for setting a realistic tone. appreciate it. is a manufacturer in this country in 2000, hard-working men and women. katie, what can i say? number one message that i heard and that we have been preaching since the 90's and before, since the '70s is we have to have an energy policy, an energy agenda that is organized, well thought out balance and includes everything. and reason the '90s didn't materialize anything is because we do not have that.

and natural gas, the reason we did not have that developed was because of the access issues that came about. as we know it today there is beaucoup natural gas around, beaucoup 1,000. we have to access it properly but it is there. what a great resource to have providing great hope for our country's energy situation, but the key has always been, we have not had a natural energy the agenda. the leaders of this country have let every american down since that first oil crisis and energy crisis back in the 70's. let the american people down and the american people also have a responsibility in that because they hold the leaders accountable for putting something together that is going to stick around. we would not have had the to 1 dollar oil we were having in the last year or so, we would not have those issues if we had a pollitz type program for

national energy strategy. believe me these encompass everything. so, i commend you very, very much for making that point in driving it home. one other point, i also said on the energy board of directors. jim rogers was here speaking earlier this week. gemina i don't agree on everything. one thing i can tell you about duke, is that between now and 2050, we have to replace, they have to replace every power plant they have today. every power plant between now and 2050. so how is our energy strategy as a country going to be put together to make sure that is done in the best possible way for america, for americans and for our environment? now that is not in my prepared remarks. that is just a reaction to what i have heard so far. a plus for both of you.

now, there we go. this slide, you need to focus on because no business leader can get up here, no american who was not concerned about what is going on with our economy can get up here and not talk about the number one priority in front of all of us for some period of time. and that is creating jobs. this slide, if you carefully look at it, will show you the reasons why it is so important. this slide here is showing you the number of job losses cumulatively since the peak, and what you see not counting the 500,000 more jobs that will be announced probably friday, will be over 7 million jobs lost at that announcement since the beginning of the recession. this economic crisis. what you need to focus on is

that this shows the plot of every recession going back to the 1970's. and as you watch this curve go from 72 eighties to the '90s, 2000 recessions, what you see is a flattening of that curve. yu 40 month out after the peak, the job recoveries are becoming flatter and flatter and tougher and tougher to come by. that is one thing you should look at. you should likud the time at the bottom. you should look at when we got to the bottom and you should look at how far down it is when we reached bottom. if you look at that and you look today and what we are seeing today, which is the lower curve unfortunately, what we have here is a crisis that is going to be with us for the rest of, for the next ten years, not just the next couple of years.

what people don't understand is how many jobs we have to create. every month 150,000 new entrants come into the workforce from colleges, from high schools, your children, my children, grandchildren, immigrants come to the workforce. these numbers don't include those. so you ledbetter motes apply every month 150,004 hour burn long it takes us to get back up deposited jobs. if you really want to know the magnitude of the job problem that we have in this country, the job creation problem. we are not talking about creating 6 million jobs. we are not talking about creating 7 million jobs. we are talking about having to create 13 are 14 million jobs over the next years. just to be able to take care of

what we have lost, and the new entrants into the workplace. every month that goes by there are 150,000 in the numbers to get from the government do not include those people and the numbers to get in the government, in the unemployment rates don't include the people who have given up looking for work which is that a record high and don't include the part-timers which is that the record high. dig has 23,000 employees. we don't like anybody africa we are incurring over $100 million of additional cost not to lay people off and in our 40 plus history have never laid anybody off. it costs money to do that. [applause] the reason i emphasize that is today those people are working 50% of their normal hours. they are not laid off, but they are working half the time. they earn that new record total number of part-time workers and when you start to look at the real unemployment rate today

based upon those who have given up looking for work and those who are on part-time, it is more like 15 or 16% and i am not the one who put those numbers together although we have our own. you can't pick up a paper when they are talking about this and not now start to see another paragraph that talks about that group and the real unemployment rate. that is that, that is not fiction. this is reality. hard reality. we have got our priorities messed up here. we are not focusing. where are you going to create 13, 14 million jobs over the next five years? there is no one solution to it. it is that to be a broad based one. we are going to talk a little bit about that. but the number one priority in washington, the number one priority for our businessmen and business leaders in this country, has got to be jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

and we have got to be able to get our economy back to the point where we can do all of the other things we want to do including the things debated hotly in washington today but we should not be doing those things until we have treated the kind of economy that gives us the money to pay for it. and we are not doing that. when you think about 13, 14, 15 million jobs that can be treated, we are not looking at the right targets. we are not looking at the severity of this problem. don't kid yourself. it is that serious. this is not something that somebody made up. this is real. lets get how deep the drop-off is. it is going to go down another 400, 500,000. imagine if that trend continues, how long it is going to take for us to get back to zero cumulative job losses. you are talking way past 40

months. this is serious. it should be job priority number one for every leader in this country, everyone including the governors in this room. we have had serious economic crises created by serious structural problems in our economy. we have a financial crisis created by too much of something for nothing. well, we had to much easy money created by a lot of different things, not the least of which was the fact that somebody kept buying all of gardett which kept the treasury rates down, which kept money rates down which allowed for this fiasco of borrowing to drive consumption instead of what we all grew up with, and need to go back to, and that is you don't buy until you have saved. we need to go back to that model that my parents had to live with, which was called layaway.

want a new refrigerator, you say four. you don't run up a dead end and the effect of the matter is that that is going to be easily attainable going forward. the rules of change. the credit rules of change for individuals, to buy homes, by cars, by refrigerators and for businesses. if you don't think this is a big issue facing businesses, think again. think about where all those job losses are coming from, manufacturing and construction. and what are we doing in this country to support the regrowth of manufacturing and construction? nothing, or just above nothing. $60 billion of the 600 plus billion dollars stimulus package? who are we kidding? want to get success? look at the chinese. what did they do? i don't agree with a lot of what the chinese do and their reasons

why, right? the governor from arkansas knows that, so does haley. what do they do? they don't spend 60 billion. they spent 600 billion on reconstruction. we have got $2.2 trillion in infrastructure failing us as we speak. society of civil engineers, that is what we have to spend to get back to where we can compete and keep our dams from breaking, improve our power grid, get better air traffic control systems, sewer, water systems said they are not blowing up in new york or dance not busting. watch the history channel infrastructure program. it is downright scary. all things that we have neglected. we have got world war ii, pre-world war two infrastructure in this country. you want to put people back to work, create the jobs people are prepared for. don't give me this pretraining stuff and everything else. there is no reason why we shouldn't be investing here in america and creating a return on

that investment and the only way you are going to do that over the next five to ten years, we need to create those 13 million jobs and build things, rebuild our infrastructure, get on trade deficits straightened out. free trade, yeah is critical but only if you enforce the rules. guess what we don't do and haven't done since ronald reagan? bush one, the clintons, boys to, we have not held our trading partners accountable for the agreements they made to have access to our markets. whether it be our free trade agreements, whether it be-- which china agreed to when they made certain rules the weathered the the favorite nation trading status we have given shine in other countries to have access to our markets. we don't do it. a free trade does not exist, what we have is a global trading world based upon mercantilism.

china is doing its like no country in the world has ever done it before. before then the koreans did it, before then the japanese did it. it is okay to a point. we did it at one point i am sure in our history but when things get to an extreme then you've got to say time to play by the rules. you are no longer a developing country. china has the world's largest steel producing. in 2000, if they did 200 million tons of steel it was a lot. in this country we make maybe 100 million times other over five times as big as us since 2000. i have a problem with china growing. they have got a lot of people. god bless them. get the currency where does deli in the market's earlier consumers can actually consume instead of having to say because there's no safety net. stop trying to export your way

into wealth and start giving people an opportunity to become consumers because the united states, guess what? where going to be absent for the fight for some time. all of those consumers created in that big bubble that we saw in housing and everything else are gone. not only are we going to find a crisis in the great recession, but those consumers are gone because of credit issues, because they lots $15 trillion of their wealth. all that talk back in the earlier part of this decade about how people work refinancing in taking the money out and spending it on things, how great that was for the economy. that was a short-term fix in a long-term disaster. created by lack of leadership. short-term fix, long-term disaster. people living on stuff that they had no right to and in this country, you don't have a right to own a home. you have the opportunity to own a home. this is the land of opportunity.

yes, we have rights but when it comes to this stuff, we have the opportunity for a job. that is what my grandfather came here for in 1906 as a 6-year-old boy. he came here to live the american dream, and because of what was in place with the manufacturing society, his grandson got to move up to be ceo of fortune 200 company, making seven to $10 million a year. by the way the six most efficiently paid ceo in the united states, okay, so that is not outrageous if anybody thinks so. i am still trying to get our defensive ends in charlotte getting $60 million for one year. it does not work out that way. it is not the way our company is set up. if we do well we get paid well and if we don't we get the salary, 800,000. that is the way it goes. that is the way it should go for everybody. including those guys on wall street that are handing out

billions of dollars in bonuses today. we have got failed trade policy. we have got to revamp it. we have got to hold people accountable. we still have the market to do it and we need to do it. energy, what is this got to do with what i am talking about so far? the there should not be one conference on energy where you were not buying it back to the economy. katie did a great job of it. think about all the revenues that will be generated if we truly develop a broad based plan that uses all forms of energy. by the way, added to a board meeting to put things in perspective to go along with your barbara boxer or dianne feinstein story, it in the mojave desert and how 500 acres could not be used for solar because there was an environmental group that said there was something special about the mojave desert there, solar power, which everybody

wants could not be put into place because of that. there is another story. board meeting two years ago, i am sitting there. question after question for poor jim rogers bonn green this and green that, your coal-fired plants in what you build and at one point, it wasn't obvious jamaz going to jump in there and say nuclear powers the grannis form of energy and there was this young lady 23 years old who just graduated from college who said, you are wrong. you are absolutely wrong. the grannis form of energy is wind. wind power, windmills and jim, being the eloquent speaker and handler that he is, said why is that? and, she says because all those materials that go into building nuclear power plants, you have to generate co2 to produce them but not for wan's. i am sitting there, a

manufacturer of steel and i am going jim, look over here jim, i can't speak up. i tried to get his attention. every windmill is made with what? governor? steel? or fiberglas. how much co2 is generated during the production of those raw materials? >> want to build a foundation for windmill? how tulloch these things getting? do you know how much concrete and reinforcing bar is annette futzing? there is nothing green about the products that go into from the standpoint this young lady was talking about but she had it in her head she had been indoctrinated, and that is the problem we have. we cannot be using phony logic to deal with real-world problems. this is not talking down to windchills and i hope the bill botts of them. we put a lot of steel into them. but there is a lot of problems with every form of energy we have. there is no form of energy i don't care how green you think it is, that doesn't have a

significant co2 in print and footprint. nothing. at least none that we know about today. we have got to have an energy policy that creates jobs, number one and give us energy independence number two. i have got to find my q- here. i'm going to jump through the slides. visit our u.s. manufacturing jobs since 98. you can see where they have gone. loss 5.8 manufacturing jobs in this country. maybe a third of it due to productivity due to a failed trade policy. here is how to manufacturing jobs cordate with the trade deficit real quick. let's talk energy. you want to have an impact on the trade deficit? you want to have an impact on our ballooning debt weathered the budgetary, fiscal that or trade debt? $13 trillion in the world today and growing.

look at this chart here and it shows you what percentage of our trade deficit is due to energy. there is no reason that couldn't be zero in ten years, none. we have got to have an energy policy that is real world and balanced. there is no way, we are the innovators by recognition of around the world for changing this deal energy. we of revolutionize the way steel is made. our carbon for prentis one quarter what it is for prevention all steelmaking. we recycle over 20 million tons of scrap metal of the year that does not going to landfills and uses one-third to one-quarter the amount of energy to produce a ton of steel. will serve our the nation's largest purchaser individual customer of electricity. coal-fired and what have you, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, you name it. this doesn't need to be this way. what we have in 2008 was the

trade deficit of roughly $800 billion of which 390 billion percentage and there is no reason why we can't take that to zero. we don't have to take it to zero. we adjust that to have an energy policy that recognizes we need to drill for natural gas and oil sometimes. we need to use nuclear. we need to use when power. we need to use solar. we need to use hydro. we need to use everything to make that number go down by 400 billion. we don't have a choice as to what we use. we have to use it all and we have to use it in a well thought out orchestrated way. we have led the world and innovation but i will tell you right now it takes decades to get from conception to develop the technology and then to implement it, you better put

another decade and there. so, where is this magical technology that is going to make this carbon free overnight. it isn't there but in time it will be there if we have a national energy policy led by our leaders in washington by business leaders in this country. we will get to the point where we are drilling everywhere we can drill in an environmentally friendly way and if we can't we want real but we have to be realistic. we are going to use all of our resources today to get that to zeroth in as possible and while we are doing it we are going to take some of the revenues being generated from that can set them aside to develop the technologies for clean coal and whatever else we need to do to make wind power more cost-effective, to get nuclear power plants built and the government is going to have to heft a big role in this. they cannot be an asset partner. they have to be a leader in this country got to where it is today not because the government stayed out of things. it is because there was a realistic partnership over the

decades between government and free enterprise, between government and business leaders to focus on a goal and made it happen. like the apollo program. if we can go to the moon, we can take care of these problems but it won't happen overnight. we have to have a multistate energy policy that says get that is the road now because we are paying interest on that every year and our trade deficit is going, the amount of money we are borrowing is growing by trillions of dollars, no longer billions of dollars. we have got to get that down now and until we have to use the money we save from that and the revenues that come from that to build the green future, to build the carpan free future or to minimize our carbon footprint if we truly believe that co2 is a major culprit of man-made global warming. that is what we have to do and we are not doing it. we do not have a national energy policy to deal with this type of

thing. and we don't have they national manufacturing policy to get people back to work and rebuild our prominence in global manufacturing. weathered the windmills or weathered the steel plants or weathered the power plants or whether it be next generation battery plants and by the way, china, i know i have the to get going so ira has the second year. i will stick around for 45 minutes just for you, ira. china is building coal-fired power plants quicker than you can say jump in jehosephat. they are building nuclear power plants quicker than you can say the same thing. and their entry into battery technology with all due respect governor, is sais bit in the ocean compared to what they are doing to build nuclear power plants in full flower power plants for good they are going to get into this, no doubt about it.

i agree with the governor. we are not doing enough but don't mistake that that is what they are doing and that is like coal prices are going up and as you mentioned earlier there building more coal-fired plants. we are not doing battery, we are not doing any of and it needs to be a governmental effort in hand with business and free enterprise to make it work. it has to be a world war to kind of effort where everybody gets into the act and we are not doing it and we need a leadership in this country to do it and i pray president obama provides that leadership. i'm going to be told not to get off and i'm not halfway to my talk, so thank you. [applause] >> at wanted thanked dan for that encouraging presentation. and we appreciate it very much. with that i want to introduce our next speaker, the final speaker this morning is ira magaziner. we serves as the chairman of the kleiman initiative and the clinton foundation, hiv/aids

initiative. is also on the board of alliance for health the regeneration in the clinton hunter development initiative. from 1993 to 1998 he served as senior adviser to president clinton for policy development at the white house and in this capacity he supervised the department of the implementation of the administrations, policy for commercialization of the internet and worked with first lady hillary rodham clinton on the development of the president's health reform initiative. prior to his white house appointment mr. magaziner built to successful consulting firms that assist major corporations in developing their business strategies. the clinton kleiman initiative has been working on energy related initiatives worldwide including a project to retrofit buildings and reduce energy use. please welcome, ira magaziner. [applause]

>> i think i have got about two minutes and 32nd so i will do the best i can and i realize i'm the only thing standing between you and lunch which is not a good place to be. the only good news for me is i'm not here to talk about health care. [laughter] let me just try to be practical on a couple of matters. what we are dealing with the clinton climate initiative is to try to implement real large scale projects around the world that will demonstrate the business government models about how to get new technologies moving and new investment moving towards a clean energy future. and i am going to get specific in mentioning a couple of the areas. first, we haven't talked much about energy efficiency today and energy efficiency is the fastest way to get to energy independence and any country. we are part during with 40 of the largest cities in the world on projects to cut energy use

and create clean energy in those cities, and there are a couple of major ways and lazy wallace governors can also engaged in this and i know some of you are already. one is that in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency you typically can get 30 to 40% improvement in the energy used in most established buildings in this country, and you can get paybacks that are three, four, five years on that investment. we have been pioneering a number of different models that allow building owners not to have to put up any money initially but rather than finance to the energy savings in through other means to do this, and agreeing with-- when you retrofitted building it is a huge job reader because if you are going to put a green roof on the building, somebody has to be standing on the building. is not something you cannot outsourced to rania even if you want to, so it is a huge job

creator. we recently initiated 500 million square feet of buildings are around the world that we are retrofitting this year career programs including the empire state building in new york and merchandise building in chicago and the largest shopping center in india and one of the largest commercial buildings and shanghai and we are also doing all the public housing in new york and toronto, schools in 15 different cities around the world. and then actual municipal and state buildings in places ranging from johannesburg to london to houston, to bangkok to melbourne all taking their city and state buildings for a retrofit and savings significant amounts of energy. it is a good economic case as well as one that saves energy. integrated waste management, a place like your spends $130 a ton to ship its waste to pennsylvania to bury it. it is crazy. you can do integrated waste management now where you recycle and you take the biological

waste and you turn either into composted or energy itself, and these integrated waste management projects now, we are doing them in developed countries, where we are doing the whole system in london. we have got a project in houston, taking building waste and turning it into compost in partnership with walmart and a lot of the supermarkets and others there in the city, and then we are also in places like delhi and so on introducing integrated waste management there were you have these huge megacities growing by 1 million people a year and a waste disposal systems, street lighting. we just announced tamir villarosa in los angeles where we are replacing all the street lights with led streetlights. it is about a six year paige-- payback project. right now when you have traffic lights 80 to 90% of the energy used goes into heat, not into

light. with led lights you can change the ground and no we are in ten cities around the world based on a los angeles model implementing led street lighting in places as diverse as bogota, colombia and melbourne, australia. projects on clean fuel vehicles that had been talked about, hybrid diesel buses, garbage trucks and also eventually infrastructure for electric cars. these are all things were implementing and projects around the world. water systems, go to a place like long than. 5000-year-old infrastructure, the same is true in many cities in the united states. the pumps for that water are the biggest energy users that that most cities have, and he can use smart meeting, you can install more energy-efficient palms, repair the leaks, and whether things that we use much, much less energy in the water systems all run the country. these are practical things that mayors and governors have

control over. we started in urban areas because urban areas use 75% of all the energy in the world and therefore if you are going to get energy efficient you want to start their but it can be done in small towns as well as large cities. we are and kasem projects in clean energy that has been talked about today. we believe that fossil fuels are going to continue to be a fundamental source of energy in the world whether people like it or not, for many years to come but you can develop clean coal technologies and technology that to carbon capture and storage. veering cason large-scale projects in pennsylvania, in victoria and australia and rotterdam, to mention a few, to implement efficient carbon capture and storage. were also involved in projects with new technology that will essentially combine co2 emissions with ryan or sea water and create cements do you can actually imbed the co2 and the only material that can be used in either as concrete aggregate

or cement, which would solve to co2 problems, one accretion of cement and concrete which is co2 and sense of by being able to take the flu strains from power plants and imbed the co2 in the solid so you don't have to transport it and bury it. on solar, were involved in supplying the first large-scale solar deployments in the world, three to 5,000-megawatt solar parks in two states in india, in australia, in south africa and hopefully in southwest united states and one thing that i will agree with in the earlier presentation is that people think of india, they think of bureaucracy often and getting things going but it is much easier to get a project going of this scale in india then it is in the mojave or the southwest united states or easier and australia and salon then it is here, which is something that should give us pause and something we should think about. let me just finish by saying, these kinds of projects, yes we

do need national energy policy, yes we do need to be jobs focus, yes we do need to reestablish the manufacturing base in the united states. that is something i have been writing about since the early 1980's and our economy will never flourish unless we reestablish ourselves as the manufacturer and as a producer of real things. and use our innovation to do that. yes, we should have national government policies that foster that reindustrialization of this country, and using that associated with our energy policy is just a natural. one of the things that i had, in my career in washington where the beginning i was up and then my health care reform died, all of the people that are friends of mine in washington all this and walk to the other side of the soccer field when we were playing and used to come over and mock me and now when i started the internet work and that was successful, they were

all my friends again, shamelessly. with the internet policy which was the successful part of what i did during my white house tenure what we were able to do is establish a policy for commercialization of the internet, which not only helped launch the internet, it was a market driven policy that and-- wants internet globally for a set of agreements and domestic policy initiatives by treated millions and millions of jobs in this country in the process, because we are leaders and internet technology. we need to do the same thing with energy and we have the opportunity for energy and energy efficiency to do that in agree with the previous speakers, that should be job number one right now because-- >> we are going to leave the governor's association meeting here to bring you live coverage of the senate which is about to meet. senators continue work today on defense department programs and policy. several amendments have been offered and senators plan to vote on several around 3:00 p.m. eastern. work on the bill expected to last through the week.

live coverage now of the senate here on c-span2, the prayer is small voice in our inmost being. lord, give the members of this body the wisdom to p their deep needs to drive them to you. give them the wisdom to heal divisions and to liberate the oppressed. may your presence break down every divisive wall and bring a spirit of unity. silence, disruptive voices that would ignite and inflame disunity. today, we again ask your

choicest blessings upon our military men and women and their families, who give so much to keep us free. we pray in the name of him who came to set us free. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 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 20, 2009. to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark begich, a senator from the state of alaska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, following the remarks of the leader the senate will resume consideration of the department of defense authorization bill. under an agreement reached last week there will be up to 40 minutes for debate prior to votes in relation to amendments relating to hate crimes. those votes would be in relation to one amendment offered by senator leahy or his designee and three amendments offered by senator sessions. it is my understanding that we may be able to dispose of the leahy amendment by a voice vote and that the managers are working on the sessions

amendment regarding attorney general regulations; upon the use or yielding back of all debate time the senate will proceed to a series of at least two roll call votes and impossibly up to four roll call votes. the votes could occur in the 4:00 p.m. range. after the senate disposes of those amendments, we will resume debate on the gun amendment offered by senator thune, second degree amendments are in order to the gun amendment. also, under the agreement reached last week upon disposition of the thune amendment, senator levin will be recognized to offer the levin-mccain levin-mccain amendment relating to the f-22's and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 3190 which the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010, for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise to discuss an agricultural committee hearing scheduled later on this week. it's an important topic. the hearing is titled "the roll of agriculture and forestry in global warming legislation," and i look forward to participating in that hearing. this is the committee's first effort this year to tackle the ongoing climate change debate. it's very important. much discussion in both houses of congress has centered on potential new legislation and

regulations relative to climate change. any keep of new climate-related law who is sweeping consequences that touch every corner of american life. thus, i've made it clear that any climate change legislation should require a robust, open, and extensive debate on the senate floor. numerous studies have now been released about cap and trade and its effect on american life and those studies also include agriculture. during last year's debate over cap and trade the fertilizer institute released a study stating that the legislation would result in a $40 to $80 increase in the cost to produce an acre of corn. that means higher input costs for our livestock producers, as well. that's the-that same study

indicated the cost of producing soybeans would increase from $10 to $20 an acre. wheat would jump $16 to $32 an acre. according to one recent analysis, the waxman-markey c.a.p. c.a.pcap andtrade bill wa significant impact. and if enacted farm income will decrease as much as $8 billion in the year 2012. by 2024 farmers stand to lose $25 billion. an eye popping $50 billion would be lost by farmers by 2035. gasoline and zeal costs ar -- and diesel costs will soar. now, agriculture is an

energy-intensive industry. those kinds of increased costs are certainly going to impact this business. these are not isolated studies, i might add. the american farm bureau federation, the largest agricultural organization in the country, has also studied these costs. farm bureau reported that if waxman-markey were to become law input costs for agriculture would rise by $5 billion compared to a continuation of current law. other studies have indicated in various ways that the likely impact of cap and trade would include increased electricity and heating costs, construction costs, fertilizer prices, higher gas and higher diesel prices. different studies come up with varied numbered but they all paint the same picture:

agriculture loses. none of this should surprise anyone. because the bill is specifically designed to increase the costs of energy. in fact, according to the congressional budget office, -- and i quote -- "reducing emissions to the level required would be accomplished mainly by stemming demand for carbon-based energy by increasing its price o we also know that farmers in america's heartland get hit the worst by these high energy costs and we know usda agrees. last week the officials indicated in testimony to the senate environment and public works committee that as a result of cap and trade legislation -- and i quote -- "the agriculture sector will face higher energy

and input costs." mr. president, at the very least, all of this tells us that this is an enormously complicated issue with significant economic ramifications. perhaps as complex as any we will deal with in this congress. not to mention very, very costly. given the glum predictions about cap-and-trade proposals it seems clear we need to take an approach that is extensive, methodical and well thought out. we need more specific and clear analysis to make sure we know and most importantly the american people know, just exactly what passage of this bill will mean. as i mentioned, usda knows that cap and trade will increase energy prices. and here's the kicker: at the same time the department also

has indicated and, again, -- and i quote -- "usda believes the opportunities for climate legislation will likely outweigh the costs." let me say that again: "usda says energy prices will agree but they think the opportunities for climate change legislation will outweigh the costs." this kind of claim must be based on hard data or it's reckless to make the claim. such a sweeping conclusion should not be drawn unless the impact is studied and analyzed. if usda has conducted analysis of increases in farm input costs and weighed them against the measured opportunities, well, then, i applaud their efforts. but if that is the case, it is mystifying that the department has not shared the analysis despite having testified before

the senate twice in the two weeks preceding this week. now, mr. president, having served as a secretary of agriculture i know that the usda has an outstanding team of economists with expertise to do this kind of analysis. that's why last week i sent a letter to the current ag secretary, tom vilsack who will testify at the ag committee hearing this week. the letter requested usda to provide the following: a state-by-state analysis of the cost of cap and trade on ag industries; a crop specific analysis; an analysis of how the legislation would impact livestock producers; and, finally, us d.a.'s assessment of how many acres will be taken out of production as a result of the bill and what impact this will have on food availability the

cost of food, fiber, feed, biofuels and other ag products. without detailed analysis, their assertions about costs and benefits will simply ring hollow. why wouldn't they provide this information? isn't this why the department exists? agriculture is going to be directly impacted by the legislation. yet we have no analysis from the people's department. if the people who feed the world are going to get hammered by this legislation we should know about it, we should debate it, and we should vote on it, on this floor. so i hope the third time is a charm for the usda and they bring more than rhetoric to wednesday's hearing. cap and trade will not affect states, crops or regions equally. it will have a different impact on a corn farmer in nebraska

than on a chicken farmer in arkansas. similarly, it will impact the dairy farmer in new york differently than the orange grower in california. we need a state-by-state and commodity by commodity analysis. one-size-fits-all won't work. a national average won't paint a true picture. when you are camping, you can put one foot in the cooler and one foot in the campfire and, on average, it's about right. the same goes, is true for loose assessments that are readilied with averages. we have a responsibility to seek a full understanding of this legislation's impact on our nation's farmers and related ag industries. the information i requested is critical to help the senate and america's producers develop a clearer picture of cost increases for farmers and

ranchers, for consumers. we need the impact analysis to tell us which parts of the country will be hit the hardest and which industries within agriculture will incur the greatest losses result of this legislation. i've asked for this analysis prior to the hearing. i hope and i believe that it's necessary, and i hope that we will have it before the hearing. i am puzzled by the passage of nearly a full week since my request and no analysis has been provided. i trust the administration has nothing to hide. i will remain engaged in the debate. i look forward to wednesday's hearing. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i want to begin by thanking the judiciary committee staff, as well as senators leahy and sessions, for conducting a collegial, civil, and dignified hearing on the matter of the supreme court nomination. in my view, the hearing was in perfect keeping with the importance of the task before it. article 2, section 2, of the constitution says that the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate judges of the supreme court. it's an obligation that all of us in the senate take very seriously, even though senators haven't always agreed on the

exact meaning of the phrase "advise and consent." in fact, it's been the suability o-- it'sbeen the subject of sigt disagreement over the years. i remember from my days as a young staffer on the senate judiciary committee in the late-1960's and early 1970's when this debate flared up over the nominations of clement hainsworth and carlswell after a century in which appointments to the supreme court had more or less than a sleepy presidential prerogative. it was during that time that i first grasped the danger of politicizing the progress by focusing on a nominee's ideology or political views, above all else. i feared the senate would end up distorting its traditional role of providing advice and consent and weaken the presidential prerogative of making appointments to the court. i was so concerned, in fact, about the potential dangers, that i wrote a "law review"

article on the topic, which i have repeatedly returned to over the years. its purpose was to establish a meaningful standard for considering supreme court nominees that would bring some consistency to the process. in the course of developing that standard, i went back and looked at the history of nominations, and i noticed something interesting: every time a senator had opposed a nominee in the past, the reason for doing so was almost always based on the nominee's fitness, even if it was perfectly clear to everyone else that the senator's opposition was really based on political or ideological differences. what this polite fiction showed me, quite clearly, was that up until fairly recent history, ideology had never been viewed as an openly acceptable reason to oppose a nominee, and in my view this aversion to a political litmus test was a good

convention and well worth following, if we wanted to avoid gridlock every time the white house switched parties. so i developed a list of fairly standard criteria that i had hoped would govern the process. a nominee must be competent, have obtained some level of distinction, have a judicial temperament, violated no existing standard of ethical conduct, and have a clean record in his or her life off the bench. in short, a president should be given great deference on his choice of a nominee, and these viert certainly allowed that. as a senator, i've consistently applied these criteria to supreme court nominees by presidents of both parties. in adhering to this standard, i was competent i had history on my side, despite a few notable exceptions during the last century. the senate understood its advice and consent role to be limited to an examination of a nominee's qualifications, not his or her

ideology. this attitude is consistent with the framers' decision after no little debate to invest the president, not the senate, with the power to nominate justices. they didn't want politics to interfere, and that's it's always been my view that opposing a nominee to the supreme court just because he or she has a different judicial philosophy than i do wasn't really a valid reason for doing so. during the clinton years, i had no illusions about the ideology or political views of steven breyer or ruth bader ginsburg, justice ginsburg's views on a number of contentious issues were certainly wel well-known ad clearly different than my own, such as her view that mother's day should be abolished or that the boy scouts or girl scouts should be criticized for perpetrating false stereotypes about gender. most americans -- and certainly -- most americans and certainly most kentuckians don't think

those kinds of things. yet despite that, i and the vast majority of my republican colleagues voted for justice ginsburg. why? because the constitution gave the president the power to nominate. and in my view, justice ginsburg met the traditional standards of competence, distinction, temperament and ethical conduct. the vote in favor of justice ginsburg was 96-3. the vote in favor of justice breyer was 87-9. i voted for both, just as i had voted for every previous republican nominee to the high court since my election to the senate. consistent with my criteria and based on their qualifications. in voting for nominees like ginsburg and breyer, it was my hope that broad deference to a president's judicial nominees would once again become the standard, even if the treatment of republican nominees such as robert bork and clarence thomas suggested that many democrats felt differently than i d it was

still possible at that time to imagine a day when the traditional standard would r reemerge. as it turned out, that hopefulness was short-lived. things changed for good during the last administration. it was then that the democrats turned their backs on the old standard once and for all. ideology as a test would no longer be the exception but the rule. the new order was firmly established at a democratic retreat in april 2001 in which a group of liberal law professors laid out a strategy for blocking any high-level conservative judicial nominee. the strategy was reinforced during a series of hearings in which senator schumer declared that ideologically -- ideology alone -- ideology alone was sufficient reason to block judicial nominees. these events marked the beginning of a seismic, procedural, and substantive

shift on judicial nominees and the results were just as i had anticipated as a young staffer. democrats would now block one highly qualified nominee after another to the appeals court for no other reason than the fact that they were suspected of being too conservative for their tastes. miguel estrada was one of the nirs victims. he got no points for his compelling personal story, despite the fact that he had come here as a child from honduras, went to harvard law school, clerked on the u.s. supreme court, and served as a prosecutor in new york and at the justice department. he was blocked by seven leadership-led filibusters, an unprecedented action for an appeals' court nominee. opponents of the estrada nomination were ruthless and eventually succeeded in driving him to withdraw from the nomination after more than two

years of entrenched opposition. he wasn't alone. democrats employed the filibuster strategy against an entire block of republican nominees on the insistence of special interest groups in complete contravention of senate tradition, often relying on the filmsiest pretexes for doing so. as a result, several widely your respected nominees had a humiliating experience for themselves and their families. the country was deprived of their service on the circuit court and the standard that i had articulated and applied throughout my career became increasingly irrelevant. despite my efforts to preserve deference and keep ideology out of the process, the proponents of an ideological test had won the fight. they changed the rules. filibustering nominees on the grounds of ideology alone was

now perfectly acceptable. it was now senate precedent. some may argue that republicans were no better since a few of them supported filibusters against two clinton-era nominees -- richard paez and marsha berzon. first, neither filibuster attempt got very far. in both cases, the leadership of the republican party, including me, strongly opposed the effort. senator lott, then majority leader at the time, voted in favor of allowing up-or-down vote on both nominees, even though he would ultimately vote against them as nominees to the ninth circuit as did i and the vast majority of our conference. it was our view that a president -- in that instance, president clinton -- deserved deference and, therefore, his nominees should not be filibustered. the new standard deinvolved even further during the roberts

nomination. he was a spectacular nominee, a man whose brack background and legal abilities, even according to democrats, made him one of the most qualified supreme court nominees in the history of our country. for him, democrats came up with an even more disturbing test. ironically, no one senator articulated this new test more forcefully than senator obama. in a floor speech announcing his opposition to john roberts, senator obama was perfectly straightforward. roberts was completely qualified, he said, but he still wouldn't get his vote. here's what senator obama said on the senate floor: "there's absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts is qualified to sit on the high of the court of the land. moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament knacks for a good judge. he is humble, he is personally decent." the reason senator obama would

vote against judge roberts rested not on any traditional standard, but on a new one. a standard which amounted to a kind offal chem me based on what he described as -- quote -- "one's deepest values." one's poor concerns. one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. what's come to be known as "the empathy standard." so over the course of the bush administration, the rules completely changed. not only had it become common practice to block nominees on the grounds of ideology, but now it was acceptable to reject someone based solely on the expectation that their feelings -- their feelings -- wouldn't lead them to rule in favor of certain groups. suddenly judges weren't even expected to follow the fundamental principle of blind

justice. deference had eroded even more. now, as i've stated repeatedly throughout this debate, empathy is a very good quality in itself, and i have no doubt that senator obama, now president obama, had good intentions, and that his heart was in the right place when he made this argument. but when it comes to judging, empathy is only good if you're lucky enough to be the person or group that the judge in question has empathy for. in those cases, it's the judge, not the law, that determines the outcome. and that's a dangerous road to go down, if you believe, as i do, in a nation not of men but of laws. which brings us to judge sotomayor. over the past several weeks, judge sotomayor has impressed all of us with her life story and the confirmation process isn't easy. i admire anyone who goes through

it, which is why i was gratified by judge sotomayor's statement at the conclusion of the hearing that she was treated fairly by everyone. but the first question i have to ask myself in deciding how to vote on this nominee is this: how stands the traditional standard for voting on nominees? deference is still an important principle, but it was clearly eroded during the filibusters of appeals' court nominees early in the bush administration, and it was eroded even further when senators voted against john roberts and tried to filibuster samuel alito. moreover, the introduction of a new standard -- the empathy standard -- the empathy standard -- forces us to reevaluate again the degree of deference a president should be granted. isn't it incumbent upon even those of us who have always believed in deference to be even more cautious about approving

nominees in this new environment? i believe it is. if empathy is the new standard, then the burden is on any nominee who is chosen on that basis to show a firm commitment to equal justice under law. in the past such a commitment would have been taken for granted. americans have always had faith that our judges would apply the law fairly or at least always knee that they should. unfortunately the new empathy standard requires a measure of reassurance about this. if nominees aren't even expected to apply equal justice, we can't be expected simply to defer to the president, especially if that nominee is a sitting judge no less, has repeatedly doubted the ability to adhere to this core principle. this doesn't mean that i would oppose the nominee just because he or she is nominated by a democrat. it means that at a minimum

nominees should be expected to uphold the judicial oath that judges in this country have taken since the earliest days of our nation, namely, that they will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and, yes, to the rich and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the constitution and laws of the united states, so help them god. look at in this light judge sotomayor's record of written statements suggest an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice. and, therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath. this is particularly important when considering someone for the supreme court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting

principles that recur throughout her public statements. and for that reason, i will oppose her nomination. judge sotomayor has made clear over the years that she subscribes to a number of strongly held and controversial beliefs that i think most americans and certainly most kentuckians would strongly disagree with. but that's not why i oppose her nomination. rather, it's her views on the essential question of the duty of a judge and the fact that there will be no check on those duties were she to become a member of the supreme court. in her writings and in her speeches, judge sotomayor has repeatedly stated that a judge's personal experiences affect judicial outcomes. she has said her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. let me say that again. she has said her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. she has argued that in deciding

cases, a judge should bring their sympathies and prejudices to bear. she has dismissed the ideal of judicial impartial kwreult as an aparticipation, an aparticipation that in her view cannot be met even in most cases. taken together these cases suggest not just the sense that impartialality is not possible but not worth the effort. but there's more. it appears these views have already found expression in judge sotomayor's rulings from the bench. the clearest evidence of this is the judgment of the supreme court itself. the supreme court doesn't take -- doesn't take easy cases. it only takes cases where there is no easy precedent, where the law is not crystal clear, cases where somebody's policy preferences can more easily make their way into an opinion. in this vein, it's worth noting that the supreme court has found that judge sotomayor misapplied the law in nine of the ten cases in which her rulings were brought before it.

in this term, in fact she is 0 for 3. not only isn't this a record to be proud of, together with her statements about impartiality, it's a record to be scared of. if you happen to find yourself standing in front of justice sotomayor. her most recent reversal by the court is a perfect illustration of how her personal views can affect an outcome. i'm referring to the ricci cases in which a majority of the justice of the supreme court rejected judge sotomayor's opinion and all of them agreed her reading of the law was flawed. here is a case in which a group of firefighters passed a written test for promotion were dough tphaoeud it because not enough minority firefighters scored as well as they had. in a one-paragraph opinion that a number of judges on her own court criticized as

insubstantial and less than adequate given the seriousness of the circumstances, judge sotomayor flatly rejected an appeal by firefighters who had scored highly. here was a case where judge sotomayor's long history of advocacy for group preferences appeared to overtake an evenhanded application of the law. judge sotomayor didn't empathize with the firefighters who had earned a promotion, and they suffered as a result. this is the real-world effect of the empathy standard. if the judge has empathy for you, great. but if she has it for the other guy, it's not so good. that's why you can call this new standard a lot of things, but you certainly can't call it justice. judge sotomayor's record on the second circuit is troubling enough. but as i've noted, at least on

the circuit court, there is a backstop. her cases can be reviewed by the supreme court. this meant that in the ricci case, for example, the firefighters whose promotions were unfairly denied could appeal the decision. fortunately for them, the supreme court sided with them over judge sotomayor. if, however, judge sotomayor were to become a supreme court justice, her rulings would be final. she'd be unencumbered by the obligation of lower court judges to follow precedent. she could act more tpraoul 0 -- freely on the views that led to her ruling on the ricci case. that's not a chance i'm willing to take. from the beginning of the confirmation process, i've said that americans expect one thing when they walk into a courtroom, whether it's a traffic court or the supreme court, and that's equal treatment under the law. over the years americans have accepted significant ideological

differences in the kinds of men and women that various presidents have nominated to the supreme court. but one thing americans will never tolerate in a nominee is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others. nothing could be more offensive to the americans' sensibility than that. judge sotomayor is a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background, but above all else, a judge must check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice even handedly, as the judicial oath requires. this is the most basic and, therefore, the most fundamental standard of all upon which judges in our country must be judged. judge sotomayor does not meet the test. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to congratulate the republican leader on his statement. i think it was very thorough. i think it was very thoughtful. and i'm sure that it took a lot of hours of deliberation and observation not only of judge sotomayor's record, but also her testimony before the judiciary committee. so i congratulate the republican leader on a very thoughtful statement and one that i think makes very clear the reason why he reached the difficult decision to oppose the nomination of judge sotomayor for the united states supreme court. mr. president, i just want to say that we are supposed to be on the department of defense authorization bill.

obviously we are not. we are on the hate crimes bill, which the majority leader decided was important enough to replace the proceedings of the united states senate on the defense authorization bill and the very urgent mission that we have in obligation and duties we have as a congress to authorize the means necessary to defend the security of this nation and the men and women who are defending it. and so we'll be wrapped around the axle on amendments and which ones are allowed and time agreements. i'm not saying that this legislation would have moved forward smoothly. there always are some difficulties. but now for many years i've been involved in the authorization bill, and it's the first time i ever saw the majority leader of the senate come forward and propose a comprehensive piece of

legislation which had not gone through the committee of authorization. and, of course, this side of the aisle then had to, as is our right, propose an amendment of our own. and now, of course, there is some reluctance on this side of the aisle to agree to a time agreement. and so we go back and forth. meanwhile the men and women are in two wars, and they don't quite understand why we don't just move forward and do what our oath of office requires us to do, and that's to support and defend the constitution of the united states. so, i continue to work with the distinguished chairman, and i hope we'll work together to get the legislation moving again. i understand there's four amendments considered on the hate crimes bill, and the gun amendment has been introduced, and there may be amendments on

that, and time agreements. meanwhile, the issue of the f-22, whether we continue production of it or not, is set aside while we debate nongermane amendments to the defense authorization bill. so, i guess what's probably going to happen from previous experience -- i don't know -- but probably around thursday the majority leader will come to the floor here and say that we haven't moved forward and we haven't made progress, blame it on this side of the aisle, and file cloture. and then we will have a vote on cloture. and i would imagine that given -- i don't know how that vote turns out. it depends on whether members on both sides of the aisle feel that their amendments or their views have been adequately addressed. but i am convinced that we would have moved forward with the authorization bill, that we

probably could have addressed the issue of the f-22. i do not say that this side of the aisle is blameless. but i do understand that when we knew that hate crimes was going to be brought up, that those who feel strongly on this side of the aisle, including the fact that it never went threw the judiciary committee, never been reported out but is added on a defense authorization bill, had their concerns. so it's unfortunate. it's unfortunate. and it's not really a good statement about the way we represent the american people. because of any legislation we should be moving forward on -- and i'll take responsibility on this side of the aisle too -- it certainly is the defense authorization bill. i believe that there's an unbroken record of approval of the defense authorization bill over a many-year period of time. i hope that on behalf of the

greater good that we could sit down and work out amendments and work through the hate crimes and the legislation by the senator from south dakota, the amendment by the senator from south dakota, and we can move forward and get this issue resolved. this isn't -- i don't think it's the right way to do business, particularly when we're talking about the defense of the nation. so i pledge to my colleague from michigan and with the distinguished chairman whom i've had the great honor of working with for many years, to try and work through this. but i still maintain the fact that the majority leader of the united states senate felt it necessary to bring a hate crimes bill up before a senate in a, on a defense authorization bill which is clearly not germane, triggered this situation that we are in today. having said that what it is, it is what it is. and so i will go back in the

back now and see where we can work out amendments, see if we can work out an agreement to have the hate crimes vote, to have the gun vote, and then hopefully work with the target of tomorrow morning voting on the f-22, since that is a, as we've discussed in the past on the floor of the senate, the importance of that vote is far transcendent of any single weapons system. it's really all about whether we're going to have business as usual and spend taxpayers' money on what the president of the united states, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and our other military leaders think that that money should be spent on the joint strike fighter rather than further production of the f-22. from what i understand, it may be a close vote and a very interesting one. and i wish we were spending more time debating that than hate

crimes and gun amendments. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, we are operating under unanimous consent agreement. we have an agreement to vote on the f-22 amendment. after two hours of debate, we're attempting to schedule that now if we can gain the cooperation of members for tomorrow morning. that is our goal. the pending amendments to the hate crimes provision are going to be disposed of this afternoon pursuant to the same unanimous consent agreement there may be a difference as to how we got to where we are. there is a difference. it was the inability to get the f-22 amendment to a vote, to get a time agreement which triggered the determination of the majority leader to offer an amendment which senator kennedy had offered about two years ago on a defense authorization bill. it passed the senate after a

long debate. it's not the first time that hate crimes was taken up by the senate. it's not the first time that the hate crimes amendment was offered on the defense authorization bill. it was offered two years ago and passed on a -- i believe a 60-39 vote. but it was then senator kennedy's amendment. and, of course, senator kennedy is not available now to offer his own amendment and the majority leader offered it because of senator kennedy's necessary absence. so now we're operating under unanimous consent agreement. the pending amendment is an amendment of senator thune. it is not germane, but, again, it is not unusual that nongermane amendments are offered in the u.s. senate. we try to keep them to a minimum, those of us that manage bills in order to get through the bills. we're hoping that once the f-22 amendment is disposed of and the amendment of senator thune is disposed of, that we're then going to be able to get back to

germane and relevant amendments. that is our hope. in order for that to happen, we're going to need members of the senate to bring amendments to the floor, tell us that they're ready to proceed. we are working very hard, as we always do, and our staffs are working very hard, as they always do, to clear amendments and i believe we have about 20 amendments that have been cleared already which at an appropriate time i would believe that senator mccain and i would be able to offer as a package. but we are now operating under unanimous consent agreement. senator mccain was extremely helpful in getting us to the point where we could enter that unanimous consent agreement. a vote is scheduled today on our hate crimes amendments -- hate crimes related amendments. we have a time agreement on the f-22 amendment and the time for voting on that amendment is now being discussed, but it is my

goal that we vote on that amendment tomorrow morning after we debate it. so please, members, colleagues bring your amendments to the floor. we are here. we -- we are ready to be notified of those amendments where people -- members of the senate believe that we will need a roll call vote. we will try to clear as many amendments as we can, but we are urging our colleagues to notify us now of the amendments in which they intend to offer. i yield the floor and note the absence -- no, i don't. i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 1614 be identified as a kennedy amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i rise today, mr. president, to celebrate and honor the historic -- historic events that took place on this date 40 years ago. on this day ohio -- an ohio native in 1969 ohio native neal armstrong became the first human to step foot on the moon. for of us old enough to remember that day, it was the day that the stuff of dreams became a reality. while it is still a source for

inspiration for people today, the times in which the landing took place are often forgotten. the united states and the soviet union were in the middle of the space race, but the moon landing was about so much more than who could get to the moon first. it was a progression in our nation's history, an establishment that saw the era of medicare and medicaid and saw the civil rights act signed into law, saw the creation of head start, that began the environmental movement in our time all within about a five-year period during that progressive era. it was a time of turmoil, too, for america. we were a nation at war. we bother witness to the -- bore witness to the assassinations only a year before to dr. martin luther king and robert kennedy. when america needed a hero, it found them in the crew of the apollo spacecraft. we moved forward in the most

american way working to achieve what others said could not be done. i was 16 years old when neal armstrong took that historic first step. he is from ohio. he's from a town in the western part of my state. a town just shy of 010,000 -- 10,000 people, about 0 two-hour drive -- about a two-hour drive from where i grew up. i remember those days. when i was 16, my brother -- we had a black and white television, and my brother convinced my parents because we were the only ones among our friends who still had a black and white tv and no color tv, convinced my parents to go get a color tv to watch the moon landing. i think my brother knew -- i'm not sure of this. my brother knew that it would be broadcast in black and white. my brother convinced my parents goat that color tv, which we enjoyed to watch cleveland indians baseball games and other things after that. nonetheless, as i'm sure almost

-- anybody of almost any age remembered after watching that moon landing late at night on that july night going outside and looking up at the moon and being -- being private with our thoughts wondering about these two americans walking on the moon, wondering about the other american in the space capsule not at that time able to walk on the moon as he was staying in the space capsule. and i remember, too, seven years before neal armstrong landed on the moon, like most americans, i watched john glenn, the new concorde, ohio, astronaut, become the first astronaut to orbit the earth. today, like then, nasa continues to capture our nation's imagination. while neal arm strong will forever be remembered as the chris christopher columbus for our times -- our time. he dedicated himself to landing

on the moon. it was more than neal armstrong's crew mates, michael collins and buzz aldrin. it was more than the hundreds of men and women at mission control. from what is the nasa research center in cleveland to the hundreds of scientists and researchers around the nation, the moon landing was about american know how. the apollo moon landing was about american collaborative success. as we look back, we see a different country in a different time with many of the same challenges as we struggle to pull ourselves on the current economic downturn, we had a look at what role the government should play on space exploration, we must remember the billions of dollars of economic benefit that nasa has brought and still bringing our nation. the myth that the federal government is incapable of doing great things -- the myth that the federal government is incapable of doing great things is shattered when one thinks of

the achievements like the moon landing not to mention like medicare and social security and all that we talked about. from the six apollo landings to skylab to the cooperation of the soviet union to the hubbell telescope, nasa has touched and improved nearly every aspect of our way of life. those who believe that government should sit on the sidelines need not look back 40 years, but can look at everything that nasa has done and what it continues to do today. today nasa in many ways is more important than ever. as we work toward a carbon-free economy, we forget that that's s bidding the first large-scale windmills in the 1970's. much of the early work -- the early wind turbine technology development was done at plum brook enternorthern, ohio, near sundusky, ohio. the united states is in a sprint

to lead the world in clean energy. nasa's alternative fuel research laboratory, its solar powered aircraft path finder plus, its solar space program are just three of the many nasa clean-energy programs. we can create a carbon-free world and nasa can lead the way just like it has in aeronautics and space flight. we must never forget the men and women at nasa and their work to put apollo 11 on the moon. i'm proud to cosponsor the bill that will give congressional medals to neal armstrong, buzz aldrin and the second person to walk on the moon, michael collins the pilot of the apollo 11 commission air module and the first american to orbit the earth, john glenn. the bill sponsors senator of nelson of florida, an american hero in his own right who has a

long history of service to our nation and to nasa. today is a celebration of nasa, the apollo mission and a celebration of our country and humankind's ability to do great things. it is a celebration of reaching for the stars in every way. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my legislative assistant -- legislative fellow, navy lieutenant commander tim longe, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of s. 1390, the national defense authorization act of 2010. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'm very concerned about the legislation that's been added to the defense bill, the so-called hate crimes act.

certainly none of us have any sympathy whatsoever for people who commit crimes of any kind, and particularly those who would attack somebody because of their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation or any other reason. but i want to take a few moments to explain why this is important and why this legislation is not good and ought not to be passed. some of my remarks are -- may appear to be technical but they are very important, in my view, as a former federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. and i don't think it was ever appropriate that we bring this to the floor, stick it on this defense bill without having a markup in the committee with the ability to discuss it and improve it. for years, legal commentators and jurists had expressed concern at the tendency of congress for the political cause of the moment to persist in

adding more and more offenses to the united states criminal code that were never federal u.s. crimes before. and this is being done at the same time that crime rates over the past decade or so have dropped and state and local police forces have dramatically improved their skills and technology. they are really fine police forces all over country today, an extraordinary number of them have college degrees and many advanced degrees. so two questions i think should be asked initially. first, is this a crime that uniquely affects a federal interest and can it be addressed by an effective and enforceable statute? second, have our local police and sheriff offices failed to protect and prosecute this vital interest? most people do not understand that a majority of crimes -- theft, rape, robbery, and assault -- are not federal crimes.

and are not subject to investigation by the f.b.i. or any other federal agency. they could not do so if they wanted because they have no jurisdiction. they can only investigate federal crimes. it has been this way since the founding of our country and it fixes responsibility for law enforcement on local authorities, where it should be. americans have always feared a massive federal government police force. it's something that we have not ever favored. this is not paranoia but a wise approach, and i do not think it should be changed. instead of administering justice without fear or favor, this legislation that's been placed on this bill creates a new system of justice for individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity providing them with a special protection while excluding vulnerable individuals

like the elderly or police officers or soldiers from such special protections. i don't think we can justify that. the purpose of the d.o.d. reauthorization bill is to make sure that the men and women who protect our freedoms have the necessary resources to continue to do the fabulous job they've been doing. we should not deviate from this path by addressing matters wholly unrelated to the defense of our nation. a bill of such breadth and lack of clarity as this one, this amendment, should be carefully reviewed with the opportunity for discussion and amendment in committee, yet this bill had no markup in any committee.

in fact, no version of the bill has been marked up since 2001, and this version is quite different and more expansive than the 2001 bill. the committee did hold a quickly thrown together hearing on june 25 at which attorney general holder himself appeared. the attorney general, however, failed to point to one single serious incident in the past five years when i asked him that question where these types. of crimes that are referred to in the bill to give special federal protection were not being prosecuted by state and local government. additionally, the attorney general refused to say that attacks on u.s. soldiers predicated on their membership in the military by, for example, a muslim fundamentalist could be considered a hate crime. so it's baffling to me that given the previous opposition and the serious concerns which have been raised with this legislation that the act,

instead of being constrained, is actually expanded in a vague and awkward way. it focuses on the perception of what someone might have been thinking when they committed a crime and includes categories which are undefined and exceedingly broad, such as gender related characteristics and gender identity. those, from questions that have been raised, are thought clearly, don't have clear meanings. during the course of debate on hate crime legislation, a debate that started in 2001, amendments have been offered to will protect our military men and women where it is unquestioned necessity have been targeted. unquestioned they have been targeted.

mr. president, i would briefly outline my opposition to the legislation in the following ways. this amendment is unwarranted. possibly unconstitutional. certainly, i believe, unconstitutional in certain parts. and violates a basic principle of equal justice under law. the hate crimes amendment to this bill has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement. when congress passed the original civil rights statute in 1968 that criminalizes violent and discriminatory action directed at individuals because of race, color, religion or national origin, there was, sadly, quite a substantial body of evidence that crimes were being committed against

minorities and they were not being prosecuted. this statute was -- that was then passed was never envisioned by congress to be a hate crimes statute but one, rather, that would ensure access by minorities to specific activities, legitimate to their freedom such as enrolling in public schools, enjoying the benefit of programs administered by the state or attending court as a juror. a 1968 chair was taken to ensure the underlying statue was carefully crafted to address the problem of access to ensure that criminal activity fell within the confines of the constitutional requirement that there be a federal nexus with interstate commerce. the statute enumerates six instances in which a crime could be charged. that statute says this: whoever,

whether or not acting under the color of law by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injury or interfere with, any person because of race, color, religion or national origin and because he has been, and then it lists specific areas that would encompass a criminal offense, (a), enrolling in or attending any public school or public college. so if anyone was attempting to attend a public school or college was interfered with or intimidated because of their race, color, religion or national origin that would be the offense. (b) would be subparagraph, prarpting in or enjoying any benefits, service, privilege, program, facility or activity, provided or administered by any state or subdivision thereof. in other words, you can go to

the city hall, you can go to the health department, and you could not be discriminated against because of your razorback ground. your -- your race or your background. and in my area of the country, the south, people were unfairly treated and some other areas of the country, also. i believe good care was taken with that act and as i said this was strong evidence to suggest that a federal expansion of criminal law would be appropriate to deal with. so the history of civil rights violations cause and foolly justified the congress' passage of the statute and there was evidence that african-americans were denied the right to vote or intimidated at voting precincts

without state and local law enforcement protecting them. this was much evidence, sadly, that other rights of african-americans were not being protected. that is not the case with this amendment and i'll talk about that in a minute. gays and lesbians have not been denied basic access to things like health or schooling or to the ballot box. they openly are able to advocate their positions today which i think is certainly healthy and no difficulty in approaching government officials at whatever level. now, when attorney general holder testified a few weeks ago before the judiciary committee i asked him point blank for direct evidence that hate crimes against individuals over the past five years, because of their sexual orientation or

otherwise, were not being prosecuted by local authorities. instead of answering the question he referred me to four cases in written testimony that he delivered to the committee. let me make the number clear, i think as strong evidence that these cases are being prosecuted. attorney general could not come up with 4,000 cases or 400 or 40 cases. he only named four cases in five years. so we took a look at those four cases that he cited in his testimony. and this is what we found. in one case, joseph and georgia silver assaulted an indian american couple on the beach. although there was evidence that racial and ethnic slurs were used during the altercation, a california, colorado county judge, ruled that prosecutors

failed to produce sufficient evidence that the alleged assault was motivated by racial prejudice. the prosecutor had pursued a hate crime conviction including charging silver with felony assault, punishable by up to three years in prison. the evidence, according to the judge, was that racial slurs were used in the heat of anger; there was no evidence the attack was initiated because of ethnicity. both joseph and georgia silver were convicted of assault, the bake crime they committed. joseph silver was sentenced to six months in prison and three years' probation while georgia was sentenced to one year in prison. so the question, really, is: was there an important federal right

left unaddressed that needed to be vindicated by charging this couple again for the crime arising from that assault? in other words that's what this bill does. it says that if we're unhappy with the result in state court under these select group of crimes, the federal government can try you again. you might say, well, there's a double jeopardy clause in the constitution. you can't be tried twice for the same crime. good, you ask that question and you get an "a," in stu in constitutional law but the states are sovereign, the federal government is sovereign and an individual can be tried by two separate sovereigns without implicating the double subsequent difficult clause of the constitution.

however, we have always understood that ought not to be done lightly, ought not to be done without a real justification because it violates the spirit of a double jeopardy clause of the constitution. so attorney general holder also cited a 2003 case in new york. in that case three white men, while using racial slurs assaulted a group of latino teenagers as they entered a chilly'chili's restaurant, and s sentenced to 15 months in prison and the other two received a trial and were acquitted because the jury apparently concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense that happened, the offense that occurred was to deny the victim

access to the restaurant. so i mean, they had a trial and one was convicted and two were not. finally, the attorney general cited a south carolina case where a gay man was assaulted after leaving a bar during the altercation when he fell and suffered a fatal strike to the head from a concrete -- from the concrete. steven miller was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison. finally, the attorney general cited a case from here in the district of columbia where a transgender prostitute was murdered. after, apparently after derrick louis discovered that the prostitute who he picked up in his automobile was not female, and the prostitute refused to get out of his car, an altercation of some kind occurred on argument and he had a gun and shot this transgender

individual and he was killed. he eventually pled guilty, gave a full statement of what happened and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. so the evidence showed that they had begun fighting and these pulled a gun and shot him. he says the individual would not get out of the car. well, those are not insignificant crimes but i, i would just advise my colleagues if you just pause one moment and think you can know at this very moment, thousands, maybe 10,000 or more trials ongoing in state and local courts all over america and they don't always end as people would like them to end. what this bill does basically is provide an opportunity for the federal government to pick and

choose certain crimes they want to prosecute again to get the kind of justice they think might be likely and that's a broad power that we give to the attorney general and a broad statute that i don't believe is compelled by the facts that are happening this america today. now, when my staff followed up with the attorney general's office to see why they listed just these cases the sons was not that -- the response was not that state and local law enforcement were not doing the jobs but the attorney general felt the cases were underprosecuted. four cases over five years that they cited as being "underpropertied"underprosecutel for new legislation that injcts federal prosecutors in areas of crimes not heretofore occurring.

now, after the judiciary heam, senator coburn and i sent follow-up questions to the attorney general to provide him additional opportunity to demonstrate the bill was necessary because of "underprosecution" as he replied. senator coburn asked this question: precisely how many hate crimes is the justice department aware of that have gone unprosecuted at the state and local level? this is the answer we got from the united states attorney general: "the department believes our partners at all levels of law enforcement share our commitment to effective hate crimes enforcement. the department does not is access to precise statistics of hate crimes that have gone unprosecuted at the state and local level and we are unaware of any source for such comprehensive information of

unprosecuted offenses generally. federal jurisdiction over the violent bias motivated offensive covered under s. 909 is needed at a back stop to state and local law enforcement to ensure that justice is done in every case." so, what he is asking for is in a select group of cases that is on the front burner today, that the attorney general needs this legislation, s. 909, that's been attached to the defense bill now. he says it's needed as a back stop for state and local law enforcement to ensure that justice is done in every case. well, there are many prosecution and jury decisions made in state court every day one could disagree with.

the question is whether the federal government will be empowered to ensure justice is done in every case? i just -- i just want to share the reality of the world with my friends here that anyone, i guess, can conclude that a case didn't end justly for them. one danish jurist is famously quoted as say, "to speak of justice is the equivalent of pounding the table; it just adds an element of emotion to the discussion." but whatever we mean by that word, it basically means that the attorney general gets to decide whatever he wants to do. i'm not sure that this is good legislation. i think legislation ought to be crisp and clear and set forth a criteria by which a prosecution occurs or does not occur,

leaving a not-so-much broad discretion among the prosecutorial authorities. now, i submitted, after senator coburn -- or, at the same time, really -- a similar question because i felt he had not been responsive to my question, and i asked this: our colleagues refer to senator hatch, the former chairman of the judiciary committee and who's worked on this for a number of years. and my question is this, quote -- "senator hatch has offered a complete substitute to similar legislation which would require that a study be conducted to prove that there is an actual problem with hate crimes not being prosecuted. do not give knee a general response -- do not give me a general response that there are some problems out there. i would like for you to provide the committee with an exact an precise number of hate crimes the justice department is ware of which have gone unprosecuted at the state and local level.

please detail every example you or anyone in the department of justice is aware of where no prosecutorial effort took place." close quote. and this was the answer we got. "the department is unable to provide an exact number of cases in which state or local or trial jurisdictions have failed to prosecute hate crimes because we are not away of any such compilation of data. when the department" -- senator hatch has been offering this amendment for a study for a decade. "when the department receives" -- the attorney general goes on to say, that, "when the department receives complaints it clearly lacks jurisdiction to prosecute these matters, and as a general rule, the investigations are not open." well, let me just say, if this legislation is passed, it will have one dramatic undiscussed

impact. federal law enforcement agencies and agents -- and there are not many; you may have a city with 300 police officers in it and 10 f.b.i. agents, another 100 sheriffs deputies, another number of state officers. so now huge numbers of crimes will be coming across the desk of the f.b.i., who's got terrorism, white-collar crime, bank fraud, which they need to be working on today, violent crimes, drug smuggle,. now they're going to have to review hundreds and hundreds of complaints about cases that they had not heretofore had jurisdiction of and did not have to review. i just raise that point as an aside. i would conclude that the bottom line is there's nowhere near the real evidence needed to justify

this legislation novment one in this body has produced the evidence, and the attorney general of the united states, who is promoting the bill, has not produced any. attorney general holder's response, instead of demonstrating the need for hate crimes legislation as written, provides verification that it is not necessary and raises a question of whether or not this is driven by political interests at this time. it's easy to complain that anybody who opposes hate crimes bill favors hate, and that's not a fair charge. i think most of our colleagues fully understand that. but politically that's the suggestion that some have made when this legislation has been objected to by people with very valid concerns. as a matter of fact, one of the studies heavily relied on by the

attorney general in support of this bill is a 2008 report published by the national coalition of antiviolence program, which is comprised primarily of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups. they have every right to do those studies and present them. but it is a coalition clearly with a vested interest in the legislation and should be examined carefully. the attorney general had to allow these types of reports because crime statistics do not support the notion that the incidence of hate crimes have increased, even though we're doing a better job of reporting those today. still, over the past 10 years, the number is down, down slightly, even though the population is up in our country. furthermore, in a rushed attempt to provide answers to the

committee fryer this amendment being filed, the department seemed to put little thought into their responses to our questions. in fact, it appears that the attorney general didn't think the issue important enough to answer them himself. he let his staff people answer, when he was the one that appeared before the committee and we were following up on his personal testimony. and a number of arguments and statements have been made, including by the attorney general, that there are quite a few of these incidents -- tens of thousands of these incidents over the last number of years. but yoarv overwhelmingly, these despicable incidents are vandalism, many by juveniles and

-- juveniles. so let me make clear that even those incidents are significant and deserve prosecution and investigation and, where appropriate, stiff punishment. let's look at the views of the members of the united states commission on civil rights, our own u.s. civil rights commission, who have examined this legislation carefully. six of its eight members -- i believe that's correct, eight members -- signed a strong letter to the president and to the judiciary committee to oppose it because they are a civil rights commission? no. i mean, to favor it? no, but to oppose it. their letter dated june 16, just last month, addressed to the members of the senate and the president, said this -- quote -- "we believe that the mshcpa --

that's the bill -- will do little good and a great deal of harm. its most important effect will be to allow federal thowrt auths to reprosecute a broad category of defendants that have already been acquitted by injuries as in the rodney king case more than a decade ago. due to the exception for prosecution by dual sov rains" -- that is the two sovereign incidences -- "such double prosecutions technically are not violation of a double jeopardy clause of the u.s. constitution. but they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the bill of rights who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and

federal offenses. we regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. there is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights." close quote. then they go ton say, "while the title of the bill suggests that it will apply only to hate crimes, the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict. it is sufficient, if he acts because of someone's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national ar gin, gender, sexual orient -- national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability."

consider relationship rate ofs dirnl queeting from the letter -- "rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. they are virtually always chosen because of their gender. a robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they're less able to defend themselves. literally" -- these victims" -- are chosen because of their gender or disability." and the letter goes on to state their belief that every rape in america could in our be declared -- would now be declared a crime under this bill because it's an action taken against someone because of their gender. professor gale harriot, a member of the united states commission on civil rights, testified at our june 25 hearing. she made clear that all rapes would be covered under the bill and that indeed this was

intentional. she said -- quote -- "this wasn't just draf sloppy slaftsm. the language was chosen deliberately." officials understandably wanted something susceptible to broad construction, in part because it makes prosecutions eats easier. as a staff member of the senate judiciary committee back in 1998, i had conversations with the department of justice representatives. they repeatedly refused to disclaim the view that all rape would be covered and resisted efforts to correct any ambiguity by redrafting the language. they wanted a bill with broad sweep. the last thing they wanted was to lipt the scope of the statute's reach by requiring that the defendant be motivated by ill will toward the victims' group." close quote. i think that's a serious charge

made by a member of the civil rights commission about the purpose of the department of justice in supporting this act, and i would note, it's an inevitable delight of a prosecutor to have more and more power and more and more ability to prosecute criminals. that's what they do. they're just wonderful people. i never enjoyed anything more than being a prosecutor, wearing a white hat every day to work and trying to vindicate decent people from criminal acts. but that's just a tendency of the prosecutorial mind-set that we ought not to forget. so the truth is that during the recent hearing, no one who testified in favor of the bill could point to a single incidence where, i think, a valid hate crime was not pursued

or prosecuted by state and local law enforcement offices. in the latest -- and the latest statistics that are available, the 2006 hate crimes reports, only nine were classified as murder or nonnegligent manslaughter. that's certainly nine too many. and i think everyone should be prosecuted, but no complaints have been raised that any of these were not vigorously or fairly prosecuted. indeed, two-thirds of the offenses involved property defacement such as graffiti and also including name-calling. missing from the analysis is any evidence that the crimes are not being prosecuted at the state and local level. indeed, 45 of the 50 states and the district of columbia already have and enforce hate crime bills. although the language is broad

and some could criticize it, these states have passed these bills, and they are able to enforce them. the question is, if they don't enforce them, who does? statistics show that these hate crimes even with better reporting have decreased slightly over the years. 44 states have stiffer penalties related to ethnicit ethnicity. the question arises, do we have a basis for this massive and historic change in federal enforcement of what has been state crimes? perhaps mr. andrew sullivan, an openly gay man who has pioneered the effort to have gays in the military and is well-known and able writer, had this to say

about the legislation: "the real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. there are already laws against that. and matthew shepard's murderers are successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state that had no hate crime law at the time. the real reason for the insepbgs of hate crimes was a hard left critique of the conventional liberal justice -- of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money, more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. it's very, very powerful as a money-making tool, which may

explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed. (if it passes, however, i'll keep a close eye on whether or not it's ever used.) this is a gay man expressing his opinion. no doubt he takes his business very seriously, and symbolism is important in our political world. but we need to be careful that statutes that become permanent parts of our criminal code are supported by evidence and principle. i don't think that our focus here is to deal with symbolic legislation that's broad and could expand federal criminal jurisdiction beyond its historic role and where the facts do not support the need. in other words, a more narrowly tailored legislation consistent with constitutional rights could very well be something this congress would want to pass.

but to pass legislation is extremely broad and, again, could give federal jurisdiction for the first time in history to every rape that occurs in america ought to be looked at with great care and ought not to be stuck on to a defense bill and moved forward, in my opinion. the constitution endows congress with limited and enumerated powers. there is no general police power in the federal government. so, this point i want to raise deals with the constutionality of the fundamental act. congress's power is limited to what it can regulate under the commerce clause. the proposed legislation is based upon the idea that a discreet crime in a local community may have an impact on interstate commerce. this is the same theory that was

rejected in both u.s. v. lopez and u.s. v. morrison where the supreme court essentially ruled that in-state violent conduct does not impact commerce normally. hintoff, a well-respected civil rights and civil libertarian attorney and writer, recently wrote about some constitutional concerns he has with the legislation. this is what he said -- quote -- "in the definitive constitutional analysis of james v. jacobs and researcher kimberly potter, it is documented in hate crimes, criminal law and identity politics that in grimm vs. churchill, the arresting officer was permitted to testify that the defendant had a history of making racial remarks. similarly, the people in lapkin -- in people v. lampkin, the prosecution presented as evidence racist statement the defendant had uttered six years

before the crime for which he was on trial as specifically relating to the offense. as for the 14th amendment's essential requirement that no person be denied equal protection of the laws, there is carved above the interest to the supreme court the words "equal justice under law." this legislation certain to be passed by the senate now, too seems, will come to the supreme court. i'm quoting mr. nat hintoff, a well-known, respected civil libertarian and civil rights attorney. he said this -- quote -- "when it comes before the supreme court, i hope the justices will look up at the carving as they go into the building -fplgt they should also remember that the fifth amendment makes clear 'nor shall any person be subject for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy.' but the house hate crimes bill

allows defendants innocent of that offense in a state court to be tried again in federal court because of insufficiently diligent prosecutors, or as attorney general holder says when state prosecutors claim lack of evidence, they must be tried again in federal court. imagine holder as the state prosecutor in the long, early stages of a duke university lacrosse rape case. what also appalls me as a new federal bill races toward a presidential signature is that for many years and now, the american civil liberties union approves hate crime prosecutions. i have long depended on the aclu staff of constitutional warriors to act consistently against government abuses of our founding documents. and these attorneys and analysts have been especially valuable in exposing the results of the

executive branch lunges against executive power in the bush-cheney years and still under obama. yes, then he adds this, "is there no nonpolitically correct aclu lawyer or other staff worker or anyone in the aclu affiliates around the country or any dues-paying member outraged enough to demand the aclu's ruling circle to at last disavow this corruption of the constitution?" that's mr. hintoff's view of it. so this hate crimes amendment is a substantial overraoufp by congress, i do believe, and is not carefully crafted or narrowly tailored, unlike the historic civil rights statute it seeks to federalize violent noneconomic conduct that is local in nature and has little

or no federal nexus. the supreme court has held that violent conduct that does not target economic activity is among the types of crimes that had the least connection to congress's commerce power. however, this is precisely the sort of violent noneconomic conduct that this amendment would federalize. if this approach were permissible, it would put congress on a path to rely on the commerce clause and legislate any criminal law it wants. when it comes to criminal law, congress would no longer be a body of limited enumerated listed powers, but would have plenary power to criminalize any and all conduct that is already criminalized by the states, in clear violation of our historical policy of not taking over state and local law enforcement. there's still a lot of complaints over the drug laws aggressively prosecuted when i

was a federal prosecutor. many think that was an overreach. drugs come in, almost the vast majority from outside the country, they're moving as interstate commerce and in fact the courts have upheld it. but there's still intellectual criticism and concern about it. the sponsors -- but in this case you don't have that kind of dramatic nexus, and you also lack the evidence to suggest it's -- that these cases are not being effectively prosecuted. so the sponsors have also tried to ease constitutional concerns by citing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. the 13th amendment provides congress with the limited authority to abolish -- quote -- "all incidents of slavery in the united states." i hope my colleagues are not

seriously attempting to argue that assaulting someone because of their religious views or gender is tantamount to slavery. the 14th amendment and 15th amendments apply only to state action and since we have already established that states are vigorously prosecuting these actions and not ignoring them, i don't think this is a valid approach. finally, i think that i would note that the legislation raises questions concerning the constitutional imperative that there be equal justice under law. is a legitimate justifiable reason to punish one rape differently than another rape simply because someone decides the first rape was committed out of hate? or actually because of the gender of the victim?

i think the victims would say the same thing. the criminal should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. this legislation would add a different element to certain crimes that i know as a former prosecutor make it more difficult and more expensive and more prolonged to obtain a conviction, especially when you have to prove an individual's thought processes as an underlying element to the offense. this bill at bottom tries to distinguish between assaults by declaring that if someone assaults and kills his girlfriend because she broke up with him it is not a federal offense. but if he kills her because she claims she wanted to explore her sexual orientation and he became upset and killed her, that would be a federal offense. senator hatch offered a complete substitute on thursday night. it was rejected. his proposal would require that a study be conducted so that actual evidence can be obtained to see if there is a real

serious problem with states not prosecuting these matters. for some reason, even though senator hatch has been trying to get it passed for quite a number of years, the study has never been conducted, and all proposals for such a study have been rejected. i fear it's because perhaps mr. sullivan got it right. it's not so much about the failure of states to prosecute these crimes but about an underlying idea to pass a symbolic piece of legislation. there is no good reason for such a broad piece of legislation. to pass it would be unwise. no one believes that individuals should be assaulted because of their beliefs, their gender, or their sexual orientation. that type of behavior is unacceptable and should be prosecuted. it has been prosecuted, and i am sure that state and local law

enforcement officers will continue to do so. and i believe that if my colleagues would study the legislation and think about what we're doing, they would see that this is more unwise and the objections that they've heard have more weight than they had thought initially. it seems like a good idea. who would want to be against a crime that says it wants to punish hate? but there are serious matters and constitutional issues, as i noted from the civil rights commission, from the civil rights attorneys like mr. nat hintoff. i think in truth, the attorney general should have been more balanced in his testimony before the judiciary committee. he came just pushing this legislation without listening or expressing -- without listing or

expressing any concerns. but i do think he should have pointed out that it represents one of the largest expansions of federal law enforcement in history. he should be the first to point out and express that concern, and he should not allow politics to drive law in america. so i know most of my colleagues think this is the right thing to do. i wish that i had been able to participate more in the debate before it was a done deal the other night. i was involved at the same time, of course, with the confirmation process. hopefully we can watch this legislation, come up with some ideas to curtail its potential for abuse, and make it better. but in reality, i just want my colleagues to know it's time for us in congress to step back and question carefully any proposal to create new, more expensive federal laws, criminal

jurisdiction that would encroach upon the historic powers of our state and local law enforcement to enforce the law in their jurisdictions. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask consent now that the senator from virginia be recognized as though in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia.

mr. warner: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to serve on the supreme court of the united states. first, i would like to applaud chairman leahy and ranking member sessions, for conducting a successful confirmation hearing much the hearings -- hearing. the hearings lasted four days. 15 witnesses testified and thousands of people attended the hearings in person. topics of discussion ranged from executive privilege to property rights, in the end the reviews were constructive and fair. at the same time millions of americans all across the country tuned into the confirmation hearings on television to find out who justice sotomayor is. as a u.s. senator, i had the privilege of meeting with judge sotomayor in person and can say that the american people saw what i witnessed firsthand, an individual with extensive

judicial experience, a clear understanding of the law, and the judicial -- judicial temperment to be an excellent supreme court justice. judge sotomayor's nomination is a historic moment for several reasons. with 17 years as a federal district and appellate court judge, judge sotomayor has more judicial experience than anyone confirmed for court in the past 100 years. she's also part of a small group of judges who have been nominated to the federal judiciary by presidents of different parties. presidents george h.w. bush and president bill clinton. and with the addition of president obama, she will become the first person nominated by three presidents to serve on the federal judiciary. judge sotomayor, as we all know, is the first hispanic american nominated to serve on the supreme court in its 220-year history. her family immigrated to the united states from puerto rico. her family didn't have a lot of

money, but her mother valued education and hard work. judge sotomayor would go on to princeton and yale law school where she excelled academically. judge sotomayor did not have the benefit of a family name or wealth, but she had imbition. she proved that you can improve your life in a single generation. i'm confident that men and women with all backgrounds are inspired by her example. perhaps they will hit the books harder and not give up on reaching their own individual dreams. as governor of a virginia and now united states senator, i have carried out the responsibility of selecting, vetting, and nominating individuals to serve on the bench. it's an enormous responsibility because the decisions that judges make affect people's lives. much has been said by judge sotomayor's judicial philosophy. in testify -- in testimony before the senate judiciary committee, she made clear to me

that she fully understands the role of a judge. in her own words, her judicial philosophy is simple, fidelity to the law and a rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms. independent institutions can attest to this. the american bar association unanimously found judge sotomayor to be highly qualified, its highest rating. a number of other nonpartisan groups have found hour constitutional decisions to be solidly in the mainstream. judge sotomayor's commitment to public service, extensive judicial experience, and fidelity to the law make her an excellent candidate to serve on the supreme court of the united states of america. i look forward to casting my vote in support of judge sotomayor and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: today marks president obama's sixth month in office. the president began his term with an enormous amount of goodwill, high approval ratings and pledges to work in a bipartisan way. he he reached out in a bipartisan way for passage of priorities. for example, i joined the president in supporting the release of the second tranche of stablization money. but the administration has become increasingly partisan in the months since then. the effectiveness of the president's policies is

increasingly questioned by the american people as spending and deficits have skyrocketed. unemployment has gotten much worse since he took office and america's interest abroad have been challenged with little response. let me first speak to the issue of domestic policy, spending and debt. on domestic policy, president obama's first six months in office have been characterized by unprecedented spending and debt accumulation. in just six months president obama has put the country on a course to spend more and accrue more debt than any president in history. in fact, to take on more debt than all of the other presidents in the history of the united states combined. the president has at the same time exercised the power of government in unprecedented ways. the president knows this is greatly concerning to the american people. so on june 16th, for example, president obama told an

interviewer, i would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to government. but, mr. president, when it comes to the size and scope of the government, nothing president obama has done in his first six months resembles a light touch. time after time he's pushed government intervention and takeovers and huge spending increases as the preferred solutions to various problems, whether it is to stimulate the economy, reform health care, or bail out bankrupt car companies. the president cites the economic downturn as a reason to clear the way for more and more new spending. but we still don't have any evidence that this recordbreaking spending has actually helped the economy. take the $1.2 trillion so-called stimulus will -- bill. in pitching the stimulus to the nation, the president pledged a new wave of innovation and activity construction would be unleashed all across america. the administration also said it would help keep unemployment from topping 8% and to save or

create $3.5 million new jobs. insisted that congress run the bill through despite the costs and government's ability to disburse funds in a timely way. as we now know, since president obama signed the legislation, far from stopping unemployment from exceeding 8%, unemployment has now reached over 9.5% and is headed to at least 10%. the economy has lost over two million jobs, including 433,000 just last month. according to the white house website, which tracks stimulus spending over 7.68% of the stimulus money has been funneled into the economy. in an article for "the washington post" michael gerson explains why it is has a members of thsuch a --it is slow and ine wrote just as senate republicans

argued when we posed this plan. a nonpartisan congressional budget office projects less than a quarter of the funds earmarked for this bill will be spent by the end of this year with the lion's share being distributed over the next three years by which time, hopefully the recession will be over. if that's the case, the administration will no longer have a justification for this stimulus spending. but taxpayers will still be on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars the government will have to borrow to pay for it. thanks to a new report by senator coburn, we know more about some of these wasteful projects that have been funded by the so-called stimulus or are awaiting funds including a $3.5 million turtle tunnel in florida, a $550,000 skateboard mark in rhode island and even $40,000 to give someone a job in north carolina to lobby for more stimulus funds. and that's just a handful of the

projects approved so farmt -- so far. so what happened to the president's plan to spend wisely? that brings us to the budget. the president' president's $3.410 trillion-year budget defies the idea of a light touch. in an editorial about the budget "the wall street journal" wrote and i quote -- "with his fiscal 2010 budget proposal, president obama is attempting not nearly to expand the role of the federal government, but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back." so the spending is really the means to an end. bigger government that can never been tamed. to understand the magnitude of the budget the president proposed consider federal spending will skyrocket to 27.7% of the domestic product in 2009. that's up from 21% of g.d.p. in 2008. according to the congressional budget office this monthly budget review for the first nine

months of the 2009 fiscal year, outlays are 21% higher than they were in the first three-quarters of 2008, though revenues have fallen by 18%. federal spending will make up a greater share of the economy in 2009 than in any year since 1945 when the country was still fighting world war ii. it's also a greater share of the economy than the vietnam war or the recessions of 1974 or 1975 or 1981 or 1982. the debt created by his budget will be greater than the combined debt of each of the 43 previous presidents, all the way back to president washington. by the end of this physicallal year, our publicly held debt will amount to roughly 57% of the gross domestic product and deficits of $1 trillion every year are predicted for the next decade. this will drive the debt to 82% of the gross domestic product by

the year 2019. interest payments on this debt will soon make up the single largest item in the debt. in fact, as for the interest costs beginning in 2012 and every year thereafter the government will spend more than $1 billion a day on finance charges to holders of u.s. debt. that means federal spending on finance charges for our government's debt will be a whopping $5,700 per household in 2019. americans are wary of this kind of debt, to say the least. and many don't think it's fair for washington to overspend and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren. these levels of spending and debt would be reckless in the best of economic times and they are not consistent with president obama's pledge for a new era of fiscal responsibility. well, let's turn to health care, the american people and those of us in congress want health care reform. that's not in question. but president obama is proposing

a trillion dollar health care program that would, according to the congressional budget office, cause millions of americans to lose their current care. by providing and incentive for employers to drop their health care coverage. how is this consistent with the president's assurances if americans like their current insurance, they can keep it? remember 85% of americans have insurance and the vast majority of them like their coverage and they don't want to lose it. president obama frames this huge new entitlement as a cost saving, deficit-reducing measu measure. at a july 1 town hall meeting in virginia, the president told participants that -- and i'm quoting -- "if we want to control our deficits, the only way for to us do it is to control health care costs." but does anyone really believe that creating a new trillion-dollar washington-run health care bureaucracy will result costs? when in history has a new government program ever reduced costs? our two current government-run

health care programs, medicare and medicaid, are both on financially unsustainable paths. medicare alone has a $38 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years and is in urgent need of reform. some of the projected revenue for the president's plan comes from cuts in medicare. how is it fair to cut seniors' care to pay for a new government-dominated system for nonseniors, especially since medicare is already in financial trouble? this would ultimately lead to shortages, rationing, and the elimination of private plan choices, something that our seniors rightly fear. it doesn't make much sense to strip funds from those already participating in a government health care and to then use the savings for the creation of a massive new government health care system that few people want. americans rightly worry the president's proposals will lead to the kind of denial and delay that happens in canada and great britain. the president has even said -- and i'm quoting -- "what i think

the government can do is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatments." that can only mean one thing: denial and delay of care. and that kind of system -- in that kind of system, federal boards could dictate what's best for you and me. if our health care is worth the money and drive a wedge between doctors and patients. president obama said recently, "when you hear the naysayers claim that i'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: they are not telling truth." well, maybe the president doesn't like the term "government-run health care," because it's not popular with americans. but a plan administered by the government, with prices and poaflg and treatments evaluated and dictated by washington bureaucrats is government-run health care, plain and simple. on another issue, mr. president, cap-and-trade. one of the president's oft-repeated campaign pledges that was he would not raise taxes on middle-income americans. but the cap-and-trade legislation he and congressional democrats are backing would do just that.

on june 26, the house of representatives passed cap-and-trade legislation described by harvard university economist martin feldstein as a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax increase. the bill would implement a cap-and-trade program with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. cap-and-trade programs set strict mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources, like electric utilities. those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emission reductions. the energy bill would not directly raise tax on americans; that is, they won't necessarily see a larger income tax bill at tax time in april. rather, cap-and-trade increases the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. the effect would be the same as if the i.r.s. sent them a tax bill. when the nonpartisan

congressional budget office analyzed the cost of a reduction of carbon emissions by 15% below 2005 levels, it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1,600. to put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, martin feldstein wrote, "a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000. the tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is, therefore, equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50%." mr. president, that's $1,600 that families won't be able to spend or save for the future. in addition to the tax increase, cap-and-trade would retard economic growth. the heritage foundation analyzed the proposal and concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over the next 26 years. jobs would be lost. the heritage foundation

analysis, in fact, found that my state of arizona would lose thousands of jobs. proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new green jobs. but it's not at all certain those jobs will materialize, let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. in spain, whose government has invested heavily in green jobs, two jobs are lost for every green job created, according to spanish economist gabriel kalzada. especially at a time when the economy is shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high, i'm disappointed that the president is promoting this legislation that not only would violate his campaign promise but would cost taxpayers billions of dollars and harm jobs. mr. president, let me now address some issues that are not directly domestic, free trade issues and problems with iran and north korea. first, on free trade. i'm very disappointed that the administration has not made free

trade a top priority. it has failed in its first six months to take any action on bilateral trade pacts with colombia, panama, and south korea, all of which were signed under president bush. these trade deals would provide a boost to the u.s. economy and would also strengthen u.s. partnerships in two important regions. not only has the administration failed to move swiftly on these trade agreements, it has also supported a number of damaging protectionist measures such as a buy-america provision in the stimulus package. these policies have angered u.s. trading exparnz hurt america's credibility -- partners and hurt america's credibility as a promoter of free trade liberalization. they've already triggered retaliation. for example, after the administration canceled a trucking program with mexico, a program opposed by the teamsters union, the mexican government responded by slapping tariffs on a range of american imports, including wheat, beans, beef, and rice. a global recession is no time in which to start a trade fight.

with iran, there are few regions of the world as volatile as the middle east, yet the administration's approach to iran has been regrettable, to say the least. when a a pro -- when pro-democracy demonstrations were being suppressed in iran, the president offered barely a word of support for the people putting their lives on the line for their freedom. iranian people were met with violence after they took to the streets to peacefully protest the validity of iran's presidential election in june. to declare their support for free elections and oppose' oppos oppressive police state. his statement refers to deep concerns about the election failed to condemn the iranian theocracy and lacked moral fortitude. and even as pressure rose on the president to take a stronger stand, he declined to provide the leadership that the world expects from america, the standardbearer for freedom and democracy. as the weekly standard recently editorialized, "since june 12, president obama has done nothing

to help those iranians who've been seeking, in the words of thomas jefer son, to assume the blessings and security of self-government." explaining his reticence, the president said -- and i'm quoting -- "it's not productive, given the history of u.s.-iranian relations, to be seen as meddling. a u.s. president meddling in iranian elections." the united states should be lending full throated voice to the democratic aspirations of the american -- of the iranian people while seeking to impose sanctions on their oppressors. it's not meddling for the world's oldest and greatest democracy to stand with them. the administration's iranian policy was flawed from the beginning. it came into office with the idea that it could negotiate a grand bargain with the mullahs on iran's nuclear program and would meet with its rogue leader without preconditions. with the mullahs repression of dissent following iran's flawed elections, that's all gone by the boards. of course, it was always destined to fail. was it ever realistic to believe that this is a government with

which we can successfully negotiate? a government that sponsors terrorism and murders peaceful student protesters and doesn't even have the mandate of its own people? what do we think we can give this government more than it wants a nuclear weapon? what's more, what message do we send to the iranian people, many of whom have been arrested, tortured and had family members killed by negotiating with a regime while it robs its own people of their fundamental rights? i do not believe the united states can deal in good faith with a regime that so violently represses its own citizens. i hope the president will come to agree. with regard to north korea, the administration's reaction to north korea's recent activity is also of concern. as pyongyang prepares for the transition from kim gong-il to his son, the regime's behavior has become increasingly belligerent and unpredictable. north korea has pulled out of the six-party negotiations,

restarted its nuclear program, test launched several ballistic missiles, and conducted a suspected underground nuclear test. the regime even declared that it now has abandoned the armistice that brought the cease-fire to the korean war. what has the obama administration done in response to this threat to the security of other nations in the region and, indeed, to the very security of the united states? the answer is disappointing. it's cut missile defense. the president's budget to cut the missile defense agency's budget for fiscal year 2010 by $1.2 billion and decrease the planned number of ground-based interceptor missiles in alaska from 44 to 30. these proposals amount to almost a 15% cut in the missile defense agency's budget and a major reduction in our missile defense portfolio. at the very moment we should be increasing our capability to defend ourselves and our allies from the north korean threat. finally, mr. president, just a

word about the prison at guantanamo bay. and i think this is important in evaluating the first six months of this administration, because one of the very first acts of the president after he was inaugurated six months ago was his self-imposed deadline to close the facility at guantanamo within one year. a majority of americans strongly oppose the closure of guantanamo. and congress has refused to support president obama's arbitrary deadline to close the facility without a plan, for example, showing where he will relocate the terrorists. the administration has convinced palao and bermuda to take a few detainees but this isn't much of a solution if the president is determined to close the facility in just another six months. where will the rest of the detainees still housed at guantanamo bay go? we still don't know. ultimately, the debate over guantanamo has become a debate over geography. both the new attorney general

and the new solicitor general have endorsed the government's right to detain suspected terrorists indefinite. whether we can detain them at guantanamo or at prisons on u.s. soil does not change the fundamental reality that this administration, like its preed setser, will be hold -- predecessor, will be holding certain individuals without trial. we have been told that guantanamo must be closed for symbolic reasons, but america should never make national security decisions based on symbolisms or on false moral arguments. mr. president, in conclusion, on the campaign trail and after his election, president obama repeatedly promised change we can believe in and the end of partisan politics in washington. he pledged to bring republicans and democrats together. on election night, he said, "let us resist the temptation to fall back on partisanship." but partisan politics looms larger than ever.

congress is urged to rush costly legislation through despite frequent republican concerns about the price tag and the efficacy of the legislation. indeed, the president's budget and stimulus both passed mainly on party lines. as michael baron rentl recently, "the president brings to washington the assumption that there will always be a bountious private sector that can be blundered on behalf of political favors. hence, the takeover of chrysler and g.m. to bail out the united auto workers union." and, mr. president, six months later, president obama continues to take unnecessary jabs at his predecessor. on his promise for change, more government debt, government bailouts, and large transfers of the economy from the private to the public sector are not what americans are looking for. americans want the president and congress to support the private sector, to help the economy get back on track without tidal

waves of spending, debt, and new taxes. they want real health care reform without a government takeover. and they want the president to lead us in this dangerous world, acknowledging the harsh reality that not every rogue regime will respond to smooth talk. in the next six months and beyond, i hope the president will take a more sensible and, indeed, more bipartisan course so that we can all accomplish what the american people seek. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business and that senator kaufman of delaware be recognized after i've concluded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, very much. mr. president, i thank the minority whip for his statement on the floor, and i'd like to suggest that i see things a little differently and suggest that there are a couple items that i would like to speak to. first, on guantanamo.

president obama took office and realized that we had a serious problem in guantanamo. it is a safe and secure facility but it has become a recruiting tool for terrorists around the world. that is not just his conclusion, it is the conclusion of people that i respect very much. among those who called for the closing of guantanamo include the following: general colin powell, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary of state under president george w. bush; republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham, and former secretaries of state, james baker, c rice, and henry kissinger, and defense secretary robert gates who served president bush and president obama, admiral mike mullen chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; and general david petraeus. these are not politicians. these are men who represent both sides of the political aisle, democrat and republican, who have concluded that keeping

guantanamo open, unfortunately, is going to continue to give encouragement to the recruitment of terrorists around the world. president obama announced that we should start to close guantanamo. we should start deciding the fate of each of these prisoners. and it's high time we do. unpresident george w. bush, hundreds of guantanamo detainees were released. they were arrested, incarcerated, questioned, and released. no charges against them. it was accepted. we made mistakes on the battlefield. people came up collecting bounties for turning in prisoners that turned out now to be dangerous. these people were released. the overwhelming majority of these people didn't cause any trouble beyond that. some did. that's a fact. i won't ignore it. but new comes the republican side of the aisle arguing that it's unsafe for us to transfer guantanamo prisoners from guantanamo to federal prisons in

the united states. i've her the arguments. they say it's unsafe in my community of springfield, illinois. to have a convicted terrorist in my state. that it's a net to all the people, the 12.5 million people who live in illinois and they believe that's the case around the country. but if you look at the facts, that argument doesn't stand up. today, in the prisons of the united states, the federal prisons, we have 355 convicted terrorists currently incarcerated, being held safely and securely. there are-they're in the threat to our safety. this my hometown of springfield, not far away, just in southern illinois, maybe a little over 100 miles is marion, federal pen tenantry and i visited several weeks ago and talked to the men and women, the guards running the prison, and they said, send them here. we have dealt with terrorists. we have terrorists now in our cell block and we've had crime sin dicks, people from the

colombian drug cartels, we can handle them. and the mayor of marion, illinois, said to the people, are you frightened if the guantanamo detainees come to mariom, and they said, no, they know how to do the job. this is a federal pe penitentiay that is safe so the fear is not well placed. what the president is doing, systematically, carefully, is evaluating each of the prisoners. i know of one who received notice from our government last year after having been held for six years as a prisoner, that we had no case against him, no charges were going to be pursued. he's still in prison. we're looking for a place to put him. he is from gaza, a volatile area and a question of whether he goes back there but the fact is, we have no reason to believe we can convict or prosecute this man for anything.

here's being held and it will be his seventh year now. he came in at age 19 and he may leave at age 26 or 27 his life dramatically changed because, unfortunately, our early inclination that he was a danger to this country turned out not to be a basis for a crime that could be prosecuted. that's the reality. the president has addressed this. just a few weeks ago he announced one of the detainees in guantanamo will face justice and despite the protests of some on the other side of the aisle he moved that prisoner to new york for a trial. it wasn't the first time the city of new york has had the trial of terrorists. it has happened before. they know how to hold the terrorists in jail, during the course of the trial. you don't hear panic in the streets of new york offer it. the only panic and fear you hear comes from the other side of the aisle in the senate. the president's dowpg the right thing. closing -- the president's doing the right thing, saying to the

world we will not engage in torture, we will close guantanamo this is a new chapter and new day for america. with this approach we are closing down a recrewing tool for terrorists and opening the doors for allies to come back to the side of the united states to join us in stopping the kind of extremism that led to the tragedy of 9/11 so i disagree with my colleague from arizona who has argued that we shun close guantanamo. i agree with general colin powell and other military leaders that closing it is in the best interests of the security of the united states. senator kyl initiated his remarks by noting that we have reached the six month anniversary of the inauguration of president obama. hard to imagine it seems to have just been flying by if you are here on the floor of the senate with all of the activity and all the business we have considered. but he made special notice of the stimulus bill. i want to remind people what the president inherited when he took his oath of office six months

ago: our economy was losing on average 700,000 jobs a month when president obama took his oath of office. growth rate hit negative 6.3%, the worst since the 1982 recession. home foreclosures, mortgage foreclosures were at record levels and residential investment had fallen by more than 40% in 18 months. banks were in crisis and freezing lending and nearly $10 trillion in wealth was lost in the stock market, virtually all of us who had 401(k)'s or savings know what happened to thization. we lost a lot of value. as president obama took office, this is what he inherited. he came to the congress and said, we can't stand idly by we have to do something. we have to try to energize this economy, creating and saving american jobs, giving businesses and families a fighting chance. he asked for both sides of the aisle to cooperate.

on the house side not a single republican house member would join the president in this effort, in this bipartisan, attempted bipartisan unfortunate to deal with the economic situation -- effort to deal with the economic situation. on this side, three republican senators stepped up and said they would work with the democrats to try to find a way to help put our economy on its feet. only three. despite the president's invitation for all of them to join in, in this conversation. to find a compromise to work toward a solution to problems we faced. at the end of the day the bill was $787 billion recovery and reinvestment bill to be spent over two years. we are now four months into that two-year-period -- 150 days, roughly -- into that two-year-period and senators are coming to the floor like the minority whip and saying, it has failed. well, let's take a look and see what it has done. so far we have actually spent

about $56 billion out of the $787 billion. very small amount. and we have obligated -- which means we promise to spend -- up to $200 billion four months into it. we are trying to address this carefully so taxpayers' funds are not wasted. but there are still those who voted against it initially who come to the floor as the previous senator did and say it was a failure and we shouldn't have done it. several things should be noted. first, they had no alternative. they had no substitute. they had no option for the economy other than to stand idly by, take two aspirin and try to take a ma a nap and hope it is r in the morning. if we are dealing with a economy with so many lost jobs and lost businesses, standing idly by would have been a disaster. this stimulus package from

president obama stopped what could have been the collapse of the united states economy and the global economy. we still have a long way to go. we're not out of this recession. but it could have been worse. for those who say we shouldn't have done it, let me tell you, over 40% of the money in the stimulus package went back to tax breaks for working families in america. 95% of working families across america will see the benefits of making work pay tax credit in their paychecks. those dealing with job loss, unemployed people, got an additional $25 a week -- it doesn't sound like much unless you have no other source of income. i take it from their statements that those on the other side of the aisle think the tax breaks for working families should not have been enacted and they oppose the unemployment compensation benefit increases. we also gave a helping hand to un. lowed families to keep hib healh insurance for their kids and

families as part of the stimulus package. and money for nutrition asftance, fooassistance, and thg we shouldn't help the unemployed families and other families across america. i think it was the right thing to do. but we're making investments in the infrastructure of america, too. basically, we are trying to make an investment that will give us a recovery in jobs. we were losing 25,000 jobs a day. when this initially hit. now we're trying to build back from that to create is save jobs across america. in my home state of illinois it means infrastructure projects, transportation infrastructure projects and many others. we are beginning, moving in the right direction. we have stopped the worst from occurring in the economy. we will see a turn around, i hope, sooner rather than later, and the president's warned repeatedly: this is not going to

happen overnight and we have to be open to the idea that it's going to take some time for us to make the kind of recovery that we absolutely need. secondly, the senator from arizona talked about health care reform. republican after republican have come to the floor -- not all of them but many of them -- and criticized the idea of health care reform but they are ignoring the obvious. we have a serious problem with health care in america. we are spending twice as much per person as any nation on earth for health care. and the results, health care results, don't show it. many times countries spending far less have far better outcomes in terms of curing diseases and life expectancy. so we should ask the hard questions, shouldn't our money be better spent? shouldn't it be more effectively spent and then look at what we face with health insurance premiums and we fine out the premiums the last several years have been going up three times the increase in the average

workers' wages in this country. we're falling further and further behind as the costs of health care go beyond the grasp of individuals and families and small businesses so we have to tackle this and the american people know we do. they understand this system is, unfortunately, out-of-control. they have called on us to fix the things broken and preserve the parts of the system that are important. one of the things we want to make sure we do is say if you have a health insurance policy today that you want to keep for your family or your business, you can keep it. nothing that we say or do in the law will change that. it's ultimately your decision. secondly, we want to preserve the relationship between doctor and parent. the confidential relationship, the trust that has developed between that, so you can take a member of your family or yourself to a doctor and believe it is a confidential conversation and that doctor is giving the best advice for you. we want you to have that choice and make that decision.

but what we do want to stop is the treatment of americans and american families, the mistreatment, by health insurance companies. and you know what i mean. if you happen to have had an illness last year it becomes a preexisting condition this year and you fine out your health insurance won't cover it, or if they are going to cover it, dramatically increase your premiums. if, in fact, they increase eye e your premiums without warning, and the dockets have to get in a fight with health insurance clerks as to appropriate medical care and whether a person should be hospitalized. the fact that health insurance companies, private health insurance companies have turned out to be the most -- some of the most profitable companies in america even during a recession. all of these things are fair warning that if we don't do something about health care in this country the costs are going to break the bank not only for individuals, families and businesses but for governments

at every single level. today, many americans live in fear of astronomical costs for health insurance. one out of five under the age of 65 is in a family that must spend more than 10% of income on health care costs and among those, a fourth of those spend more than 25% of their income on health care costs. the other side says, just leave well enough alone. this isn't well enough for these families. this is intolerable and unsustainable. it's an astounding burden. it's 30% more people than the number facing the 25% payment than faced it eight years ago. there's also concern on the other side about cap and trade. cap and trade is a bill that has passed the house to address

global warming to try to assign a value to carbon in our economy. jut last week we had the c.e.o.'s of three major companies speak to us. duke energy, one of the largest energy companies this america, dupont, and seemans and they favor the establishment of a cost for carbon, saying give us a transition period to make our plants cleaner and our processes more energy effective and we can meet the goal. we have the creativity to do it so we can reduce global warming, reduce the pollution that haunts us, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and we will create new businesses, new products and new technology that will be energy efficient. new jobs, 21st century jobs that will really pay well, and jobs that we can keep right here in america. there are those who oppose this, say, leave it as it is. but i will tell you, our

continued dependence on foreign oil should be a source of concern to every single person. i'm also genuinely concerned that the world i'm leaving my grandson may be a world compromised because some of the bad environmental decisions that have been made by my generation. we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change that, an opportunity to make this a cleaner planet, show ourselves as good stewards of this earth that god gave us, and to work together in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to encourage the right conduct and discourage bad conduct when it comes to these energy issues. there are some who don't want to touch it. all they want to do is criticize it. but i will tell you, at the end of the day, we won't be judged as having met our responsibility if we do nothing. i know that senator kaufman is on the floor and has asked for recognition. at this point, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i rise today on the 40th anniversary of the apollo 11

moon landing, to highlight the importance of scientific research and development to america's economic recovery. 40 years ago astronauts neil armstrong and buzz aldrin took the first human steps on the moon. it was, needless to say, an historic moment for the united states and the world. eight years prior, president john f. kennedy declared before a joint session of congress that the united states -- quote -- "should commit itself to achieving the goal before the decade is out of landing a man on the moon" -- unquote. armstrong's famous words, "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" marked the fulfillment of the president kennedy's goal. that momentous step also signaled the coronation of the united states as the world leader in the sciences. a distinction we held for the rest of the 20th century but which is now in jeopardy. make no mistake, the dawn of renewed american powerhouse

economy will not come with the same determination that propelled america's journey to the moon. the key to america's success in the global economy will be the research, innovation, and hard work of our nation's scientists and engineers. americans at the time were inspired by a sense of patriotism and dedication to explore the universe following the successful launch of the sputnik satellite. the race to the moon launched a substantial federal investment in scientific and technological research and development. students across the country were inspired to study engineering, and i among them was inspired. this development helped fuel the nation's economic growth and left an indelible mark on our society. the discovery's innovations of this time created opportunities, industries, products and services and new ways of delivering old products and services more efficiently. unfortunately, since that time,

our investments in research and development have not kept up. other nations may soon outpace us in pursuing the scientific discoveries that will define this generation f we hope to assert our country's preeminence in these fields, we must again invest significantly and responsibly in research and development. the vitality of our economy rests on our ability to be the world's leader in innovation. as we face some of our greatest challenges, the scientific and engineering community has the greatest potential to find avenues to what we need most -- new, sustainable jobs. that's why i'm pleased that president obama has set the goal to devote more than 3% of our economy to research and development, a feat that will require significant federal as well as private investment. the american recovery and reinvestment act has already provided over $20 billion of federal funds to reach this target. it's our job to see that these

resources are spent wisely in order to achieve the maximum economic benefit. but the national goal is also about research and development investment by private industry, which government can help foster with pro-innovation policies. we also need to encourage a new generation of engineers through education policies that emphasize science and math. i am confident that engineers will continue to foster the research and innovation that will lead america on a path to economic recovery and prosperity. they will help us build a clean-energy economy, stay competitive in a globalizing world, and drive the real-world applications for our nation's health and science research to improve our quality of life. moreover, t these discoveries ad innovations will create millions of new jobs and invest in our future. mr. president, just before apollo 11 returned to earth, armstrong concluded that, and i quote, "responsibility for this flight lies first with history

and the giants of science that have preceded this effort. next, with the american people, who have through their will indicated their desire. next, with four administrations and their congresses for implementing that will. and then with the agency and industry team that built our spacecraft -- the saturn, the columbia, the eagle and the little e.m.u., the space-suited backpack. just as we all came together in the race to the moon over 40 years ago, we need to renew urgency for science and engineer. the american people, the administration, congress, agencies, and industries must unite to support the research and development that will lead us not only to new frontiers in health, energy, technologies, and security but to new jobs and ultimately a sustainable economic recovery. thank you, mr. president.

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that lieutenant commander ryan ferris, yariv pierce and strategyt0. ncurton be given privileges of the fluer during the department of defense authorization. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, four decades ago, as said by the senator from delaware, in this extraordinary feat that we have seen repeated over and over with the death of walter cronkite, we have seen that time that he was broadcasting live when we landed on the moon and this restrained tv anchor just exhibited extraordinary excitement at the

landing on the moon, and that's what the entire world felt at the time. i was a lieutenant in the army, happened to be behind the iron curtain at the particular time that we lifted off. i went to the embassy in budapest, hungary, asked if they had a tv so that we could see the launch, and they said, no, but shake your shortwave ry rado and go out of the city on those hills and put your antenna up and you can see the b.b.c., which we did, and they cut into the nasa control, and three young americans stood on that hill cheering as apollo 11 lifted off, and we fulfilled the human dream of boundless flight

to another celestial body. and neil armstrong promised us what it was: one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. and it was to be the first step on our way to mars and beyond, toward the new knowledge of our universe, and perhaps the discovery of other life. and yet today we are mired in a debate about the direction of our space program. we had a little victory last week when we had unanimously confirmed the new administrator and deputy administrator of na nasa, but now we are in this debate of where the space program should go, and the answer should be obvious. our thirst for knowledge requires that we explore the

universe. and i often say that this country is built on the character that we have that we are, by nature, explorers and adventurers. when this country was founded, our frontier was westward. now that frontier is upward or it's inward. and so, space flight, as we continue in pushing that frontier upward, what did it do? it grows science and technology, it grows education, and it grows the economy. earlier today i was on one of the network talk shows, and the whole idea, well, what does it do for education? my good necessar goodness, looke competitive edge that america has in the global economy today from our superiority in math and

science and technology and engineering that had occurred over four decades ago. why? because young people were so inspired by the extraordinary feats that we were accomplishing in our space program that they wanted to go into engineering and into math and science and technology. and that produced a generation of these people that now we are continuing to reap the benefits from. and of course the space flight improves and enriches the life here on earth. how does it do i that? well, if you think about it, four decades ago, what we did is if we were going to the moon, we had to have highly reliable systems that were small in

volume and light in weight. that led to the revolution in microminiaturization. that watch is a part of the space program. all of the micro-miniaturization was spawned off of that necessity to get things smaller, more reliable and light in weight. and that's just one example of how it enriches the life here on earth. and if you think back to the visionary president that we had that started this whole thing, he said -- president kennedy -- that the opening of the vistas of space would bring high cost and grave dangers, and indeed it did. but he said, this country was not built by those who rested. and so today on this historic

anniversary, let us not rest. the president -- our president needs to make space exploration a national priority. and our nation needs a clear goal, and that is a lunar-based humans on mars and then beyond. it's up to us to continue the greatest adventure. it's up to us, mr. president, to reach for the stars. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the senate to consider en bloc the following amendments: 1614, 1615, and 1617. pre thesiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and i now call up amendment 1614, 1615 and 1617, and ask that the amendments be modified with changes at the desk, and that once modified the amendments be agreed to as modified and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: now, mr. president

-- the presiding officer: the amendments are agreed to en bloc. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the sessions amendment number 1616 now be the pending business, and that at 4:10 p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the usual form. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin, for mr. sessions proposes an amendment numbered 1616. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that with the permission of the senator from alabama that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: have we got an

agreement on the time before we vote? the presiding officer: the time is equally divided until 4:10. mr. sessions: thank you. madam president, i would thank my -- senator levin. that's always a pleasure to work with him and others who work with us to make sure that when we prosecute a hate crime that results in death, that it is possible to have the death penalty in federal court. i think that's appropriate in those instances where it may be appropriate for the federal government to proceed with such a death penalty prosecution. it just would be odd that it would not be possible in a crime that could have resulted easily in multiple murders by one of the most pernicious criminals you can imagine. madam president, the next amendment is now called the soldiers amendment. it is really distinct from the

hate crimes legislation that we've been discussing. it expands the protections that the united states of america provides to its soldiers. remember that we provide protections now to federal officers, a postman or any other federal officer of the united states is protected, and so are soldiers in certain circumstances. this amendment would create a new federal crime which puts members of the united states military on equal footing with other people -- other protected classes. it makes it a crime to knowingly assault, batter a serviceman or immediate family member or knowingly destroy or injure their property on account of the military service or status of that individual as a united states serviceman. so it's not a total expansion of federal law, but it says if you

are attacked or assaulted, battered or your family members are simply because you are a member of the united states military serving your country, then the federal government would obviously have the ability to prosecute, because it is a high duty and no higher responsibility for the united states government than to protect its soldiers from assaults arising from their service to our country. on june 1, abdul hakim -- how much time? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: madam president, we have had problems with these assaults on our military officers. this will be a good step in correcting that. i thank the chair for the opportunity to speak, and i hope that my colleagues will support the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, first let me thank the senator from alabama for this amendment. he's a valued member of the

armed services committee. he knows like we all know because of our work on the armed services committee, how our men and women in uniform protect us. we should do everything we can when it comes to our criminal laws to protect them and their families. this amendment is aimed at doing this. it would create a new federal crime. it's appropriate that we do so, and i support the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. levin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: a

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change your vote? seeing none, on the sessions amendment number 1616, the ayes are 92, the noes are 0. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from louisiana -- i'm sorry, south carolina. mr. demint: that's close enough, yes. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: order in the senate, please. mr. demint: i would like to just ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for five minutes and that senator hutchison follow me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i was just going to inquire of the senator whether or not he was speaking on the bill or morning business? mr. demint: no. mr. levin: for how long? mr. demint: five minutes and then senator hutchison. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. i know we're debating the

defense authorization bill and a myriad of -- the presiding officer: please take your conversations out. thank you. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. i know we're debating the defense authorization and a number of other things that we're sticking into the bill, but nationally, americans are focused on health care and what the president and the majority are trying to push through and a mad rush that we seem to be in all year long under this guise of a crisis. it's pretty amazing in that the legislation that we're talking about -- the presiding officer: order in the senate. thank you, madam president. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. the legislation we're talking about wouldn't take effect for several years so it's really incredible that we're being told we need to pass this in the next couple weeks before, we go home in august. but the last time the president made grand promises and demanded passage of a bill before it could be reviewed or even read,

we ended up with the colossal stimulus failure and unemployment near 10%. now we're being told they misread the economy. but we were urged to pass this within a day or two because we had to do it in order to keep unemployment below 8%. now the president wants americans to trust him again but he can't back up the utopian promises he's making about a government takeover of health care. he insists his health c care pln won't add to our nation's deficit despite the nonpartisan congressional budget office saying exactly the opposite. and today we learned that the president is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy which contains facts essential to this debate. what is he hiding? if the actual legislation came close to matching the president's rhetoric, he would

have no problem passing this bill with huge democrat majorities in both chambers. but americans aren't being fooled fooled and wfooled, and g the truth about his plan, which includes rationed case, trillions of new costs in higher taxes, and penalties which will destroy jobs and even government-funded abortion. in addition, we're looking at increased deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, billions in new taxes for -- on small businesses that could troy ove y over 4 million more jobs according to a model by the president's own chief economic advisor, and it could force 114 million americans to lose their health care, according to a nonpartisan group. let's be clear, there is no one in this debate advocating that we do nothing despite the president's constant strawman arguments. republicans have offered

comprehensive health care reform solutions that cover millions of uninsured without exploding costs, raising taxes, and rationing care. just since i've been in congre congress, we've crewed a number of proposals that would help the uninsured by their own policies. we've introduced bills that would allow them to deduct it from their taxes, just as businesses, do but our democrat colleagues have killed it. we've introduced legislation that would allow americans to buy health insurance anywhere in the country to make it more competitive and more affordable, but the democrats have killed it. we've introduced legislation that would allow americans to use money in their health savings accounts to pay for insurance premium but the democrats have killed it. we've introduced legislation that would stop all this frivolous and wasteful lawsuits that rot -- that cause the cost of medicine to go up but that the democrats have killed it. we've reduced association health plans that would allow small

businesses to come together to so that they could buy policies less expensively, but the democrats have killed it. now they want to come back and say the government needs to take over health care. it makes absolutely no sense at. we can give every american access to affordable health insurance plans if we just get out of the way and allow the market to work. this is no time to rush into another government takeover of another part of the american economy spending billions of dollars we don't have, raising taxes on the small businesses that create jobs. there are good solutions. i've introduced one a couple of weeks ago that would just give people fair treatment. if you don't get your insurance at work or you are unemployed we will give you $5,000 a year to buy health insurance. that's fair treatment. it's the same bake benefit we give people who get ensure at work. good solutions that don't cost anymore money. i would encourage the president to stop the rhetoric.

take time for debate and reform health care that makes it possible for every american to have a health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep. we don't need the government to take it over. thank you, madam president. i yield to the senator from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: thank you, madam president. madam president, today i rise to speak in morning business, as if in morning business. i want to commemorate a great milestone that is going to happen tomorrow, the apollo 11, 40th anniversary of landing. 40 years ago today on a hot sunday afternoon in texas, three astronaut families and close fends in the houston suburb of elargo were geared around the television sets in the privacy of their homes listening to the sound from a small loudspeaker

wired from mission control conveying the voices of astronaut charlie duke's conversation with the apollo 11 astronauts during the final moments leading to the first landing on the moon. it was an intensely personal experience for all of them. and, yet, one shared by the world: everyone was glued to their televisions who could get to televisions at that moment. and waiting for the word. wherever they were, it was 3:18 p.m. houston time when neil armstrong announced "houston, tranquillity base here; the eagle has landed." a baseball game in yankee stadium in new york was stopped and the announcement made that america had put men on the moon. the audience erupted in applause

and inturts int burst into singe star-bangled banner." in a college dormitory, in living rooms across the world, people gathered to watch this broadcast. the giant leap for mankind that neil armstrong made and buzz aldrin following him on the surface of the moon, attracted and compelled millions of people throughout the world. the apollo 11 landing is forever etched in the minds of those who watched it or heard it. they are bound together in the history of mankind. in a stunning milestone in the advancement of humanity. the apollo program gave us the very first view through the eyes of human beings captured and

transmitted by their cameras of the earth, our own space against the infinite backdrop of space much it gave us great advancements in technology, new industries, capabilities benefiting everyone on earth especially in medical science and quality of life. and most importantly, it gave us a new vision of ourselves as a nation and a sense of our ability to accomplish things that once seemed utterly impossible and probably were not even thought about but yet had just happened. the anniversary we celebrate today comes at a time when we need to be reminded that we can overcome challenges and achieve great things when we are committed and dedicated and prepared to set up to th up to p to the plate.

finding solutions to our current economic crisis, ensuring our national security, finding solutions to domestic issues we face in health care, unemployment, energy, and the environment. what many may not recall -- and that is in may of 1961 -- president kennedy spoke that night to congress on urgent national needs. he spoke of issues strikingly similar to those we face today. he began with a focus on the great battleground for the defense of freedom being in asia, latin america, africa, and the middle east. and enemies of freedom whose agetion iaggression is more oftn concealed. this is 1961 and the president is talking about issues that relate to us today. yet he said as he turned to the

economy, he described the need to turn recession into recovery and meeting the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources. he spoke of shoring up our international allegiances and providing aid to the developing countries seeking to establish themselves as democratic states. he spoke of reshaping our military to better meet unconventional threats and mobility and flexibility in response and the need to ensure effective and accurate intelligence. this sounds so familiar because we're talking about a moon landing but, yet, we're facing all of these domestic international and security issues at the same time yet we don't lose that zeal to command something that is beyond the parameters that we have known. president kennedy spoke of the

need to expand efforts in civil defense but we -- what we might now call homeland security to ensure safety of citizens at home and spoke of renewed calls forearms control and reductions in nuclear arsenals across the globe. finally he focused his concluding remarks on the challenge of face exploration, saying "now is the time for a great new american enterprise, time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth." he went on to use those words that are perhaps the most familiar from that speech: i believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the

earth. president kennedy made that commitment for u.s. leadership in space and set the highest possible goal for establishment of that leadership with the apollo program. at a time when the nation faced challenges not unlike those we face today. i believe he did so because he saw that space exploration was something that could elevate the entire national spirit and enhance its broader economy and national security. as we celebrate the anniversary of the lunar landing we honor the vision, the courage, and accomplishments of all the men and women of apollo, whether astronauts, engineers are flight directors, assembly workers and their families and we thank them for two generations of excellence and leadership in science and technology. how do we best honor that legacy 40 years ago?

we can do it by continuing our nation's commitment to space exploration. to sustain the leadership role they won for us in those early pioneering days. we must recognize as president kennedy did, that space exploration was an important and urgent national need not an activity to be shortchanged or sacrificed in the face of other, pressing economic and security concerns. we must make the investments needed to ensure that the united states has the ability to launch humans into space. today, we are looking at just a few more missions of our space shuttles and then we're looking at up to five years in which america will not be able to put men and women in space at all.

five years! as has been said and as charles krauthammer said in an article today, five years in which we are going to beg russia or even china for space on their space ships to be able to put men and women in space. madam president, 40 years ago america did something that changed our country and the world. it gave us new technologies. it gave us the dominance of space for our national security purposes. it gave us the ability to have satellite-guided missiles that can now go into a withi a windom miles away and stop the collateral damage and the death of innocent humans when we are in a war situation it has given

us so much and 40 years later we are sitting here with a space program that is saying we are going to have five years in which we can't put men and women into space with our own vehicles. that is not what we should be celebrating on this 40th anniversary. we should be sell bitting a renewal of the commitment to space exploration. we should be celebrated we are going to finish out an international space station in which many of our international partners have invested billions as we have and that we are committed to putting people in that space station that is now designated as a national laboratory, our part is; to have the scientific exploration capabilities to be able to take the next step in medical research that can't be done on

earth because we have that national lab. the idea that we would make that investment and then not be able to put people there for five years is unthinkable. that's what it is, unthinkable. so i want to remember the words of president kennedy and i have to say that i want to remember another speech that president kennedy made and it was at rice university. he was talking about why we are committed to putting people on the moon. why are we committed to things that are so visionary for the future? and he said, why would we put people into space? why would rice plate play againt texas? not because it is easy but because it is hard. that very next year, rice tied the university of texas in football. it wasn't the same league as

putting men on moon, it was not, but he had the vision and he also had the humor to convey it. he knew what made our country the best country in the world. that was the vision of doing things that would be seemingly impossible and having the capacity and commitment to do it. that's what president kennedy led us to do 40 years ago and today we must renew that commitment. that is the only way we can show we are worthy of all that has gone on before us that led to neil armstrong's famous words, "one small step for man, one giant lead for mankind." madam president, i hope that with all of the remembrances we

are making that the real effort that will be made is what charlie bolden said when he was in our committee just last week. we said, actually, the chairman of the committee said, nasa's deteriorating. tell me why we should support it and charlie bolden, the new administrator of nasa said, i'm committed to doing it and doing it right. we have got to have the commitment of congress to make it happen. he knows what's right. he's a former astronaut. and he's an engineer. and he's a great texan who is the visionary and the person who can implement that vision. we are going to support him in everywhere. i hope all of my colleagues in congress will do the same thing on the eve of the anniversary of one of the great achievements