conservatives. conservatives including justice scalia have a tax subsidy of due process as exhibit a. in the case that progressives in liberal justices on the court they'll respect the constitution's text in history. liberals have looked to the arguments by justice scalia and others that incorporation of the bill of rights and other doctrines that stem from the privileges or immunities clause are unjustifiable as evidence that conservatism is on the supreme court would roll back protections even for the substantive rights enumerated in the bill of rights. and the whole debate should make anyone who cares about constitutions, text and history want to scream because the entire discussion is devoid of any real consideration of the text in history that really

matters. and that is the text and history of the privileges of immunities clause. and i just want to kind of rehearse and go through a little bit point by point the points we make in our brief as i think you can soar and a little bit. the first point is that the privileges or immunities clause was crafted against a backdrop of rights of oppression in the south. it was written and intended to protect substantive rights and liberties against state infringement. some of this is, tim went through before, the remarkable thing about the 14th amendment that has been kind of lost in modern debates is that we have a history of it that is out there looking to be discovered and looking to be looked to. that is just being forgotten right now. the drafters of the 14th

amendment, they created a joint commission, a joint conference which was made up of members of the senate and of the house. they did hearings for about six months in 1866, which led to the drafting of the 14th amendment. at those hearings they went throughout the south to determine what the needs were, why we needed a second amendment to the constitution. and they produced a book, the report of the joint committee of the reconstruction, that was the starr report of the day. they had 165,000 copies of this report. it is a thousand pages longer 165,000 copies at a time where america was tiny compared to what it was today. they distributed around the country. that is the record of the committee that produced the 14th amendment. and you see what they cared about, and what they cared about is the suppression of rights by

the southern states of both the freed, the newly freed slaves and unionists in the south. and they talk about things like the suppression, they cared about suppression of freedom of speech, about freedom, about some economic freedoms, about the right about the right to bear arms as well as these rights of heart and home. remember, the treatment of the slave families in the south, and continued into the reconstruction of this will. data cousins away from wives. children away from parents. and that history, the history of abuse of the slaves and in the reconstruction. is what informs the privileges or immunities clause. second point is, my 1866, the public many of privileges or immunities include fundamental rights. james madison when he introduced the bill of rights to congress called the bill of rights the

choice is a privileges the people. and what that indicates and what scholars have documented is that while the terms privileges or immunities are kind of foreign to us today, they were before and the framers wrote the original constitution and the 14th amendment, they had a very distinct meaning which included fundamental rights, old enumerated in the constitution and unenumerated. and that's the most famous expression of them is justice bush want washington, a nephew of george washington wrote a famous opinion called corfield versus coryell. he defined the privileges and immunities clause of article four of the original constitution, and defined it in the way that kind of echoes the declaration of independence and the inalienable rights to write liberty and the pursuit of happiness and kind of riffs on that.

and that is, that is the public meaning of the term privileges or immunities. and there were, as randy barnett has documented in a scholarship summarized in the brief we filed, there were 27 of the 37 states have constitutional provisions that were basically the declaration of independence, or at go closely the opinion and corfield. so there is a very defined meaning of privileges or immunities as the protection of the substantive fundamental rights. the privileges or immunities clause were supposed to incorporate the protections of the bill of rights against the state's and protect other enumerated or unenumerated fundamental rights. the clear statement of that is one by jake -- by jacob howard, a senator from michigan.

he was designated by the joint committee to present the 14th amendment to the senate. he does so in a speech that ways out clearly that privileges and immunities are a broader set of substantive liberties. that is echoed by >> that is exactly by a number of critical framers and founders of the 14th amendment. really not disputed even by the opponents of the amendment. 4th point is a little technical. that is the wording of the 14th amendment while similar to the article 4 privileges and

immunities clause is broader in important ways. the most important is that the article four privileges and immunities clause is really a quality provision or nondiscrimination provision that prevents discrimination of the privileges and immunities. whereas the 14th amendment is really a guarantees of rights. next point is that the founders of the 14th amendment, and that's really where we get to this case, the founders of 14th amendment intended that the right to bear arms would be a privilege or immunity of the united states citizenship. this is a very clear point made in the history. and it's a surprising -- it's for a surprising reason. i think we debated heller and

just ties had thisball back and forth. we are all talking about the history from 1878 to 1891 when we rad if id to the bill of rights. i think that was a kind of cloudy history in some ways. because the amendment is a little bit tricky with it's preamble. and the court kind of divided very closely. if you look, you see something different. the framers of the 14th amendment, almost all cared a lot about the right to bear arms for the reasonable that all of the rebels in the south had guns. and the people didn't have guns were the unionist that were in the south and the freedman. and any property that those, any possessions, any -- you know, the families of the former slaves, the property, and everything that they were able to get after the war was under

assault. one the things that the founders of the 14th amendment, one the reasons they wanted to adopt the amendment was to make sure that the freed man had a right and ability to protect themselves and their family from the first former rebels and then the clan which started to roam shorter after radification. the final point is that precedent does not prevent the course forever the infringement of the right to bear arms. the court is going to have to tomorrow wrestle with some very, very old cases. the court in three cases in the late 19th century held that the

second amendment does not apply against state action. the court is going to have revisit portions of the cases. the slaughterhouse case which we are all talking about has already been gutted by subsequent rulings. mean the court in slaughterhouse has this very -- this idea that the civil war and the 14th amendment really didn't change anything in the relationship between the states and the federal government. well, the supreme court has reversed that all already without actually reversing slaughterhouse cases. the court has gutted slaughterhouse in many ways. it's going to have to go back and visit very early cases. the argument is it's not too late in the day. we're going to do that anyway. you should go back and write what we think is one of the most

egregious wrongs in the supreme court history, which is the immunity rights in the slaughterhouse case. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, doug. we're going to here finally from cato's ilva shapiro. he is the editor in chief of the supreme court review. before joining cato, he was a specialist assistant add viator to the multinational force of iraq and practiced commercial and antitrust litigate. ive have has contributed to a variety of academic publications, including the harvard journal of law, "l.a. times," "legal times," national review online. from 2004 to 2007, he wrote

"dispatches" daily. there's also an article that -- has it just come out? >> two weeks ago. >> about public policy, coauthor of an article with josh blackman on the privileges or immunity clause. it's a very, very long, scholarly article. he also regularly provides commentary on a host of legal and political issues for various tv and radio outlets, including cnn, fox news, abc, cbs, nbc, univision, voice of america, and american public media marketplace. he's an adjunct professor at george washington university law school, a member of the board of visitors of the legal studies and a washington fellow at the national review institution. relectureed regularly and other educational and professor groups. before entering private practice, he clerked for judge e

grady jolly for the court of appeals for the 5th circuit. he has an ms master science in london school of economics. please well ilva shapiro. -- please welcome ilva sharp picture picture -- shapiro. >> thanks for that. those of you who are blogging or writing about this event, make sure you attribute all of the quotes. alan feel free to say anything i say and contribute to yourself during the argument. secondly, i'd like to mention that doug's briefing that roger mentioned and that doug referred to this -- in this case, they are briefing the 7th circuit

bewith low was selected by the green bag which is the entertaining journal is one of the examples of top legal writing this year. and the name of the article that josh blackman that i wrote is called "keeping pandora's box sealed". if you google my name and pandora, you're come up with it. i never thought we'd be talking about the immunity clause or 14th amendment in the context of guns. you might have seen some references in the media about the difference in this case that have come out between the gun nuts and the constitution nuts. i'm firmly on the side of the constitution nuts. so it's a little odd that, i guess, it falls to me, after these two accomplished scholars to be the first one to actually talk about guns in this context. and the thing is, this has been a long term project of scholars

from across the ideological perspective, to reverse slaughterhouse and revive the privileges or immunities clause. for various reasons, and we've agreed not to talk about the specifics about that diverge, although feel free to ask in the q and a. we never thought the way we'd get to the supreme court with the reinvigoration of as doug's report calls it the gem of the constitution was through guns. through the right to keep and bear arms. 10 years ago, if you would have asked roger pilon, one the key figures in the libertarian legal movement in scholarship that advances public policy here and across the country, you know, how would this part of the agenda, if you will, be advance the?

the second amendment or gun rights would not be at the forefront of his mind, i would wager. and yet, this is the -- how the wheel of history turns. to get to the actual case and how, i think the argument will go tomorrow and some of the more specific issues, you have to go back to civics 101 or the constitution 101. all of you turn to your pocket constitutions. i think even the american constitution or heart age version will give you what is needed here. you know, the first -- before you can get to the bill of rights, the first six articles, the original, sorry, seven articles, the original constitution provides the governmental structure. there was a big argument in federalist and anti-federalist in whether we needed a bill of rights. why do we need this given we

don't give the government power to infringe the important rights. if we start righting down, we'll disparage the others. there was a compromise, we have enumeration of certain rights. this did not deny or disparage other rights obtained by the people. the 10th amendment was the power side. even though we only enumerate certain powers, for example, in article 1 section 8, just to be clear, the 10th amendment says to nose specifically enumerated are obtained. that's the structural version of the constitution. that was all well and good. that all applied to the federal government. until then, until the civil war, none of these, the first amendment of free speech, and to be free from having trooped in your home, none of these could be said about state governments. state governments could be free

to send their state militias. then we have the civil war which had a reconstruction to join a term of the relationship between the federal and state governments and between the federal and state representatively and the individual. the 14th amendment was the huge part of that. now what did the 14th amendment do? did it just say, okay, those right that is we enumerated, the first eight plus those unenumerated ones, those shall now apply to the state. that could have been the text. you could easily understand the lawyers and politicians who were propounding the post civil war amendment to say that. but that's not what they did. and therefore as ray keel omar, one of the signest of the --

signers of doug's brief says, the 14th amendment, privilege and immunities laws covers less. the whole doctrine of incorporation is a constitutional malapropism. senator jacob hud and representative josh primary movers of the 14th amendment, because you have to go, those are the framers in what we're talk abouting in this context, not john adams and james madison. that was the original. now we're talking about the 14th amendment. senator howard and bingham. they weren't talking about, now we'll just incorporate the 2ened, 4th amendment. what they said is that we will now give all individuals or persons or citizens depending on which clause you are talking about equal protection of the law, due process of the law

before we can describe them. and privileged immunities. now that means that privileges or immunities based on the understanding of that term in 1868 and remember if you are going to try to understand what the public meaning that have term is, what the text and structure and history of the 14th amendment leads you to, you have to do that with respect of the radification of the amendment. 186, not 1787 or 1791 or what have you. and what that meant then based on the speechers and reports from that time, building on the decision in core field, the case that doug mentioned, were certain -- were natural rights of various kinds. in fact, the privileges or immunitied speak for natural rights, plus certain civil and political rights. and that's what that meant.

that doesn't mean all of the sudden the second and first amendment are incorporated. but the codification of the rights in the first and second is persuasive evidence of what privileges and immunities are. just like justice washington opinion in corefield evidence of that. so when we are talking about the mcdonald case, it's not really right to say does the -- is the second amendment incorporated against the states by the privileges or immunities clause, or even by due process clause. it's not even connect to say whether the second amendment is applied or extended by one of these clauses. the right formulation, the way to think about this if you are

going to be faithful to the institutional text and history, civics 101, separation of powers, how the constitution was constructed, all of that i've just gone through is whether the right to keep and bear arms applies or is extended to this state and how is it extended by the due process or privileges and immunities clause. i suggest to you that first of all that it dose -- dose -- does apply. if the only reason you came is to find out whether it will be applied to the states. let me end the suspend, yes. if your gun rights are your own concern at that basic level, we're done. and i'm sorry that it took until almost an hour into the program for you to find that out.

but there you go. the bigger issue as we've discussed is what this means for the future of liberty and for the fidelity of the constitution, fundamentally, the rule of law. we've had the whole corpus of law developed that has warped our understanding of which rights are covered and which aren't. justice z scalia is the most famous. under the courts existing substantive due process, what the justices do when they try to figure out if something is protected by the constitution, huh, that fundamental? is that an undue burden on something fundamental? yes. it is. that's not the traditional way. that's why we have the debates

about judicial activism. by the way, to give you a proper definition, is something that the speaker doesn't like. but we've had the debates both in terms of legal cases and whenever a new supreme court justice or now lower court judge is nominated. he or she is an activist. now we have -- from last summer, the new sotomayor test, where every nominee has to say no, i only apply the pacts. it's become a bit of a farce. why that is? i refer to you a paper that roger pilon wrote. you can find that on the cato web site. that beyond the scope of our discussion here. now, okay, given what we've just gone through, the keep and bear arms, you look at what it

meant. understood to be a privilege or immunity, and it clearly was. in part of the historical reasons that the 14th amendment was put in large part to reserve the individual liberties of unionist in the border and southern states. in part because it's deeply rooted. now the article that josh blackman and i wrote, "keeping pandora's box sealed" that's very similar to what judgedaughter min o'scandal did. but i think that's an appropriate method of seeing whether a particular right is covered by the privileges or immunities clause. it's quite clear if anything, all of us here we might disagree on some progressive or libertarian right is protected. but the right to keep and bear

arms, it's so deeply rooted and described that there's no controversy that it would be protected. so to stay or to get more faithful to the constitution, and perhaps more importantly to do more for the cause of freedom that extend the right to keep and bear arms. the court if it listens tomorrow and interpreted the constitution as it should, will say that privileges or immunities is the way to do. it's where we find the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore, complete prohibitions on handguns for self-defense like the chicago gun ban have to fall. now there are many interesting, i doubt we will get nine votes for the that position. one realistic and what i would

call my realistic best-case scenario, you could have justice thomas on record for both. he would find the right to keep and bear arms. the four liberal justices might like the immunities for the reason doug has described. but under a justice briar, and might still say the gun ban is okay. the other four perhaps scared off by a pandora's box that josh and i have been trying to steal, we'll stick with the substantive process. under the rubric, you'll strike down. in that event, you'll have five votes to strike the chicago gun ban and the hinge is the one that combined those two. that's what i'm hoping for. we'll see what happens. thanks very much.

[applause] >> thank you ilva. now we're going to go to your questions. i ask simply that you identify yourself when you get the microphone and any affiliation that you may have and identify the speaker to whom your question is directed. please try to keep your questions brief. and i would ask the speakers in responding to keep your responses brief so we can get as many questions as possible. yes, right here. >> hello, i'm dane with the u.s. bill of rights foundation. my question is this, is that whether this is -- whether the privileges of immunities or the due process clause prevails to the augment, what is it it going to look like? what would be the difference?

what would one world look like under privileges and the other world look like under due process? i know you've touched on that, doug, i was wondering as a practical matter, are we going to go back and undue a bunch of cases? is it going to change the way we identify the rights? exactly what will the world look like so to speak? thanks. >> i don't think immediately the world will look different at all. one the reasons why this is a good case to get the court to rethink these issues is because it is -- i think there will be pretty broad agreement that the enumerated subsantive rights laid out in the bill of right constitute privileges and immunities. it's a fairly narrow rethinking of the privileges and immunities clause as an initial step.

and the i don't think the court will either, again at least initially, either retain it's due process jurisprudence or -- if they over turn slaughterhouse, that's a good day's work. i think then it will leave for later cases how that effects the rest of the jurisprudence. what we've argued and you mention this, ilva did kindly. we have a report called theof the constitution that's available, it's called the usconstitution.org, that lays out the detail the argument we make in the brief. the argument says, the good thing about having a privileges or immunities clause in the history is that you can read the history and look to what the framers were looking at.

and i think that's where debates about what the privileges or immunities clause means should begin. >> well, the other virtue of this case is that the heller case was essentially a case of first impression. because there was so little in the way of precedent for the court to go on. understanding that surrounded the second amendment. and when it came time to consider the next question, whether it be of individual rights or applied to the state, you have a similar problem to go back to first principles. and that is why the principal and immunities clause was in the macdonald case, because we have just the kind of case that is appropriate for raising that question about whether slaughterhouse was correct from

the outside and whether the courts should have interpreted cases under the privilege and immunities clause more often than under the due process clause. this is the ideal vehicle for revisiting that fundamental question. up in the back, the council in the macdonald case for the plaintiff? >> a great panel here and now wanted to make a couple of quick announcements. a very impressive pa >> thanks, roger. it's a great panel her and i just want to make a couple of quick announcements. it's a very impressive panel. i have chosen to get each of you five minutes of my time tomorrow. [laughter] >> so get ready. you can ask them if you want.

and i just want to recognize that great people are behind the case. it's a lot of fun to work on this matter and i've had a lot of help from scholars and lawyers and other people who have studied the field for years. it wouldn't be possible without the work of many people over the years. i want to recognize some of the people in the middle who are the play does indicate. if you are a point in the case, can you please stand up? i think i see some of you got here. gather round of applause. yes, you too. [applause] >> these are the people who are going to get your rights back, and thank them all if you have a chance later. thanks. >> thank you, alan. next question. this gem is right on the island here. >> the one concern i have with the privileges of the marriages cause, it applies only to, unlike the due process and

protection clause in the bill of rights, it applies only to persons born or naturalized in the united states which made it wouldn't apply to corporations, wouldn't apply to immigrants, whether legal or illegal. so i wonder if any of you have considered whether the limitations on the concept of the difference between the scope of the privileges in this clause in that it is limited only to the united states citizens, naturally united states citizens, unlike all the other protected rights, whether that has legal significance. >> tim, do you want to address that? >> that's a serious concern. but let's try to be clear, that citizenship clause says who is citizens and that includes naturalized immigrants. so it wouldn't necessarily, wouldn't exclude all immigrants but it would certainly exclude, it would appear to exclude from the protection of national

rights those -- when people are not citizens of the united states, they don't have national citizens rights. now within a state jurisdiction, so a noncitizen would still be able to assert rights under those causes by think that is a series issue. >> i'm sorry, insource corporation, the course admit code the privileges do not apply to corporations. >> ilya? >> as a noncitizen i'm particularly interested in that question. i just got my green card about 10 months ago. i am enjoying the fruits of the rest of the constitution, but i mean, there's every reason for having different types of constitutional protections for citizens versus noncitizens and legal immigrants versus tourists versus illegal visitors. there's a structure depending on what right we are talking about that applies different way.

and the equal protection clause does a lot of the work to make sure that, for example, all of a sudden you can insulate noncitizens, or something like this. i think the reason the citizenship language was used and privileges and immunities is because it applies not just a natural rights and not just to those rights enumerated in the bill of rights, not minnesota all of them. that's as i said that's an example of some of the natural rights. because they also include certain civil and political rights which understandably noncitizens don't have a. >> yes, this gentleman right here. >> my name is corey. i am with george mason school of law, first year student. and mr. shapiro shared with us

his realistically predicted split outcome indicates that i was one and the other panelists would weigh in on what they think the split will be in this case at the end? >> tim, do you have a sense of the matter? >> as far as the issue of the slaughterhouse case is concerned, i think that most of the justices have expressed at least some discomfort with that decision. the signs versus roe case which was written by justice stevens and the majority in that case didn't really say one way or another, but seems to regard a slaughterhouse as questionable. of course, the dissent by justice thomas was very powerful to call for slaughterhouse to be overruled. the real concern for me is that the court might try to take an easy way out and incorporate gun rights under the due process clause. the reason why that's a serious problem is that you can always use that excuse to perpetuate legal error. suppose that the supreme court

were to say the first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to freedom of speech, and then later says, well, the eighth amendment guarantees your right for freedom of speech. anytime a free speech comes before the court saying you were wrong about that, the cork is a we're just going to keep using the eighth amendment. the argument, we don't need to reassess that old case because you can abuse in this other area of law and continue to do so, then there is no way to correct this error. and what there is no better argument for overturning slaughterhouse than that it was wrongly decided. now, by saying that i don't want to say that i think substantive due process is in anyway an income of three. substitute due process is as much a palatable of the american constitution as the free speech clause, as anything else. and part of the argument and my law review article and in the brief that we filed is a substantive due process was a

well understood and generally accepted theory at the time of the 14th amendment was written. and so reviving the privileges or immunities clause should not give the court an excuse to abandon protection for individual rights under the substantive due process theory. >> that doesn't answer your question but is a clever gourley way out of the. >> what blackstone say about this? [laughter] >> yeah, i think it will be, i mean, there's a front-page story in the "washington post" today about this case, which has a quote from justice scalia that i actually had never seen before, what he calls the privileges or immunities clause float some. [inaudible] >> at least nothing is just some. >> and he is also said in an interview that he gave to the hoover institute i believe in 2008, that he believes that

incorporation itself is in his words probably false. and so the fascinating thing about this case is, you have a great originalist from the heller case, justice scalia who had his triumphant moment in restoring the second amendment on a originalist ground in heller, really badly misreading the original meaning of the 14th amendment. at least in his prior statements. and so the question i find most fascinating with this case, and the question that is really export in the post today, is how our most public proponent of original is an deals with the incredible powerful arguments from the scholars across the political, scholars and organizations across the political spectrum that the original public meaning of the

14th amendment, both supports incorporation and requires overturning the slaughterhouse case. >> one of the fascinating aspects of this case is that it does bring to the floor the problem that conservatives have had with judicial mischief in the form of judicial activism under its normal rubric. and the conservatives on the court are textualists and our originalist. and the problem we are facing is that as such they have to make sense of the text that is staring them in the face. or 150 years now, they have ignored that text. it is as though it did not exist, and so if you're going to be a textualists, there is the text that says that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. and it has been in effect in operative for all this time. it surely is, therefore, i

reasoned that it is not mere surplusage. and so conservatives who purport to be textualists are going to have to make sense of just why it is there. and better since i submit than the slaughterhouse case made of the matter and what they have to do to do that is to go back to the history of it, which all three of our speakers today have eloquently discussed. and when they do come it seems to me that the statements that justice scalia has made will perhaps come in for some reconsideration, at least one would hope that they do. next question. right here. >> hi. bob brown, unaffiliated. ilya, you seem to me you were saying that if the court reconsiders the privileges or immunities clause, you are opening a pandora's box. but you didn't really explain why. could you go into that a little

more? >> that's the concern. i'm actually saying that it's not opening a pandora's box. if it doesn't properly, it will actually close the pandora's box and dogs breakfast to mix metaphors him of jurisprudence that has come out of the warped substantive due process doctrine and corporation all the rest of it, our bifurcation of rights under products footnote four, and other constitutional provisions. the concern depends on where you lie on the ideological spectrum. if you're a progressive, you are worried about the preservation of the right to earn an honest living and freedom of contract and property rights, and these sorts of things. because those could strike down all sorts of potentially health and safety regulations, licensing regulations, you know, prevent kind of progressive good government.

if you're a libertarian conversely, you're worried that out of that pandora's box could come the right to constitutional right to healthcare and welfare payments, and education and what have you. and there's, you know, going back to philosophy, political theory 101, there are all sorts of problems we see that with that. and conservatives sharing many of the libertarian concerns about economic rights and positive rights, also add the concern for, you know, triplet midget marriage and various kinky sexual things and an extension of privacy, invented privacy rights as opposed to protected property rights as i would call them come to things that shouldn't be there. so there are all these concerns. i don't think their concerns are bored. may be some concerns on the

progressive side are warranted, but if you look at the original public meaning of the clause and the protections, you know, you really have to find that that right is deeply rooted and protected as understood at the time, and so a lot of these worries really should fall away. >> yeah, i think, just to add to that i think it goes back to the first question that was asked, what's the difference between due process. i think one of the things that ought to lay conservative peers is that it seems to me that using due process as ilya said in his talk, opens up the analysis to does it justice believe it's essential to the course of ordered liberty, or these very abstract terms that the necessary call for political philosophy or i'm all for using political philosophy interest and. i think about to be the classical liberal political flossie which animate the adoption of the 14th

amendment. not modern progressive new deal political glossary that has no root in the american constitution whatsoever. and using due process we recur to the. were as if you use immunities, it becomes more historical. it applies to things that are do so in the bill of rights like habeas corpus and things. so i think that that ought to comfort conservatives who are afraid that this opens the door for a court to invent new rights. that it asked is this indeed historically hasn't been, is there a tech sure philosophical groundwork for this being a privilege or image of american citizenship. >> to restate your point, i think it is absolutely. if there is a concern about run amok courts under the privileges or immunities clause, there is under the due process clause because of course it is much more open ended and indeed the history demonstrates that because under that clause and its interpretation under the

14th amendment we have had this nonsense like fundamental and non-fundamental rights, different levels of judicial review and all the stuff that came out of caroline. footnote four. >> but, of course, in all this analysis and has to be kept in mind, there's no way we will devise a constitutional doctrine to prevent judges disposed to usurp from abusing their power. there's a famous incident at the virginia ratification convention with patrick henry gets up and says congress will do all these nasty things. and medicines has been to we have no virtue amongst us? what if that were true in a wretched condition. at some point you've got to depend on the people were on the judiciary. you've got to depend on the philosophical flow of in american society, which means -- >> archangels after all. >> we need to focus on these principles of individual liberty and that's the only way to make the system work. >> icy stuart taylor back to his anxious to ask a question. so he could be given a microphone we could hear from one of the leading legal

journalist in the country today. >> thank you, roger. i will ask my question of doug kendall first, but anyone else can answer it. i'm with "national journal." doug, if you win, if the court adopts your interpretation of privilege and images, down the road you've already said things are going to change overnight, but in due course i said you would hope this would influence legal doctrine in the way it is false, not just the way it is articulated. what expansion of rights or what new rights would you hope to see coming along soon or later in this way? and for example, same-sex marriage would be one of them? >> stewart, i think i have to go back to kind of what we have already said, which is that, i mean, the main reason we're in this is because this is an opportunity to make the constitution makes sense again. i mean, this is about the

constitution's text and history more than it is about in the outcome of that's happened already, or if that's going to happen in the future. i think that the debate as we discussed over the constitution has been, you know, distorted in a really critical way. because the centerpiece of the 14th amendment was right out of the supreme court 140 is ago. and the court, frankly, you know, if the court even recognizes that history, without overturning slaughterhouse, i think it would be a huge victory for the constitution and this country. so even if it doesn't get the pandora's box are opening up a can of worms, if it says it's a matter of text and history, that the 14th amendment was intended to protect substantive rights, and recognizes that the framers intended to do it through the privileges or

immunities clause, that is a huge victory for the constitution. and it might not change anything about where the law is. but, of course, i think to answer your question, i think we've all been talking about this history. i think the treatment of slaves and unionists in the south is really the core of what the framers were about. and i think you can look to that history, both to support the line of fundamental rights rulings that the court has issued that starts with meyer versus nebraska and peers, that are kind of these rights to heart and home which are about kind of rude in the treatment of the slave families. and so i think that rulings like roe and lawrence do draw support from the history of the privileges. unit, beyond that i think you look to the history. and the one thing that we haven't really talked about, but since the concern i think on the

last four opening up the privileges or immunities clause is that it will return us to the lochner area. and i think with a court that issues rulings like citizens united, that is an entirely valid concern. i think the answer to it though is, one, as tim recognizes, one, the privileges of immunities clause is limited to citizens and not to corporations, specifically. and two, the history, there is an economic rights tradition in it. it is this right to contract and individuals right to earn a good living, they're living for their labors and to contract. but, of course, in some of the cases that is to for justice and other groups have a brought on economic liberties claims, i think our powerful and wounded in the history of treatment of

slaves and the friedman, after the history of the war. some of them, the idea that we can't have laws, that congress can't pass laws under section five of the 14th amendment two, you know, protect, to protect labors or protect workers from mistreatment. i think is completely antithetical to the history of the 14th amendment, and should never be restored under the privileges or immunities clause. >> next question. right here. >> thank you. i am brad thomas with the calgon foundation. i have a historical question for tim sandefur. presumably when the supreme court essentially eliminate the core of the 14th in a minute, many of them and let pass of

protection over to were still around. was there much stronger reaction. did they reckon eyes what would happen and was a response to a historically? >> as far as i know surprisingly little at first, of course, then in 1875 i think it is in the debate over the ku klux klan bill, then there is a whole second round of discussions in congress over what the privileges or immunities clause was intended to mean back there and so forth. but i haven't looked in for instant newspapers and magazines that i have not examined that so i don't know the answer to that. of course, remember slaughterhouse is 1873. that was the same year that the supreme court relying on its decision in the slaughterhouse held that women had no rights to practice law and therefore the state of illinois could forbid her from taking the blogs and. i think it was two years which was a colfax massacre case where the court said again relied on slaughterhouse, that the right

to peaceably assemble and the right to possess firearms and so forth was not a federally protected right for purposes of a case, during -- in fact, the worst race riot during the reconstruction era. and therefore, it signaled a general retreat from reconstruction. that was of course felt by the president, congress, everybody just backed away from reconstruction and condemn the people of the south to another century of operation by the state legislatures. so i think part of the reason why you wouldn't see much reaction, remember, in the 1870s, the republicans lost big time in the elections. and it was a huge bash like against republicans both for economic reasons. and democrats came into office very much opposed to enforcing reconstruction. i think that might be one reason why that might soften the outrage over the decision in slaughterhouse. because it was only one among many such examples of the general retreat from civil rights protection. >> the point that you mentioned

about the state of affairs in 1873, is extraordinarily important. don't forget, in 1866-68, it was the heyday of concern about the south. and reconstruction. by 1873, the country was exhausted from reconstruction. it was proving to be much more difficult to address the recalcitrance and the south. and there is a sense in which the country really wanted to move on. >> particularly in louisiana. i was just in orleans a couple weeks ago. do you know there is a monument to white supremacy in new orleans? it's been covered up and moved away and everything to hide it, but it commemorates the whites only who died in a race riot in 1874 in new orleans over the transfer of government power from the democrats to republicans. it was an extremely dangerous, violent troubling time. and i think that the feds at

that point were pretty much willing to just say, look, we are sick of trying to do with this and we're just going to let southern whites suppressive southern blacks. >> let's remember the slaughterhouse came out of what the courts count a standard stew in the city of new orleans. how little things change but i think it was who we love his head when he died he wanted to be buried in louisiana so he could remain politically active. [laughter] >> next question. in fact, it will be our last question because we are almost time to retire upstairs for wine and cheese but specter is one thing i want to add. ilya magic abusive reconstruction if i might coin a term. i bet across a speech in 1859 speech given by john bingham, who is basically the author of the privileges. this is before the civil war, and in that speech i mentioned a passage from it. he says that the rights of

protein and anti-slavery and political activist in the south are being violated. and he said, he believed if the states to violate these rights that people had sufficient cause for the reconstrureconstruction of the political fabric on a jester bishops and with sure stickers but i think it's important to keep in mind that's why we use the word reconstruction to describe this era, was an effort to change the federalist structure to protect individual rights against state governments. that was the whole purpose. and if we start picking at some of the language in stop and forget about that as being the crucial purpose of the 14th amendment, then we are missing the forest for the trees. the reason for the amendment. >> that's right. indeed, the great task of the framers of the 14th amendment was to fundamentally change federal is a relationship in the country, to provide for the first time federal remedies against state violations of our rights, which had been possible

because of the city of baltimore decision in 1833. and so when the majority of the slaughterhouse majority dismissed that rationale, they surely could not mean to change federalism relations in the country, the majority said. that couldn't be further from the truth. that's exactly what they meant to do by the ratification of the 14th amendment. okay, do it of you have anything to add to that? if not we will draw this to a conclusion. thank you for joining us. and please give a one round of applause to our speakers. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> is a guidebook. a travelogue if you will but it is also kind of a mini history work of biography of each of these presidents and let's face it, you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> ariza scored guide to every presidential great site.

who's buried in grant's tomb now available at your favorite bookseller or get a 25% discount at the publisher's website. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. they will begin the day with about an hour of general speeches before considering the nomination of virginia supreme court judge our burkina and for the federal appeals court covering virginia, west virginia, north carolina and south carolina. of vote on limiting debate is planned for 12:15 asian pick this afternoon searchers resumed debate on the bill extending a number of tax breaks, unemployment insurance and highway programs that have expired. live senate coverage now here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by the reverend john l. beaver, who is the national chaplain for the american legion. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty father, we thank you for life, truth and love which comes from you. for love because it embraces all of us and for your comforting assurance that you are guiding our great nation. we humbly ask for your light of wisdom to be given to each member of the senate so that they may discern what is truth from error. guide and direct our beloved senators from across this nation with a compassionate heart in making difficult decisions. father, help us to learn and to know your will in all things.

lord, we ask for your protective shield around our military men and women. be with their families as they wait eagerly for their safe return and give comfort to our wounded warriors in body, mind and spirit. comfort those who are now grieving the loss of their loved ones. bless all our veterans and military organizations who serve from their hearts. strengthen us in heart, mind and spirit as we serve you, our god, and our beloved nation. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 2, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the albuquerque will call the roll. -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a few things to say, but it's my understanding the distinguished senator from maine wishes to make a unanimous consent request, and i would yield to her for that purpose. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president, and i thank the distinguished democratic leader. madam president, on my own behalf and on behalf of numerous members of the republican caucus who have expressed concerns to me, i ask unanimous consent that

the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, with one hour of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that following the use or the yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to a vote on passage. madam president, this is the house-passed bill that extends for 30 days the following expiring provisions -- unemployment insurance, which is so important to those who are struggling. there are 500 mainors -- mainers whose benefits expire on sunday. the cobra health insurance benefits subsidies for the

unemployed, important flood insurance, highway funding, small business loans, the provisions of the american recovery act that included those small business loan provisions. the doctors fix. madam president, if we don't act, physicians all across this country are going to have a 21% cut in their medicare reimbursements. madam president, i hope that we can act together for the american people and again i want to emphasize that this issue is so important to senators on both sides of the aisle. many of my colleagues have expressed concerns to me that this was not done last week when it should have been done. so, madam president, i do propose the unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: is there objection? the majority leader.

mr. reid: reserving the right to object. madam president, i appreciate the efforts of my friend, the senator from maine, and i would hope that my friend, the senator from kentucky, would reconsider. his point has been made. it's been adequately made. and i would hope that he would let us proceed on this because it's more than meets the eye. we have people lined up all over the country at unemployment lines that wouldn't be there but for this. i would also say that -- it's broader than even that. as my friend mentioned, we have problems with doctors who are now refusing to take patients, medicare patients. i -- we have a bill that's on the floor now. we're going to try to make a long-term decision soon on this. i have offered my friend from kentucky a right to vote on this. i would be happy to have a vote

on this that it would be paid for, but it's really not appropriate to object without even allowing the senate to work. now, we have -- we talk about voting. we need to vote. i say to my friend from kentucky, you have made your point, you have made it well. i understand how you feel, that this should be paid for. a majority of the senate disagrees with you. let us either vote on that or withdraw your objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. bunning: there is, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for an hour with speakers allowed to speak up for ten minutes each. the republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the second half. following that, the senate will turn to the consideration of barbara keenan for circuit judge with the time until 12:15 equally divided and controlled

between senators leahy and sessions or their designees to speak on the judge. at 12:15, the senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the nomination. that will be the first vote of the day unless something comes up in the interim that necessitates a vote. madam president, just a few words on what has been happening here recently. certainly, there is an emergency. our economy is suffering. there is not a state that is not hurting, some states hurting worse than others. this is a filibuster, and we are in the middle of a very important piece of legislation. i don't think it would be appropriate to take ten days is what it would take, a week or ten days to try to get a 30-day extension when we have all these other things that are waiting to be done that relate directly to this. it just is not appropriate.

what is a filibuster? if you look in the dictionary, madam president, this was handed to me by the distinguished senator from michigan, senator stabenow. if you look at the oxford english dictionary, a filibuster is a freebooter, one of a class of pirate adventures who pill and the spanish colonies in the west indies during the 17th century. a freebother is one who engages in unauthorized and irregular warfare against foreign states, pirate craft. and in the united states to obstruct progress in a legislative assembly, the practice of obstruction. that's what this is all about, practice of obstruction. we are not preventing a vote. we are not preventing a vote. we want a vote to take place. my friend from kentucky thinks it should be paid for. i believe it's an emergency, as it always has been when people are out of work for long periods of time. it's an emergency.

we should be able to vote on what the senator feels is appropriate. that is, that this be paid for, that it's not an emergency. these long lines of people that are out of work is not an emergency is what he believes. i believe they are. i think it's terribly inappropriate that this filibuster is being conducted, and to even make it worse, mr. president, we have people coming defending my friend from kentucky. i'll defend him on a lot of things but not on this. i think it's very, very out of line. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the american people have spoken loud and clear on the issue of health care reform. they overwhelmingly favor a plan that addresses our problems step by step. they want a plan that lowers the cost of health care without expanding the role of government and without raising taxes or cutting medicare. they want us to focus on cost. unfortunately, democrats here in

washington either haven't gotten the message or they are ignoring it. we know this because after a year of protest, three statewide elections in new jersey, virginia, and massachusetts and the clear verdict of every public opinion survey, democrats in washington are now planning one last-ditch effort to get their plan through congress and past the american people. the sad fact is that washington democrats are so wedded to the notion that they know better than the general public when it comes to health care, that they are about to reject any pretense of bipartisanship in order to jam their plan through congress by the narrowest margin possible, whether people it want it or not. a raw exercise of legislative power that senator byrd, our resident senate historian, has described within the last year as an undemocratic outrage on a piece of legislation this far-reaching. some on the other side are

clearly worried about the consequences of taking such a drastic step. they are wondering whether they should risk the full fury of the public by using these extreme tactics to circumvent the will of their constituents. democratic leaders are telling them not to worry. they are telling them people forget about the process once the plan becomes law. well, they're wrong. americans aren't going to forget if democrats do this to their health care system. wavering democrats need to realize that there is a better way. last week, the president and other democrats acknowledged a number of areas of agreement between the two parties. these are the ideas that could form the solid basis of a fresh start on health care reform. these are the ideas that could form the basis of the kind of step-by-step bipartisan reform americans really want. americans don't want the one-party bill democrats in washington are planning to force on them or any variation of it,

and they don't want democrats to push it through with even more back room deals. americans are already seething about the kinds of deals that were used to get the earlier version of this bill through congress. the cornhusker kickback, the louisiana purchase became household expressions, but using reconciliation to jam this health care plan through would make the cornhusker kickback look like an exercise in good government. using reconciliation to fundamentally change the health care of every american would be one of the most brazen single-party power grabs in legislative history. it would be the death of bipartisanship, and americans won't stand for it. they know the bills of this scope only work if they are done along bipartisan lines. medicare and medicaid were created with the support of about half the members of the minority party. the voting rights act passed with 30 republicans and 47 democratic votes. only six senators voted against the social security act. only eight voted against no

child left behind or the americans with disabilities act. only 12 voted against the wesm act. big bills are passed with big majorities, and rarely has there been a bigger bill than this. so if ever there was a time not to depart from the bipartisan approach, it's now, right now. democrats are saying they want a simple up-or-down vote on health care. what they really want is to jam their vision of health care through congress over the objections of a public that they seem to think is too ill informed to notice. if they go ahead with this plan, they'll see how wrong they are. i know the argument has been made by the leaders on the other side, let's get this issue behind us. it'll get better. if they pass this, it won't be behind them. it'll be in front of them, right in front ever them. americans are engaged in this debate in a way i've never seen

in my entire career here. they know exactly what's going on. they'll make sure their voices and their will is felt, one way or another. madam president, yielthe floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, theree a period of morning business for one hour with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the preens controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. bunning: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: madam president, i'd like to respond to the democratic leader, and particularly in view of what my leader just said about bipartisanship. it seems that last week there was a bipartisan agreement between the members of the finance committee on the very

issue that the democratic leader spoke on. it was called the baucu baucus-grassley compromise bill. it never got to the floor of the senate. that was a bipartisan bill that was set aside for a very partisan bill that senator reid brought to the floor and rammed through instead of the bipartisan bill which had all of these extended benefits included in them: extended unemployment benefits, cobra health care assistance, highway fund assistance, the medicare doc fix, distant channel for rural satellite television and other things. it's really hypocritical of the

democratic side of this aisle passing a paygo bill. what does "paygo" mean? it means that you pay for the bills as they appear on the floor of the u.s. senate. and then to present a bill that not only -- not only is not paid for but just paid for a little bit, paid for a third of. that was the reid bill on the jobs bill that he presented to us. $5 billion was paid for, $10 billion was not. and then immediately to follow with a u.c., which is not -- which is not a bill that we normally deal with on a yo

unanimous consent like this. we have unanimous consents that are much more different than this. this is a house bill that you've asked unanimous consent for. regular order could prevail, and the leader of this senate could put this bill under cloture and get his vote. he'll get his 60-plus votes. and normal procedure will occur. that is the normal way to deal with this bill. now, just so you understand that not everybody -- all americans feel like my dear friend from maine and the majority leader of the senate, i'm going to read a letter and enter it into the record, please --

so i ask unanimous consent to enter this letter from a constituent of mine from louisville -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bunning: and i'm going to read it also, because it's very important that the people understand that there are other sides of this. "dear senator bunning: i haven't worked a full 40-hour week in probably two years now, but i fully support your decision to stand up to those in congress who want to do nothing more than to spend the taxpayers' money, even the money they do not have, on unemployment extension benefits. so far this year, i have worked a total of one week here in louisville, kentucky. my employer is a sheet metal fabrication plant with its main headquarters based in cincinnati, ohio. normally the louisville branch would employ upward to 50 people

on any given day, if business were good. recently that number has dwindled to about four. this country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt run up over the past 40 to 50 years. selling the nation's soul to countries like communist china in order to finance our lifestyle and allow the government to further debase the currency is sure -- sheer luna lunacy. throwing hundreds of billions of dollars so executives 0 on wall street can keep their multibillion-dollar bonuses while others in our society worry about keeping the electricity on and their children fed only helps to move this country closer to a long

overdue revolution. the problem is by then we won't even bone iwon'teven own it any. politicians on both sides enjoy getting up in front of television cameras and talking about the support of the pay-as-you-go plan. but when it comes down to actually doing what they say, they all run for cover and vote for anything they think will win them another vote or another term. your stance in holding them to their words and expecting them to actually do what they voted for is a refreshing concept in an otherwise corrupt and hypocrisy based power base known as washington, d.c. it's too bad senator mitch

mcconnell and some of the elected officials on your side of the aisle do not have the backbone of your sense of decency when it comes to keeping their promises to the american people. and for security's sake, i'm jusi am --and for security's sam just going to read his first name. it says "sincerely, robert" from lou i willville. now, there's no doubt in anybody's mind that i have supported the extension of unemployment benefits, cobra benefits, flood insurance, highway bill -- i was the one who proposed the medicare doc fix on a permanent basis. -- in the finance committee. small business loans, distant network -- and all the other things n.r.a. this temporary bill. -- and all the other things that are in this temporary bill. so i just want to set the record

straight. the majority leader has all the tools in his kit, and he 0 normally exercises them, and i think he's about to do that on the bill currently before us, which we call the large job bill. he soon will invoke cloture to cut off debate. he normally doesn't even allow amendments. he will file cloture, fill the tree. by filling the tree, that means the amendment tree, which allows the republicans no alternatives but just to vote for cloture or not cloture and then, unfortunately, we have 30 hours of debate immediately following cloture. i'm going to propose one more time my unanimous consent request.

i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4691, that the amendment at the desk which offers a full offset be agreed to, the bill be amended, as read, for a third time and passed, and the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object, madam president, i'm sorry that my friend from kentucky has made this so personal, because it really shouldn't be the case. but let me just review history a little bit. the senator from kentucky talks about a bill we voted on and passed last week as being very partisan. that bill received 70 votes, a

very partisan bill -- or a nonpartisan bill, i should say, a bipartisan bill. it received 70 votes. why did it receive 70 votes? because it did some great things for america. extended the highway bill nor a year, saving 1 million jobs it gave smocks the right to write off $250,000 in purchases, stimulating small businesses all over america. it gave employers the ability to hire people who have been out of work for 60 days, and if they hire them, they wouldn't have to pay their fica tax if they gave them 30 hours a week. not only that, they'd get a $1,000 tax credit at the end of the year. really a good proposal. we also extended the build-america bonds, which were so important in the america recover act, and democrats and republicans all over the country -- governors, mayors, county commissioners -- loved that proposal. so it was a -- it was certainly

not a partisan bill. and he was right. the other bill he talked about wasn't brought to the floor. i would also say this, madam president: it was paid for, not a cent of deficit spend, not a cent. it's interesting that my friend would talk about paygo. he voted against paygo. he's talking about paygo now. he voted against t voted against it right here on the senate floor. if he's sif he so liked paygo, t he vote for it? the senator from paygo voted against paygo. it has no applicability to the jobs bill that passed because tbaitwas paid for. the doc fivment he talks about having voted for it in committee. he voted against it here on the floor.

so my friend just is -- he's throwing around words like "hypocrite." people can make their own decision as to who is a hypocrite. i'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, although i'm just stating the facts. someone boasts about the good offices of paygo but votes against it. talks about the doc fix but votes against it. so i would think that my friend from kentucky should get a different historian to help him with his facts because they're simply wrong. and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. bunning: madam president, i will only continue for -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: -- two minutes. why would you vote for a bill when you know it's not going to

be honored? why would you vote for a bill that you knew was going to be violated in the first bill brought to the floor after you passed it? as far at doc fix is concerned, i have a history with the doc fix that i don't need to defend to the majority leader or to anybody in this body. just check with the kentucky medical association and all of my doctors that i represent in kentucky. i think the gentleman's letter from louisville states the facts better than me. we want a country that my 40 grandchildren have the same abilities that i did growing up. we want a country that don't owe

everybody in the world for our existence. and the question i've been asked mostly is, why now? well, why not now? what better time for it than to stand up when the majority leader has the ability to do exactly on this bill what he has done on 25 bills in the last five months? file cloture, fill the tree, and vote yea or nay. get the 60 votes, pass the bill, and extend these temporary benefits. rather than pass -- or we maybe pass this other bill, i hope we

do, that will extend it on a permanent basis for a year -- until the end of the year, anyway. i think it's very important that people understand that i have the same right that he does. he was elected by people in nevada with fewer people than the people in kentucky. so i have the same right as any other senator here on the floor. and it's not a filibuster when you object, and that ought to be brought out clearly. a filibuster is when you stand on this floor and you talk and talk and talk. i have not done that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i know my friends from tennessee and texas wish to speak, but i do have to respond

because i was mentioned again. madam president, i can't match now or ever in the past my friend's fastball or his curve ball or his 40 grandchildren. i do have 16 grandchildren. but i do think it's important to understand that the reasoning is a little unusual. he said i wouldn't vote for a bill that i thought would not be upheld at a later time or procedures in the bill not followed. i don't know why anyone is entitled to being the judge and the jury. you pass legislation, and if it's the law and there are ways of upholding that. now, madam president, with paygo, we have some experience. we know it works. it worked during the clinton years. we paid down the national debt as a result of what happened during the clinton years.

paygo was dismissed during the bush years. now, my friend talks about the debt. he wants to make sure that the debt doesn't go up. where was he during the bush years? unpaid wars. two wars unpaid for. taxes unpaid for. running up trillions of dollars of red ink for the american people. i say this also, madam president we've tried to address that. we asked for a debt commission to be established. we did that by legislation here on the floor. my friend didn't vote for that. he didn't vote for paygo. so we are trying on the floor. we have legislation that will resolve this issue. now, what my friend says is a little unusual. he said why doesn't the leader

file for cloture, use up a week or ten days, waste that time, and then hold off getting to all the other things? that doesn't make sense, madam president. it just is without any sense. when, in fact, with his withdrawing his objection, we could get done just like that. we wouldn't have to waste a week or ten days. but he has made his stand. i think it's wrong, as does the american people, as does, i'm sure, the people of kentucky, in spite of the letter from robert. so, madam president, i don't take advantage of my position here as being leader, i ask consent that the time that i consumed in my back and forthwith senator bunning -- back and forth with senator

bunning which was under republican control, i ask that it be charged leader time. i'm wondering if the staff has heard whether or not senators sessions and leahy wish to take the full hour time? how much time does my friend from texas wish? i just don't want to cut into any of your time. a senator: i need about ten minutes, madam president. mr. reid: if we run into a shortage of time, we'll be happy to try to work it out in some way with the minority. mr. schumer: just a brief statement? mr. reid: my friend from texas is so very, very patient. the presiding officer: the republicans control the time. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. madam president, i wanted to just take a few minutes to talk about today, which is texas independence day.

on this day in 1836, delegates from 59 texas settlements signed a declaration of their right to live in liberty and to take charge of their own destiny. the document they produced shares much in common with the declaration signed in philadelphia six decades earlier. for example, in both sets, the founders believed in fundamental human rights, including the right to address government for grievances. both groups of founders insisted on the obligation to change the form of government if it trampled on those rights. both founders created new nations and have been honored by success in generations for creating legacies of liberty. of course, there were differences between the conventions in 1776 and 1836 between philadelphia and washington. for one thing, texas took action

quickly. they adopted their declaration on the second day of their convention. they acted quickly because they knew the forces of tyranny were already in the field, and at that moment were trying to crush their freedoms. less than 200 miles to the west, santa anna's army was laying siege to the alamo. a letter had been sent out just days earlier. in it, he wrote "fellow patriots and compatriots, i am besieged by a thousand or more of the mexicans under santa anna. the enemy have demanded a surrender. otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword. i have answered the demand with a cannon shot. i shall never surrender or retreat." well, history tells us that death came to the defenders of the alamo, but soon victory came to the people of texas.

on april 21 of that year, sam houston and about 900 texas soldiers defeated the much larger mexican army at the battle of san jacinto. by this victory, the texans won the independence they declared less than two months earlier. now, sam houston, the commander of those troops and the commander in chief of the troops of the battle of san jacinto had served as a congressman of tennessee, he served as governor of tennessee, and after the battle, san jacinto went on to become elected representative of texas and become one of the first texans to serve in the united states senate, in the seat that i currently occupy. i believe that he and other founders of our republic and now of our great state would be proud of the 24 million americans who call texas home. they would be proud that texas remains a land of opportunity and that we're outperforming the

nation in job creation. they would be proud of the fact that texas remains a welcoming state for pioneers of all stripes and we have led the nation in population growth over the last two years as people have voted with their feet and moved to the land of opportunity otherwise known as texas. they would be proud that even during a severe recession, we continue to build businesses and raise families and make our communities even better places to live. just like the founding generation, we're showing the world that when faced with adversity, texans do not retreat, we reload. madam president, in honor of the founders of the republic of texas and all who are free because of their vision and sacrifice, i say god bless texas and may god bless the united states of america. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that we reserve the republicans' time and i be allowed to speak for two minutes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent i be allowed to speak for two minutes and remaining the minority's full time and we

move to the majority's time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i just wanted to speak about the unemployment situation in my home state of new york. this week, 54,000 people will lose their benefits if we don't move forward with the short-term extension of unemployment insurance. that is tragic. it is virtually inhumane. madammadam speaker, i have been around the state meeting with people who are looking for work. you look into their eyes and you feel their pain. many of them are middle-class people who had very good-paying jobs. many of them have lost their jobs -- many of them have lost their jobs more than a year ago. they spend every day, seven days a week looking. i met a woman in rochester. number two in human resources for a big company. her job was her life. looking for two years and can't find a job. so i would plead with my colleague from kentucky and all

of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while we're debating the larger bill to extend unemployment benefits, we must allow this to go forward. we must allow the short term to go forward for the sake of those people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are desperately looking for work but in this awful economy, they just can't find it. and so, again, my state is affected, according to "the hill" newspaper, new york is affected number one by this. it is vital, vital, vital that we move this forward, and i would plead with my friend from kentucky to reconsider and let the short-term extension move forward. we have moved it forward in the past regularly under the same conditions we're asking for this time. we can do it again for the sake of all those who are unemployed. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. schumer: i ask that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the time allotted during the quorum not go against the morning business of either side. i ask -- i ask that the -- that the time now be -- that the time that is now being used in morning business be equally divided.

mr. bunning: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. bunning: i would like to understand what the senator from new york is trying to do. mr. schumer: would senate yield? mr. bunning: yes. mr. schumer: i'm trying to equally divide the quorum call. i had asked unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for two minutes. mr. bunning: and were granted. mr. schumer: that was granted and then we go back and everyone get their full allocation of morning business, and that was granted. there was no intention that the quorum call take against either side. mr. bunning: but that's the normal procedure, isn't it? mr. schumer: i understand. the presiding officer: is there objection? without

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to use time from morning business on our side. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, right now families across my home state and the entire country want nothing more than to see us come together and pass meaningful help for the people that they see struggling every day. they want to see help for people like their neighbors and friends and family members who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves out of a job

and despite their best efforts are just unable to find one today. they want help for the seniors in their community who are being turned away from doctors because of devastating cuts in medicare reimbursement rates, or all those who are struggling to afford health care because they lost a job and are now facing the impossible task of affording care on their own. americans understand that during these difficult times we're in, people need help to make ends meet. they understand that there needs to be a lifeline for people who never thought they would need assistance from the government but who now have nowhere else to turn. but what americans and those in my home state of washington don't understand is why washington, d.c., can't seem to deliver. why when they make hard choices every day in their own lives to support their families and help those in need, washington, d.c., can't do the same.

why at a time when needs have never been greater are the only words they hear out of washington, d.c., is "gridlock," "stalemate," and "standstill." well, madam president, today we have a clear-cut example to show the american people just what's wrong with washington, d.c. and that's because today one single republican senator is standing in the way of the unemployment benefits of 400,000 americans. one single republican senator is blocking an extension of cobra benefits for 500,000 americans. one single republican senator is forcing doctors to take a 21% cut in medicare reimbursement rates that could force seniors to be turned away from the medicare coverage that they r ry

on. one single republican senator is blocking an extension of critical highway funds that has construction workers and transportation employees at home today and that has cut critical payments to struggling states. one single republican senator has put posturing before people, politics before families, and point-scoring before the needs of struggling americans. madam president, the legislation we are trying so hard to pass is very straightforward. it's aimed at helping real families with real problems that they face every day, and the consequences of it being blocked by one single republican senator are just as real. the bill we're trying to pass includes an extension of unemployment insurance which -- by the way, in my home state, hundreds of thousands of individuals rely on it to buy

groceries and to pay their mortgage and to help pay for school for their kids. for years, these benefits have been routinely extended in tough times. and time, by the way, have rarely been tougher than they are now. but today families in every single one of our states are sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how they're going to make it through the weeks and months ahead without these payments. madam president, this package we're trying to pass also extends -- includes an tension of cobra health care for workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and the health care benefit benefits the with it. in my home state, thousands of unemployed workers have the ability to see a doctor solely because we have provided this important assistance. it's a provision that's critical because health care is often the single-biggest cost that unemployed workers face. in fact, you should know that on

average a monthly health care premium payment to cover a family costs over $1,000. which represents about 80% of the average unemployment check. another vital health care measure included in this bill we're trying to pass is a provision that would overturn a staggering 21% cut in payments to doctors that accept medicare patients. just yesterday my office heard from a doctor in a small community in my state, paulsbill, washington, who's one in a his region now, he told my staff that this cut would limit his ability to continue serving the seniors in this area, and he's not alone n washington state that cut will affect over 60,000 employees, 700,000 medicare patients, and nearly 350,000 tricare patients. finally, madam president, this

bill also includes an extension of the federal transportation funding act, which is known as safetea-lu. allowing safetea-lu to expire, which is which has now happened, not only hurts construction workers and contractors who are working on these major federal highway projects in my state and across the country, it leaves our state governments bearing all the burden for the costs of these projects. in washington state, a reimbursement payment of $13.5 million for federally sponsored projects that is due tomorrow -- tomorrow -- is now in limbo. again, all because of one single republican senator. you know, last october i was out on this floor fighting for an extension of unemployment benefits, and i told the story of a woman from seattle whose name is christina cruz. at the time, christina had been unemployed for 20 months after spending ten years in human resources. christina ha had just written to

my office and talked about going above and beyond in her job search, a skill by the way, she picked up in her career in h.r. but even with all of her subpoenas, interviews for her -- but even with all of her experience, interviews for her have been few and far between. she talked about how in the midst of this economic crisis, she didn't have any other choice. since i talked last october, christina has stayed in touch with my office angz -- and unfortunately today she's still having a hard time getting back to work. she recently wrote an e-mail and said, "it's truly devastating to me that i've made choices in my life like getting good grades in school, getting my education, building up professional experience, only to find that i'm unable to find a job. i thought i'd made decisions to help ensure success in my life and many times i barely had enough money for food. my family isn't rich.

they can't afford to support me. i literally do not know what i'm going to do." and then christina went on to voice the frustrationed felt by so many about the needless holdups on getting this bill passed. she said, "i find it to be really egregious that we live in a democratic society and yet a few misguided, outlying voices, despite overwhelming bipartisan majority support, can hold up and block a much-needed unemployment extension. it really flies in the face of all the things i've learned about in my history books. i'm not sure how i can survive. many weeks and weeks of needless holdups when i have rent and bills to pay. sometimes i feel that if some of these senators were forced to walk a day in our shiewrks then maybe they would have a sense of how it is to try to survive in this economy." no this aopinion is not unique

to my state. to one political party or to an issue. every evening families across the country turn on the nightly news and hear another story about gridlock in our nation's capital. oftentimes they've spent their days scanning through the classifieds, going to another job fairks alon job, along with- going to another job fair, along with large lines. what they see is this: an entire congress forced to spend time fighting with one republican senator. a congress that is forced to jump through procedural hoops and endure endless delay tactics to get meaningful arntiondz by the way, largely -- and, by the way, largely bipartisan legislation passed. the obstruction of a single republican senator,, who by the way, voted to extend these same benefits in 2008 but who has now

suddenly changed his own mind. and the entire republican party, except for a few who have real estate been out here this morning courageously, sit idly by as one of their members chooses to bring this entire body to a halt. the american people are sick of this and the backlash to the blockage of this bill is evidence of that. it's time for all of us, all of us, to stop and think, think about christina and all the other americans who sent us here to go to work for them. the people who watch the news tonight and think, what about me? what about all of us? you know, christina wrote to me recently to say, "it seems like government is broken." and i know that sentiment is something we hear all the time now. but the truth is, it is only broken if we allow it to be. it's only broken if we allow stunts like are happening here now to rule the day.

if we can come together and put an end to shortsighted blil point-scoring-- --political point-scoring that says partisanship trumps progress, then we can help struggling families. if we can join together the way we did to pass the children children or fair pay for women in the workplace, we can then restore the faith of the american people. but until we put an end to delays like the one we face by one republican senator today, americans are going to continue to have every right to be fed up. so, madam president, i come to the floor today to ask the senator from kentucky to allow us to finally move forward with consent on this bill so that americans can get access to the help they desperately need in these very tough economic times. this is critical. families across our states are hurting, through no fault of their own, through an economic recession that they did not make

happen. we all want our country to get back on its feet. we all want to be strong again. we all want this lifeline for our families so that when our country gets running strong again that they can use the skills that they've been holding in abeyance and go back to work, so that they can get the health care they need for their chrn and their families until they can get -- for their children and their families, until they can get moving again. so these construction projects across our country don't come to a slamming hacialght halt, cause americans to sit at home without a paycheck, more americans at home who can't go to the store to buy something, and restaurants where people can't go because they don't have a paycheck. madam president, we're asking that the republican colleagues who've worked with us on this bill come to the floor and urge one republican senator to work with us, to get consent, so we can move past this and get to the job we've come here to do:

to get people back to work, to make sure families have health care, to make sure that we do the business of this government in a way that works for american families. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that i can speak using the majority time in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i take this time to first thank the democratic leadership for bringing forward a bill that would extend unemployment insurance, cobra protection, which allows unemployed to be able to get health insurance, and to extend our highway program and the reimbursement structure for our physicians under medicare so that our seniors can continue to receive the health care that they need. we have a

short-term extension that many of my colleagues have been talking about that would extend these programs so that there would be no gap in the unemployment insurance protection that americans are currently receiving or receiving as of february 28 to be able to continue to get the cobra protections, to be able to continue our highway program, and as has been pointed out, one senator has exercised his right to object, which has caused major problems for this country. and i feel compelled to talk about this because there are real people being hurt by that decision. we need a short-term extension so that we can continue the early process. it's the right thing to do. we all talk about jobs. we need jobs. each of us are committed to bringing up legislation that would create more job opportunities for americans. and the bill that will be on the floor will help us in that effort by extending important

tax provisions so that businesses can invest in more jobs for americans, extending the unemployment insurance, and here, madam president, let me point out for every dollar we spend in unemployment compensation brings back $1.09 to our economy. it's the best stimulus dollar you can put out there. it's immediate. and this is an insurance program where employees put money away for good times to pay for benefits during recessions, so we're in a tough time. there are millions of americans who can't find jobs, who are looking for jobs. americans want to work but can't find work. many have been looking for work for a long time for over a year. and now because of the objection of the senator, the benefits that should be paid this week cannot be paid this week. in my own state of maryland,

16,405 people were cut off as of monday from their unemployment compensation. these are -- each one of these individuals represent a family, represent how they are going to be able to feed their families, how they are going to be able to keep their house out of foreclosure. it's wrong. they can't find work because there is not enough jobs out there. and we're going to extend unemployment compensation, i feel confident we will, but it's wrong for us to have this gap because of the objections of one senator. it's hurting our economy. it's money that should be in our economy where the people who receive this unemployment insurance would use it to buy food to make purchases to help our economy. well, those dollars are being lost because of the objection of one senator. the same thing is true with the cobra protection. the cobra protection says to a person who is unemployed, who lost their job that we're going to help make sure they can maintain their insurance for

their family. and now because of the objections of the senator, that help is no longer available to those who are unemployed. as of january, there were 6.3 million americans who had been unemployed for six months or longer. think about that, madam president. how can you afford to pay your insurance premiums for health care if you have been unemployed for six months? that's why we passed cobra protection for those who have lost their jobs, so that they can maintain their health insurance for their families, to keep them out of bankruptcy, to make sure that if they have an emergency, their family can get the needed health care and make sure that it's properly reimbursed. well, we all agree that should be done and the underlying bill that will be taken up later today will extend that throughout the year, which we should do, but in the meantime, it expired on monday, that

protection, because of the objections of an individual senator. and then there is the short-term extension of the highway program. i want to mention that because 2,000 employees of the department of transportation just got furlough notices because of the failure to extend that program. i could tell you what it means, i could tell you what it means in my own state of maryland. it halted work on federal lands. we had a project at great falls entrance, road construction. a $3.1 million project in montgomery county stopped as a result of the failure to pass this short-term extension. and i could talk about the situation with medicare. c.m.s. is doing everything they can to make sure that the physicians, the 600,000 physicians who treat our seniors every day will continue to participate in the medicare system, but as of monday, there was a 21.2% cut in fist -- in

physician reimbursement rates. that's unconscionable, unreasonable, and it will deny our seniors access to care. we need to do this in an orderly way. the extension that the majority leader, the assistant majority leader have made repeatedly on the floor to allow for the short-term extension that the overwhelming majority of members of congress strongly support. we need to move forward with that, and then let's come to the floor and debate the longer term extensions. i have just got a feeling that when that floor comes up on the floor of the body, you will see an overwhelming number of voters voting in favor of the extension of unemployment compensation and insurance protection for the unemployed. because it's the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do as a nation in a recession. it's the right thing to do in order to strengthen our economy

and to create more job opportunities because that money is spent in our community and keeps jobs and expands jobs. it must be part of our strategy in creating more job opportunities for americans. so, madam president, i take the floor to encourage my colleague to withdraw his objection. let us move forward in a way that is in the interests of the american people and the interests of our economy so that we can continue to see the types of improvements for job opportunity in america. that should be our priority. it's not a partisan issue. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. we need to work together, democrats and republicans, and it starts by removing the objection, let us get this short-term extension, and then come to the floor to debate this bill that's on the floor that will extend it through the end of the year as we should. that's what we should be doing today to help the people of maryland, the people around this nation, and to help our economy

grow. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i would like to echo the remarks of my very distinguished colleague from maryland who i know feels so passionately about this and whose own state will suffer really dire individual consequences as the failure of unemployment insurance and cobra and other things begin to hit home in the personal lives of people in maryland, people in my home state of rhode island, people across this country. with so many americans struggling to pay their bills, why, why did thousands of the worst off, including hundreds of rhode islanders, have to wake up on monday morning to find that their unemployment benefits and cobra subsidies had expired?

why are people being kicked out of these essential humane lifeline programs before the economic storm that put them in that predicament has passed? the answer is that we have failed to do what is right for the american public in part because one republican has chosen this time of great despair for millions of americans to make a political point. to make a political point about the deficit by hurting hard-working americans who are struggling to get by, and it appears that it's actually more than just one republican. others have come to the floor to support him. but on the home front, the cost is high. many rhode islanders, through no

fault of their own, struggle to find work. for many of them, unemployment insurance and cobra are the lifeline for their ability to support their families, to keep food on the table and to keep the family covered by health care. this is no abstract issue. it has had a serious impact in rhode island. we are a state of just over one million. in that state of just over one million people, there are 75,000 people at least unemployed and looking for work. these are wowing people, many of whom have worked all their lives, but because of the recession, their struggles to find work so far are unavailing. margaret from north providence is 61 years old, and she is six

months away from being eligible for social security. she is years from medicare eligibility. she has now been unemployed for 18 months, and her unemployment benefits are expiring. cobra for her has run out as well so her health care is at risk. she has never been in this situation before in her life, and she is quite understandably scared of where our irresponsible action leaves her. gretchen from cranston is a laidoff teacher who is receiving cobra benefits that helps her pay for her health care. because of a single republican's obstruction, apparently supported by others, her premiums have increased from roughly $500 a month to over

over $2,000 a month. she wrote to me saying how horrifying that i should work hard all my life, paying for my entire education, dedicate my career to helping children in poverty and find that my own children may be among them. gretchen did not expect to be in poverty. she expected that her cobra benefits would continue, but no, we have cut those off. richard in warren wrote to me asking for us to move quickly on cobra. richard's wife has cancer, so they have no choice but to pay for health care coverage.

since he lost his job, richard has been paying $400 a month for their health insurance, but the cost has tripled, tripled with the expiration of cobra subsidies. richard should be able to worry about his family, to be able to help his wife through her cancer treatment. he should not have to worry about the political games being played here in washington and the skyrocketing costs that he is looking at. he and his wife should be focusing on her care and her treatment. but no, sadly, obstruction and political point scoring now come first here for some of our colleagues. margaret, gretchen and richard and all those across the country who are facing similar

situations are wondering why they have to pay the price for republicans to make this point about the deficit. why them? when it was halliburton's no-bid contracts in iraq for which money was borrowed to fund them. where was the concern about the deficit then? for halliburton's no-bid contracts, the deficit is no problem, evidently. when it was part-d's hand jolt to the pharmaceutical companies -- borrowed money -- where was the concern then about the deficit? not when it's the big interests. when it was the tax cuts for c.e.o.'s, big tax cuts for c.e.o.'s, for big bankers, for derivatives traders, for hedge

fund managers -- where then was the concern about the deficit when those tax cuts were passed, unfunded? when the bush administration inherited from the last democratic president a balanced budget predicted to yield a zero national debt during the course of the bush administration, a zero national debt during the course of the bush administration, and i stead the republicans left us with $12 trillion in national debt, where then was the concern about the deficit? as one of my colleagues has said, this has been described as a point of principle? the way a principle is defined is that you always stand by it. if it is just a sometime thing,

it may be a lot of things. it may be an opinion. it may be a maneuver. it may be even an honestly held opinion. but it's not a principle, if you only follow it selectively, if the only time you follow it is when struggling working people are in the crosshairs. but when it's halliburton's no-bid contracts, when it is tax cuts for c.e.o.'s and derivatives traders, then it's all fine. it is no principle. it may be a lot of things, but it is no principle. so i urge my colleagues to put politics aside to do what is right, and to help the millions of americans who are so badly in need of a little help through this economic downturn that was no fault of their own, i glor my republican colleagues to start working -- i implore my republican colleagues to start

working with us to end this crisis to put people back to work and to help those who are in such dire circumstances now through no fault of their own. that's what we are sent here to do, and that is what i will keep fighting for. i thank the -- thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business. mr. leahy: has all time been used in morning business? the presiding officer: no, it hasn't. mr. leahy: madam president, i would -- i would ask to yield back any time remaining in morning business 0 on either side. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the

following nomination, which the k will report. under the previous order -- the clerk: nomination, the judiciary committee. barbara malano keenan. the presiding officer: yowrksd the time until 12:15 will be equally divided and controlled between the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, and the senator from alabama, mr. sessions. mr. leahy: independent? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i am going to put my full statement about justice barbara keenan of virginia who's been nominated to the circuit. but i would note first that she has the support of her home state senators. she has the support of virginians from both parties and many others. she was approved unanimously by the senate judiciary committee over four months ago, and in what has become a sorry and

unacceptable attitude on the part of republicans, she has been filibustered. this nomination should have been approved unanimously. we will now have to vote to bring cloture on something that would normally have been done on a voice vote. i'm willing to predict she will get an overwhelming vote when they finally allow us to vote on it. but what has happened with these filibusters, the senate is far behind where we should be in helping to fill judicial vacancies. vacancies have skyrocketed to more than 100, and more have been announced. i think about -- here it is march 2. on march 2 of president bush's first ternlings the senate had

confirmed -- first term, the senate had confirmed 79 district court nominations. we were -- the democrats were in the majority. we moved very hard to get those 39 through. in the same period of time, republicans, by blocking and filibuster, had allowed only 15 of president obama's nominatio nominations. the judiciary is supposed to be out of partisan politics. this is really unacceptable. in fact, i would note in a this awe -- i would note that we during the 17 months of president bush's term, the democrats were in charge, we confirmed 100 of his judges. during 31 months with the republicans in charge, they confirmed approximately 100. we worked very hard to help president bush through. the return instead is that the

republicans have filibustered nominees, judicial nominees, who then get -- when they finally get a vote, get a unanimous vote. this has created a real crises in the judiciary. i would hope that the chief justice would do what chief justice rehnquist, another republican, did when republicans were slowing up judicial nominations, and speak to the need -- need to do this. now, i have spoken raimentedly ted --now, i have spoken repeato senate republicans. agree to those reported to the senate judiciary committee without dissent and agree to time agreements and agree to vote and debate on the others. we are making a mockery of the

federal judiciary by bringing such needless partisan politics. i have been here -- this is my 36th year, madam president, both with republicans and democrats in the majority, with both republican and democratic presidents. i have never seen anything like this in 36 years. it involves the judiciary and partisan politics in a way that is unprecedented, but it also shames the united states senate, and the american people are right to ask why -- why are they doing this? it makes no sense. now on a happier -- and i'd ask consent to put my full statement in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: on a happier note, though, madam president, i see the distinguished senator from

vermont, senator sander sanderse floor today. i want to congratulate the vermonters who represented our country at the winter owe limb flicks in van -- olympics in van vancouver. the olympics were exciting. i know that marcel and i watched hours and hours of them. but we watched especially, obviously, when we saw some of these young vermonters. these athletes carry on a long tradition of vermonters participating in the winter olympics. hundreds of vermonters have competed in the 21 winter olympiads and it is know secret that vermont produces great winter sport athletes thanks to our terrain and also a healthy sports industry. the first ski lift in the united states was a rope tow built in the town of woodstock. and, madam president, i remember when a thrill it was when

then-president gerald ford told me that the first place he concede -- the first ski lift he was on was on that ski lift in woodstock. it was -- it was a nice memory of a wonderful person, president gerald ford. and then thanks to jake burton carpenter, his wife donna, vermont created snow boarding and it is now an olympic event. the carpenters have worked so hard to make this a winter sport and now it is. many vermont irrelevancmany vert the olympics over the years. these include andrea mead lawrence from rutland to win two

gold medals in 1952. and bill coke who was the first american in orderic skier to medal in 1976. and alpine skier barbara ann cochran, slol am goad gold medalist in 1972. the cochran family is somewhat of an olympic dynasty in its own right. barbara ann's sister marilyn and brother bob also competed in 1972. and her sister lindy in 1976. bob's son raced in the slalom at his second olympics. a member of his family and a member of my staff cherished having him there. there were 11 athletes in vancouver who were born in vermont or call vermont home. 10 others attended high school or college in vermont. mr. president, we're going to take credit for all of them, and we are happy and proud to do that.

raised in vermont are snow boarders kelly clark from west dover, lindsey jakabelis, ross powers from londonderry, chelsie marshal from pitses if field, andy newal, kaitlin compton, free style skier hanna cuvment rdy from norwich. vermont's colleges and universities with a strong tradition of winter sports have sent athletes to numerous games. jim cochran is a u.v. alum along with lowell bailey, nor dick skier chris freeman and hockey goalie tim thomas. nor dick skier sumi hamilton and

garrett kuzy, vermont ski academy's private high schools have dedicated wirntsz sport training to track hundreds of kids from out of state every year. they've legitimacy produced hundreds of olympians. liz stevens and nolan casper concede at vancouver. they're graduates of burke mountain academy which was the first ski academy in the country founded in 1970. other ski academy graduates competing in vancouver, snow boarder lonnie veder along with andy gnu newal, free style skier michael morris of the killington school and skier cross racers chris puckett and darren rawles who teandz the green stratton mountain school along with chelsie marshal. jim cochran represented the winter academy, kelly clark the

mount snow academy. of course all vermonters want to give a special hardy congratulations to those whose efforts resulted in medals. anna kerney won gold in the mogul competition. i spoke with her the morning after. i told her i'd seen her great smile on television that morning. she said, i think it's going to take foretouser get that smile off my face. in the new york thymes a wonderful article showing marti camden drive her through a parade in norwich this past weekend. hanna teeter and kelly clark win silver and bronze in the snow board half piefnlg i can say both of them that our entire state are proud of your accomplishments on this international stage. but i am proud of every vermonter who's chosen for the team no matter what their results were. it was a pleasure to watch them,

to feel the pride they had just to be there. because one of the things you know, not only that look of pride on their face but for every minute of competition we saw on television, you had hard work and satisfaction -- sacrifice, rather, dedication, thousands of hours of training. they've been great ambassadors for the united states. they've also been fantastic role models to vermont's children, and i'd say congratulations to all of them. and finally, i want to take a moment to recognize two vermonters who missed competing in va vancouver because of seris head injur -- head injuries. they were training in park city, utah, on december 31. and cody marshall, chelsea's

brother, an alpine slalom racer, were injured last summer. both have come a long way since their injuries. they have difficult recoveries ahead of them. i spoke with kevin pierce's mother pam, and i know how the whole family has come together for him, just as cody marshall's family have come together for him. so i wish them and their families well. i want them to know that they are special inspirations to all of us. they are in all our prayers and thoughts. vermont is a very small state, mr. president, the second smallest in the country. it's almost like one big community in our sense of pride of these young people. mr. president, i see my distinguished colleague from vermont, and i would yield the floor to him. mr. sanders: well, i thank senator leahy for yielding. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: and there is not a lot more that i can add to what

he has already said. mr. president, as you well know, vermont is a small state. we have 620,000 people, one of the smallest states in the country, but a lot of our young people grow up on the slopes of vermont. they are involved in skiing and snowboarding from a very, very young age. my grandson is out there, he is 5, he is doing pretty well as a snowboarder, and that's true all over the state. and i think people who watch the -- who watched the extraordinary olympics in vancouver noted that a lot of the participants, a lot of the outstanding athletes came from the state of vermont. the world watched as hannah kierner of norwich won the first gold medal for the united states in these vancouver olympic games. she was closely followed in the women's snowboarding half pipe when vermont took both second and third place on the podium.

that's quite a feat for a small state. kelly clark of west dover brought home the brans and hannah teter of belmont the silver medal. that is an incredible feat when you consider that there were a total of just eight women on the u.s. snowboarding team, three of them were from the green mountain state and two of them were in the top three. that's pretty good under anybody's definition of success. in true vermont fashion, our olympians bring more than talent, excellence, and commitment to their sports. they show exemplary dedication to their communities. in other words, these men and women are more than just athletes. they are people who are concerned about the world in which they are living in and the communities in which they live. when hannah teter took gold in the games in 2006, she combined her prize money with proceeds

from maple syrup sales to start a charity called hannah's gold which brings aid to a village in kenya. that's what hannah teter did. liz stephan, a cross country skier from east montpelier supports a charity geared toward getting young children involved in sports. lindsay, a snowboarder from vermont, used her love of animals as motivation to get involved with the american society for prevention of cruelty to animals. from charity efforts to hometown family-owned restaurants, the impact of these outstanding individuals can felt by many. the 11 athletes who are recognized today as vermont olympians are the following. in cross country skiing, katelin compton, andy newell and liz stefan. in alpine skiing, jimmy cochran. in ski jumping, nick alexander. in freestyle skiing, gold

medalist hannah kierney. in snowboarding, silver medalist hannah teter, bronze medalist kelly clark and lindsay jacoblis. it is with great pleasure that i congratulate these athletes on a spectacular job, and the state of vermont is very proud of you all. thank you. i would yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. webb: mr. president, i rise today again to speak on

behalf of justice barbara m. keenan, the nominee to serve on the fourth circuit. i'd like to point out, this is the third time that i have had the pleasure of outlining her qualifications, and i also would like to express my regret that the senate is again being forced to waste valuable time that could be used toward solving greater problems in our country in order to go through these repeated delays on votes that are going to be, if not unanimous, certainly well above 90 of our body in favor of this type of a nomination. the american people are commenting about how the united states congress is not

addressing the true problems of the country. i think that this is an example that perhaps all of those who are interested in our political system can comprehend rather quickly of obstructionism and of the unnecessary delay of the appointment of individuals who are vitally needed, as we look at the sphai state of our judicl system today. justice keenan was voted out of committee in october of last year by unanimous voice vote. her nomination is noncontroversial. she's been a dedicated public servant, a fair and balanced jurist. her nomination as broad bipartisan support. not only in this body but also in the commonwealth of virginia. so i again believe it's critical

this we move forward as quickly as possible to confirm this nomination. there are currently four vacancies on the fourth circuit, more than any other circuit in our country. the seat that justice keenan would fill has been vacant now for more than two years. she is an extraordinary choice to fill this vacancy. she's been a state supreme court justice since 1991. she's been a trailblazer for women in the law throughout her career. at the age of 29 she was the first female general district court judge in virginia. when she was sleblghted for the fairfax counsel d. when she was selected for the fairfax county bench in 1980. she became the first circuit court judge in 1982. in 1985 she was one of ten judges named to the first court of appeals and was the only woman on that court when it was first created. she was selected for the state supreme court, the second female justice ever to serve there, in 1991.

and she was in fact the first judge to serve on all four levels of virginia's courts. and ace pointed otoin my -- and as i pointed out in my previous floor remarks i think very important for the understanding of this body to point out that when governor mcdonnell was recently sworn into office, he specifically requested that justice keenan deliver him that oath of office. in fact, governor mcdonnell has rails released a statement where he says, "virginia's supreme court justice barbara keenan is one of the foremost legal minds in our commonwealth. her nomination by the president for the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit is one that should be viewed favorably and acted upon expeditiously. justice keenan has dedicated her career to public service. i look forward to her service on the fourth circuit bench." this is from governor mcdonnell, who is from the republican party, and i think

it's a clear indication of the broad respect that this individual has within the commonwealth. i'm mindful of the senate's constitutional role in confirming executive nominations. this is vitally important. we have a robust vetting process. debate is important and appropriate, and we have conducted inside the virginia delegation that kind of vetting process which resulted in justice keenan's name being moved forward. so, again, in the name of pragmatic bipartisanship and in the spirit of good governance and the way that we should be spending valuable time here on the senate floor with so many issues affecting this country, we need to move past these artificial barriers.

we need to stop putting delays in front of the types of issues that we should be confronting. let's get on with the business of governing. arntiondz again, as pointed out -- and, again, as pointed out in my previous statement, of the 176 judgeships, there are currently 100 vacancies. these vacancies delay the administration of justice. they delay the resolution of disedisputes. they affect the respect of our whole governmental process. so in light of the fact that my prediction is that justice keenan will get, if not 100 votes in this body, i doubt that she will get one or two negative votes in this whole body. there's no need for us to go through hours and hours of debate and delay in order to get

her where she needs to be and that is on the fourth circuit. so i'm asking my colleagues across the file we might not move this nomination forward in a timely way. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. warner: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak up -- for up to fiv