the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: i ask consent that the quorum call be skated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: we are on now spending bill. a spending bill that we must address during this congress. and we're in september -- first of all, i compliment senator feinstein and senator alexander for their work on this very important bill. i do want to comment on something that was in the news today and something that i had said yesterday about some spending issues. i'll do it very, very briefly. madam president, this deals with the issue of the economic recovery or the stimulus package. i voted for that. i didn't vote for the tarp fund, $700 billion for the financial bailout last fall. i did vote for the economic recovery, or the stimulus program, early this year because

i felt it was necessary to give the economy a boost. and, frankly, i think this economy is showing signs of beginning to recover. and that's going to be good for all americans. and there are a lot of important investments made in this economic recovery program, investments in repairing roads and bridges and many other infrastructure in this country that will both put people to work and give this country an asset when it's done. i do want to say this: yesterday i made a point and i want to make sure everyone understands the point i made. part of some stimulus funds were dedicated to the northern port of entries between the united states and canada. and i indicated that some requirements that were developed in terms of how you would invest in ports of entry were developed in 2002 and 2006 and the previous -- in the previous administration by the department of homeland security. and so when money began to be allowed under the stimulus program to invest in the

northern border ports of entry, the requirements were going to drive how much was spent. and as i looked into it, i decided what was going to happen is these requirements were completely out of balance. the requirements would create a common footprint in small ports of entry and require the expenditure on averag average $15 million for a small port of entry, on average $15 million in circumstances where on average only five vehicles an hour were coming through the port of entry. i just felt that was excessive. that's not secretary napolotano's call. that is the requirement from that agency that were developed in 2002 and 2006. so i asked secretary napotitano to look at that and she said, yes, let's review that, let's do a 30-day review. first of all, i want to say thanks to the secretary. i think that's exactly the right action. i didn't know these were the set

of requirements that were going to drive that kind of funding. but, frankly, waste is waste. of the 22 northern border ports of entry, nine of them are in my state. much of this money would be spent in my state. but i don't think it is justified because i believe those requirements must change. if you have a small port of entry, i believe that we have the need for better security. i will support investment to support a -- an upgrade of those fits, but i do not believe it is appropriate, nor do i believe secretary napolitano or my colleagues in the congress believe it will be appropriate on review to spend $15 million on average at ports of entry where you have five vehicles an hour coming through the port. that just is way out of balance. it makes no sense to me. my comments were portrayed as some sort of criticism of the congress for passing a piece of legislation called a stimulus plan or economic recovery. it is not a criticism of that.

a lot of that spending is necessary, it is lifting this economy and creating an asset and putting people in jobs and reporting people back to work. i think that makes a lot of sense. i think it also makes sense to scrutinize how this is done, where it is done, and whether it is a good investment and whether it is fair to the taxpayers. i would just say again, i appreciate the fact that the secretary is doing this review. my credit goes to her for doing that. my hope is at the end of the review she will conclude, as i do, that we can't spend that money that way. those requirements in 2002 and 2006 is wrong. you don't spend $15 million an hour with one truck and one car an hour coming through. it is too much money. i understand perhaps some people in my state will be upset if they stood to gain from nine of those ports being upgraded.

i'm all for making investments that are the right kind of investments to upgrade ports at the northern border. but i do not believe we ought to waste money. and that, i believe, is what would happen with the requirements created in 2002 and 2006. let me make one final point. i understand why someone would create extraordinary requirements. in 2002 we were in the shadow of the attacks of 2001. i undersand making a set of requirements that at least in the review mirror seem to be way out of whack or way out of balance. but that doesn't justify it today. if in 2002 and 2006 those judgments were made, i say they were wrong. let's not revise those judgments and let's direct the kind of investment and spending on infrastructure, in this case on border protection and border security, let's do in a way that at the end of the time we've done the right thing, strengthened our security but not wasted the taxpayers' money. i wanted to at least clarify

what i was doing yesterday was not to try to tarnish the economic recovery act. a lot of good investments are being made that create jobs and assets for this country. i think all of us should be vigilant to take a look at situations like this and where it is required, make changes. in this case i believe the right kind of change can save a couple of hundred of million dollars, and i think that's important even if that comes in my state, i think that's important. years and years ago a federal courthouse was to be built in my tate and the amount of money proposed to build it i thought was twice as much as needed. i cut the money in half and they built it for slightly less money than half the funds i had cut. i think all of us have stewardship requirements for the taxpayer and i wanted to amplify what i said yesterday. mr. president, i want to yield the floor and note that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i apologize, mr. president. i am going to stro ask to reinstate the quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is considering h.r. 2996, senate appropriations -- the appropriations tear -- interior department appropriations. mr. leahy: am i correct, mr. president, that at 12:30 we will go to the nomination of judge gerard lynch to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. leahy: mr. president, prior to going to that, i ask unanimous consent that i be able to speak as in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, i rise today to remember one of vermont's greatest citizens, a dairy farmer, an american, my good friend harold horrigan. harold passed away at the age of 85 in his home in vermont. in september 2009. he was surrounded by his loving family, long aextended andextend extended and wonderful family. harold was a family man. this large extended family included his wife of 56 years, ann; three sons and two daughters, 12 grandchildren. he had an optimist outlook on life, a knack for storeytelling, he cast a spell over everyone in his presence. many of his stories were about growing up in a family with nine

other siblings reared on a hillside farm in northern vermont. i could think of more than one occasion, mr. president, when marcel and i would be there, we'd be listening to one of these stories. i knew that we might be late for the next thing but i didn't want it to end. i wanted to hear what else he had to say. and harold was a man that seemed to accomplish more each year than most of us do in a lifetime. he built his fairfield, vermont farm to over 1,000 acres, including land that had been worked by his family since the mid 1800's and now is tended by the next generation. i remember him as a dynamic man. as genuinely comfortable in his public duties as he was in the dairy parlor or out splitting wood. in addition to tending the farm

and the family he loved so much, he attended dozens of civic organizations. he moderated the fairfield town meeting after this year, and i tell my friends and colleagues in the senate, the town meeting is a sacred institution in vermont in a town that wants to make sure that they have the very best, the fairest, and the most knowledgeable to be their moderator. it also helps when you have somebody with an irish sense of humor. this is a position of distinction in any vermont town. he was director of the st. all st. allbin's gleamry for 20 years. he was appointed by three governors, both parties to the vermont milk commission. he was also a local and national

leader on the maple -- he served on advisory boards and county comitiondzs. all the while he tended the fire in the fairfield sugar house each year. he got the cows milked each day and sang for 60 years in the choir at church. the church, of course, was named, as you would expect in a town full of irish immigrants and descendants of irish immigrants, the church is st. patrick's. nationally he was a director of the national milk producers federation. for 20 years, chairman of the national dairy board. in addition to his work on dairy, he was a local and national leader for the maple industry, a prolific sugar maker. i know marcel and our children were having something that required maple syrup, and in our family that's just about anything from english muffins to

pancakes, everybody eyes would light up if we knew it was harragon syrup. notwithstanding his duty to his family and his country, his greater impact was probably felt through his personal relationships and his family and what he considered i think all of vermont as his extended family. as a friend he was a trusted adviser on agriculture issues over several decades. i know that senator jeff fords consider fefords consulted him regularly. but his dad and grandfather to a large, active family, he cultivated two generations of dairy farmers and maple syrup makers. we could talk about all the different things he did. it still does not give the picture of the man. he was known for a deep and

spirited irish pride, a sentiment that i obviously share. i find myself comparing other great irish american, and dear friend teddy kennedy, whose recent loss i also mourn. but i also treasure the trip that my wife, marcel, and i took that we took with harold to ireland. there he felt he was truly in the promised land. as we walked about the streets of dublin or small towns nearby, he was so proud of his family's irish heritage, he never stopped smiling throughout his visit. on the day of his funeral, last week, marcel wore an irish pin we purchased with him in ireland. and i, of course, wore a green tie in his honor. and i watched his grandsons wearing some of the irish ties that harold had owned and i

listened to his son a daughter and grandchildren talk about him, capturing him in his stories, in his nature. i think about the very last conversation i had with him, just weeks before he died. in all of these things he never asked for anything for himself. he always asked me to watch out for other people. he led by a quiet example of hard work, kindness and love. i, along with the state of vermont, and many across the united states and across the atlantic will miss harold. he was a dear friend, a truly great american. like all vermonters, i express my sympathy to his family and i say, good-bye, harold, my dear

friend. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, gerard e. lynch of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate equally divided between the senator from vermont and the senator from alabama or their designees.

mr. leahy: thank you, mr. president. today the senate finally considers the nomination of gerard lynch to the second circuit. i take particular interest in this, of course, because my own state of vermont is part of the second circuit. i'm a member of that bar and i've argued cases before that court. and this is a nomination reported out of the judiciary committee over three months ago. on june 11th, we did it unanimously by voice vote. there were no dissents. when that occurred, in fact, the ranking republican members said very glowing things about judge lynch, and i just assumed he's going to be, as we did with president bush's nominees in similar situations, i assumed he would be confirmed right away. now it's nearly three months later. almost unprecedented from

somebody who had the strong support from the chairman and the ranking republican in the committee is still here. judge lynch has served as a highly respected federal judge from new york for almost a decade. he has impeccable legal credentials. his nomination received the highest possible rating from the a.b.a. standing committee and the federal judiciary, well qualified. now, mr. president, i might say that the senate's got to do a better job in restoring our tradition, a tradition followed both when there's republican presidents and democratic presidents of considering qualified, noncontroversial nominees to fill vacancies in the federal bench without needless an harmless delays -- and harmless delays. we should not have to overcome filibusters an spending months to agree on these nominations. the american public is wondering what's going on here.

it is imperative that we move on the nominations. the vacancies have risen to over 90, including 21 on the circuit court. i've been here with six presidents. i cannot remember a time within this -- when we're this late in the year and even though nominations have been made, nobody's been confirmed all because of holds by the republican. do they object so much to having president obama as president that they're going to hold up well-qualified judges? these are supposed to be nonpartisan, outside of political areas. alarming spike of delays is further fueled by all kinds of inaction. in fact, 23 future vacancies have been announced. at this rate, as i said at the judicial conference this week with the chief justice and other -- and the leaders of the federal judiciary, that the

federal judicial vacancies will soon be close to 120. unless we start acting on these nominations in a responsible and fair manner. our inaction isn't something we're -- republicans or democrats might score points. it's something where the average american is hurt. they don't really care about the politics. they want federal courts that are going to work. they don't want cases delayed because we have vacancies in the federal court that we could easily be filling. i don't think most americans when they go into a court say, i'm here as a republican or i'm here as a democrat. they go in as a plaintiff or defendant. they're there to seek justice, not to find out there's nobody in the courthouse because for some reason the minority party doesn't want president obama

filling vacancies. now, i mentioned this because during the last presidency, we worked very hard to fill vacancies. when i chaired the senate judiciary committee, and we had a president of the other party, we were able to reduce overall vacancies by two-thirds. from over 100 down to 34. we were able to reduce circuit court vacancies to single digits. today, because we are blocked from getting judges through, because republican senators will not give this democratic president the same curt sis we gave republican -- courtesies that we gave republican presidents, those achanceys have nearly tripled. in the 17 months i served as senate judiciary chairman during president bush's first term, the

senate confirmed 100 of the president's judicial nominatio nominations. so far this year 9 months in the year,s we have not confirmed a single federal judge or district judge. i mentioned that because in the space of two years, seven months, there was a republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee, they did not confirm a single one of president bush's judicial nominees. but in 17 months, i made sure this senate confirmed -- confirmed 100 of the president's judicial nominees. -- nominations. i'd be delighted if they'd let us now with the president of our own party confirm them that quickly. despite the fact that president obama said his first judicial

nomination two months earlier than president bush. despite the fact that the judicial nominees have the support of republican home state senators, despite the fact that the judiciary committee has reported favorably five judicial nominees to sent for final action and despite the fact that the judicial nominees have been on the calendar for more than three months, we have not reached an agreement to vote for a single judicial nominee for the district court or circuit court. the first of president bush's nominations was judge david hamilton to the seventh circuit. it was made in march. it has been on the executive calendar since early june despite the support of the most senior of the senate republicans, senator lugar. the nomination of judge andres davis was voted by 16-3, but has

yet to receive senate consideration. these are mainstream federal judges. let's not hold them up anymore. it's not a good sign already this year republican senators pursued five filibusters involving executive branch nominations including the nomination of lena kagan, harold kohl, and cass sunstein. it was a bad sign in march that every republican senator signed a letter to president obama threatening filibusters of his judicial nominees before any were even nominated. now, come on, we're supposed to be the conscience of the nation. we're supposed to be the conscience of the nation in the senate. we don't like a particular nominee, vote against him or her. but these are nominees that are probably going to pass

unanimously. it's a good sign already this year republican senators threatened to filibuster the deputy attorney general, pursued five filibusters for hagan, kohl and cass sunstein. you know, this is the kind of thing that brought about public criticisms of their actions during -- by a republican chief justice, william rehnquist, when they did that back when they pocket filibustered some 60 of president clinton's nominees. so let's get together, let's work. we have people who are going, if they're allowed to come to a vote, will get nearly a unanimous vote. allow them to come to a vote. if you're not going to allow them to come to a vote, don't

tell people in your state when they write or call and say, queant gecan't get our cases hey are there these vacancies? well, we know the answer to th that. mr. president, i'm exasperated because, of course, having pushed so hard to get more of president bush's nominees through in a shorter time than the three different periods during his presidency that they had a republican chairman, it is frustrating to see now the response is we're going to slow up. i have more things to say -- i'll put it in the record -- but other than to say judge lynch began his legal career as a federal prosecutor in the u.s.

attorney's office. he rose to be chief of the criminal division. served as a part-time associate counsel for the office of independent counsel. was counsel at a wall street firm. impeccable legal credentials. graduated assume cued laud and first in his -- summa cum laude and first in his class at columbia university. has been a distinguished legal scholar. i'll put all this in the record. pi noticed that oma a observe ar supports judge lynch's candida candidacy. he has the support of the senators from new york. this is a man who shu should be- should have been confirmed by now. there are vacancies on that

court. and let's go forward. let's go forward. let's treat the federal judiciary with the kind of respect it deserves, the kind of respect that both -- both parties should give and the kind of respect they have earned. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum and have the -- ask consent that the -- i withdraw that request. i see the distinguished senior senator from new york, a man who works so extremely hard in the senate judiciary committee, who has worked night and day for judge lynch, who has made sure that we all recognize what impeccable credentials they have. and i yield to the -- the senator but i would ask first consent if there are quorum calls, the time be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: well, thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank our chairman and leader, senator leahy, for not just moving this very qualified nominee forward but for his diligence and steadfastness and patience as we try to move judges to the floor. senator leahy, as everyone in this chamber knows, is a very fair-minded person. he always goes out of his way to allow people to have their time to speak. we have this in judiciary committee this morning -- we had this in judiciary committee this morning, and done an amazing job in trying to move our judges through. and i hope that those on the other side of the aisle will hear his heartfelt plea that we stop all these dilatory tactics. having said that, today's a very good day, mr. president, because i'm so pleased to rise in favor of the nomination of the first appointment by president obama to a federal appellate court

that this body will consider. and, mr. president, if judge gerard lynch is any indication of the quality and temperament and intellectual firepower of judges whom president obama intends to nominate, then my friends on both sides of the aisle should have reason to rejoice today. as chairman leahy has already noted, judge lynch was referred out of committee by unanimous voice vote. even my friend and colleague, ranking member sessions, was able to support judge lynch despite having opposed his nomination to the district court bench in 2000. judge lynch, who currently sits as a u.s. district court in the southern district, comes to us today for confirmation much as he did in 2000 for his first confirmation, with an unimpeachable record of moderation, consistency, intelligence, and dedication to

exploring all facets of complex legal questions. but since then, he has amassed an impressive record of moderation and thoroughness. in his nine years on the bench, he has issued nearly 800 opinions, has tried nearly 90 cases to verdict, has been overturned by the second circuit only 12 times, and one of those times, the second circuit was, in turn, reversed by the united states supreme court. there should not be any doubt that judge lynch is not an ideologue. his opinions and his writings show moderation and thoughtfulness. he's pragmatic. his peers and those who practiced before him have found him both probing and courteous. in sum, very judicial in his temply. in -- very judicial in his temperament n. response to questions before the senate judiciary committee in 2000, judge lynch said -- quote -- "a judge who comes to the bench with an agenda or a set of social problems he or she would like to solve is in the wrong business."

as his record has shown, mr. president, judge lynch is in the right business. i have said many times that my criteria for selecting good judges are three: excellence, they shouldn't be -- they should be top of the line legally -- moderation -- judges shouldn't be too far right or too far le left -- and diversity. and i'm proud that judge lynch -- you know, i had, mr. president, as is somewhat known, despite the fact that president bush and i clashed on supreme court nominees and some of the circuit court nominees within new york and within the second circuit, we had a very amiable arrangement, where he would nominate two and then we would get, senator clinton and i would get to nominate one. we each had a veto power on the other. and i'm proud to say that judge limpleg walynch was one of my ft choices to put on the district court bench. and it was because the recommendation of his peers, the lawyers for whom -- before --

who practiced before him, and just the general legal community thought how good he was. that stands true today. he's still, more than ever before, meets the qualifications of excellence, moderation, and diversity. there's no question of excellence. he was first in both his classes at columbia, undergraduate and graduate. first. not even second or third. pretty good. his opinions are scholarly. and one that was overturned by the second circuit was lauded by the panel as -- quote -- "a valiant effort by a conscientious district judge." there's also no question that judge lynch is, in fact, a moderate. his impressively low reversal rate should give bethrough any argument he's outside the legal mainstream. now, the rap on judge lynch in 2000 among those 36 who voted against him is that he would be -- quote -- "an activist."

this view arose from out-of-context outtakes from two law review articles he had written. i repeat now what i -- i repeat what i said then. in both of these articles, then-professor lynch expressed the moderate view that the constitution cannot as a practical matter remain frozen in the 18th century. the constitution should not be expanded but it must be interpreted. to illustrate my point about why judge lynch should be accepted as a pair gone of moderation -- paragon of moderation, i want to read two quoassments first, "text is the definitive expression of what was legislated." second -- quote -- "a text should not be construed strictly and it should not be construed leniently. it should be construed reasonably to contain all that it fairly means." the second quote was written by associate justice antonin scalia. the first quote was from our nominee, judge lynch.

so the entirety of judge lynch's copious opinions and rulings bears out the conclusion that he doesn't intend to legislate from the bench. he has been the definition of law enforcing and justice seeking. he has ruled for the state against prisoners but he's also ruled that the state must protect the due process rights of those it seeks to detain. he has sentenced defendants convicted of horrible crimes to life without parole, and he also expressed concern about what he thinks -- when he thinks a sentence might be too long while not imposing the sentence in complete accordance with the law. he has issued complex and scholarly opinions in securities and antitrust cases. in sum, judge lynch imposed the sentence that was required by law -- in sum, judge lynch is excellent and he represents moderation. now, let me say a word about diversity. judge lynch obviously is not a nominee who fits this bill.

but i want to note another kind of diversity that belies mention. before he went on the bench, judge lynch sought out opportunities to be more than just a smart professor living in an ivory tower. he spent five years in the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district as chief of the appellate section and chief of the criminal division. he worked as counsel to a prominent law firm. and he took numerous pro bono cases. in short, he lived the life of a real lawyer while teaching and writing. and driven by his own conscience, he even registered for the draft during the vietnam war rather than seek a college deferment. very few do that. this is someone who has sought out a diversity of experiences which he now brings to the table as a judge. i look forward to this new chapter in judge lynch's service to our country, and i hope he will get a unanimous vote or

close to it from the members of this chamber. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask consent that i be permitted to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. as you can tell from the chart on my left, i rise today to speak about the issue, probably the number-one challenge we face in the congress today which is debating and devising solutions for the improvement of our health care system in so many ways. i rise today to talk about some aspects of that, especially not only where we're headed in terms of focusing on both those with insurance and those without insurance but also to focus on some of the goals here. from the beginning, both president obama and members of congress have focused on a couple of priorities. first of all, to reduce costs,

we can't go forward with any bill that doesn't do that and i think we will do that. we have to reduce costs but we also have to ensure choices. we've got to continue to give the american people the kind of choice they should have a right to expect. and give them a sense of -- a piece of mind in terms of what that choice will mean. we ought to make sure that this bill, for example, leads to the following conclusion. you get the treatment you need from the doctor you choose. i think we can do that here in the congress. thirdly, i think we have to make sure that as we're controlling costs and ensuring choice that we ensure quality and that we put both quality and prevention in the final bill. they're in the bill that i voted for already this summer, the health, education, labor, pensions committee, as people know, debated all summer, hours and hours and hours of debate, accepting amendments on republican and democratic amendments, sometimes not agreeing.

but we voted out a bill that did a lot of what i just talked about. it focused on making sure that we're covering more americans. it protected americans who have coverage. so many people, as the presiding officer knows, whether it's the state of illinois or pennsylvania or any state in the country, even those with insurance are not secure. even those with insurance feel a sense of instability, a lack of control over their own destiny sometimes because an insurance company says that we -- we're going to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. why have we permitted that? why have we tolerated that year after year instead of just talking about preventing them from doing that, literally making that illegal for an insurance company to do? we're going to make sure that this year we don't just talk about it, we legislate about it and make that part of our law. so we'll go through some of those, but the first thing that i wanted to highlight is where we're headed if we don't do anything. there's some people in washington who, to be candid or blunt about it, to want scratch

our head for a couple more years or maybe ten more years. and here's where we're headed by one estimation, the new america foundation is the sort for this. but here we are in 2008. when you talk about cost of annual premium, okay? that's roughly -- and actually that number's a little higher we found out the other day. but say it's a little more than $13,000 for family coverage. if you look at between 2008 and 2016, just eight years in that estimation -- and we're already into 2009 -- that premium will rise by more than 83%. why should we allow that to happen when we know we can do something about it this year. so that's one way to look at this in terms of the cost of doing nothing. also that often people with insurance will say, well, i have some problems with my insurance. i worry about a preexisting condition, i worry about exorbitant out-of-pocket costs,

and i'm glad that you're working on that and i will support that part of the bill. but they also say, look, if i have coverage, i worry that giving millions more americans coverage will somehow adversely affect my coverage. let's look at the chart. families paying 8% surcharge on premiums. if you look at this chart, what this -- what this -- what this red or -- or red-orange part of the chart shows is an $1,100 tax to cover the cost of uncompensated care to the uninsured. so the idea that those with insurance right now are not paying for those without insurance is really ridiculous. fortunately in pennsylvania that number's a little lower, but it's still $900. ok. so the idea that somehow if we change the system, improve the existing system, build on what works, but -- but improve the system, that somehow's that's

going to adversely impact in a cost sense those with insurance, this chart, and others, the center for american progress did this research, this chart shows that if you have insurance today, you're paying for those without insurance right now you're paying for them. we know that right now. so, if anything, broadening the number of americans who have coverage will actually reduce costs. it will be one of the contributors, i should say, of reducing costs. not the only way, but one of the ways that we do that. let me go to the next chart which is a -- which is a depiction in very simple colors, red and green, about what the existing system does adversely as it relates to women. there are a lot of things that insurance companies do today that we don't like and we've complained about, but now we can do something about. one is a preexisting condition problem, one -- another one is the out-of-pocket costs, another

one is how often insurance policies definitively discriminate against some americans. this -- this map here shows in the orange or red section gender rating allowed. in other words, insurance practices that lead to policies in states that -- that result in discrimination against women. so what you want on this chart is to be in the green states where gender rating is banned. what we'd like to do with our legislation, one of the goals here -- and it's in our bill -- in the bill that we passed this summer, the affordable health choices act -- is to make that everybody is in the green, green in the sense that we have banned gender rating. that an insurance company can't say when they're trying to determine how to make up a policy that if you -- if you happen to be a woman, that a

policy will discriminate against you. and, unfortunately, i live in pennsylvania, and that's a state that has permitted this, along with all of these -- all of these other states. so we ought to have a national standard. very simple, no more discrimination on insurance policies against women. it's that simple folks. and what i voted for this summer in the bill we passed was this, along with other provisions. so that's something that we shouldn't just talk about for another year or two or five or 10. let's do something about this here. let's make this practice illegal this year -- this year, and we can do it with the legislation. the next one is a -- an enlarged version of some language. i mentioned preexisting conditions in my remarks today. we're going to keep mentioning this. because this is a reality for millions of americans in the individual market. people who kind of have to go it alone. they're not part of a big pool

of people getting insurance. they have to go it alone and get their own insurance. they're the ones who are often most adversely affected by preexisting conditions. why should we tolerate that? the other part for this chart is that i purposely put legislative language on there because there are a lot of people who want to say this legislative language, some of it gets complicated. admittedly some of it does. but this is pretty easy. this is in the bill that we passed this summer. read this sentence. anyone can understand this. this isn't some complicated, legislative language. a group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage -- we know who they are -- may not impose any preexisting condition or exclusion -- may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion, that's in our bill -- with

respect to such plan or coverage. let's do it this year, let's make it illegal for insurance companies to do this to an individual or to a family or to those who happen to be employees in a small business. so some of this debate gets lost in detail, but this is very simple language taken right out of the bill. let's go to the next one in our final chart before i conclude. i'm going to spend more time on this issue, but i just want to do -- spend a couple of minutes on this issue. what happens at the end of this road with regard to health care as it pertains to children especially children that happen to be poor or children with special needs? what will happen at the end of the road -- at the end of the road when we pass a bill and send it to the president and he signs it, and that's what i hope will happen, of course -- will children -- poor children and

special children with special needs be better off or worse off? that's still an open question that we're debating right now. children are different than those of us who happen to be adults. they're not smaller versions of adults. they're different. we have to give them different kinds of preventive care. in medicaid we give them early periodic be screening, known as epstd. we focus on the special needs of children and give them early diagnosis and early treatment. that's what i'm talking about in general. so they're not small adults. it seems like a simple concept, but we need to say that more than we do. it's critical that all children, particularly those who are the most disadvantaged, the poor who tend to be the ones who potentially could be a lot sicker and suffer from greater threat of sickness and disease, make sure that they get the highest quality care throughout their childhood.

now that's a resolution that i introduced here as a statement of policy. so one of the things that we're going to continue to debate here is not just a question of bringing down costs, that's central to what we're trying to do, not just a question of quality, and not only the question of enhancing choice and giving people some stability over their own lives with insurance and those who don't have insurance giving them some affordable choices, that's all important. we're going to spend a lot more time on those questions. another question that we have to address is: what happens at the end of the road for poor children or children with special needs? and the rule ought to be very simple: no child in those categories, no child worse off. four words, no child worse off at the end of this. so, mr. president, we'll have a lot more time to continue the debate and the legislation and a lot of these important issues. but i think the american people want us to act. they don't want us to just debate and not get something

done here. and, with that, mr. president, thank you very much, and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise today to express my deep disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans for fully developing missile defenses in eastern europe. this decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the united states has made to poland and the czech republic. and i believe it has the potential to undermine american leadership in eastern europe. given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's nation since

the end of the cold war, we shouldn't, i believe take steps backwards in strengthening these ties. yet i fear the administration's decision will do just that at a time when eastern european nations are increasingly wary of renewed russian aggression. the administration's decisions to abandon these sites come at a time when the u.s. is in the midst of negotiations with russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons. russia has long opposed the planned missile defense sites in europe, and has on numerous occasions tried to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with defensive capabilities, such as, missile defend. in fact, president putin on many occasions has stated in very belligerent tones his opposition to this agreement that was already made between the united states and poland and the check

republic. the u.s. should reject the russian attempt to further this argument an capitalize on these ongoing negotiations. as rogue nations, including north korea and iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tireless to develop weapons capable of reaching america and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance our national security, protect our troops abroad and support our allies. enhancing missile defense capabilities in europe is an essential component to addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. as iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the united states must reaffirm its commitments to its allies an develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. mr. president, i'd like to point out two important factors.

the united states of america does not believe that missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. they are defensive in nature, and i believe we're a -- were a key component and factor in ending the cold war. now intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically in -- since january the 16th. according to eric adelman, the under secretary for defense under policy for secretary gates during the bush administration, intelligence reports on the iranian threat as recen recentls january of this year is more troubling than what is portrayed by the current administration. mr. adelman maintains that -- quote -- "maybe something really dramatic changed since january 16th, and now in terms of what the iranians are doing with their missile systems, but

i don't think so." you know what? i don't think so either. i think the fact is that this decision was obviously rushed, the polish prime minister, according to news reports, was called at midnight. the agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion, and a proper process. they were not even notified of this decision. the decision to abandon the missile defense sites in poland and the czech republic came as a surprise to them. i understand that the administration officials were on a plane to supposedly to arrive in poland today. i might add that members of congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the newspaper. i was not informed. i didn't know what -- quote --

"new technology was being put -- was being recommended to the put in the place of the agreement." and on -- as short a time ago as august 20th, the united states said -- quote -- "the united states is committed to security of poland of any u.s. facilities located on the territory of the republic of poland. the united states and poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation, et cetera." we all know that the iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. we all know that the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of the russians. now we will see. now we will see. why was this agreement rushed into or the be ary gaition of an a-- abrogation of an agreement? why was the abrogation of an

agreement between the united states and poland and the united states and the czech republic in such a rushed fashion? we know that the threat is real and growing. how many times have the -- quote -- "intelligence estimates" been wrong dating back to and including the cold war? as many times as they've been right, i tell my colleagues. whether it be their assessment about the war in iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries, including the -- the korean buildup, which we have been consistently wrong. so poland and the czech republic asked what many at the time perceived an unpopular agreement agreement, despite threats from russia, both countries recognized what an importance such capability would provide to

their citizens and to europe as a whole and agreed to allow the united states to place ground-based interceptors in poland and a mid-course radar site in the czech republic. what are thee countries going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, mr. president? in view of the way that this decision was made and was announced without their -- or, shall i say, made known to the media before they were even told about it? so it will be very interesting to what we get in return. it sounds like, according to a christian science monitor global news blog -- quote -- "we see this as a pragmatic decision, says pavlo zatarov, deputy director of the official institute of the u.s.-canada studies, suggesting that internal u.s. factors mainly account for mr. obama's choice." "obama's sober approach is

understandable given the economic crisis, because this project would have given nothing but trouble." it sounds like moscow has already discounted this sweeping strategic concession from washington. experts suggest that's because russia's foreign policy establishment had been expecting such a decision at least since obama hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme during his summit with russian president ve da dimit rtri medvt spring. we thought it might be set asi aside, said in a leading moscow foreign policy journal. so, mr. president, the russians seem to have anticipated this decision. unfortunately, the polish government and the czech

government department. and members of congress were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. it's not the way to do business. i think it sends the wrong signal to the russians and to our friends and allies. and so we all have -- there are consequences of every decision. i believe the consequences of this decision may be, albeit unintentionally, encourage further belligerence on the part of the russians and a distinct lack and loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the word of the united states and commitments of the united states of america. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that articles in the "wall street journal" and the "christian science monitor" be made part of the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. mccain: mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: and that the time be charged against senator leahy's time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to say a few words about an issue that's been front and center in my office for the past 12 months: reforming regulation of our financial markets. i'm a family farmer, and in my neck of the woods, farmers usually don't sit around and talk about economic policy and wall street financial institutions. but i do guarantee you, where i come from, everyone talks about common sense and why so much commonsense seemed to be missing when america's financial industry almost collapsed a year ago. everyone in my state felt the impact of what happened when lehman brothers caved in.

when fannie and freddie hit a dead end, when a.i.g. went belly-up, when we saw daily headlines about bank mergers and bailouts. we all paid a price because of a few greedy actors on wall street and no refs on the playing field. the price was $700 billion of taxpayer money. i opposed that bailout because it rewarded the wrong people and i was concerned about its ability to create a single job for our small businesses or help one family farmer. i think it was a bad deal for main street. last year, i asked treasury secretary paulson, the former chairman of goldman sachs, about why this happened. his answer -- and i quote -- "i don't know." where i come from, answers like that aren't good enough. and terms like "too big to fail" don't make any sense at all. it's time make some changes. mr. president, after what we've

been through over the past year, it's clear that we need to reform the rules that keep america's financial industry on our side. how? well, it's going to take a lot of hard work. it's going to take a lot of honesty and a lot of commonsense of the we've already started. i've teamed up with some of my friends in the senate from both parties to cosponsor the tarp transparency act. our bill will better track the money being used to get the financial industry back on its feet, because it's taxpayer money and because taxpayers deserve no less. over the course of the past year, the senate banking committee has held countless hearings on regulatory modernization. the administration has put forth a good-faith effort in working with congress in the massive legislative overhaul, and government has worked with the financial industry and consumers to outline the goals of sweeping new financial regulatory reform. now, i don't believe comprehensive financial reform will guarantee that we are safe

from financial crisis, but if done right, it can provide folks with adequate protection. it can bring confidence back into the mark place, and it can minimize the risk of financial meltdown similar to the one that we barely weathered last fall. unfortunately, there are those who do not believe comprehensive reform should be on the front burner. they're now lobbying to protect their own self-interests, their own profits and the status quo over consumer protection. that is why we need to news one-year anniversary -- to use this one-year anniversary as a reminder of the need to act now to protect consumers and investors, to close the loopholes in our regulatory framework, and to ensure no company is too big to fail. mr. president, we must regulate derivatives. we must supervise financial companies that have been outside the scope of regulation, thereby creating a level playing field. we must ensure that there is strong supervision of all financial firms, not just dpoz

to her institutions. we must built o build on the bin success of the credit card legislation and protect consumers. we must combine the numerous banking regulators into a more simple, streamlined, commonsense structure that is capable of supervising 21st century financial institutions. we must create an entity that will protect taxpayers from future financial corporate failures and minimize the need for further government action. we must increase capital standards to prohibit institutions from growing too big to fail. and we must ensure that those companies selling mortgages and securities keeps some skin in the game by holding on to a portion of the underlying's set to keep them honest -- underlying asset to keep them honest. as we move forward with regulatory reform, i will be working hard to eliminate any unintended consequences, specifically as it relates to community banks and credit unions. in montana, when we talk about the banking industry, we're

talking about community banks and credit unions. they're the good actors. they don't live on the edge. they didn't get into the wall street shenanigans that caused this mess. montana's community banks and credit unions serve their towns and communities reliably and safely. we are fortunate in montana to not have had a bank fail in over ten years. we also have one of the lowest rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the nation. and we've had very few problems as it applies to predatory subprime loans. the community banks and credit unions are not the problem, so i want to make sure that we do not place excessive fees or regulatory burdens on these small but very important institutions like the community banks. over the course of the coming weeks and months, i plan to work with senator dodd, the chairman of the senate banking committee, and all of my colleagues toward commonsense reform that will increase supervision and transparency of the financial markets, that will bring back

investor confidence, and that will protect consumers and safeguard us from another situation where the greed of wall street penalized hard-working families. earlier this week, the president spoke on wall street. he said, "we are beginning to return to normalcy." but he warned that normalcy cannot lead to complacency. i couldn't agree more. and that's what we in montana call commonsense. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'd like to speak today on president obama's nominee for the second circuit court of appeals, the court one step below the united states supreme court, of judge gerard lynch. i've carefully reviewed judge lynch's background and rulings as a district court judge. he is a colombia law graduate, former federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york. for the most part he's been a very good district judge. he's exceedingly capable and a man of high integrity. after reviewing his record and responses to questions from the senate judiciary committee, i've decided to support his confirmation. i do so because i believe he'll adhere to his judicial oath which requires judges to administer justice without

respect to persons. that's the oath. and to do equal, as the oath says, to do equal right to the poor and the rich. and to faithfully and impartially, impartially discharge and perform their duties under the constitution and laws of the united states and not above it. in response to my questions, judge lynch has affirmed that circuit courts have no greater freedom than a district court judge to decide law outside the bound of precedent, but they must apply the law and the precedent to which they are bound. judge lynch also stated that a judge is to apply the law impartially and -- quote -- "should not identify with either side in a case." even though i'll support judge lynch and admire him and enjoyed meeting with him, i want to share some concerns about his

rulings and some statements he's made over the years that i think are matters that ought not to go unremarked on before his confirmation. the role of a judge is to follow the law regardless of personal politics, feelings, preferences or ideology. i'm certain that whether judge lynch has -- and i think for the most part he's done that in his cases. one case that's troubling, however, was u.s. vs. claybon cruise in which judge lynch attempted to get around the jury process and the sentencing process because he believed a mandatory minimum sentence required by congress of ten years for a conviction of receiving and distributing child pornography was unduly harsh. in its order prohibiting judge

lynch, he announced that he would tell the jury about the penalties in the case, which is not appropriate. in its order prohibiting judge lynch from informing the jury about what the punishment would be in the case, the second circuit -- on which he now seeks to sit -- expressly state that had judge lynch's -- quote -- "proposed jury instruction regarding the penalties a defendant faces if convicted is a clear abuse of discretion in light of binding authority." close quote. judge lynch disagreed with the second circuit's decision, calling it a mistaken conclusion. judge lynch clearly believed that the -- he had the right to ignore precedent and establish law and inform the jury about

the penalties that were applicable upon their verdict of guilty. so that the jurors in effect would have an opportunity to ignore the law and choose not to apply it, because he didn't think the penalty was fair apparently. so i'm disappointed by the fact that judge lynch would appear to believe that this sentence was inappropriate, number one. but more importantly, that he should have been allowed to invite jury nullification, which is in effect to say to a jury, well, you just don't find the defendant guilty if you think the punishment is different. it invites an argument over that issue. so in answer to one of my written questions, judge lynch said while he accepts the ruling of the second circuit, he continues to believe that his instincts were correct. he stated -- quote -- "the rationale for this decision of

the second circuit, which reversed him, he goes on to say -- quote -- "which i fully accept in light of the ruling of the second circuit was erroneous was that, unlike most cases in which the jury fully understands the seriousness of the crime, in that case the jury may have misperceived the relative seriousness of the two overlapping charges in the case." close quote. judge lynch's actions in that case are especially disconcerting when considered in light of his written remarks criticizing the texturallist approach to constitutional interpretation. in a 2001 speech on the supreme court's decision in aprende vs. new jersey, he stated -- quote -- "i would like to welcome" -- talking here about justice scalia and justice thomas --

"also to a more realistic, more flexible, in the end more honest way of protecting the constitutional values they share." close quote. judge lynch, in effect, endorsed this flexible judicial philosophy and advocated it previously. in concern over his statements in previous years contributed to my vote against his nomination to the united states district court on that occasion. in 1997, in a law review article entitled "in me mom yam -- ph*e moriam, judge will jam j. brennan," judge lynch admonished the successors of judge brennan that they must engage in

constitutional interpretation -- quote -- "in light of their own wisdom and experience and in light of the conditions of the american society today." close quote. in that same article, judge lynch stated that he personally believed it was a simple necessity that the constitution -- quote -- "be given meaning for the present." skwrufrpblg lynch's -- judge lynch's quote included the opinion that justice brennan's -- quote -- "long and untiring labor in the principles of the constitution in the way that he believed made most sense today seems far more honest and honorable than the pretense that the meaning of those principles can be found in 18th or 19th century dictionaries." i had a problem with that speech in 1997 when he came up.

such strong statement of adherence to the doctrine that justice brennan was the foremost advocate of of the living constitution that words don't have fixed meanings, that you can make them say what you want them to say to affect the result you think is appropriate today. but the constitution is a contract with the american people, and we have every right to amend it through the amend torry process -- amendatory process. judges don't have a right to amend it because they received that makes them think they have a better idea of what the constitution ought to mean and how it's been interpreted for 200 years? this is a serious matter, because judges are unelected. they have a lifetime appointme appointment. and we give them that because we

want unbiased, objective analysis, but it doesn't mean they're empowered to update the constitution to make it say what they'd like it to say today. they're not empowered to do that. and, in fact, it erodes democracy when they do that, because the elected branches, those of us in this senate, are accountable. judge aren't accountable. another of judge lynch's cases that bears mention is united states v. reyes. in that case, a police officer asked the defendant drug dealer who had not yet been read his miranda rights whether he had anything on him that could hurt the officer or his field team, even though the defendant had not been frisked. judge lynch concluded that the defendant was the subject of a custodial interrogation under miranda and that before the police officer could ask whether or not he had anything to

endanger the officers, he had to warn him of his miranda rights. as a result, judge lynch excluded from the record statements that the defendant made at that time which implicated him in the crime. the second circuit, the circuit which he'll now serve on, judg judge -- reversed judge lynch's holding that the public safety exception was, in fact, applicable and that the cases judge lynch had relied upon in his ruling were distinguishable. the court noted that drug dealers often have hypo determine i can needles or razorblades on their person that could pose a danger to the officer, reaching their hands in their pocket or feeling in their pockets. additionally, the defendant was not handcuff aed at the time of the arrest and could have reached for a concealed weapon. the second circuit also noted that the questions asked by the officer were -- quote -- "sufficiently limited in scope

and were not posed to elicit incriminating evidence." and the plits -- quote -- "cannot be faulted for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions." judge lynch has also advocated that miranda warnings be administered for searches, which has never been the case. in a symposium commentary, judge lynch proposed a miranda-type rule for searches that would invalidate consents to search unless the party whose consent is sought is first advised that he or she has a constitutional right to refuse such consent. well, miranda was never required by the constitution. it was a prophylactic, protective rule that the court conjured up and somehow the system has survived it. but it has done some damage in terms of not getting the kind of

admissions and confessions you might otherwise get. that's just a fact. but at any rate, to expand that now to searches, which has never been done, i think is an unhealthy approach. you might say, well, theoretically if goin if you'reo do these miranda on interviews, you could do it on searches, but i would just note that miranda itself is a protective rule, not a mandated constitutional rule. i mention those foregoing issues because they're of great concern to me. it appears, notwithstanding, that in the vast majority of his cases, judge lynch has been a very careful judge who's followed the law. he stated that he understood that circuit judges are -- quote -- "bound by supreme court and prior circuit court precedent and their job is to apply fairly and accurately the holdings and reasoning of such

precedent. given his commitment to do that, i will vote for him, and i hope that he will continue his excellent service on the bench, that he will interpret the law as written and will refrain from imposing personal views in his decisions. now, it's unfortunate that -- mr. sessions: i am concerned also that the president in his nominations are -- are moving a number of people for the federal bench that are clearly activists

in tone. many of them don't have the length of time on the bench that judge lynch did or his skills as a judge, frankly. and it's causing us some concern, and we'll have some real debate about it. the nomination of judge david hamilton for the circuit -- first circuit court of afeels raises that issue -- of appeals and raises that issue of concern with me. the white house said it intended to send a message with his appointment and i'd say it did. judge hamilton's appointment is a significant one. instead of embracing the constitutional standard of jurisprudence, judge hamilton's has embraced president obama's empathy standard. indeed, he said as much in his answer to questions for the record following his confirmation hearing in the judiciary committee, on which i

sit. he rejects the idea that the role of a judge is akin to that of a -- of an umpire who calls balls and strikes in a neutral manner. rather, he believes that a judge will -- quote -- "reach different decisions from time to time taking into account what has happened and its effect on both parties and what are the practical consequences." judge hamilton also appears to have embraced the idea of a living constitution. and the last time i was at the archives building, i saw a parchment from 1789 that was not breathing. that's a document, it's a contract, guarantees certain rights to every american, and judges around empowered to rewrite it to make it say what they think it ought to say

today. in a speech in 2003, he indicated -- this is judge hamilton -- that a judge's role included writing footnotes to the constitution. when senator hatch questioned him about these comments in a follow-up question, he retreated somewhat but then gave a disturbing answer in the next question about judges amending the constitution or creating new rights through case law and court decisions. this judicial philosophy has clearly impacted judge hamilton's ruling during his time as a district judge. he has issued a number of controversial rulings and has been reversed in some noteworthy cases. for example, he ruled against allowing a public sectarian prayer in the indiana state legislature and was reversed by the supreme court -- the seventh

circuit. he was reversed by the seventh circuit. he ruled against allowing religious disnays are subbuildings and -- displays in government buildings and was reversed by the seventh circuit panel. he blocked the reasonable informed consent law in dealing with abortion matters for seven years. he continued to block the enforcement of that law and was eventually firmly and forcefully overruled by the seventh circuit for being in violation of the law. and states and other peoples have spent all kind of money and the attorney generals of the states have spent effort and time -- as our president used to be attorney general -- as he knows, you spend a lot of money to litigate these matters and finally win it, but, in effect, the people of the state for seven years were unable to enforce a constitutional statute

their duly elected representatives had passed. and that's the power of an unelected federal judge sometimes, and we need to be sure that judges who go on the bench understand they are allowed to do that. that they're supposed to be a neutral umpire, and the case law and the constitution says this is a good statute, you need to affirm it whether you like it or not, whether you would have voted differently or want. if he wants to be in the legislature and vote on the statute, let him seek that office. now, a federal judge must be able to dispense rulings in a neutral fashion so that the elm tbleam hangs over the -- the emblem that hangs over the supreme court which has been embraced by the american people "equal justice under law" can be carried out in every aspect of a legal proceeding. a judge must put aside political views which may be appropriate as a legislator, executive or an advocate and interpret the law as it's written. he must keep his oath to uphold

the constitution first and foremost. as i've said before, the constitution is a contract between the american people and a -- and a -- especially in a government of limited powers that's established by the people. it is a judge's duty abide by the constitution and protect it and defend it. and all the laws duly passed by congress that are consistent with that constitution. we have preserved our nation well by insisting that our judiciary remain faithful to the plain and simple words of the constitution and the statutes involved. so, mr. president, i am really impressed with the skill, the legal ability of judge lynch. he's before us today. i don't see -- i've reviewed his record carefully. i've listened to his answers. i've seen some of his speeches and they cause me trouble i anda

few cases that cause me trouble. but i think giving deference, an appropriate deference, to the president's nomination, that he should be confirmed. i'll ask my colleagues to support the confirmation. but i want to say that all of us in this body as well as judges have a duty to preserve and defend our constitution. now, you canny lead to constitution in a number of wa ways, and one way it can be changed and altered impermissibly is when judges redefine the meaning of words. and so when a judge says we shouldn't resort to 18th century dictionaries, that makes me nervous. what does that mean? you just give it a new definition, the word? the one the people ratified, the amendment they passed and ras

tied and they had a -- ratified, and it had a certain meaning, they understood it to have that meaning, and now you're on the bench and you think it shouldn't be enforced that way. you'd like to see a different result. well, you just sort of amend it or write a footnote to it? i don't think that's good judicial policy, and i feel an obligation. i think a number of us in this senate do, to affirm good judg judges, men and women of character and ability and faithfulness to our law and constitution, but also raise concerns that we have and to use every bit of our ability and strength to oppose nominees who won't be faithful to those high ideals that ar have made us a nation of laws and made us prosperous and free. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: tha*eu, madam president. i would actually -- thank you, madam president. i would actually like to speak a few minutes on an amendment of mine that will be on the floor on the transportation bill in a few minutes. it's an amendment that would cut funding to a particular airport in pennsylvania. and i'd like to just discuss why we're targeting this particular cut. as all of us know, all over america for the last several months millions of americans have come out to the tea parties

and town halls expressing concern and even anger over the level of spending and borrowing and debt that we're incurring here in congress. the concern about all the new taxes we're talking about, the takeover of everything from general motors to insurance companies. people are concerned. i think for a lot of good reasons. the question now, particularly after the hundreds of thousands of people gathered in front of the capitol last saturday from all over the country expressing many of those same concerns: is anybody listening? is anyone here listening? it reminds me of a couple of weeks ago when my two and a half-year-old grandson was spending the night with my wife and i. he was sleeping in another room, and we have these intercoms that everyone knows about. he knows about the intercom and how it works. so when he got up in the morning as usual, about 6:30 or

something, he said, "i'm up. is anybody home?" and he kept saying "is anybody home? is anybody home?" and i knew that he was going to keep saying it until i got up and went in and got him up. and i think that's the question americans are asking us here in congress: is anybody home? a lot of people last weekend when i was here just said keep speaking for us. someone's got to speak for us. and these were not mobsters. they were not the right wing. i mean, they were americans, moms and dads with kids in strollers and grandpas and grandmas here from all over the country, of all political parties, who know enough to say that we can't keep spending and borrowing. and the more we spend, the more waste and fraud there is. all of us here seem to agree,

especially at campaign time, we need to cut out the waste and the fraud. folks, no matter what we bring up here to cut, even if we pick the most egregious waste that the general accounting office comes up with every year and says these are the most wasteful and inefficient programs. we can put them on the floor of the senate for a vote, and we can't cut them. so where do we begin when all we seem to do week after week, month after month, year after year, when all of us come in from all around the country and every problem we see, we have a new government program or an earmark or something that is supposed to fix it? everything adds to the deficit. we never make those tough decisions about cutting something. my amendment actually cuts something, and it was not my invention. i've learned about it over countless television documentaries on the john murtha, congressman john murtha

airport in johnstown, pennsylvania, a small airport that over the last 20 years has received $200 million in taxpayer funds. this is an airport that only has three flights a day, an average of a total of 20 passengers a day. all of those three flights come to washington, and they're always mostly empty. and the people who buy the tickets spend about the same thing per ticket as the taxpayers subsidize those tickets. earlier in the year, after we passed the stimulus package, another $800,000 went to this airport to pave an alternate runway that's seldom used. after i brought up this amendment to discontinue funding -- and i want to make clear, this is on this bill, the transportation bill. it only discontinues funding for one year. it's not permanent.

if doesn't discontinue any funding related to defense or military. so the national guard and others continue to use it, the defense department can spend whatever they want on this airport. it's just that the department of transportation cannot spend any more money to subsidize air traffic from this airport. it also does nothing to cut any safety funds for air traffic control. it's just a couple of paragraphs that says enough's enough. this airport has received an inordinate a. money. it has equipment it doesn't even use. millions for radar equipment that's not even staffed. again, three flights a day, only to washington, d.c., with less than an average of 20 passengers a day. most of the time there are more airport security people in this airport than there are passengers. so this is not some partisasa attack. in fact, if you'll remember, the

bridge to nowhere, which was a republican project, was exposed by republicans. and it helped america see an example of waste and abuse here in washington. that's what this amendment is about. it's not an attack on any party or any state. it's just an example that has been brought to light by countless media sources all over the country of us wasting money not just one time, but year after year after year. and if my amendment doesn't pass, another $1.5 million of subsidies will go to this one airport because their congressman likes to fly back and forth from a local airport. many sphrerpbs to drive an hour or two to get to an airport. and folks in johnstown could drive an hour to pittsburgh airport if the tickets were too expensive from johnstown. this is not a particular attack on a congressman or state or

community. what it is is a beginning. it's a demonstration that here in the senate, we get the message. we're listening. we're actually home. and that we're going to speak for those millions of americans who say enough's enough. we can't keep spending and borrowing and creating debt. every dollar we spend here about half of it is borrowed. we're actually begging countries like china to lend money so we can pay some of the debt coming due. yet we keep creating cash for clunkers and fannie travel, a travel promotion agency we created a couple weeks ago. now we're passing a spending bill that is 23% over what it was last year, in a time of down economics, americans out of jobs, we're increasing spending

that much. all we're doing with this amendment is just saying we can make a tough decision. we can begin the process of starting to cut waste and fraud here. folks, the reason so many people are going to vote against this amendment, there's a code here that i'll support your spending for your state if you'll support mine. and i won't mess with the spending in your state if you won't mess with mine. we've been doing it for years. so we've been adding earmarks and projects in all of our states, supporting each other in a budget, and the spending gets bigger and bigger and bigger. and no one has the courage to say, no, we've got to stop. a few of us did on the bridge to nowhere. and thanks to millions of americans saying, you're right, we were able to stop that one project. but we're still spending like

there's no tomorrow. i'm just asking my colleagues to agree. we can cut one thing, one thing that's obviously wasteful and unfair. it's not fair to ask taxpayers all over the country to subsidize half of every ticket that's bought in a little airport in johnstown, pennsylvania. they're not helping all the other americans around the country or all the other small airports. certainly small aviation airports have gotten federal funds, but nothing to this degree. we're not interfering with the general aviation function of this airport at all, or any military use. we're just going to stop for one year subsidizing the tickets, and hopefully helping america to focus on part of our problem here. part of correcting a problem is admitting you have one. i don't think we've done it yet in this senate. my hopis that in this vote, that a majority of the senators will step up and say we do have

a problem, and this is one amendment where we can show we're beginning to turn around. i'd encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment. cut funding for one year, or at least cut these subsidize and demonstrate to america that somebody is home. i thank you, madam president. i yield back. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, in a few short minutes we are going to be going to a series of votes, including a number of them on the transportation and housing bill

that has been before the senate for a week now. and i just wanted to take a few minutes to remind all of our colleagues about the importance of this bill that we'll be passing here shortly this afternoon. madam president, this bill is a bill that has broad bipartisan support because it addresses some very real housing and transportation needs of families in every region of this country. we worked hard with our colleague, senator bond, my ranking member, who has been amazingly great to work with as we face some real challenges with our bill this year. but together we made important infrastructure improvements, including providing over $75 billion for the department of transportation to support continued investment in our transportation infrastructure, $11 billion for public transit and $1.2 billion to invest in inner city and high-speed rail. this bill supports the f.a.a.'s efforts to develop its next generation air transport system

to support growth in air travel in the coming year and invested $3.5 billion in capital improvements at airports across the country. the bill provides nearly $46 billion for the department of housing and urban development, including $100 million for h.u.d.'s housing counseling programs that will help families who are facing foreclosure today stay in their home. the bill also provides more than $18 billion for tenet-based rental assistance, or section 8, including an increase of over $1 billion for the renewal of section 8 vouchers. it also provides increased funding for the operation of public housing for a total level of $4.75 billion to make sure that our nation's low-income families, which are also, as we all know, among the hardest hit in these tough economic times, continue to have access to safe ago, fordable housing. -- safe, affordable housing. the bill includes $75 million for a very important program that i worked with senator bond on, the joint h.u.d.-veterans

affairs supportive housing program. this is extremely important to our nation's veterans. it will provide an additional 10,000 homeless veterans and their families with housing and supportive services. the bill also addresses the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens by providing increased funding to support affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, those suffering from aids and the nation's homeless. and finally, the bill provides almost $4 billion for the community development block grant program to support investments in public infrastructure, housing rehabilitation and public services, assistance that is critical to our states and our local governments right now. in summary, madam president, this bill provides assistance to those who need it exphoas it mot directs resources in a responsible and fiscally responsible way. it will help homeowners, it will help the most vulnerable and it will help the economy. so i hope all senators will support this bill when we move

to the final vote here shortly this afternoon after we consider several amendments. and, madam president, before i close, i do want to take, again, a moment to thank my partner and friend, senator bond, who it has been a pleasure to work with throughout this process. and as he and i go to conference now, to work hard to make sure we find the differences and fix the differences between us and the house so we can get this bill to the president. madam president, i most importantly today want to thank all of our staff, for the floor staff who has been so generous with their time and help as we've worked our way through, to all of the staff who worked on the transportation and housing subcommittee, including john kamark, ellen beers, joanne wasack, brian lehman, michael bane, detric goodman, and alex keen arntion our new staff direct other transportation, who has done an excellent job, and especially matt mccarlgd and mcd

matt spawn for awful their efforts during florida consideration. florida consideration. i am pleased we have a strong bill. i would be remiss if i didn't single out and thank two members of our staff, megan mccarthy and rachel melberg, for all of the outstanding efforts that they have made over the past several months under very trying circumstances, late at night, working so diligently. and i want to really especially thank them for all of the work they have done to asejm tbhel bill and write the report. i know it was a really daunting challenge and i am so grateful to them and all the extra effort they have had to go through under some very trying circumstances. they've done an excellent job and they're a delight to work with. with that, madam president, i see that my ranking member's on the floor. he was off the floor a moment ago. i just wanted to again thank him for being a great partner and all of his help and support to get this bill to this point today. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. bond: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mr. bond: thank youou very much, madam president. the real kudos and applause goes to my colleague, the chair, senator murray, for having worked this through. it's always a very interesting and challenging measure, but this year we have advanced a bill, we've had lots of amendments, we've adopted some on strong bipartisan votes, and i think that this is a great tribute to the way that she has worked with us, close cooperation on the committee and with the cooperation with all parties on the floor. this is a bill in which many people have good ideas and, as i said, we voted on and took a few of them. but i join senator murray in thanking her staff, megan mccarthy, rachel melberg, alex kegan, joanne wasack, travis

lumpkin for their work. they've worked very closely with us. hard work on my side, ellen bears and john kamark, the staff contributed and work of the newest member of our team who came in at a time when we were badly understaffed, diedre goodman, but a very, very special thanks to matt mccardle for his leadership and masterful management on the floor. this was due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances. there were lots of times when he had to carry the load, and he also did it with good humor. when i was frazzled and confused about where things might be going, matt had it under control and he did a truly outstanding job. again, i -- i thank our colleagues for allowing us to proceed with this bill. we didn't plan on being here the eighth day, having started --

started last thursday, but we are very optimistic that this bill can emerge from conference as a free-standing bill and be adopted by this body. i do not want to see this wind up in an omnibus appropriations bill that does not -- that does not reflect the hard work that went into it. when our work goes into what they call an omnibus, what i call an omnibus appropriations bill, strange things happen to it. and we hope that we can work this bill and keep it together as crafted. it's a critical piece of legislation. it has vitally important safety needs for transportation,

particularly in aviation. it continues although not as robustly as i would like, the development of more transportation infrastructure. there are badly needed elements in the housing part of the bill. we have to continue housing for those people who have assisted housing and public housing authorities, particularly in this down -- economic downturn, when so many people are feeling the pinch, special needs from the disabled, the elderly to veterans, who have particularly, i think, been well served by the veterans assisted -- and supporting housing that we have provided. but also, as i've warned many times before, the f.h.a. program is a high-risk program that could subject us to billions of dollars on -- being thrown on to the taxpayers' credit card, and

this bill provides resources for h.u.d. to get the i.t. systems up it needs, to get the people in place. it provides for more oversight. it provides increases for the inspector general to double-check to make sure that the predatory lending which infected the entire economy does not transport itself into f.h.a.-supported housing. so we do have -- we do have some more amendments and we'll look forward to working on those this afternoon. we thank all our colleagues for letting us come this far. we hope to get it passed and get these badly needed appropriation enacted into law. i thank the chair, my colleague, and i ask consent that the mccain amendment be modified with changes at the desk.

i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: as if in legislative session, without objection, so ordered. mr. bond: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous or the senate will resume legislative session. the electric will report the -- the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar 153, h.r. 3288, an act making the appropriations for transportation and urban development and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: two minutes evenly divided for the vote with respect to the landrieu amendment. who yields time? mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: it's my understanding that this eamentd is accepted -- amendment is accepted on both sides and i would move to a voice vote. mr. bond: madam president, nobody has advised us of objections on our side. this -- does the senator from

texas wish to -- mrs. hutchison: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i would just say i came down to talk in support of the landrieu amendment. i hear that you have taken it or will. i totally support that. this is something that needs to be done and i thank you for accepting the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is adopted. mrs. murray: madam president, move to reconsider. mr. bond: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, what's the pending business? the presiding officer: amendment 2359, vitter amendment. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. it simply says that no public housing assistance will be granted to anyone who is convicted of a crime involving drug trafficking -- not simple possession, but distribution, et

cetera, or being a member of a violent gang. these are serious adult offenders. i don't believe we should use taxpayer funds with housing assistance, particularly in public housing projects in that manner. and it's specifically focused on new orleans, louisiana. it's only new orleans where we're pouring massive amounts of federal dollars to rebuild public housing projects in a fundamentally different, better way after katrina ridding those projects of the crime problem which had previously been embedded in the projects is very, very important in terms of that recovery. and i -- i reserve the balance of my time. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, this amendment would deny housing assistance to any new orleans household with a member of a criminal gang or someone convicted of certain drug offenses. now public housing authorities already have the ability to deny

or terminate housing assistance to persons who have committed drug-related and violent crimes under current law. this amendment, my colleagues should know, does far more than that. it extends to all forms of h.u.d. housing asstance, it's a permanent prohibition. so if anyone in the family has committed these offenses, ever, then that entire household would never be able to receive h.u.d. assistance, including homeless assistance or even an f.h.a. loan. i'm very concerned that this is targeted to one city, new orleans. we shouldn't target one city or dictate housing policy city by city under this bill. but, importantly, madam president, i want my colleagues to know that this bill -- the underlying bill provides funding to help our nation's homeless veterans -- madam president, i ask for 10 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: many of those veterans has struggled with

substance abuse. if this amendment pass, those veterans will not be allowed to get assistance. i ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. mr. vitter: madam president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: two seconds. mr. vitter: i would ask for additional time to match my distinguished colleague's time. mrs. murray: i assume that means 10 seconds. the presiding officer: 10 seconds, without objection. mr. vitter: madam president, number one, we're not talking about drug possession, we're talking about trafficking. number two, h.u.d. and the housing authority, have the ability to negotiate for other family members to stay in public housing and not be penalized. the presiding officer: time has expired. the question is on the amendment. mrs. murray: i ask -- have the yeas and nays -- the presiding officer: they have not. is there a second in there appears to be a second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: in this case, by a vote of 34 ayes and 62 noes, the amendment is not

adopted. a senator: move to reconsider. mrs. murray: move to lay that on the table. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, if i could have the attention of all senators. for the information of all senators, i've had a number of people come to me ask say they need us to move quickly through -- a senator: mr. president, we don't have order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take your conversations out of the well. mrs. murray: madam president, a number of senators have come to me and have said they want to move quickly through the amendments this afternoon. we can't do it if senators are leaving. i would ask all senators to please stay on the floor as we move through these last amendments. and with that, i believe the next amendment is in order. mr. bond: madam president, i'd urge all members to return promptly. several members on both sides have other commitments and if we're going to make those, we need to keep those ten-minute

votes at least at 15. thanks. the presiding officer: the next amendment is amendment number 2410 by senator demint. the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: south carolina is right. thank you, madam president. this amendment i hope is a beginning or maybe a turning point here for the senate where we identify wasteful spending and begin to make some progress towards cutting those things that we don't have to do here at the federal level. i heard some comments about the amendment yesterday which i don't think accurat accurately t what the bill does. we do nothing to cut any defense spending or defense use of this airport. we do nothing to cut any safety aspects, such as air traffic control. it's simply for one year of this appropriation bill, stops the funding for additional subs subs

to an airport that has received $220 million over the last 20 years and has as much subsidy per ticket as passengers pay. this has been the subject of documentaries on many media sources. we need to show america we're listening. please support this amendment to cut these funds for one year. mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: who yield time in opposition? the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i'd urge a "no" vote on this amendment. it sets the wrong precedent. it singles out one airport which just happens to be in cambria county, pennsylvania, at a time we're in the middle of a recession, the unemployment rate in this country is almost 9.5% and we're going to say here in washington that we're -- we're going to vote on something that will shut down an airport. it's bad policy. we should allow this decision to be made by the federal authority that should be making the decision, which is the federal aviation administration. it's the right thing to do to

oppose this amendment. i'd urge a "no" vote. mrs. murray: have the yeas and nays been asked for? the presiding officer: they have not. mr. demint: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? is all time yielded back? mrs. murray: all time is yielded back. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there

any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 53. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will be in order. under the previous order, there are two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the mccain amendment. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, the amendment prohibits funding for brownfields economic development initiatives. in may, not for the first time, the president recommended termination of the brownfields economic development initiative. it's on -- as they say, you can look it up. and even the committee this ti time -- quote in their report said -- "the committee does not

recommend an appropriations for the brownfields redevelopment program consistent with the budget request." and then we look on page 138 and 139 and there's $1.3 million for brownfields redevelopment in connecticut, pennsylvania and ohio. so now we're not only going to go against the president's recommendations, we're going to go against the bill itself and give another $1.3 million in pork. and all i say is, you can't make it up. mr. dodd: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: math, o dodd: madam pn behalf -- on behalf of myself and senator lieberman, there's no debate about whether or not the brownfields redevelopment program ought not to exist. it's duplicative and it's cut out. this is under the economic development initiative program which specifically supports a wide range of programs to encourage economic development development, including polluted, contaminated, blithe blighted

properties. most of their business was military related during the civil war. in those days, there were no pollution requirements. a lot of contamination. today those properties are worth unless many ways because of the contamination -- worthless in many ways because of the contamination. this is a city with 134% unemployment rate. it's a hard-working blue-collar timtown where people people putd day. this is a chance for that stow get back on its feet. this is not under the brownfields redevelopment program. so i urge my colleagues to be supportive of a hard-working community where we can make a difference and let them get back on their feet. we urge the defeat of amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays were previously ordered. is there a second? they are preously ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote: *6 vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who still wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 37. the nays are 60. the amendment does not pass. there are now two minutes -- mrs. murray: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. there are now two minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion to recommit offered by the senator from arizona, mr. kyl. mr. kyl: thank you,

madam president. if we can have order, i can describe this very briefly. the presiding officer: can we please have order for the senator from arizona. order, please. mr. kyl: colleagues, we can save $11 billion without cutting a dime from this appropriations bill. it turns out that there is duplication between spending in the stimulus bill that already passed and this bill. and what we do is simply send the bill back to committee to report back forthwith to rescind the money in the stimulus bill that duplicates the transportation and h.u.d. financing in this bill, except for any funds that have already been obligated, which obviously we would go ahead and spend. and secondly, any money relating to highway construction. that would be totally protected. beyond that, any duplication in the stimulus bill would be rescinded. it amounts to about $11 billion. i think that is a great savings we could support. it doesn't take a dime out of this bill, so i would ask for my colleagues' support and reserve the balance of the time. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president,

this is -- the bill in front of us provides critical resources to the department of transportation and housing and urban development, investments in transit and rail and airports, public housing. this is important for investing in jobs and our economy. and this funding in this bill has a direct impact on every community across the nation. we should not delay this important piece of legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote "no." mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i have 12 or 13 seconds. this motion takes absolutely no money from the appropriations bill before us. what it would do is identify about $11 billion in duplicate funding in the stimulus bill and rescind that. you would not be voting to cut a dime out of this bill if you support my motion. mrs. murray: i urge a "no" vote, madam president. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are 64. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. murray: move to reconsider. mr. bond: move to lay that on the table. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: we are now on final

passage. i would urge all of our colleagues to vote "yes" and ask for the yeas and nays. mr. bond: madam president, i join with my colleague in thanking all members and urging an "aye" vote. the presiding officer: the previous vote, to clarify, was the motion to recommit and it failed. under the previous order, the committee substitute as amended is agreed to, the motion to reconsider and considered made and laid on the table, and the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 153, h.r. 3288, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban and development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. [inaudible] mrs. murray: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

pry the nays are 25. and the bill as amended is passed. mrs. murray: move to reconsider. move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate sits on its amendment, requests a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and appoints the following as conferees. the clerk: murray, byrd,

mikulski, byrd feinstein, johnson, lautenberg, specter, inouye, bond, shelby, bennett of utah, hutchson, brownback, alexander, voinovich and cochran. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, are we now on the nomination of judge lynch? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to vote on the nomination of gerard e. lynch of new york to be the united states circuit judge for the second circuit.

there are two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. leahy: madam president, it's constitution day 200 years ago today the constitutional convention finished its work and with this vote -- mr. leahy--can we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: with this vote the senate will finally fulfill one of our most constitutional duties by granting consent to the president's nomination of a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. as the first circuit judge, the sean has yet to confirm a single judicial judge despite the number reaches 120. we all know that judge lynch is an outstanding judge. he passed out of our committee a voice vote unanimously in the

judiciary committee. and waiting for action for more than three months and i'm -- i'm ready to proceed. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, this nominee is a brilliant lawyer and excellent hard-working judge. he has made a number of speeches in the past which evidence an activist philosophy. i voted against him and i think in 1997 when he came up and absent one or two opinions since then. it seems he's done an excellent job on the bench. i remain concerned that we're seeing a pattern of nominees who believe they have the power to amend the constitution. one -- not this one has said he can do footnotes to the constitution, but this nominee is a man of good integrity, a proven record on the bench, and i would support the nomination.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. those oh opposed, no. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 94, and the nays are 3. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative. there are now two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 2394 offered by the senator from nebraska, mr. johanns.

mr. johanns: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, this morning i presented the argument on this amendment -- could i have order in the senate? the presiding officer: please can we have order in the senate. mr. johanns: madam president, this morning i presented argument on this amendment on the senate floor. the question was raised: well, we don't think there's money that comes out of this budget relative to this organization acorn. so, i went back to the office, and i did some research. this is a bill that controls hundreds of grant programs. and after studying that, it appears that i was right. acorn gets money out of this appropriation. moments ago my staff brought me

information that would suggest acorn has in fact received funding. the e.p.a. is a part of this bill. if you go to this bill at page 182, you will see the e.p.a. is there. we went to the e.p.a. web site, and here's what the web site says, referencing a grant program, that it's a collaboration of nonprofit organization led by ellis hamilton -- the presiding officer: the time of the senator has expired. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: as the chairman of the committee i urge a "no" vote on this amendment. we voted on this yesterday. the vote was compelling,87-7. to the best of our knowledge, and the staff has scrubbed the bill, there is no money for a corn in the interior appropriations bill. to do this is to set a

precedent, to do this on every single appropriations bill. this morning i said to the distinguished senator from the great state of nebraska, we will take this amendment. he refused. all of this is really, i guess, to show people. it is unnecessary. it delays. this is an important bill. we'd like to get it passed. please vote "no." mr. johanns: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. johanns: i ask for unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, i would like to inform all members that this will be the last vote today. tomorrow is a jewish holiday. we will not be in session tomorrow. we will be in session monday for senators to offer amendments on the interior appropriations bill. there will be no votes on monday. there will be a vote or two prior to the caucus on tuesday.

people who are who have this pent-up desire to offer amendments, all day monday the floor will be yours. we'll come in as early as you want to start offering amendments. we really need to move forward on these appropriations bills. i appreciate everyone's cooperation in getting this transportation bill done. that's the fifth appropriations bill we've gotten done, and we have seven more to go. mr. johanns: madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 239 46789. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second check on amendment 2394. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the -- on this measure, the yeas an yeas are 8e nays are 11. the amendment is passed. without objection. the presiding officer: the senator snsenator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak

as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i wonder if i might simply say that the floor is open for any amendments to the bill, so if members are in their offices and they would like come down and present an amendment, following senator brown, would be a good time. thank you, madam president. mr. brown: i thank the ----- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i thank the good senator for her leadership on this. i come to the floor almost every day to share letters from constituents in ohio, letters that tell a story about what the health -- how they've worked within the health care system. some of these stories will break your heart. some of these stories are all too common in my state and around the country, whether it's in lima or toledo ora hav in a r

st. clair'sville. people who sometimes thought they had good insurance, paid their premium month after month, year after year have gotten very sick, spent a lot of money on biologic drugs and in hospital stays and then their inurns is canceled and their insurance was not really there when they needed it, even though they paid month after move after month. yet me just take five minutes, madam president, and just share three or four of these letters from people around ohio. the first one came from robert and shirley from clinton county. clinton county is wilmington, ohio, south of -- 75 miles or so northeast of cincinnati. robert and shirley wrierkts "i recently retired after working 38 years in the same company where we paid for our medical coverage under the company plans. after retirement they grouped my wife and me in a retired group and our price plan went up tremendously. we're both 57 and until recently

we were both really healthy. recently i was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and my wife woos diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and then developed other medical conditions," as so often diabetes unfortunately leads to. "i'd like to share some numbers with you," robert writes." my medical insurance is $1,253 per month. my drug plan is $251 a month. my dental is $45 a month. that means he's paying $1,549 a month for drugs, dental care and medical insurance. his retirement income is $1,680 a month. i must say, my wife and i are very disappointed in the way that some democrats are going to the backing of part of no without taking into consideration the democratic party has always been wore the workingman and working woman." what robert writes is that too often people in