a work in progress. subject to casual or incomplete disclosures. it's more important than that. indeed, we don't believe today that we've received all of the material evidence in this case. ..

>> you don't have the option of saying, well, it's close enough for jazz. and just remove a judge on innuendo and conflicted facts. the house case is going to be exposed in this room for the first time to a fully adversarial process. please give us a chance. what remains after all of the half truths and distortions melt away will dictate not just the future of this judge, but the future standard for all judges. we ask only that you, like your predecessors, mind the constitutional line. my colleagues and i are now

ready to address these allegations, and we are now ready to present the case in defense of united states district court judge g. thomas porteous jr. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. we will take a 15-minute break, and when we come back, we will look for the first witness for the house. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the full senate begins impeachment proceedings against

louisiana federal judge thomas porteous tomorrow morning. >> without the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty being ratified by the senate, we do not have a verification mechanism to insure we know what the russians are doing, and they don't know what we're doing. and when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. >> find out more about the expired s.t.a.r.t. nuclear arms treaty with russia, what it might accomplish, where the treaty stands now as well as it history online at the c-span video library. search, watch and share, all free. it's washington your way. >> we continue, now, with the

impeachment proceedings against new orleans federal judge thomas porteous. the judge is accused of decades of corruption and engaging in a kickback scheme with a louisiana law firm. the trial was in september. we're going to show you a portion from the second day of the trial with the judge's attorney continuing his response to the allegations. this is just over two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning to all. i want to thank my colleagues for being here so promptly this morning. i apologize there wasn't coffee in the back when you got here, but it should be here any minute. so as long as there's seven of us on the dais, people are free to wander back and get a cup of coffee as it arrives. i want to thank everyone. i think we had a very long and productive day yesterday, and we're going to have the same type of day today.

let me do a little housekeeping in terms of the schedule. we are supposed to have a series of three votes beginning at 11. so it is my intention to go without a break until those votes are called, wait until five or ten minutes into the first vote, and then adjourn until approximately 11:40 so everyone will have an opportunity to go over and cast all three votes, and we won't have to run back and forth. but as soon as the third vote is cast, i would ask all of you to come back very, very quickly so that we can get an hour in between approximately 11:40 and 12:40. and then we will break for caucus lunches, and we will then resume, i think we'll resume probably at 2:0. and then we will -- it's my intention to stay if not as late, almost as late as we did yesterday. and, hopefully, we will be able to get a lot more done. there was a motion -- there was

a objection yesterday -- there was a motion by the house to admit into evidence the exhibit that was a 302. we have visited with our counsel and senator hatch and i have visited about it. i think the committee's inclination is to not admit the 302 as evidence for the same reasons ha we -- that we did not admit the grand jury testimony in total, but even more o because it was not under oath and so, therefore, we think probably it's not appropriate for it to be admitted into evidence. obviously, using any method that you have to impeach or to refresh recollection is okay, but we're not going to admit the 302s as evidence in and of themselves. so i wanted to give you that decision. let me also give you your time. the house has 15:40 remaining

and judge porteous has 16:13 remaining. and i think there has been a request, it's my understanding, congressman schiff, that you have decided not to call mr. levinson as a witness in thous' case. >> that's correct, madam chair. not at this time. >> and it's my understanding, mr. turley, that you do all want to call mr. levinson as a witness in your case. >> are we do, madam chair. we're prepared now, or he could be held over. >> i'm not -- i'm trying to let you all try your cases, and i think it's not appropriate for us to interrupt the house's case with a witness for judge porteous, so i'm going to let the house finish their case, and mr. levinson will just have to stay over until -- i would ask, if possible unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously, the government is going to pay for him to stay here until your case begins. we would ask that you put him on at the beginning of your case so

that he is not held over through the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out that the committee has previously instructed us there were other cancellations by the government including judge greendyke cho occurred right -- which occurred right before the start of the trial, and we're under instructions to also put him forward. it's having a disruptive impact on our case because our bankruptcy lawyers and witnesses must leave when we start our case, we have a short time before they all start to leave. that's one of the reasons i suggested they could just pass the witness today. they could say what's your name and pass the witness. if we don't do that, we need to move our bankruptcy people because we're already shifting one of their previous witnesses forward to accommodate mr. greendyke. so we will promise to try to get mr. levinson as early as possible, but we do need to move those witnesses out at this point. >> well, are the bankruptcy witnesses under subpoena? >> yes. several of them are paid-for

experts. but like mr. greendyke, when their witness said i have to leave, we were told, okay, call him early. so we shifted all of our witnesses. and now our witnesses have, you know, reservations and plane reservations. to knock them out because they've canceled -- this morning. we talked to them last night, and there was no cancellation of mr. levinson. >> well, let's do this. why don't we get started and over the break or over the lunch break we will have an opportunity to discuss this as a matter of housekeeping and when witnesses are called. i will gently point out with a smile on my face that perhaps this can move along more quickly, and we'll have a chance to get to the bankruptcy lawyers and mr. levinson and the judge all before we finish work on thursday. >> madam chair, just let me point out in terms of our allotted time just to give the senators a heads-up on this, the main four witnesses, we've gone through two of them, we have two more that have a big chunk of time, and then the time periods

become much, much shorter. so we've got two more witnesses where both sides have a large investment in. can i raise one more issue, madam chair? this. >> yes. >> i -- as the committee is aware, the night before the trial we received additional discovery, and i want to thank the committee and its staff for trying to get the department of justice to release that information. i know that the staff worked very, very hard against a reluctant agency. with that information came a letter from ronald wright, the assistant attorney general. and he stated that the department of justice would not be turning over memorandum specifically on why judge porteous was not charged with a crime. and that letter actually states or con cedes that they did turn over that same information in prior impeachments and concedes that, indeed, in the nixon proceedings they turned it over and makes a curious point, but

there was a trial in that case. which, in our view, it's even more important as evidence when there wasn't a trial in the case. but what we would like to do is two things. once again, ask the committee to point out to them that this is a very conflicted and we don't see as a well-based reason not to turn over that important evidence that was turned over to other accused judges. and, second, we would like to enter this letter into the record as evidence as a porteous exhibit 2005 so that at a minimum the letter should be in the case. >> it was turned over in nixon because of prosecutorial misconduct, and we have a subpoena under advisement as we speak. is there objection to this inclusion of the letter as an exhibit? >> there's no objection. >> the letter will be included as an exhibit, and we are working on trying to get all the information that we can. >> we thank you for that, madam

chair. >> okay. >> i just want to raise an additional issue. the house has scheduled a series of votes at 6:00. there -- we wouldn't need to leave well into that 15-minute period, and we'd come back immediately thereafter, but i wanted to make sure the senate was aware of that. >> we'll be happy to accommodate your schedule in that regard. we may ask -- how many are there -- is it several in a row, do you know? >> yes. the first will be a 15-minute vote, and then i think we'll have one or two others after that. >> are okay. we'll work with you to make sure to you don't miss votes. >> thank you. >> okay? call your next witness. >> the house calls louis marcotte.

>> would the witness, please, rise? do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this case pending before the united states and judge g. thomas porteous jr. shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> thank you. would you, please, state your full name? >> [inaudible] >> would you pull that microphone -- maybe you need to turn it on there. >> i'm louis marion marcotte iii. >> that's great. mr. marcotte, where do you live? >> i live in new orleans, louisiana. >> and what do can you do for a living? >> i have a clothing store called italy direct. >> and that -- what type of clothing is that? >> it's an italian boutique that sells high-end clothing.

>> and tell the senators a little bit about yourself. where did you grow up? >> i grew up in a little town called gretna, louisiana. it's right on the other side the river from new orleans. >> and what was your financial background growing up? >> we grew up pretty poor, me and my family. we had a two-room house with about six of us in it. and, you know, we barely made ends meet. >> and what kind of education do you have? >> i have, i graduated from high school, and i have one year of college. >> and at some point in your life did you go into the bail bonds business? >> yes, i did. around 1979. >> how did that come about? >> i went to work in, for a guy named brock abere. he was a bail bondsman in the area. and when he died i opened up -- >> what did you do -- for

mr. abere i was a janitor, cleaning his building and emptying the trash. stuff like that. >> and at some point you came to start your own company. >> are yes. after he died i saw an opportunity across from the jefferson parish courthouse, and i opened an office there. today -- or it was called the blue house. >> do you remember the approximate year? this. >> probably around '82, '83. >> and what was the name of your company? this. >> bail bonds unlimited. >> and did any other family members work there? >> yes. my whole family worked there. my mom, my sister, my dad and my other sister, lisa. lori and lisa. >> the two sisters, lori and lisa. >> yes. >> and so this was a mom and pop business starting out. >> yes, it was. >> and what did lori do? >> lori, basically, handled the controls of the business meaning all the accounting, and she did sales as well.

basically, that's what i ran, too, the sales department. >> was lori knowledgeable about the operations of the company? this. >> yes, she was. >> and did she work closely with you? >> she did, very close. >> and by the late 1990s what was the size of your business? >> i was probably doing in dollars in the late '90s probably six, seven million. premium. >> and by the time the business closed, what were you doing? >> somewhere around, somewhere around 30 million. >> and how many states were you operating in? >> about 345 states. >> and -- 34 states. >> and how many employees did you have? this. >> i had 300 employees and a thousand licensed agents in the field. >> describe your life in the bail bonds business. what was it like? >> in the beginning, well, for a very long time i slept in front of the jail, and as the families went in to get bonds, i ran behind them. >> so you worked long hours, is

that what you're saying? >> what's that? >> you worked long hoursesome. >> yes. i slept in my car, and i slept in my office. >> and why did you do that? >> because when someone gets arrested, the families go to the jail first. so if you were parked out in front of the jail and sleeping there, you'll see the families walk in, and you can hustle them and bring them back to your office and write the bond. >> and is it fair to say you were in the bail bonds business until about 2003? >> yes, sir. >> and were you put out of business as a result of a federal criminal investigation? >> yes, sir, i was. >> now, let me step back here. can you explain the bail bonds business to the senate? be in particular, can you explain how you as a bail bondsman make money in the bail bonds business? >> yes, i can. a bail bondsman is nothing more than an insurance agent, like a state farm agent. we make a commission for selling the policy. and, you know, the amount of

money that you make determines the contract that you have with the insurance company. if you want to take all the risk, you make 90 cents on the dollar. if you want to take half the risk, you make 50 cents on the dollar. in my case, i took all the risk, and i made 90 cents on the dollar. >> so the magistrate would set up bond, is that how it ordinary would start? >> yes. the magistrate would set the bonds every morning. >> all right. and then if prisoner can't meet the bond, then he would work with bail bondsman, is that correct? >> yes, he would. >> and how would that arrangement work? >> well, you know, if i caught him at the jail at 3:00 in the morning and sat him in my office until i could get bond set, you know, before the magistrate -- >> okay, but the magistrate set a bond for $50,000. what would your arrangement be with the -- >> well, i would ask the defendant or the family, hey, do you have the 5,000 to get him out of jail? this.

>> and is that a standard rate, 10%? >> yes, it is. >> okay. and so did you have an interest in how high the bond was set? >> yes, i did. >> and how did that work? >> well, you know, if family had, if it was a $50,000 bond, i mean, if there was no bond and a guy could make $100,000 bond and i'd get a $10,000 fee out of it, i'd ask for the highest bond that i could get. >> so if bond were set too high and the prisoner couldn't make it, did you make any money? >> no, i couldn't. >> and if bond were set really low or if prisoner were released on their own recognizance, would you make much money or any money? >> i couldn't make any money. >> all right. so if, again, practical matter, if bond is set at $100,000, how much will you make? >> with my contract with the

insurance company, 9,000. >> so the bond would be 10,000, and you'd make 9,000, where would the other thousand dollars go? >> to the insurance company. >> okay. >> now, remember, the insurance company was held harmless. i was liable for the 100,000. all they did was supply the paper. for us to post at the jail. it wasn't real dollars, it's just paper. >> gotcha. in gretna, louisiana, in the 1990-1994 time frame i want you to just walk the senators through how bonds were typically set and what your day would be like. first, who would typically set the bond? >> the magistrate. >> and then describe the circumstances when you'd want to avoid the magistrate and go to a judge to set the bond. >> um, i would either get the bond set before the magistrate came in the morning, so he had no chance of getting released on

the free bond. >> so if you were concerned that the magistrate would release him on his own recognizance, what would you do? >> i would go in and get a judge to set the bond so i could make the money. >> and if you thought the magistrate set the bond too high, what would you do? >> i'd go to a judge that would be, that would reduce it for me. >> all right. were there times that you also needed access to a judge for competitive purposes because there were other bail bondsmen in the courthouse? >> yes. there were plenty of times where we'd go to the judge with the work sheath, work sheet meaning the request, the request that bail bonds unlimited would ask the judge for. and while the request was in the judge's office, we wouldn't have them call the bond in until we have an agent at the jail ready to post it so we wouldn't lose it. >> and if you wanted to avoid the magistrate, could you go to any judge in the courthouse?

>> not any judge. in different times in those 20 years it was different judges. >> all right. and when you would talk to a judge about a bond, would a prosecutor or a defense attorney be present? this. >> no, they wouldn't. >> and every time a judge sets a bond for which a prisoner could actually afford the premium, is that money in your pocket? >> yes, it is. >> did there come a time that you met judge porteous? this. >> yes, there was. >> how do you recall meeting judge porteous? >> well, i had a guy named adam bornet, and his dad was a lawyer in the courthouse for a long time. adam had connections with a few different judges because of his father. and so adam actually introduced me to porteous and rhonda, his secretary. >> so he was another bail bondsman. >> he was another bail bondsman.

>> and how did you form a relationship with judge porteous? >> um, you know, by meeting porteous and getting closer to him because adam introduced me to him, then all of a sudden he started, you know, he started spending more time with me than adam. >> and how, what kind of time was that? how would you spend that time with him? >> you know, dinners, lunches. more lunches than dinners, but, you know, lunch twice a week, something like that. >> and -- >> several times a week. >> also you started getting to know his secretary, rhonda danos. >> i started, what? this i'm sorry? >> did you get to know his secretary as wellsome. >> yes, i did. >> and over time can you describe the frequency with which you took the judge to lunch? this. >> you know, i'd say several times a week, you know? you know, two. i guess two would be a good guess. >> okay.

and how would these lunches be arranged? did he call you? this. >> some cases he'd call me, some cases i'd call him. >> was it just you and judge porteous? >> not necessarily. most of the time i had a group of people with me. >> and who else would that be? >> you know, i had rhonda, i had a few people from my office. if we could invite other judges or state reps or, you know, anybody who was connected with the criminal justice system we would try to bring them to the table as well. >> and did you include rhonda? this. >> yes, i did. >> and did you let him bring or invite whoever he wanted to? >> yes, i did. >> and did porteous, judge porteous know that he was permitted to invite other persons? >> well, yes. you know, it was unspoken, but, you know, we were okay with anyone he wanted to bring. >> and describe judge porteous' personality in a group situation

like these lunches. >> a leader, very funny guy, very smart too. >> did you want him to have a good time? >> i wanted him to have an excellent time. >> was it good for you to be seen with judge porteous? >> yes, it was because what it would do is, you know, it would make me look more like a businessman instead of a bail bondsman. because in the world of bail the bail bondsman doesn't have a real good reputation. >> and what was judge porteous' reputation as a former prosecutor and a judge? >> well, he was known as a leader. >> describe these lunches. what happened? >> we'd sit down, drink, eat and, you know, we would talk about different things, but we'd always talk about bail. >> how long would they go on for? >> sometimes an hour, sometimes two hours, sometimes five hours.

>> all afternoon sometimes. >> yes. >> and lots of drinking? >> lots of drinking. >> and where would you take him? what kind of restaurants would you take him to? >> ruth chris, you know, the beef connection, salvatore's. >> what types of restaurants were these? >> i'm sorry? this. >> what types of restaurants were they? >> kind of high-end restaurants, you know? >> like ruth chris is a steakhouse that -- >> yes, sir. >> maybe known outside of new orleans. i'm familiar with ruth chris steakhouse. were the other restaurants you took him too comparable to ruth chris? >> in some cases they were. >> did you -- >> i can't ever remember to go eat at a loose sandwich shop, but, you know, it's been a long time too. >> sure. did you enjoy these lunches? >> i did enjoy them.

and then at some point i wasn't enjoying them anymore because i thought sending other people to go. >> could you take all afternoon off and do this kind of thing? was it a problem? >> in some cases i could, in some cases i couldn't, in come cases i can't to. >> okay. do you have any sense for when these lunches started? >> you know, it's been several years. it could -- you know, '94, '95. you know, again, it's been a long time. >> would it, could it have been earlier than that? >> it could have been earlier than that. >> do you recall when you, when you first met judge porteous? >> you know, again, sometimes in the '90s. >> okay. >> it might go to '89, you know, '88. but i don't think any earlier than that. >> sure.

and -- >> but i could -- >> and did you start taking him to lunch not long after you, not long after you first met him? >> well, it took a little while but, you know, you know, maybe six months or something. >> okay. >> but -- >> by the end of judge porteous' tenure on the state bench, how frequently would you take him and others out to lunch? >> after he was on the state bench? >> well, by the end -- before he became a federal judge, at the end of the time he was on the state bench. >> just, you know, about twice a week which would be a good guess. >> and who paid for these lunches? >> bbu paid, i paid -- >> bbu meaning -- >> bail bonds unlimited. >> your company. >> yes, sir. >> how many times did judge porteous pay for lunch? >> as i can recall, none. he never -- >> never? >> never. >> and when you would take judge

porteous and a group out to lunch, in your mind was the money you spent on that meal money money that you spent on judge porteous? >> well, i kind of looked at it as an investment. >> and you were -- for whose benefit? >> for my benefit, and in some cases his benefit. >> okay. and let me turn now to the subject of automobiles. did you have anything to do with judge porteous' cars in the tim? >> uh, you know, it's hard to say. you know, the time frame, you know, was it '93, '92? you know, yeah. >> sometime in the early '90s did you have -- >> what i can say is i fixed cars for he and his family. >> and what do you mean by that, fixing cars? >> tires, radios, transmissions, body work.

you know, every time i took one of his cars, i filled it up with gas and washed it as well. >> all right. >> i mean, i really wanted to make a statement, you know, when i did something for him. >> and how did that start? >> it started with, you know, adam bar net bringing the keys -- >> adam barnett was the earlier bail bondsman? >> he started bringing the keys, and he wanted to share the expense, he pay half and i pay half. but i didn't have the contact with porteous, but i was paying half. and then at some point, you know, i started paying the whole thing and kind of, you know, edged adam out of the way probably because i had more money, and adam was not as, probably, trustworthy of a guy. >> and can you describe these cars? >> yes. they were, you know, they were old and, you know, kind of beat up. >> this and how many cars are we

talking about here? >> talking about three, four cars. >> just for the judge himselfsome. >> no. for his kids and him and, you know, maybe i'd repair hi wife's car -- repair his wife's car. i'm not exactly sure about that, but i can actually say right now his kids' and his car. >> and how did it come to your attention that these cars needed repairs, needed washing and so on? ..

>> do you remember the name of some of the auto repair establishments that do to repair? >> yes. one of them was tony's. i believe i put tires on his car at uniroyal. delta electronics put a stereo in his car. and there were different mechanics that i got, worked on carburetors and, you know, mechanical problems, transmissions. i think there's a transmission shop on manhattan boulevard. i don't remember the name but i note with a transmission in one of the cars come that place. or rebuilt one. >> who is jeff duhon? >> ps my brother-in-law. >> he was married to lisa? >> he was your. >> okay. did he work for you?

>> yes, he did. >> who is aubrey wallace? >> aubrey wallace was another guy who worked for me. >> did wallace have a nickname? >> the skeeter. >> did champion skier have anything to do with taking care of judge porteous' cars. >> yes. at that point in my life, jeff and skeeter -- i never wanted to leave that they'll office because i wanted to sell. so jeff and skeeter were kind of my runners. >> what do you mean by renders? >> you know, bring the cars, fixing stuff, you know, anything that would not get me out of my office because i didn't want to lose a sale. >> did attend whatever to you directly he needed car work? >> yes. i had lunch with him and he's would say hey, look, my car needs fixed. here's big tease. >> who paid for the repairs? >> i did. >> did judge porteous ever reimburse you?

>> no, he never. >> that ever come a time where you provided home repairs for judge porteous? >> yes. a storm, some of his fans blew down and i found -- some of his fans blew down. >> do you recall whether jeff had to purchase construction materials? >> yes, he did. >> and i think you stated in 2004 that you thought jeff may have paid $200 for the boards. in your mind would just have a better sense of how much he spent? >> i think jeff would know more because i was so involved in so many other things that boards on the fence wasn't really a priority in my life at that time. >> did jeff and skeeter actually do that work? >> yes, they did. >> in or about 1993 or 1994, did you ever have occasion to arrange a trip to las vegas with judge porteous? >> yes, i did.

>> and do you recall how that came about? >> well, i kind of want to get closer to him, and i figured if we went on a trip together, you know, it would build a better relationship, a closer relationship. >> and do you recall what year that was? >> you know, if you say it's 94 or 93, i mean, i don't know exactly. it's been a long time, 20 years almost. >> who went on that trip, do you recall? >> two of my buddies at the time, and still my buddies, philip o'neil and bruce, two lawyers, me and -- and it was a few other people. i think one or two of porteouses friends. and judge said colby. >> and judge porteous? >> yes. >> and you think some of judge porteous' for and? >> yes.

>> why were the lawyers invited? >> again, the strain the bail bond industry has at a national level. you know, i wanted to make some lawyers in there, so it wouldn't look so bad with him going to las vegas with me without some lawyers. >> and who invited the lawyers are? >> i invite the lawyers. lookup let's go go to las vegas with porteous. you know, we can develop a close relationship with him if we, you know, wine and dine him and treat him. >> and you think it included bruce? >> yes, i did. >> and he paid for the trip to? >> bruce, philip, and myself. >> and how did you pay for the trip? >> well, between my office and bruce and philip, we rounded up enough cash to pay for his trip to vegas. india india we gave the cash to

rhonda, who deposited it and cut the checks for his vegas tickets. >> rhonda being judge porteous' secretary? >> yes, sir. >> why was the payment of a trip arranged in that fashion? >> because we are trying to hide it from the world. >> and what do you ever judge porteous doing in las vegas? >> the whole time he drank and gambled. >> let me turn to the real question. why did you do all of this for judge porteous? >> because i wanted to better my business and be able to get the bonds done. >> how did judge porteous help you make money? >> several different ways. he helped me make money with bonds. he helped me make money by grooming other people to help

me. >> so let's talk about the bonds first. when you say help you make bonds and that helps you make money. what did he do in particular that helped you? >> he was available to me to do bonds at my request. >> and when you say do bonds, would this be a situation where the magistrate had set up on, set the bar too high? >> yes. it would be cases that the bonds were too high, cases the bonds were set at all. and -- >> so you could do to him to set bond? >> yes, i could. >> did you go to him for anything else with regard to bond? >> just to reduce and to set spirit and describe for the members how you went about having judge porteous set bond. >> we had some worksheets, and what we would do is, the work she would have the request of

what they could make any bond. and we would get the bond set to the amount that the defendant could make. >> and would you go to his chambers? how would you do this? >> there would be different ways. we would go to his chambers took we would drop them off with rhonda. we would call out the house, and basically, you know, sometimes at lunch, you know, he would approve the worksheet and then rhonda would take the worksheet back to the courts and then call the bond in. >> did you ever need to get in touch with him when the court was not in session, like at night over a week in? >> yes, i did. >> and how did you do that? >> called him spirit called him on the phone? >> yes, sir. >> describe how that would happen. >> judge, got this bond come if you could see it in study, this guy can make 100,000.

>> was rhonda danos important to you india with judge porteous? >> yeah. she was the gatekeeper. >> describe what the conversation was like between you and judge porteous about setting bonds. what would you tell him? >> if i didn't have a worksheet or if i had the worksheet, i would say, judge, this is the kind of bond that the defendant could make. >> was it important to you to tell him this was the amount of money the defendant could afford? >> yes, it was, because the bond that i would ask for would maximize the profits of my company. >> and when you went and set the bond you have the amount in mind to set? the? >> yes, i would. >> and how would you know what the person could afford? >> there was a key ways -- there

were a few ways we would know. we would qualify, take an application, run credit reports to see if they was financially able to pay a certain amount of bond. >> so, the most important thing to you was how much they could afford to pay, not how much it would be likely they would have to put up for a particular crime? you are looking to maximize your return, and that was based upon what? >> profits for our company. >> right. and what's the maximum profit you could make from an individual prisoner? >> by being able to post a bond and get 10%. >> right. and what would be the maximum amount they could pay? that would be -- >> i don't know -- 10%. >> okay. the information you gathered from the credit records, from the interviews, from talking to family members, allowed you to

ascertain how much money they had? >> yes, sir. >> and how would you utilize that information in setting the bonds? >> well, as far as the credit, you get the history of someone's credit -- >> you get all the information engineer how much money they could gather. what would you do with that? >> i would set the bond, either reduce the bond or set it to the amount that the defendant could make. >> gotcha. in your conversations with judge porteous, did you ever specifically tell him what the prisoner could afford? >> yes, i could i would always say, judge come if you could see fit in setting this bond, this is what i would like to have sent on the guy. >> so just to be clear. you would on occasion till judge porteous, judge, he cannot make

a $5000 bond, a $10,000 bond, or whatever? >> yes. >> was a judge porteous aware that when he set bond at your request, that you make money? >> maybe didn't, you know, one would have to be any not do no. >> so now, you would do all the judges to set bond come is that correct? >> yes. not all of them, but most of them. >> with their particular bond that you what to judge porteous to set for your? >> yes. >> what were they? >> fugitive bonds, probation bonds. probation bonds on other judges that didn't want to set them, that it wasn't his case. fugitive on -- do you want me to explain? >> explain why you would go to judge porteous when you had a net a judge judge was hearing the case. >> will come in some cases,

well, i would go because i did get it done within. there was some judges i knew i could get it done with. so what i would do, somebody had a fugitive on aren't extradition bond, he's wanted in washington on a burglary, i would ask poised to set a fugitive bonds in new orleans with a guy could get released in jefferson county and then they would have a hearing in jefferson would tell me whether or not he has to back here or not there but if we have to get the defendant out. >> you used -- sorry. tell the senators what split bonds are. >> a split bond is, let's say the judge set a $200,000 bond on a guy. okay, the family, we do credit report. we see what they can make. okay? if they can make 100, or the bond is 200, well, if we only

get 10,000 on a 200, we don't make any money because -- there's other fees that go, that are at the jail. on bail they've got a 40% tax at the jail. so by the time i pay the insurance company and by the time i paid the assured he he can become i would bet any money. and i would have a liability or so what i would do is get a family member to come in. it's called unsecured assured. have a family member coming. he could be joe blow worth zip. but as long as he had a valid id come he cites a $100,000 on his name, and if you post 100,000 commercial bond. state if you had $10,000, you could maximize that on 100,000. the other 100,000 would be on somebody's shared?

>> yeah, i'm secured security. basically a promissory note in most cases that was worth nothing. and then the 100,000 commercial was worth 100 grand. >> was helpful to that judge porteous was willing to split and reduce bond that other judges weren't? >> it was very helpful because there was hardly anyone that we couldn't get out of jail. >> did you ever talk about bond saturday on the days that you take into launch? >> yes, i did. >> and four, during and after launch? >> yes. we showed up with worksheets at lunch. not at the beginning, but as our relationship grew, then we started bringing the worksheets to the table, and rhonda would be there, and he wouldn't call them in from the -- from the lunch table, but he would approve them and when rhonda would get back with five, six, 10 worksheets, then she would

call the jail. spirit and would you go back to his chambers after lunch? >> yes. i would go back to his chambers. if i didn't see him, i would see rhonda, and see if he did the bond. and most of the time they were done. >> let's say you would drop $100 or $200 for lunch. right there at the lunch you could talk to the judge about bond, go back to his chambers after lunch and get him to sign bonds? >> yes. >> did any of the conversations concerning repairs to his car occur in his chambers when he was setting bonds? >> i think more as lunch table, you know, here's tommy skis or a car is broken again. or rhonda would call. after she called maybe 10 minutes later we would call and say judge, can you do this bond

tracks -- can you do this bond. he was more apt to do things when we are going to lunch together. >> i previously asked you about jeff duhon. when he first started working for you, what did you? >> he kind of started out like i did in the bail bond business, as a janitor. cleaning up, you know, running all my errands. you know, i'm entirely have some errands to run, but i did have a lot. so it wasn't a full-time job so i wanted, you know, work in the bail office. so some point he started answering the phones and waiting on people to roll out of jail. because if someone rolls out of jail, you have to take him back to the office and take a picture and all that. it became advantageous to me to getting licensed. >> when jeff first worked for you, could you write bonds?

>> no, he could not. >> why not? >> because he had a conviction. >> what was the conviction of? >> i believe it was a burglary. >> so it was a felony conviction? >> yes, sir. >> why would that prevent him from riding bond? >> you have to hold an insurance license and lose the commissioner of insurance uproots you, you can't be convicted of anything. and i knew that i couldn't get the commissioner to wade into, so, you know, we thought it would be easier to try to get the conviction set aside and have his record expunged. >> is there anything you do to help jeff, and to help your business, to deal with the felony conviction? >> yes. what i did was, if i can whenever clearly, -- if i can remember clearly, jeff's case

was not allotted to porteous. it was allotted to another judge. so another judge had jeff on probation. and so i wanted to get porteous to talk to that judge to see if he would expunge and set aside just conviction so i could -- so he could become a bail bondsman. >> and what -- do you know whether judge porteous did that? did he expunge it him self? >> he said he asked the judge -- i don't know if the actor did because i wasn't there, but at some point he set aside the conviction speeded judge porteous didn't? >> yes, he did. and expunged his record. >> and did you personally have a conversation with the judge

porteous concerning that request? >> yes. to be honest with you, you know, a couple of months, you know, when are you going to do it, when he going to do it, what are you going to do at? and at some point he did spirit how certain are you that judge porteous expunge jeff duhon's conviction at your request? >> welcome was able to get him a bail license. >> was there anything about that action by judge porteous that stands out as particularly unusual? >> yes. because he set aside the conviction and expunged the record, on another judge's case. >> whose case was that? >> i think it was richard case, but judge richard spirit and why do you recall that? >> because, you know, again, i think it was judge richards but it was deathly another judge's

case. >> let me turn to the summer of 1994. were you ever made aware that judge porteous was under consideration to be nominated as a federal judge? >> yes, i was. >> were you ever interviewed by the federal bureau of investigation, the fbi come as a part of that background check? >> yes, i was. >> in connection with your testimony, has remembered been refreshed on how many times you were interviewed? >> yes it has. >> and how many times were you interviewed? >> i was interviewed twice. >> to judge porteous know you're going to be interviewed? >> yes, he did spirit how do you know that? >> because he told me they would coming in if you meet. >> you have been asked about what you said on that background check on prior occasions. first, the fbi agent right of a background check reflects that you said, and we have a slide, pull up your, -- pull it up

here. can you enlarge that? so, taking these sentences one at a time, the first sentence refers to alcohol and report you as saying, quote, the candidate will have a beer or two at lunch. that's referring to judge porteous. was that a true statement? >> no, that was a false statement. >> can you indicate what extent you are referring to i am sorry. it is part of exhibit 69 p. >> thank you. >> senator, on that,. [inaudible] >> you're going to need to speak into the microphones where the record of what you're saying, council. >> i'm sorry, it is port, 472, exhibit 69-b is the exhibit

background file. >> thank you. >> so we were talking about why you knew the statement you made that he had a beer or two at lunch was false but how did you know that was false? >> because i have watched him drink, you know, five, six, seven absolute and straight up. >> why would you lie for him? >> because through the years he was good to me and i wanted to see him get his federal appointment. and at that point we still had time left with him. and if i had told the truth, i would have had any reason to tell the truth. he had been good to me and i wanted to see him get what he wanted. >> the second sentence states that you have quote, no knowledge of the candidates financial situation. end quote. was that the troop? >> no, that wasn't the truth

because you could tell by his surroundings with the cars, they were old and they were broken. and you could see that he was having financial problems. >> did he have some lifestyle issues? >> yes, he did there he gambled a lot and he drank. >> and do you know, did you know those are costly to him a? >> yes, i did. >> why didn't you tell the fbi that you judge porteous had financial problems? >> because again, you know, i wanted him to be confirmed. i was trying to protect him. and i wanted him to get his lifetime appointment. >> the third is the sense that reports that you are quote, not aware of anything indicated his background that might be the basis of attempted influence, pressure, coercion, compromise, or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character, reputation, judgment or discretion. did you see that? >> not really, but --

>> you heard that? >> i heard that. >> you are aware of everything that you just testify to, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you knew your own relationship was improper, didn't you? >> yes, i did. >> you knew you couldn't take a judge to las vegas? >> yes, i did. >> you are deliberately hiding the full extent of your relationship with judge porteous? >> yes, i did. >> why? >> to protect him. and to protect myself, too. >> then on a separate interview, you are asked about a particular case called the keith klein case. do you recall that? >> yes, i do spirit and that involve an allegation that judge porteous received money from an attorney to lower bail in that case, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> did you have firsthand knowledge of the allegations of? >> not firsthand, but yeah, the lawyer told me that keith klein was in his office and that he felt like he was wired and he was asking questions about

speeded the lawyer being whose lawyer? >> the boy who got the bond reduced -- the lawyer who got the bond reduced. >> in your two interviews with the fbi, what was your motive? >> to make sure porteous got his lifetime appointment. >> and did you feel your time the fbi what judge porteous want you to tell them? >> yes, i did. >> did you feel that your interview with the fbi was part of the relationship that you described where he would do things for him, and he would do things for you? >> yes. >> did you have conversation with judge porteous after either or both of those interviews about the image is? >> yes. we had a conversation before when he told me they would be coming to see me, and didn't do it at other times when women to lunch we talked about, you know,

he asked a two or three times just to make sure everything was clarified. >> what did you tell him you told the fbi? >> thumbs up. >> also in the summer of 1994 do you recall making any request of judge porteous regarding aubrey wallace? >> yes, i did. >> what do you recall asking judge porteous? >> i said, judge, can you get this guy's record expunged so he can become a licensed bail agent. >> and do you recall having one conversation, or more than one conversation on that topic? >> again, robert hurt on them until i could find him to do it. >> and do you call judge porteous response? >> he kept putting me off, putting me off. listen, i'm not going to let anything stand in the wake of me being confirmed in my lifetime appointment. so after that's done i would do it.

>> did he say why he wanted to put it off until after the confirmation? >> because, again, he didn't want anything to get away at his lifetime appointment. >> what kinds of things could get in the weight of its? >> i guess the government would've found that some of the things he was doing with me. it would probably keep them from getting his appointment. >> wouldn't be a public record of that? >> yes, there would. they would come out in the newspaper or -- >> and, in fact, did judge porteous do what he said he would you? >> he did. >> did he set aside wallace's burglary conviction? >> yes, he did. >> and wasn't after he was confirmed either send? >> yes, it was. >> and did you understand this

as something that he did for you, or something he did for wallace? >> it's something he did form the. >> was this something that was worked out between you and judge porteous? >> yes, it was. .. in the u.s. district court regarding the issuance of commercial bonds? >> yes, i did. there is the magistrate, i asked

him what he talked to louis moore because in federal court they were taking a lot of 10% deposits and that means when you put up 10% with the court you eliminate the bail bondsman and i ask porteous to see if he could get louis moore to change the bonds to a commercial bond and he told me he went to him but you know did he really? i don't know. i had that conversation with him. >> did you attempt to maintain a relationship with judge porteous even after he became a federal judge? >> yes i did. >> why? because i thought it would be important to have a federal judge sitting next to me because if i brought people to the table, he would bring --. >> did you want judge porteous to help you recruit a new judge? >> yes, i did. >> were there times that you

arrange lunches with you and judge porteous other people who you wanted to impress? >> yes, i did. >> did you make any request of judge porteous relative to judge bodenheimer? >> yes i did. >> what did you ask judge porteous about judge bodenheimer? >> i talked to him and you know, talk to him, i would like, that i would like him to step into issues. >> judge porteous is now a federal judge. judge bodenheimer is the state court judge. >> )-right-parenthesis be did you acknowledge that judge porteous said anything on your behalf to judge bodenheimer? >> i think he did. he told me he did. >> after judge porteous told you that he spoke to judge bodenheimer how did your relationship with judge bodenheimer developed? >> well, it got stronger. i had a relationship with bodenheimer a little bit before

porteous, but porteous actually made it stronger. >> in what respect? >> because again he was a leader, and had always been a leader. everyone follows the leader. >> did he become more helpful in setting bonds? >> yes, he was. >> did you start doing things for judge bodenheimer? >> yes, i did. >> what did you do for him? >> i did some repairs on his house and basically started taking him to dinners and lunches and made one trip with him. >> overcautious what? >> it is a casino in mississippi. >> i think we mentioned that in 2002 you are under criminal investigation. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> were you aware that you were

under surveillance? >> no, sir. >> have you seen the fbi surveillance tape of you entering emeralds restaurant? >> yes, i did. >> is your recollection, when you view to did you view it as being an accurate state? >> yes sir comet was accurate. >> who went to lunch that day? >> john ben's. >> she was? >> she was a state judge. steve don as, porteous, myself and i think bodenheimer was there and. >> judge ben secretary? >> yes. >> what was the purpose of the lunch? >> grooming. >> who? >> more grooming with bodenheimer and two grim ben's.

>> who invited judge porteous? >> my secretary, mike ministry there would have called rhonda and invited her. >> again he was a federal court judge at this time? >> yes, sir. >> why did you want judge porteous there? >> because we wanted you know, i wanted him to talk about male and how good it is for the system and so she would start doing bonds. i needed as many people as i could to fill in that gap. >> what purpose did judge porteous fulfill in that bunch? >> again, by being a leader and talking about male and how good it is for the system and a state judge sitting with a federal judge you know, it brings some

power to the table. >> led me, but me show you the receipt from that lunch. do you recognize this? >> yes, sir. >> i will it up for you here. >> my signature. >> how much was it for? >> 400. >> first of all madam chairman i would ask that this be identified as house exhibit 375. >> the exhibit will so be identified in the record. >> how much was it for? >> $414.29. >> do you also see the restaurant check which i think is the other half of that? >> yes, sir. >> is there anything on the check that confirmed in your mind that judge porteous was present? >> yes.

>> i am going to show you a videotape now and as i do i want you to simply identify who is on the screen so you can identify. and madam chairman this is house exhibit 48. >> i was still in benz' car. >> the 40th, on the right? >> that is judge john benz, his secretary. there are i am. steve donnas and bodenheimer. judge benz. >> judge bench is the last one coming out there? >> yes, sir. now let me show you house exhibit 241 which is a still

photo from that videotape. who are the four persons in that photo? >> that is steve, me and bodenheimer. i can't really see who the other two are to the right. >> is that judge porteous? >> yes, porteous, me and bodenheimer. it is kind of blurry. >> but you do see yourself? >> yes, sir. >> udc judge bodenheimer and udc judge porteous? >> yes, sir. >> in february 2004 was a public

knowledge that you are under investigation? >> yes, sir. >> at some point did a request come to you from judge porteous' lawyered? >> yes, sir. >> what was that request? >> he kept calling me and he wanted me to sign a document that said, that porteous didn't take anything of value from me. >> let me show you house exhibit 280. we are going to that up. at you recognize your signature on that document? >> yes, sir. >> what is that document? >> that is an affidavit saying that he didn't take anything of value. monies or any type of quid pro quo action.

and i signed that. >> who prepared that affidavit? >> porteous' lawyer. >> let's go through the paragraph briefly. paragraph 3 says at no time have i ever given anything of value to judge porteous or reducing or altering any bond. do you believe this to be true at the time he signed it? >> completely false. >> it was prepared by judge porteous' attorney? >> yes, sir. >> in what way is it not true? >> because all the meals and the whining and dining and the tripo do bonds. >> why did you sign this if it was not true? >> well, i was trying to protect him. >> the rest of this document has to do with the bond case we referred to earlier. that was the subject of a confirmation check inquiry. the fbi was interested in that?

>> yes. >> do you know why that was included? >> because he thought maybe i knew something about the event. he was taking money from the lawyer. i am not -- i mean i can't read it. >> did you make this false statement to help judge porteous? >> yes, i did. >> and just like you made false statements in connection with the background checks? >> yes sir, i did. >> was a simply a continuation of the same relationship you describe that had its roots back in the 24th jdc in the state court where you did things for him and he did things for you? >> yes, sir. >> ultimately did you plead guilty to a federal corruption offense? >> yes i did. >> let me show you exhibit 71a the information you pleaded guilty to. it charges back on or about a

certain date beginning prior to 1991, you've commenced in a conspiracy with certain named persons and persons known and unknown to the grand jury. going back to 1991, who did you have a corrupt conspiratorial relationship with? >> porteous. >> just to be clear, you pleaded guilty to having a corrupt relationship with judge porteous among others? is that correct? >> yes her. >> the conspiracy charges describe not only the things he gave judges but it also describes the conduct of the judges as follows. three, it was a further part of the conspiracy that in return for things of value, certain judges would make themselves available to bb you, quickly responded to a request of bail bonds unlimited and set reduced increased and split bonds to maximize btu's profits minimize liability and hindered bbu competition. ford was a further part of the

conspiracy that to allow them to maximize profits the conspirator judges who would engage in the practice of law and splitting at the request of the conspirator judge would assess the commercial portion of the bond at an amount the defendant could afford and would set the balance in some other manner. bbu would post the commercial portion of the bond and collect a percentage of that law and as commission. this practice allowed them to maximize its profit and minimize its liability. is that a fair description of the conspiracy to which he pleaded guilty? >> yes, it is. >> finally did you go to jail for the things you gave judges? >> yes i did. >> what was your sentence? >> 37 months. >> was that reduced? >> i got the drug program and had 18 months in jail. >> did you lose your job over this? >> yes, i did.

>> you lost bbu over this. that they make sure i understand this. you can no longer being the bail bonds business because you corrupt the gave things to public officials? >> yes her. >> at least one public official that received those things remains on the bench. is that correct? >> yes sir. >> no no further questions. >> mr. turley. >> thank you madam chair. good morning mr. marcotte. we have met before. my name is jonathan turley and i did your deposition earlier. >> yes, sir. >> let's just start with some basic questions so we can clarify the record. most of these questions are yes or no but feel free to answer as

you wish. you never gave castor agree to judge porteous at anytime, did you? >> not directly. >> you never gave a campaign contribution to judge porteous, did you? >> no, did not. >> once judge porteous became a federal judge you never said -- he never set the bond for you did he? >> no he did not. >> you testified earlier that judge porteous never gave you a kick back or that you never gave judge porteous ticket back on bonds. is that correct? >> not in cash. >> now, let me ask you, you were talking about the bonn process and some of us are familiar with that process and some of us may not be. >> yes, sir. >> isn't it true that in your experience that if the district attorney or assistant district attorney objected to the bonds generally the judges would reject the bond? >> yes there. >> was at your experience with judge porteous as well?

>> yes, sir. >> and was that your experience that if a district attorney or an assistant district attorney objected to an expungement, generally the judges and gretna would tonight be expungement? >> yes, sir. >> what is and -- was that your experience with judge porteous as well? >> yes, sir. >> and 1993 and 1994 we have been talking a lot about that. not. how many bondsmen were working in gretna? >> i would say maybe three or four agencies. >> okay, two or three? >> two or three. >> and, you previously testified that even with two or three bondsmen you were handling 90% of the bonds at that time or more. correct? >> you know, it was a long time ago and you know, i would say probably 90% of the bonds.

>> okay. now, during that reid. first of all, let me ask you would it surprise you, going earlier, for example in 1986, what it surprise you to learn that and that given year there were more than 3200 bonds that pass through the gretna courthouse? >> no, it would not surprise me. >> okay. madam chair i would like to introduce a cd of bonds that we previously gave to the committee, previously gave to the house. this cd is mark porteous exhibit 2001. as we will be referring to it. >> any objection? >> madam chair if i could have a moment? madam chair, we have no objection. >> the exhibit will be received into the record. >> what it surprise you mr.

marcotte to learn and one of those months, september 1986, there were 51 bonds signed by judge porteous? >> it would not surprise me. >> madam chair, we have separated out those bonds. we referred to committee earlier to those bonds in the opening statement and we would like to go ahead and mark those as porteous exhibit 2000 to. >> without objection. >> what it surprise you that in february of that year's judge porteous signed 41 bonds? >> up what here? >> 1986. >> no it would not surprise me. >> madam chair we have separated out those bonds for the record. we are marking that as a porteous exhibit 2003. >> be they record will not. >> mr. marcotte would you be surprised to learn that in december of that year, 1986,

judge porteous signed 29 bonds? >> no, it would not surprise me. >> that is our final exhibit in the theories. we have marked that porteous exhibit 2004 madam chair. >> can i ask, what you mean by signs? could i ask what you mean by signs? >> that he was the judge who signed those approved bonds? >> released them, those bonds are just that i'm? >> that he signed and approved the bond and he was the judge who had signed those bonds. >> they were released on his signature? >> presumably that is what is in the record. >> okay. >> those have been marked porteous exhibit 2004 and of course we are offering these to be introduced as evidence. >> without objection. >> okay. i am going to try to get an idea of what the situation was like

in gretna. during most of this. now, correct and certainly all of the periods that judge porteous was the judge wasn't he under a court order? >> yes sir, they were. >> that was a pretty strict court order right because didn't require mandatory releases of prisoners? >> yes. at a certain capacity. >> and it was at that capacity for most of that period, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> and isn't it true that during many parts, many months and years that as soon as people were brought into the overcrowded prisons, people had to be released to satisfy that court order? >> yes, sir they did. >> and this was a big concern for judges and gretna, wasn't

it? >> some. >> some did not care? >> some did not care. some of them just wanted, they didn't want to put their name on anything so they just that the bonds real high. >> okay. and wasn't it a problem that judges discuss that many of these prisoners who were released on mandatory court orders of overcrowding disappeared? >> yes, sir. >> now isn't it your experience that the chances that a person will return to the court after release is higher if they have a bond on them? >> yes, it is sir. >> why is that? >> because they have someone hunting them. >> you, right? >> right. >> otherwise if a guy like he was not looking for these guys, what usually has to happen for these bail jumpers to be caught?

>> if they get pulled over at a traffic stop then they arrest them. >> it is pretty much accidental, right? >> yes, sir. >> the police and gretna like other cities didn't regularly look for bail jumpers, right? >> in some cases they did that most the time not. >> most the time not. thank you. would you say that the higher a bond was set the more likely someone would be to come back to court? >> yes, sir. >> now we had talked about this idea of a magistrate judge and i just want to clarify something because once again people might not be familiar with it. a magistrate during that period was a judge, correct? >> yes and in some cases appointed lawyer. >> but, during this period, wasn't a magistrate system a judge who was selected to serve

for a week to handle bonds? >> yes, sir. >> okay so this was done by rotation, correct? >> yes, sir. >> a lot of judges didn't like that duty, did they? a lot of judges had reputations for not being available, didn't they? >> yes, they did. >> and if they weren't available, the magistrate judge could not get anything done, could you? >> no, sir. >> and wasn't true that it was common for bail bondsman if they couldn't find a magistrate to try to find another judge? isn't that true? >> yes, it was. >> in fact isn't that sometimes called bond shopping? >> yes, sir. >> so when i bail bondsman is bond shopping, wouldn't they sometimes go into the courthouse

to try to see who was available in the courthouse? >> yes, sir. they would. >> you did that, right? >> yes, sir. >> you testified earlier sometimes you would go into the courthouse and jesse who store was open or which judges were still there? >> what judges would be acceptable to let me in. >> you testified earlier that judge judge porteous is viewed as one of the more experienced judges and dealing with criminal matters? >> yes, a leader. >> now, isn't it correct that sometimes when you went looking for a judge, he went to judges other than judge porteous, right? >> yes, sir, i did.

>> now let's talk about the split bonds for a second. was judge porteous the only judge to split bonds in gretna? >> no, there were other judges as well. >> r. blit -- split lawns illegal? >> no sir, they are not. >> split dons were pretty common were they not? a lot of judges thought they were a good idea, right? >> yes, they did. >> a lot of split bonds prosecutors did not object to, right? >> no they did not. >> now, part of the thing i think part of the value of your testimonies to try to educate people as mr. goodlatte did on this process. now, isn't it true that sometimes a bond is initially set to high because of the original charges?

>> yes, sir but for a number of reasons they set them high. >> yeah that is new true if someone comes in, they could come in on a very serious charge that the actual charge that they are being held for trial is much lower. isn't that true? >> yes, sir. sometimes they would throw out some charges. >> so often their bond is set with that original charge that may have been reduced or dropped, correct? >> for an example if you got three charges, the guy is charged with burglary resisting arrest and the d.a. might toss two of them out and you may have one bond at 2500 the other -- so the total bond may have been 7500. >> right writes so in a case like that, let's say a guy gets pulled and. he is charged with a large possession wade of drugs and a stolen car and a bond is set for

that. and then if they drop the drug and possession and go with a stolen car you have got a bond left that is too high, right? >> yes, sir. actually, that bond just goes away because when they screen it they throw that charge out and that on is exonerated at that point. >> but there is a need for the bond, for that guy to be lower than the original bond so that judges would generally reduce the bond when the charges were reduced, correct? >> yes, they would. but in most cases the bonds were set and then they go through a screening process and then they toss the bonds out. >> but let me just ask. >> to charges out. >> that is fine but i think i can clarify what the next question. isn't it true that some judges do split dons is the way was dealing with artificially high bonds? >> yes, sir.

>> that is all i need, thanks. isn't it also true that many judges viewed split bonds as a way of getting more of on his on people so that they wouldn't just be released on their own recognizance? >> yes, sir. >> because that makes it more likely that they will come back, correct? >> yes, sir. >> by the way, you testified earlier judge porteous would sometime turn you down for bonds, right? >> he turned me down for a few. >> now, isn't it true that you testified earlier that judge porteous' standard operating procedure was to check out the representations that were made in bonds? >> meaning? yes. >> isn't it true that he would

also color prosecutor to the jail to confirm the facts on the bonds? >> most of them -- the time he would have ronde called the jail to see. normally be went there and we would have been able to call the jail and get the rap sheet and they would have that on the worksheet, but he would also doublecheck in some cases. >> bud's didn't he do that on a regular basis, that he would get that confirmation? >> most of the time but sometimes he didn't. >> now, you said you worked with an individual named anthem barnett. do you recall? >> yes, sir. >> is that correct that prior to 1993, prior to you and your sister developing that relationship you describe the judges that you would use adam arnett to approach judges, correct? >> yes i would. >> is that correct you would use adam barnett to approach judge porteous on bonds prior to 1993? >> yes, get.

>> is that correct became a point when you stopped using adam barnett because you didn't think that judge porteous trusted mr. barnett? >> yes, sir. >> now, you took sides before the house of representatives and i'm quoting. i met judge porteous through another bail agent. at some point the bail agent faded out and then we became close with judge porteous after he faded out. do you recall something like that? >> yes, sir. >> you are referring to adam barnett? >> yes i am. >> i would like to introduce house exhibit 19 -- 119c, and mr. marcotte this is an article that we showed you in deposition this is a times picayune article from september 13, 1993. in the headline in the article it reads 80,000-dollar house is

used as a surety for 300,000 in bonds. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> do you remember that article? >> yes, sir. not verbatim but i remember it. everything that is in there, i mean i remember. >> i am not going to quiz you on a. >> isn't it true that article was about the event that led barnett to quote fadeout? >> yes, sir. >> so that was an embarrassing story for people in gretna, correct? >> yes, sir. it was. >> than it was after that article that you became close with judge porteous and began to take him out to lunch is more, correct? >> yes, sir. >> is that correct that you dealt with porteous far more often in 1994 than he did in 1991? >> yes, sir. >> let's look at the lunches.

was it your experience in that legal community that it was a pretty close-knit legal community? >> it was close-knit for some people. >> for lawyers and judges for example? and wasn't it common for lawyers and judges to go out to lunch with each other and to socialize with each other? >> they did. >> and you testified that you went out to lunch with judge porteous. did you have these lunches in undisclosed or secret locations? >> no, sir. i did not. >> when you went into these, these restaurants did you ask for a backroom so that you could not be seen having lunch with any of these judges? >> no, sir. i did not.

>> so it is pretty common for judges and lawyers to see you with judge porteous, was it not? >> actually i wanted them to see me with them. >> and judge porteous did not try to avoid being seen with you or the people at lunch? >> no, he did not. >> did you ever tell judge porteous that you expected certain things for this lunch or for all of those launches? >> every time that i asked him for a bond, i was asking judge if you can see fit in studying this bond, in other words every time. >> did you ever say look, judge i am buying you this eve for a purpose? okay? you know please remember i just bought you bunch. did you ever have a conversation like that? >> i never had a conversation like that.

>> now the house asked you about places you took judge porteous to lunch and suggested that these were incredibly expensive lunches. i am going to show you a number of receipts the house has produced regarding these lunches and first we are going to take a look at house exhibit 370 2b. and if you look at that screen you will be able to see it. can you see a receipt there? >> yes, sir. >> it appears that this is a receipt for the beef connection and if you take a look at the amount on that receipt, you see it says $352.43. >> yes, sir. >> up in the right corner, it looks like there is a notation for the this size of the group. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> how many people were at that lunch?

>> 10. >> thank you. and you testified when you are asked about when you thought the lunches started you were thinking 1994 or 95 when we were talking about lunches, when he first testified? >> yes, sir. >> let's take a look at another receipt. this is house exhibit 372d. now this is another receipt from the beef connection. and, if you look closer at the amount, the amount seems to say, $268.84. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> let's take a look at how many people attended that lunch. there is a notation for the number of people attending. can you tell me how many people attended that lunch? >> nine. >> madam chair we would like to

move these receipts obviously into evidence. thank you. now by the way i just want to have to take a look at another exhibit which is house exhibit 373a. i want to blow up on what people were charged for. one of the exhibits that they said judge porteous attended, one of the lunches judge porteous attended. do you see any charge therefore absolut vodka? no, i don't see it. >> and, chairman hatch we would like to move that as evidence as

well. >> without objection. >> now i want to go back to some of the discussion about the bonds. >> okay. >> in 1993 and 1994, you previously estimated that in a given day, you might have anywhere between one and 10 bonds through the courthouse. correct? >> yes, sir. >> you previously testified however that towards the end of judge porteous' period as a state judge that you wanted to quote, open the floodgates, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that you thought, this was a long time ago but you thought you had moved a lot of bonds that last month, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i am going to show you a

dimon should have -- demonstrative that the exhibit summarized in the record. now, would it surprise you that on the last day that judge porteous was a state judge, take a look down there. it says october 28, judge porteous sworn and to the federal bench. did you see that? >> yes, sir. >> it might be easier on your screen and if you take a look at the day before which was technically his last day as a state judge it shows that he just approved one bond, write? >> yes, sir. >> take a look at the day before that. how many blondes does it show that he approved the day before that? >> to. >> the day before that on the 26th?

>> yes, sir. >> it shows one, correct? >> yes, sir. >> then there are no bonds 25th, 24th and then on the 23rd how many lawns does it show? >> one bond. >> now,. >> on the 23rd? >> the 23rd, one bond. >> you right. >> what it surprise you judge porteous signed only three bonds in his last week? >> if that is what you say it is. all i know is i told him, as he was leaving open the floodgates, wear him out because you know, it will save the other ones for later. >> that makes sense so when you talk about the floodgates that was what you were hoping to do,

correct? >> maybe it was slow that week you know but that was what i said. to wear him out before he leaves and save the other judges until after he is gone. >> now what it surprise you that in the previous 21 days that judge porteous only signed 27 bonds? >> if that is what your research shows, yes sir. >> but it would not surprise you use a? >> no, it would not surprise me. >> now let's look at those home repairs for a second. i just want to clarify a couple of things. in the 1980s and '90s you employed a group of guys that did construction, write? >> yes, sir. >> and his nature you testified that you sometimes had trouble with these guys to make sure that they were working? >> the construction guys? bea.

>> yes, get. >> is that true that you are also concerned because these guys would do drugs a lot? >> yes, i did. >> isn't it true that you and your sister whenever that confident about whether these guys were working or just messing around? >> yes, sir. i did. >> you often try to keep a close eye on them for that reason? >> i get. >> didn't you use these construction crews to assist a friend to work on their house in your previous testimony? >> yes, i did. an employee, you know. >> yeah. now, in your previous testimony you said you volunteered to have these guys fixed the fence for judge porteous, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and isn't that the only occasion when judge porteous was a state judge that you did home

repairs for him? >> yes, sir. >> and you testified earlier that you don't know how much repairs were needed on the fence? correct? >> i did. >> and in fact you testified earlier he don't know how much it costs, correct? >> yes sir. in fact you testified earlier that you didn't personally go and buy supplies for the repairs, did you? >> i did not. >> didn't you testified earlier that you didn't personally hand any cash to mr. wallace or mr. dumond for the defense? >> they probably could've god -- petty cash. i don't know how it was done. remember, all i did was sell. >> you aren't in the fence -- but you don't recall, write? >> i wasn't in anything but selling. >> you don't recall either way, whether check or cash he don't recall giving the money for a?

>> no, sir. >> in fact you testified earlier you weren't quite sure who paid for the materials. isn't that true? >> yes, sir. >> i want to make it absolutely clear when judge porteous from the day he became a federal judge until this very day you have never done any home repairs for him as a federal judge, correct? >> no, sir. i did not. >> let me go to car repairs. now, isn't it true you testified before that you don't have any records or receipts for the car repairs, correct? >> if the government has them, personally i don't have them but maybe the government has them. >> and you didn't generally go to these repairs yourself? he said people that worked for you did this? >> i would send skeeter to drop it off somewhere. >> and i want to be absolutely clear from the minute that judge

porteous became a federal judge to this very day, you have never done any car repairs for judge porteous, correct, when he was a federal judge? >> not that i can recall. >> now i want to talk about that trip. we talked about that during the deposition. is it true that judge porteous went to las vegas to speak at that conference? >> i don't know if it was that conference but i think one time we went just four you know when i went with jacoby and him and i don't think it was a conference that he spoke out or goes. >> it might've been a convention. i might be using the wrong term but he spoke at a convention in vegas. is not what you testified to previously? >> i know i went to vegas with him and jacoby. i don't know if he spoke at the convention at that time. i had been to vegas as the bail bondsman for 25 years and i

brought different people, so i mean i know i was in vegas with porteous and jacoby. >> did you ever called testifying under oath previously that when asked did he go to vegas to speak of this convention and you answered, quote, he did? >> yes, i did. >> now on another trip to vegas, you are asked about paying the cost of judge porteous. in fact mr. goodlatte went over that with you. that was a trip that bruce netterville attended, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you were the best man for netterville at his weddings, where you? >> yes, i was. >> at his wedding i should say. now, mr. netterville is married to judge shall hardy, write? >> yes sir. he was. >> by the way did you do bonds with judged a hearty? >> yes, i did.

>> and you were friends with mr. netterville to? and you are still friends correct? >> yes, i am. >> he was someone he wanted to go to vegas on that trip? part of that was because you were friends in that close relationship, correct? >> yes. >> you didn't just ask netterville to make things better. he was there also is a friend, write? >> as a friend that i also wanted him to be close to porteous because you know, at some point you start wearing someone else out and you start bringing someone else in and accomplish the same thing but you have to pay a little more to get it done to the lawyer. do you see where i am going? >> and, you previously testified that he didn't give any cash to porteous on these trips, correct? >> i did not. >> you previously testified he never saw anyone else give him cash on these trips? >> i did not.

>> let's talk about the wallace and duhon set-asides for a bit exist mr. goodlatte spent a fair amount of time on that. now, you have talked about how judge porteous said that he wanted to way to deal with the wallace matter until after his confirmation, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i am going to show you house exhibit 246. i'm going to specifically look at page 4. >> i am sorry, what? >> oh actually i'm going to first chart on page 1 and then i'm going to go to page 4 because i want to look at the date on page 1. >> okay, september 21, 1994.

>> can we zero in on the date. >> september 24, 1994? >> let's take a closer look. september 21, is that what you said? >> yes sir, 1994. >> i am sorry council do we know what council -- exhibit is on the screen? >> this is exhibit 246 i believe. now, do you know when judge porteous was confirmed? >> if you would ask me right now the date, no sir i don't. >> alright. would it surprise you to learn that judge porteous was confirmed october 1994? >> yes, sir. >> so of judge porteous was confirmed in october 1994 does not that mean that he actually dealt with the wallace matter you just saw an september?

>> yes, sir. >> that would be before, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. let's take a look at, let's take a look at page 442. at the very end. there is a statement that the judge made. this is after he set aside, the judge set aside the conviction and then he says that he thought that he could deal with expungement later, correct? >> madam chairwoman, i object. that was not a set aside of the convention so i think council may be misrepresenting that. >> what are you suggesting this was? >> there was, madam chair, there was a motion to amend the sentence and that took place in september. the set aside conviction though

did not take place until after the confirmation in october. >> actually that is what we are going to be getting to. with that note i would like to proceed so we can make that objection august the but i want to simply note that in this hearing, unfortunately i can't see these very well. you can see it says, if you want further relief, then file a petition to enforce 893 and then i will execute that also. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> do you know what 893 as? >> i think first-time offender. if you don't get in trouble x amount of times, your probation will be terminate at. >> does that also deal with expungement? >> yes, sir. >> so in september 1994, in open court, the judge is dealing with the set-aside in the saying that

he is willing to deal with expungement, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now i would like to deal with the duhon matter. you talk about the duhon matter with mr. goodlatte, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and, you mentioned that the duhon case, that judge porteous had set aside a conviction by another judge, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i think you said judge richards, correct? >> right. >> you said this was over in judge richards court and it was judge porteous that grabbed it from judge richards, correct? >> yes, sir.

>> are you aware that judge richards actually set aside the conviction before judge porteous acted? >> no, sir. i'm not. >> i would like to show you house exhibit 77c. and i would like to highlight the date on this. now, you see this is a motion for a set-aside conviction and dismissed prosecution. i would like to zero in on the date. and it goes to the next page. >> they are going to it up for you and a second. >> my eyes are bad, too.

>> you so our mind. do you see where it says june 18, 1993? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now are you aware that this state date is one month earlier than the date when judge porteous dealt with this matter in his courtroom? >> yes, sir. if that is what you say. >> let me ask you, are you aware that judge richards actually signed an expungement. i am sorry? signed an expungement for duhon before judge porteous ever did? >> i wasn't aware of that. >> we are going to put in a new exhibit which we would like to introduce for evidence. we are going to mark this is porteous exhibits 2006. and we previously notified the house about this exhibit at.

>> okay. >> madam chair, can we introduce this as porteous 2006? >> hearing no objections, it will be admitted into the record. >> now i would like to highlight the date on this, this document. and, do you see where the document shows july, 1992? >> yes, sir. >> that was two years before judge porteous dealt with this matter, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, i should note that this expungement, this is one of expungement he received during this period not. it has a different number from the one that tier previously

exhibit. we are offering this just to show judge richards previous work in this case. by the way, with mr. duhon, what judge porteous did, what you referred to, was an expungement, correct? not a set-aside? >> either both or either/or. >> you don't know which one? >> i am not exactly sure. >> an expungement is a fairly routine? >> yes, they are. >> the judges don't hear objections they tend to grant them, don't they? >> yes they do. >> expungement are common because they tend to give people second chances, right? >> yes or. >> and mr. duhon's case wasn't

the offense that was expunged by judge porteous an offense that occurred 17 years previously? >> yes, sir. >> and wasn't he 17 years old at that time? >> yes, sir. >> so what judge porteous did is he expunged an offense that a man had committed at age 17 that occurred 17 years previous, correct? >> yes, sir. >> was your sister laurie marcotte friends with rhonda? >> yes, they were friends. >> they would socialize with each other? >> yes, they would. >> go on trips together? >> yes, sir. and isn't it true that sometimes that danos would handle, help you with social events? >> yes, he would. >> including planning trips in vegas for example? >> yes.

>> connie used her as an administrator for the overflow. >> sort of like a side job of hers? >> i wouldn't call it a job, but just you know, make arrangements. >> did you previously testified that she actually did work like this, planning as a separate job? did she often do that? >> i don't remember. >> was and she associated? >> i thought she was associated with the casinos and did stuff like that plus she had another job doing that. >> okay. i want to make sure, you had testified earlier that bail bondsman limited did have some bonds he had in federal court, correct? >> very few because they mainly took cash deposits. i mean we probably wrote to her three and a year. >> but judge porteous never

executed a bond for u.s. a federal judge? >> no sir. he did not. >> not to this very day he is never done a bond for you, correct? >> no sir, he did not. >> you said george porteous was openly friendly with u.n. court houses and restaurants? in you describe your relationship to judge porteous earlier in the position is a friendship, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, prior to your interviews with the fbi to judge porteous tell you what to say to the fbi? >> did he say okay this is what i want you to say? >> no, he did not. i knew what i had to say. >> but did he ever tell you to be untruthful? >> no, he did not. >> did he ever tell you to make sure you lie about this subject or that subject?

>> no, sir. i don't think he knew what the questions were going to be. >> now, take judge porteous sit you down -- let me go back a step. wasn't a judge porteous who had suggested your name or to the best of your knowledge? >> yes, sir. >> now did he sit you down and work through likely questions and answers with you? >> no sir. he did not. >> did you take notes at your interview with the fbi? >> no, sir. >> now after your fbi interview, you didn't immediately call judge porteous, did you? >> may be bear or a few days after. we would have lunch and i would tell them everything. >> the u.s. senate is gabbling in now so we leave this program. no votes are scheduled today. we expect general speeches throughout much of the day. tomorrow morning the senate will begin a rare quorum call at

10:00 eastern to bring all senators to the floor to begin impeachment proceedings against louisiana federal judge, thomas porteous.thhe that is life senate coverage here on c-span2 will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, the giver of every good and perfect gift, bring the hearts and minds of our lawmakers into harmony with your will so that they can be assured that their lives are fulfilling your high purposes. lord, give them the incentives they need, the trust that is essential, and the joy that is

possible as they face the duties and opportunities that lie before them. give our senators such grace that they will be faithful in their task this day and every day. increase their hunger and thirst for righteousness and feed them with the bread of heaven. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 6, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business, there will be no roll call votes during today's session. senators are inkiewrnlgd to be on the -- encouraged to be on the floor tomorrow for a live quorum for an impeachment trial of judge g. thomas porteous. mr. president, as far as lame-duck sessions, our agenda is rather ambitious and the session itself is relatively long.

it didn't have to be this way. we've tried many ways in this congress to tackle each of the priorities on our agenda. each time we tried the majority has tried to shut down the senate. republicans have ground the senate to a halt with hours of endless inactivity. that's why we were here on saturday. thank goodness it wasn't on sunday. that's why we'll be here another few weeks. we have a long to-do list. these are not leftovers, they're critical to our economy, national security, to our families and our country's future and we will resolve them before we adjourn. we have to give first responders, our communities firefighters and medical personnel the same job protection that's other workers enjoy. we need to give seniors and veterans some relief to benefit our economy as a whole. the cost-of-living adjustment for social security recipients -- we'll fight for the dream act. when it passes, millions of

children who grew up as americans will get the education they need and it will contribute to our economy. many who defended our country will no longer have to fear being deported from our country. we will give the heroes of 9/11 help, thousands of first responders who rushed to ground zero got terribly sick from the toxins that were there. no one should have to wait any longer for the health care and compensation they deserve. we'll protect middle-class families from a tax hike. woo we'll ratify the start treaty to make america safer. we have to confirm an enormous backlog of qualified nominees to the bench. there are more than 30 judicial nominees ready to come to vote. most were voted out of the judiciary without a single vote against them. they've been waiting a long time to fill these important seats. it's time we let them. we will repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell. we're going to match our policies with our principles and

say in america, everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed. republicans know they don't have the votes to take the repeal out of the defense authorization bill. so they're holding up the whole bill. when they refuse to debate, they also hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families, equipment like m rap vehicles that -- mrap vehicles keeping our efforts from going forward around the world, keep our troops safe and other critical wartime efforts in afganistan and other counterterrorism efforts around the world. obstruction has consequences. neither is the minority's effort to keep senators from working. it is time to roll up our sleeves. not dig in our heels. my hope is that republicans will finally realize that we have much more to gain by working together than working against each other. would the chair announce morning business. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, leadership time is reserved there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the clerk will call the roll.

over phage over phage over phage over phage borivozh borivozh

borivozh beau rivage beau rivage

shahardi you knew the answer that, right?busine tax you knew the answer to that, right?

he is a common criminal, right?r he is a common criminal, right? i think so, right? of nation i think so, right.projecti stret beau rivage expungement areave b

next? the fact is, if interest rates were not at historic lose today, we would already be in a world of hurt at this point. as it is, if we do not take action soon to stabilize our debt, we could be spending

upwards of $1 trillion a year just on debt service by 2020. think about how many taxes would have to be raised or programs would have to be cut just to make -- just to meet basic debt service. so now it's time for us to agree that we will now -- not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. and all our political -- and all own the political discomfort -- and our own political discomfort should not be used as an excuse to delay holding an honest and long overdue discussion about the complicated fiscal choices confronting us today. every day, every week that we put off that discussion, our options become more limited and the choices become tougher. resolving america's fiscal problems must be one of our top priorities. it will require difficult decisions. there's no easy fix or no easy

way out. but those of us who were hired by folks across the country should expect nothing less. mr. president, appreciate the chance to address this issue and i again want to compliment my good friend, the senator from illinois, for his courageous leadership on this issue, for his vote on what i know had to be a very, very difficult decision. but if he and, frankly, some other members on the other side of the aisle who kind of said, even though this was not a perfect plan, it was more important to bring this discussion forward, i compliment them on their actions, i compliment the presiding officer for joining with me and a number of other colleagues. we will be back on a regular basis to continue to bring this issue before our fellow colleagues and the people of the country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague from virginia, originally from illinois, for those kind words. and it was not an easy vote to

vote in favor of the deficit commission report but i felt it was the right vote. the point i tried to make in explaining my vote was that 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, whether it's for a new missile system at the pentagon or for good stamps for the poorest among us, 40 cents out of every dollar is borrowed. we primarily borrow it from countries like china and the opec nations. and the fact that w fact that we indebted to them for generations to come will not allow those of us on the progressive side to see a more fair and just america. we are an america that is mortgaged, and those who hold our mortgage have power over us economically and politically. that's why i voted for this. there are parts of it that i just don't like at all. one of the things it does that i would dmoand all of my colleagues -- commend to all of my colleagues is something i've never seen in the time i've heard in the house and the senate. it tax a look at what we call the tax code, tax expenditures. the gentleman talked about the

day coming soon when we would spend $1 trillion a year on interest on the debt. each year now, we spend, or through taxes forgive, $1.1 trillion. that's money that doesn't go into the treasury that otherwise would. it doesn't go in because it's a deduction, it's a credit, it's an exclusion, it's a tax here earmark. $1.1 trillion a year through the tax code is added to our debt. now, you have to ask yourself, what are those provisions? some of them are very important and some controversial. the number-one tax deduction this america is for health insurance. we have it as members of congress. everybody wants it. but if we're going to continue this deduction, we need to ask hard questions. do we go too far? are there things we can reasonably do to contain the growth in that particular deduction? how about mortgage deduction. currently, mortgage interest can be deducted from your income t

tax. i use it. most people do who itemize. but 70% of americans don't itemize. in other words, they don't get the advantage of any of these deductions because they do a simple form. they take a standard deduction. so for 70% of americans, even the mortgage interest deduction has no value to them. we also currently put a limit on the value of a home where you can apply mortgage interest deduction of $1 million. is that the right number owed? should it be lower? should we be focusing more on families? the commission said one idea, any charitable deduction over 2% of adjusted gross income will be deductability. but the first 2 would not be. -- 2% would not be. you'll hear from churches and charities and universities and others that you shouldn't do this because they want people to give more. so each carries with it some controversy. but as the senator from virginia noted, if you eliminated -- eliminated -- all of the deductions, credits, exclusions

in the tax code, just basically closed it up and set it aside, you could dedicate each year over $100 billion, almost $200 billion to deficit reduction and with the remainder, $900 billion, reduce tax rates across the board in our economy. the lowest tax rate would go from 15% to 9%. the next tax rate -- i'm trying to remember from off the top of my head -- would g go from about 24% to 16%. the top tax rate in america would go from 37% down to 26%. -- 36% so you say to americans, you want to deduct your mortgage interest costs because it is value to you and your family. measure that against a reduction in your federal income tax rate of a third. which one -- which scenario do you come out ahead? those tax deductions, tax

expenditures, as they call them, of $1.1 trillion a year, are greater than either all of the personal income taxes collected in america -- in other words, all the personal income taxes we pay in go in to cover the tax deductions or greater than the discretionary spending side of the budget, defense and none defense. it is huge. in 28 years we have never opened that door and looked inside. we have to now. deficit reform should include tax reform. i brought this up to our friend and colleague, max baucus, chairman of the finance committee. he agrees. i think we ought to pursue this. we have a bipartisan group saying let's get into this. let's make this part of the conversation. it isn't just entitlement programs like medicare and social security. and it isn't just spending, both domestic and defense spending. it is also tax expenditures. put it all toct. i think we can have an honest

conversation. yes, there will be sacrifice required of all of us. the last point i will make is this, and i thank the senator from virginia for raising this whole issue. as we discuss more tax cuts for america, we are proposing make the deficit hole deeper. each of these tax tax cuts takes money out of the treasury. i would argue, don't hit the deficit brake on tax cuts on working families in the middle after recession. they need spending power to get through. give them a helping hand now until the recession is behind us. but how can we rationalize tax cuts for the most wealthy americans when we're facing if kind of a deficit. we should be more sensible. we should be able to make these judgments. last saturday we had a vote here which suggestioned we have no sense for restrange tax cuts. they vote for tax cuts which make the deficits worse.

that's the dilemma we face. the good news is the deficit commission of the members -- 18 members -- there were some 12 elected officials, six of us, three democrats and three republicans, voted for the commission report. it was good. it was breakthrough. might have been historic. i thank the senator from virginia for his remarks and concern about this issue. you have been working on this with senator conrad and others for a long time, as has senator begich of eafnlgt i thank you for that. mr. warner: will the senator yield far question? mr. durbin: happy to yeeltd. mr. warner: let me thank the senator from illinois for laying out the facts. but one additional fact. again, vis-a-vis the bush tax cuts. i think it has been absent from some of this debate. your efforts, herculean as it was to try to get to 11 out of 18 votes, and all of the painful choices you made in terms of

spending cuts, raising revenues, opening up, as i think the senator appropriately sairkd the whole question of tax expenditures. if my memory is correct, over the next decade-plus, your plan, as program as it was and as controversial as it was, basically took out about $4 trillion. if we were to make permanent, as some on the other side of the aisle have stated, all of the bush tax cuts, that adds another $4 trillion to our deficit. is that not correct? mr. durbin: the senator from virginia is exactly right. and the point i'm trying to make, and he made it so well, ten months of work to find $4 trillion that we could reduce from the deficit wiped out by the insistence on the other side of continuing these bush tax

cuts indefinitely. i argued and continue to argue, do what we have to do now to get out of this recession. but as soon as we see a positive, solid footing for this economy, let's start stepping forward and be very serious about this deficit reduction. i think the commission gives us a road map. i thank the senator from virginia. mr. president, i ask consent that the statement i am about to make be put separate in the record from my earlier statement about the deficit commission. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i noted last week that president obama took a surprise trip to afghanistan, and visited with our troops, and it was heart-warming to see the recession that our commander in chief received in afghanistan. i looked out at that crowd and it was a large crowd, of young men and women in uniform who have volunteered, volunteered to serve our nation and risk their lives and how happy they were that the president being a nounalled that they were there

and -- acknowledged that they were there and what they were doing. i'll glad he did it -- i'm glads he did t it's certainly no fun to be under enemy fire, as these young men and women are every day. those of us who were in the comfort and security of the senate chamber or in our homes in smeerk never forget the sacrifice of these individuals. we've now lost over 1,400 in afghanistan. i pour through the names each day and i guess understandably look first for someone from illinois and recently we've had several. i've attended two funerals in the last two or three weeks of a soldier and a marine who died in afghanistan from my home state of illinois. it's heartbreaking to meet the young wives carrying babies, the moms and dads, and share their grief as they stand by their fallen heroes and acknowledge in a they have carried on a great tradition in america of being willing to volunteer to protect

our freedoms, but they paid the ultimate price. the lives of those families will never, ever be the same because of that loss. many of us on both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans, go out for unannounced tours to the hospitals in the washington, d.c., area, particularly walter reed. we see these incoming veterans, soldiers who are about to become veterans, who have been injured in battle and faced many grievous injuries, come home who get the very best in medical care so that they can return, as much as possible, to a normal life on the civilian side as veterans, having given so much to this country. the first person i ever visited at walter reed was after the invasion of iraq. he was a young guardsman who lost his left leg below the knee, and it was amazing to me as i talked to him thinking how his life would be changed now.

he said the one thing he couldn't wait to do is to get his prosthetic leg, return to his unit in iraq. what great comment that is on the training and dedication of the men and women who serve us. i wanted to come in this afternoon and talk about one aspect of that that is being discussed near washington and try to add some perspective to it. ier remember the early days of e war in iraq. they were controversial and we followed, as our young men and women went in in harm's by that an effort to displace saddam hussein and bring some order and civility to that country, grailt -- great sacrifices were made. one of the young men, his name was eric alva. he was a marine. in 1990, he join the marines at the age of 19. 13 years later 3, 2 years of age, he was serving in basra on the first day of the war in iraq

an march 21, 20036789 this young marine be, eric alva went into the invasion of basra, stepped on a land mine and became the first u.s. casualty of the war in iraq. as a result of that occurrence, his right arm and left leg sustained permanent damage. his right leg was simply gone. he was saved, sent to hospitals in landstuhl, jearnlings and then here in the -- in landstuhl, germany, and then here in the united states where they did everything humanly possible to repair his broken border, the broken body of this young manager the first casualty of the war in iraq. as he flai that hospital going through -- as he lay in that hospital going through countless surgeries to restore his life, he was visited by against secretary donald rumsfeld and then by first lady laura bush,

and president george bush who personally awarded him a purple heart. it was the least we can do to horn his courage and heroism, being part of the first marines who went in and paid such a heavy price. eric alva tried to put his life together after that devastating injury and finally, after several years, he spoke up and said, there's more to the story. after four years, eric alva told the world that he had lied to become a member of the u.s. marine corps. because he's gay, and he kept that a secret. when he finally spoke out against don't ask, don't tell in 2006, he said, i've risked my life to save this country, but as a gay american veteran, i still don't have the full rights of every american.

major margaret whit has also felt the injustice of don't ask, don't tell. major whit was an air force flight nurse. for 17 years she rose steadily through the air force and air force reserves, winning strong performance reviews from superiors. almost no one, not even her parents, knew about her sexual orientationment. that ended in 2004 when her commanders discovered she was in a commit cd relationship with a civilian wosm after an investigation and hearing, the air force discharged her under the don't ask, don't tell policy. after all of those years, 17 years of service to the country, they discharged her. her suspension came less than a year before she would have earned her full pension. there she was, 17 years after joining, all of the years of good performance records, one year away from her pension, and she was

to carry on its mission." major whit's case is now on appeal. judge leyton was the second federal court judge in less than a month to find that don't ask, don't tell was unconstitutional. earlier in september in a case brought by the log cabin republicans, a federal judge in california ruled that don't ask, don't tell -- quote -- "infringes on the fundamental rights of united states service members in many ways and," he said, "violates the due process clause of the constitution and the free speech protections." that ruling is under appeal. many of my completion have said they are inclined to support repeal of don't ask, don't tell. but they wanted to reserve final judgment until the defense department really studied this issue in depth. well, the study is complete. one of the most exhaustive studys in the history of the pentagon. according to the pentagon's own study, more than 70% of the

115,000 service members rand 44,000 military spouses who responded said that the effect of repealing don't ask, don't tell would be -- quote -- "positive, mixed or nonexistent." think about the responses there. the 159,000 members of the military and their spouses responded to the question and 70% said it was time to end don't ask, don't tell. in releasing that study, defense secretary robert gates acknowledged that there are challenges behind unwind don't ask, don't tell. but he worried that leaving this matter to the federal courts could be the wrong thing to do, a decision for one of these federal courts could be done in a very short period of time. better, he said, that congress step up and accept its responsibility to repeal don't ask, don't tell and put in place a transition period to have the least negative impact on our military. he basically put us on the spot,

and he said those of us who serve in congress don't stand on the sidelines and wait for the courts to decide. pick up the issue and decide yourself. president obama supports repealing don't ask, don't tell. many of us want to join him, but unfortunately we're being stopped by other colleagues who don't want this matter to come before the senate. they run the risk that any day a federal court can do in one opinion what we should be doing in an orderly, sensible way. defense secretary gates also added, "those who chose not to act the legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the court. we urge you to move and move quickly." this isn't the first time we fought battles involving discrimination in our military. as proud as i am of the men and women who have served in our military throughout our history. military historians and those

who served will be honest and tell you in times gone by some things have occurred which shouldn't have happened. in world war ii our colleague, senator danny inouye, and other japanese americans defended our nation even as many of their family members were imprisoned in internment camps in our country. they became, once they were allowed to fight one of the most highly decorated units in the history of the army. our friend, senator inouye, in world war ii lost his arm fighting for italy in america. yet, when he returned from the war, a clearly disabled veteran, a hero in a u.s. army uniform, he went into a barber shop where the barber refused to give him a

haircut and said -- quote -- "we don't cut jap hair." the discrimination he faced before he was allowed to serve our nation and even after is a reminder that even in this great nation there are times when we have to step up and stand up for the cause of civil rights. incidentally, we know in this chamber and those who follow this debate should know, in the year 2000 our colleague, senator dan inouye of hawaii, was awarded the medal of honor for his heroism in world war ii. edward brook was another man who served in the u.s. senate, elected in 1966, the first african-american to serve since reconstruction, a republican from massachusetts. he is a recipient of the congressional medal of freedom. in world war ii he served in an all-black regiment in the infantry. he fought tyranny in europe. the military, for all intents

and purposes, was basically segregated at that time. this past june, senator brookee, wrote in "the boston globe" calling for an end to the don't ask, don't tell policy. it was a powerful call for justice and i want to read part of it. here's what senator brooke, a republican from massachusetts wrote, military service requires extraordinary sacrifice and love of country and every men and women in uniform deserves our respect and gratitude. however the don't ask, don't tell policy shows disrespect both for the individuals it targets and for the values our military was created to defend. it is a discriminatory law that must be repealed. senator brooke went on to say the military is divided into soldiers who are judged solely on their merit and those who can be condemned for personal characteristic unrelated to their peformance. we've been here before, and history shows that prejudice was

the wrong policy. he went on to say, regardless of its target, prejudice is always the same. it finds novel expressions and capitalizes on new fears. but prejudice is never new and never right. one thing binds all prejudice together: irrational fear. decades ago black service members were the objects of this fear. senator brooke went on to say, many thought that integrating black and white soldiers would harm the military and society. today we see that segregation itself was the threat to our values. we know that laws that elevate one class of people over another are counter to america's ideals. yet, due to don't ask, don't tell, the very people who sacrifice the most to defend our values are subject to such a law. we owe them more. whether it was the marine, eric alva, the first serious casualty of the war in iraq, or major general witt in the air force

who after 17 years of service was basically told to leave. we understand that we owe them and so many more the right to serve without discrimination. now, more than 24 nations allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. they include canada and the united kingdom. other nations that lifted their bans: australia, austria, belgium, czech republic, denmark, estonia, finland, france, germany, ireland, lithuania, luxembourg, the netherlands, new zealand, norway, slovenia, south africa, spain, sweden, and switzerland. israel too has lifted its ban against service by those who are of different sexual orientation. does anyone think for one minute that the israelis would allow men and women to serve openly in the military if they thought it would harm their military readiness and national security? of course not. let me also add there is currently no discrimination

against those who are gay who wish to serve in the c.i.a., the secret service or the f.b.i. only in the u.s. military is that discriminatory policy still part of the law of the land. our military leaders have told us they can implement repeal and do it in an orderly way. secretary of the army john mccue has said that. secretary of the navy, chief of naval operations and general douglas frazier, commander of the u.s. south com agree the military sup to the challenge p. defense secretary gates said one of the most important things to me is personal integrity and a policy or law that in effect requires you to lie gives me a problem. he said that such a policy is fundamentally flawed. admiral mullen, the highest ranking military leader in america, testified last february and said speaking for myself, and myself alone, it is my personal belief that allowing

gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. admiral mullen went on to say, no matter how i look at the issue, i cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. and he added, i've served with home sexuals since 1968. everyone in the military has. indeed, phr-ps, there are an -- mr. president, there are an estimated 66,000 gay men and women serving in our military today. ending don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do for those troops and for our nation. i want to salute senator lieberman for being the author of the amendment don't ask, don't tell, and i am proud to cosponsor it with him. this amendment gives us the right to begin the process of repealing it in an orderly way. it says specifically that before don't ask, don't tell can be repealed, the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of

staff must all certify that the new rules are consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness. over the last 60 years, the u.s. military has ended racial segregation and integrated women into its ranks. in many respects, the military, after realizing that prejudice did not serve our country well, has led our nation in opening up to equal treatment and equal opportunity, men and women of different racial background as well as obvious changes in gender. ending the ban against lesbians and gays from serving openly will take leadership and care. let me close with a comment from senator brooke. "civil rights progress does not happen automatically or without resistance. after the battles are won, it's difficult to understand why we needed to fight them in the first place. laws change and values change

with them. i'm confident repealing don't ask, don't tell will be the same. a law believed to be necessary becomes a relic that the next generation finds curious and shameful." mr. president in, this case the values have already changed. the vast majority of americans including the majority of our top military leaders, our men and women and their spouses support ending don't ask, don't tell. it's time to stop coming up with excuses to continue this discrimination. we owe it to the men and women in the military, not only our respect for what they do and how they serve our country but our respect for their judgment. and in their judgment, it's time for don't ask, don't tell to end. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. i want to thank senator durbin for his eloquent remarks, and i urge everyone who wants to get a full understanding of this issue

of don't ask, don't tell, read his remarks. oeupbld say that if you really -- i would only say that if you really sum it up, senator, what you have told us is that ending don't ask, don't tell will make us a stronger nation because we will have the unqualified support of people who are serving in the military in a situation where they have to hide who they are. this can't be good. and many of them thrown out of the military. frankly, if we do this, it means that we're listening to the american people, a strong majority of whom support ending don't ask, don't tell, and listening to secretary gates, defense secretary, who tells us that he supports repeal. and listening, frankly, to the members of the military who have taken a survey and over 70% of them say we should end don't ask, don't tell. so it's hard to understand why this isn't being done.

and senator durbin is right, if it's done by the courts, which, by the way, i want it to be done by everyone, the courts included. but if it's done by the courts before we deal with it, mr. president, it means that there will be more of a rush to change things, and it will take a lot of the control out of the hands of the defense secretary so that he can phase in this change in policy. i have to say as someone who way back in 1993 spoke out against this policy and offered an amendment to keep it out of the rules and out of the law, i tried to say let's just leave it up to the military and not have a congressional statement on it. i offered up that amendment. i don't know if we got -- how many votes? 12 or 13 votes at the time. to me, imagine all those years ago i was so blessed to be here then to speak out against this

policy. and now i'm here at a time when we can finally end it. and what that means is we're moving civil rights forward. in this great nation of ours, we have a lot of ups and downs, we have a lot of agreements, we have a lot of open debate as it should be as a democracy. but at the end of the day we always expand freedom, we always expand equality. we started off, only white men of property could vote when we started off as a nation. and it was a big struggle to get the african-american vote. it was a big struggle to get women's vote. and then we extended that vote, that age down where we had the 18-year-old vote because we had people going to war and they couldn't vote. we expanded that. so this is a country that includes our people. this policy runs counter to that whole notion of inclusion. in fact, it makes people who are willing to die for their country

lie about who they are. so we want to stop that policy, at least the vast majority of american people do, the secretary of defense does, the majority of the people in the military do. we've got a couple of people on the other side of the aisle, frankly, who keep raising the bar. they said we'll end this don't ask, don't tell when we have a survey. then the survey comes out and they say, you know what? we didn't like the survey. let's have another survey. what are they going to do? keep designing different surveys until the answer comes back the way they want it? come on, that is wrong. that is holding back something so important that we have to do. so we have a chance to stand up for civil rights, human rights. and i don't want to give it away to the courts. i hope the courts continue to rule the way they have. by the way, the courts have been, to me, eloquent on the point. we ought to be eloquent as well.

well, mr. president, here we are postelection session, called a lame duck. but there is no reason for us to be lame, and there's no reason for us to be limping out of this session. we can do some really good things. and i'm here today to look at where we are, what we've done, what we have to do and what i hope we'll do. and let me say that, you know, we did do one positive. we did pass the food safety modernization act by a vote of 73-25. 73-25. one senator held it up and held it up. we know thousands of people die every year of foodborne illness. this was a no brainer. the industry itself wanted to do this. we had to have a big fievment we had to -- fight. we had to have cloture votes. at the end of the day we passed and i'm grateful.

and, believe me, many people in our country will be grateful when they see the changes that will be put into place. we're increasing the number of f.d.a. inspections at foreign and domestic facilities to make sure that our food is safe before we have an outbreak of a disease. and it will allow removal of contaminated food from store shelves far faster by enhancing the tracking and tracing of high-risk food. it's going to mean that the f.d.a. has clear mandatory recall authority. we have more surveillance systems out there. so this is going to lead to a healthier nation. and then we got a letter from the republicans, my friends. and they said, we are not voting on one more thing until you extend tax cuts for all americans. so, listen, we did that. the democrats pas passed two --t

one, but two versions of tax cuts for every single american. one that said we'll make sure those tax cuts stay in place for the first $250,000 of income and that passed with a majority. we needed 60 because our friends filibustered it. we got 53. then we had another version that said, let the tax cuts continue for up to $1 million of income. now, just so people understand what that means. it means that we gave tax cuts to every single american, every single one, and we gave the bonus tax cut to people up t to $1 million -- an additional tax cut. that was not enough for my republican friends. they brought down those two bills that meant tax cuts for

everyone because they want a bonus for people over $1 million. let me tell you how many people there are in this country. 307 million americans. let me tell you how many americans earn more tha than $1 million. 315,000. .1% of 1%. my republican friends voted no on a bill that gave every american a tax cut, but stopped a bonus tax cut for 315,000 families who earn over $1 million. and not only that, they said, we're not going to do one more thing in this united states senate until we get that tax cut for those people. give me a break. give me a break. i read into the record a letter signed by 90 millionaires.

you know what they said? thanks, but no thanks. we don't want this extra tax money. do it up to $1 million. after that, it's a waste. we're not going to spend it in the economy. we're not going to stimulate this economy. give it to everybody else, not us. but, oh, no. oh, no, they voted no. and they're stopping everything. you know, a lot of people complain because there's debate going on between the two major parties. and i understand it. we've got to get things done and we do. but every once in a while it's good for the american people to see who's fighting for who. put me down as fighting for 99.9% of the american people. and put them down as fighting for .1% of 1% of the american people. this is unreal.

people said, you've got to meet the republicans halfway. absolutely. that's why i said i would vote to retain the tax cuts for people up to $1 million. we talked about it just being the first $250,000. we moved to $1 million. that covered almost everybody. they won't meet us in each of the way. we went all the way over here and they won't meet us here at all. it would require a little baby step. so where are we? you see us. we're not voting on anything, folks. because they voted down the tax cuts and now they won't do anything else. and let me tell you some of the things they've already stopped. they have already stopped help for the unemployed. two million americans in this christmas season, this hanukkah season are not going to get their unemployment benefits that they paid for through insurance.

they are hard-working people. i read their stories into the record. and i hope people will look at those stories. they touch your heart. we have veterans who can't get a job. we have single moms who can't get work. we've got children saying, i can't go to college now because my family's unemployed. i have to quit college and go back to work. $300 a week is the benefit. that's what they stopped on the other side so they could get $460,000 a year tax cut additional for people who ear earn $10 million. think about that. think about that. they stopped $300 a week going to the long-term unemployed -- not the ones who have reached the 99 weeks. after that they don't have

anymore. just to get them up to that 99 weeks, if necessary, they blocked $300 a week because they're very upset about the cost. but, yet, they're fighting for a tax cut of $460,000 a year extra to someone earning $10 million a year. adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. they don't care about that. they don't care about paying for that. oh, they do care about paying for the extension of unemployment insurance. so every once in a while people get upset and they say the parties are battling, trust me when i say this, every once and a while it's worth the fight. every once and a while it is worth the fight. because our country's worth the fight. because our middle class is worth the fight. because our working people are worth the fight.

and this is where we stand. we're sitting -- look at this. we're doing no legislative business because everything is being held hostage for the millionaires and the billionaires, the top .1% of 1% of the people. just read the letter that the republicans sent us. they said that. they would not compromise. we said, we'll give you the first $1 million of income in lower taxes. that wasn't good enough. that wasn't good enough. they want every penny over $1 million to get that tax bernanke to. that -- that tax break to. so talk about the party of no. g.o.p. is the n-o-p-e party.

now, here's some other things they blocked and they're blocking. how could we ever forget 9/11? i certainly can't. no american can ever forget it. and who could ever forget the heroes that went down and worked on -- to clear the debris, the toxic debris from 9/11. they went down to find survivors. then they went down to find remains. they never thought about themselves. and the bush e.p.a. said the air was safe and they went down there and they're sick and we need to help them. and we have a bill that passed the house. the republicans are blocking it to fight for tax breaks for the people who earn over $1 million. for the people who ear earn $1 million. right now they say we can't do

any other work. they stopped the start treaty. a treaty supported by none other than george schultz, henry kissinger, howard -- is it howard baker -- all very well-respected republicans. these republicans turned their back on those republicans because they're fighting for the top.wit -- .1% of 1%. we have no inspectors on the ground in russia. we need to inspect their nuclear program. we all know -- i remember asking all of our national security people, what's their biggest fear? republicans, democrats, all of them? you know what they said? a terrorist getting a hold of a nuclear weapon. we've got to do inspections and make sure that that nuclear arsenal is safe from terrorists. oh, no, we can't do that.

because the people who earn over $1 million need more tax help. thank you. that's the answer from the other side. we're now ready to give $250 back to social security recipients who didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment. as far as i know, that's being stopped. nothing's happening here. we want to help our firefighters negotiate so they can get the benefits they deserve, these heroes. oh, no, that's being held up. i could tell you personally they held up the unemployment benefits i talk about before because i may -- made a unanimous consent request to get those unemployment benefits out there. oh, no, senator barrasso, i object. i don't want these benefits going to the people who have been on unemployment benefits for more than 99 weeks.

i said, wait a minute, my friend -- he is my friend -- we're not doing anything for people longer than 99 weeks. we're just trying to make sure that up to 99 weeks you have help. he still objected. they want to pay for it. but they don't want to pay for the benefits to the millionaires. it's going to lose us hundreds of billions of dollars and add to our debt. this is a time to show the difference between the parties. this is post election. there's no election. -- there's no election until a couple of years from now let's show the difference. this is nothing to do with voting. this is the true colors of the parties. it's important that people understand that we cannot do the business of this country -- we have a significant number of clean water bills to help the chesapeake bay, to help san

francisco bay, to clean the waterways, to help the great lakes. we voted them out of the committee, the environment committee. i'm proud to chair that committee. so proud. they're not even controversial. we didn't even have barely a "no" vote from anyone on either side of the aisle. we can't get that done either. don't ask, don't tell, you heard senator durbin talk about that. it's attached to the defense bill. the defense bill is critical. we're in two wars. whether you support those wars or not, we support the troops, we want to get them what they need. don't ask, don't tell repeal is in there and can't get that done. and let me tell you something else that we haven't been able to get done, the dream act. and i want to talk about that. and i want to put a human face on it. so i'm going to tell you some stories about it.

excuse me. i'm going to tell you the stories and then i'm going to tell you what the bill is what we want to do. i'm going to show you a picture of this handsome young man who is the drum major of the ucla brew inmarching band. anyone who knows anything about universities, they know that ucla is a great, great university. if you want to get into ucla, you've got to be darn smart. you've got to be at the top. david cho, very smart. he's the drum major of the ucla bruin marching band and every week he leads them as they clear on the bruins. last week the bruins hosted their cross-town rivals and you might have seen david on your tv

screen saturday night. there at the 50-yard line at the most iconic football stadium as they played sons of westwood was david cho, the face -- the face of this team and their cheerleaders and the face of the dream act. david is a senior at ucla studying international economics. he has a 3.6g.p.a. at ucla, mr. president. this young man has a 3.6 grade average at ucla, and if you think that's easy, it's not. in his free time, what does he do? he tutors local high school students. this is, if ever you saw it, americana. smart, motivated, leader in the community, giving back. what's the problem with david? he was born in korea.

he came here on a family visa with his parents when he was 9 years old. his family spent eight years trying to navigate their way to legalized status. they found out their sponsor erred in filling out the paperwork. they tried and tried and could never fix it, and david did not learn he wasn't an american citizen until he started applying to college. and here's what david writes." i feel like i'm living inside an invisible prison cell. i want to serve in the air force. i want to attend the kennedy school of government. i dream of becoming a united states senator because i want to serve and change this country for the better. this is the american dream i want to achieve, but i am unable to fulfill it because of my status." well, let me tell you, years

ago, when the republicans were in charge of the united states senate, a bill came out called the "dream" act, and it would say to these young people who are here without the proper papers, not because they did anything wrong but because their parents did, they grew up thinking they're american, america is their home. some came at 6 months, some came at 2 years, some came at 4 years, david came at 9 years. and it sets them on a path. if they hold up their average in school, if they join the military -- and let me tell you, the military wants this bill passed, mr. president. they call it a recruiters' dream. and we have many other stories. i'll quickly go through a few, and i would ask unanimous consent to extend this for another five or six minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: pedro ramirez, he is the student body president of

fresno state university, student body president. he is studying political science and agricultural economics. he's another face of the "dream" act. his parents brought him to the u.s. when he was 3 years old. did pedro know he was doing anything wrong at 3? nor did david know he was doing anything wrong at 9. he discovered he was in this country illegally again when he began applying to college when he was 18. his immigration status became public knowledge when an unanimous young people to the -- when an anonymous young people to the friesz know bee revealed he was forced to waive a small student stereotyped. he had to waive that. pedro is paying his tuition with private scholarships and by mowing lawns. and this is what he says." the "dream" act itself symbolizes what it is to be an

american, which is our goal. we want to contribute to the united states and utilize the degrees and the skills we gain to make it a better place." now let's look at maria. maria ducay. 19 years old. she is the vice president of the student government at fullerton college. when she was 5 years old, she moved to los angeles from ecuador with her parents who were seeking a better life for their children. as a high school student, she finished sixth in her class with a 4.4 grade point average. i don't know how you get over a four. i guess you do bonus work and you get an a-plus-plus. this is what we're talking about. she was also student body president, yearbook editor and a newspaper editor. at fullerton college, maria's excellent record continued.

she has a 3.9 g.p.a., she volunteers at a nonprofit organization that helps low-income high school students prepare for college, she was accepted into top universities but is unable to afford to attend them because she doesn't qualify for student aid. on weekends, she sings in public arenas, asking for donations to help her afford tuition. how -- how do we make our country better when our laws don't recognize students like these? who could answer that question for me? how do you make our country better? when we don't help students like these? she wants to transfer to u.c.-berkeley or ucla and complete her double major in political science and history. then she wants to go to law school. she wants to continue her work helping others pull themselves out of poverty. she is another face of the

"dream" act, and she writes, "my bachelor's diploma, my master's and law degree in the future will only be a piece of paper. it might tell of my accomplishment, but i won't be able to use it to help others in this country, which i consider my home." she came here at 5 years old. she doesn't know anything else but america. she says "dream" act students are like any other young person in the u.s., aspiring to do more for society, our fellow neighbors, our home, the uz of america -- the u.s. of america. lastly luis perez. he graduated in may from the ucla school of law. we don't have his photo. luis is another face of the "dream" act. brought to the u.s. by his parents at the age of 9. he has lived in this country for 20 years. he grew up in an area infested by gangs and drugs. he rose way above those

distractions and those dangers, and he went to community college. he transferred to ucla where he earned a degree in american government, and he went on to ucla law. that is such a hard school to get into. he has worked side jobs to help pay for his room and his board. tell me, somebody, how does it make our country a better place when we turn our backs on these students? he writes, "may 7, i graduate from ucla law school. i'm forced to look beyond the joy of graduation. i must now assess my current situation. i'm deprived the luxury of making long-term plans. nothing i have done and continue to do everything within my means and ability until congress does their part and passes the "dream" act. i have faith. i have faith that our be founding fathers entrusted us with the legislative process to make just laws. i am living the american dream.

i am a living example of what education, opportunity and community support can produce, regardless of challenges and disadvantages. i have learned firsthand that it is only during times of adversity that we have the opportunity to be a leader and show true courage as i acknowledge the difficulties with immigration reform, i am hopeful this congress will give me the opportunity to fulfill my dream. after all, being an american really means to stand up for what's right even when we're standing alone." mr. president, this is a bill that's had bipartisan support over many years. it started in 2001, and i could put in the record, and i will, statements from my republican friends about how important this bill is and why. so i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, at this point in the record to put in some of those quotes from my republican

friends. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: here we have a situation where people were brought to this country by parents. the kids had nothing to say in the matter. they grew up thinking they were americans. they did everything american kids do, and they excelled. they went to the top, and this bill is crafted in such a careful way that essentially we're taking the cream of the crop and we're giving them a path to legality, a path so that their hopes and dreams can be realized and therefore they help this nation realize its hopes and dreams. so i strongly urge my colleagues to listen to the students in the states who are desperate to earn a chance at this dream. they are here in washington, and they are going to various offices. they love their country. they love their country, and

never before in united states' history have we punished children for the actions of their parents. to deny these students an opportunity to earn the dream would be a dark moment in our nation's history, in my view. the american dream is real. and it's -- it's not easy to attain. you have to work hard. you know that. you've got to work hard always from the time you're a kid in school and you get your first job, and here we're talking about young people who excel. all they want to do is be able to reach their dream and help us move this country forward. this is the next generation of community leaders, the next generation of military leaders, the next generation of entrepreneurs. you don't punish children for the sins of their parents.

we don't do that. that's wrong. so let's -- let's do the right thing here. every once in a while, we have to say -- we have to do the right thing. is it a tough vote? will some people say why do you do that? of course, but that's true about anything we do. but we have so many golden opportunities here to be on the right side of american history, and we are presented them every day and we're presented them in this postelection session. we can end don't ask, don't tell, we can pass the "dream" act, we can pass unemployment benefits extension. we can help our firefighters, we can help our heroes from 9/11 get help with their illnesses, with their breathing problems, with their cancer problems. and let's not say no because the democrats said yes. we'll give everybody in this

country a tax cut for the first first $1 million of your income, and after that, we have to worry about the deficit. we go all the way up to a million dollars, and we take care of everybody in this country. everybody gets a tax cut, and if you're over $1 million, you just don't get your bonus tax cut, and we help reduce the deficit, which is an issue absolutely on our agenda. why would you then say no to everything else after we have met you all the way up to the million dollar level of income? it's unbelievable. america, pay attention. pay attention to who is fighting for you. and who is fighting for 315,000 of the richest families, many of whom say to us don't do this. it's more important to cure the deficit. which iists tell us at that level of wealth, they're not

going to spend the money at the corner store. trust me. just look at mark zandi's comments. the republican economic advisor to john mccain. you know what he told us? you give unemployment benefits for every dollar you increase economic activity by $1.61 because that money is spent right away at the corner store. you give a huge, enormous tax break to people over a million bucks, you ain't going to spend it. they're going to put it in the trust fund. so let's put that money toward deficit reduction. i think for me, speaking for myself, this post-election session has been one of the most interesting that i've ever seen. because the true colors of the parties are coming out.

and -- and i know people get very frustrated about our debates. they want us to come together. i want to come together. i went all the way to the republican side and said the first million of tax cuts -- of income, sorry, will get a tax cut, and only over that, that .1%, let's put that to deficit reduction, and my republican friends won't move that inch over to me. and to us. and at the same time, a blocking action on all those important bills i laid out. so i wanted to come down here, mr. president, to lay this out for history, you know, because i think we sometimes forget the battles that we wage here tell the country who we are, and i'm very pleased to have this

opportunity. by the way, i want to thank the people of california for giving it to me again. it means a lot to me to be able to weigh in on these issues of the heart and soul of the country that i love so much as a first-generation american on my mother's side. i thank you for that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and i would ask consent to be able to speak for up to 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i understand that it's likely that the majority leader will seek to bring up the dream act in a day or two.

this is a very bad piece of legislation and it's being presented at a time when we have massive illegality at our borders. one of the fundamental thing that separates america from the other nations of the world is our commitment to the rule of law. we enforce our contracts and our statutes. we punish corruption. one of the great advantages this nation has overothers is the degree -- over others is the degree to which there's integrity in our process here. we protect the rights and privileges of citizenship. webwe know that one of our most unique and valuable characteristics is our legal system. law is a necessary condition for a free society. freedom cannot flourish in chaos. prosperity can't rise in an uncertain environment. yet we've allowed our borders to descend into chaos and lawlessness. for decades, we've failed to

uphold the rule of law, we've failed to protect the integrity of citizenship in america and law. even now in a most-9/11 world, we still lack control over who comes into our country. every day, guns, drugs, unknown people unlawfully pour across our broken borders. the cofns consequences of the government's failure is felt keenly by those living in our worried about states. ranchers living on u.s. soil must confront the chaos as a reality of daily life. they're denied the peaceable possession of their private property. in phoenix, the capital of arizona, is now known as one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and yet it does not have to be this way. with enough will and determined execution of a carefully developed plan executed by the

president and supported by congress that has as its serious goal the elimination of this illegality, we'll be successful and can be successful in just a few years. it is not impossible. and that's what the public wants, and this is what our political leaders have object obstinately refused to do. americans are willing, they are willing -- and i am certainly willing -- to consider some sort of status for those who peacefully lived and worked in our country for some extended period of time but only after we've secured the border. as long as you continue to provide amnesty for people who come in through our -- into our countrystay here for a period of time, you incentivize further illegality. is there any other way you can

consider that? well, this is because the passage of an amnesty bill, such as this dream act, is an immediate reward for the illegal entry. and there's no serious plan to stop the illegal flow. indeed, the legislation incentivizes the flow or the entry of people into our count country. what does it say? it does that anybody thinking about coming illegally, if i can just get in the united states and hang on for a number of years, sooner or later they're going to make me lawful. that's not the message we need to send. the public will not allow us to repeat the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty. we've discussed that so many times. they will not fall for the ruse that we can have amnesty first and security later.

they understand that if we do not secure the border first, we may never secure it at all. we certainly haven't as of this date. despite this and despite historic losses in the recent election, the democratic leaders of this congress are now pushing a reckless proposal for mass amnesty known as the dream act. at a time when our nation is struggling with high unemployment and runaway government spending, the bill would authorize millions of illegal workers and impose an even greater burden on the taxpayers. making matters world, those eligible for the dream act amnesty include illegal aliens with criminal records. and all of this is being rushed through a lame-duck congress with no committee review. democratic leaders have even introduced four versions of the same bill in just over two

months. three in the last 13 days. it's been a shell game that abuses the legislative process. is it any wonder that the american people have lost faith in this institution? americans want us to enforce the laws but we are considering a bill that would reward and encourage their violation. americans want congress toned the lawlessness but this bill would surrender to it. consider a few of the dream act's most troubling provisions. first, the dream act is not limited to children. illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35 are eligible on the date of the enactment of the bill, and they remain eligible to apply at any future age as the registration window does not close. you do not need a high school

diploma. you do not need a high school diploma, a college degree or military service in order to receive amnesty under the dream act, as proposed. illegal aliens can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a g.e.d., the alternative to a -- a high school diploma, and they can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they complete just two years of college or trade school. one version of the dream act offers illegal aliens in-state tuition for which many americans are not eligible. all four versions provided illegal aliens with federal education benefits, such as work-study programs, federal student loans, and access to public colleges that are already short on spaces and resources.

congressional budget office -- that's our entity that gives us technical data about legislation ; it's a pretty objective group; it's hired by the democratic leaders, hired by the democratic majority, but i think they most of the time try to do the right thing -- they say the bill would add $5 billion to the deficit. that number really, i have to say, is low. the c.b.o. clearly failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the "dream" act. they haven't had much time to make this analysis. they don't include unemployment, public education costs, chain migration, and fraud, nor did it take into account what history has proven; that the passing of

amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. in addition, the c.b.o. assumes a large portion of these individuals will obtain jobs. but there's no surplus of job opportunities in america today. unemployment just went up from 9.6% to 9.8%, almost 10%. it's remained high for an exceedingly long period of time, and economists are telling us we're going to have to look forward to much higher unemployment than we've been used to in the past. well, nobody is scoring the fact how many american job seekers will not get a job if large numbers -- a million or more illegals -- are converted to legal and will be competing for those jobs and perhaps denying them that job and maybe good

benefits and good pay. conservative estimates say that between 1.3 million and 2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately -- immediately -- eligible for this "dream" act amnesty, but that number will grow significantly as the bill has no cap or sunset to it. moreover, those who obtain legal status can then do the same thing for their relatives. they're put on a path to citizenship, and legal, permanent resident status first, and then citizenship. they can then, through the chain migration process, apply to bring in their relatives, and some of the people they might apply to bring in are likely to be the persons who brought them here illegally.

as a result, the number of "dream" cards granted could easily triple what's expected. and many with criminal records will also be eligible for the "dream" act's amnesty. they simply must have less than three misdemeanor convictions. two misdid he meanors, okay. three, not so good. those potentially eligible would include drunk drivers, gang members, and even those who've committed certain sexual offenses. the most recent version of the bill also gives the secretary of the homeland security broad authority to waive ineligibility for even the most severe criminal offenders and those who pose a threat to our national security. many offenses such as indecent

exposure, d.u.i., smaller thefts, drug charges -- some of them are charged as felonies and very routinely are reduced to misdemeanors. a misdemeanors offenses -- two misdemeanors phones won't bar you from being able to be protected under this act and being able to have a guaranteed path to citizenship. those who commit document fraud or who lie to immigration authorities will be eligible for the immigration's amnesty as well. this is particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high-risk individuals placed on the pathway to citizenship. one of the warning signs that we missed prior to 9/11 were the fraudulent visa applications submitted by the 9/11 hijackers. but this bill would likely make

it more difficult to combat immigration fraud from the dangerous regions of the middle east, where we've had an unfortunate history of abuse. this "dream" act even contains a safe harbor provision -- very significant -- that would prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application is pending. even if they have a serious criminal record, you would normally be subjected to deportation. this provision could dramatically hinder federal authorities and will undoubtedly unleash a torrent of costly litigation that will suck up untold hours of our law enforcement personnel's time and ability and resources that ought to be focused on the border. as a former federal prosecutor, i just want to say that whenever somebody can come into court and

assert somebody who's being apprehended illegally in the country or someone who's committed a crime, even a serious crime, can stay, it appears to me, the enforcement of this act -- the enforcement of the deportation and assert that they are -- they are proceeding with a "dream" act amnesty proposal. so this is really a problem, because we don't have enough bed space. and so what are we going to do? so we're now going to have investigators drop what they're doing and go out and try to prove, were they here before age 16, did they really have a g.e.d.? or is in a a forged document? how many criminal convictions do they have? this has all got to be investigated now, and it takes weeks, and so what happens? we're going to keep those

individuals in jail instead of deporting them? how much cost is that? all this is not counted in this process. and i just want to say that my experience in law enforcement is there's not enough people to do those investigations, and you are you're going to have millions of applications. how do you prove somebody came here at age 15 instead of 18? how do you prove they've been here five years -- they say they've been here five years -- and they came at age 17 or 15 or 14? who's going to investigate that and dispute it? they submit a staimentd and say they've been -- they submit a statement and say they've been here for five years. we've got time to investigate all of that? this is not what we should be doing now. we've got a more serious challenge to end the illegal flow and for people who've been here a long time and who've been good -- otherwise been good

citizens and have worked hard. we can figure out some way to deal with their future. but i just do not believe this is the right step. it's not the right step. it is going to -- it is not the right step. in short, the bill, i believe, will be a disaster. yet our democratic leadership remains committed in their push for this amnesty provision. they are again defying the public will and sending the world a message that our nation is not serious about the integrity of our borders and our laws. american the american citizenship is the -- american citizen madam president is the envy of the world. central to our nation's greatest is our respect for the rule of law, and none of us that i'm aware inform this senate is proposing to in any significant

way reduce the number of people who come to our country lawfully. indeed, there are many provisions to increase the number that come lawfully. but the american people are rightly saying we've got to do something about that illegality. by eroding the respect for law through reckless and irresponsible amnesty provisions, we would do a disservice not only to the 300 million americans who call this nation their home but to all those future citizens who are applying and waiting in line to enter our country lawfully. mr. president, i feel strongly about this. hopefully this matter will not be proceeded with. we need to wries well, how to bring -- wrestle with how to bring the immigration system under control. we can do that. i've stated it for sometime.

i truly believe it can be done. senator mccain from arizona, who's been to the border a great deal, has said in a year or two we can end this massive illegality. i've been saying that for quite a number of years. i truly believe it's soavment but we need focus on that, not focus on rewards for those who've entered illegally. that's why this legislation should not pass. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: snrp. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vishedded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, in china, as i speak, there is a

man in a small prison cell lit by one single light bulb. he is in prison for 11 years in the country of china, and on friday of this week in oslo, norway, he will be awarded the nobel peace prize. his name is liu shabo, his wife has written me asking me to come to the nobel peace prize presentation in oslo, norway, in friday in honor of her husband. i am not able to go to oslo this friday. the house -- excuse me, the senate, should i say, is going to be in session the rest of the week, and i regret i can't be in oslo for the awarding of the nobel peace prize. but i did want to take a moment to remember what is happening in

week. this is liu chabo. he is in prison to china, in prison for 11 years. that's his sentence. and i want to describe why the chinese have put liu c this. abo in prison. it is not the first time he has been in prison, as a matter of fact. let me tell you just a little about liu c this. abo. he was born in 1955, grew up in an industrial city in china's north eevment as a young man he wanted to study literature, so he went to beijing and he became a ph.d. in comparative literature, became a professor, and dedicate dedicated his days to teaching and to writing. he had the good fortune to be allowed to travel abroad. he was at columbia oust here in the u.s.a. when the demonstrations began to grow in tiananmen square.

he cut short his visit to columbia university as a visiting scholar and returned home to china, joining students in tiananmen square in a hunger strike. then on the night of june 4, a scholar whom the students had grown to trust, persuaded a group of students to withdraw from the square and to save their lives. that was liu chabo. authorities in china labeled him a subversive, sentenced him to 18 amongsts in prison. 18 months later upon his rcialtion he was told he could neither teach nor publish. he described his plight then in these words. he said, "simply for expression divergent political views and taking part in a peaceful and democratic movement, a teacher lost his podium, a writer lost the right to publish, an inelectrical has lost the right to speak publicly." on his release in 1991 he

continued to write and again he was placed in 1995 and then sent to a labor camp until 1999. in december of 2008, liu chabo called for political reform and was a supporter of something called charter 08 in china. he was once again detained and formally arrested and then sent to prison for 11 years. let me describe what charter 08 calls for. a group of people in china who want the expression of freedoms that are available to all of us created charter 08. it calls for the guarantee of human rights and independent judiciary, the freedom to assemble, the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, protection of private property, and on. so someone who advocates this

and pushes for these kinds of reforms is now sitting in a small prison cell with a single light bulb. on friday, in oslo, norway, when they award the nobel peace prize, there will be one empty chair on the stage. that's the man to whom the nobel peace prize is being awarded. there will be empty chairs in the audience because his wife is not allowed to go. she's detained under house arrest in china. i want to describe that as well. liu sha has been barred from traveling to oslo to accept the honor. all of liu's family has been barred from traveling. the ceremony will go on on friday. there have now been 100

documented incidents, just over 100 documented incidents since october in which chinese citizens have been harassed, interrogated and subjected to police surveillance, detained or placed under house arrest for their r expressions of support for liu chabo. some supporters have reportedly just disappeared. the travel restrictions are pretty unbelievable. violinist lynn chang, an american of chinese descent who teaches at the boston conservatory expressed concern about the possible personal and professional repercussions his family might have in china for his accepting the invitation to play at the ceremony.

about 140 chinese activists invited bilyu's wife to -- by liu's wife to attend the ceremony, only one at this point has been able to say "i'll be there." more than a dozen and far more have been blocked from flying overseas since liu won the peace prize in october. this is a photograph of liu chabo and his wife, both courageous citizens who, in my judgment, are owed our respect and all we can do to say to the chinese government, you cannot possibly continue to do this, and then insist that you believe in democracy. mr. president, premier win

gentleman bow -- the premier of china said this in a recent interview. he said -- quote -- "freedom of speech is indies pennable. the people's wishes for and the need for democracy and freedom are irresistible, so says premier wen jiabao of china. i hope he will know and chinese officials will understand you can't talk about these principles in that way and then continue to imprison someone like liu xiabo who the rest of the world will celebrate as a courageous man striving for things in china, for the very things we wake up and take for granted in the united states, this man is spending years in prison just for the aspiration for himself and the rest of people of china thoefs freedoms. -- china to have those freedoms.

i will not be in oslo on friday. i'm enormously honored by liu xiabo's wife inviting me. i just held a hearing within the last month about the issue of liu xiabo, the nobel peace prize and what it means when a government says rather than be at a place of honor and our country celebrating your winning the nobel peace prize, we will have you in a prison cell once again. that is not what we would expect, or anybody should expect from the government of china. i've said previously that there are things that have improved in china in recent years for some chinese. china is a big country. it's going to be a significant part of our future. we're not quite sure how that's going to manifest itself, but our country has decided

affirmatively that our relationship with china ought to be a constructive relationship in which you have constructive engagement through trade and travel. constructive engagement through trade and travel is anticipated to move china towards greater human rights. and in fact there have been some areas of progress. but this is a disgrace. this is a disgrace. liu xiabo is a hero. he ought not be a prisoner. liu xiabo will be honored, whether the chinese like it or not. he will be honored this friday in oslo, norway. and the fact is the chinese are trying to do everything they can to keep people away from that ceremony. they have been calling other embassies in oslo saying, "do not go to that ceremony." i think it's pretty unbelievable what has been happening, and i

hope that all of the american people understand there is someone we ought to be thinking about this friday who has been doing something of great courage in support of of freedom for the countries in which he lives. fly he'll still be in prison -- on friday he'll still be in prison but the world ought to say to the chinese you cannot continue to talk about freedom and keep a chinese nobel peace prize tpha* in -- prize in the k cells of a prison. mr. president, i make a point of order that a quorum call is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i'd like unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. gillibrand: and i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to the time that i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. gillibrand: 69 years ago tomorrow, america suffered the most -- one of the most deadliest attacks to our nation that we've ever seen, the horrific attacks on pearl harbor killed more than 2,000 u.s. troops and civilians. president franklin d. roosevelt said that december 7 is a date which will live in infamy. no matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the american people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

and we did. in the aftermath of pearl harbor, america succeeded not only militarily, we succeeded morally as well. our nation bonded together with a newfound resolve to help those who sacrificed so much for our nation and take care of our fellow citizens. in the months that followed the attack, democrats and republicans knew exactly what had to be done. congress came together, not only to declare war but to pass legislation that provided health care and compensation to each and every civilian who was injured during that pearl harbor attack, every citizen who sacrificed for america that day. it did not take nine years for that to be done. congress acted bravely and swiftly without partisanship, without gridlock, with a clear moral compass and a clear determination that we as a nation have an undenial moral

obligation to help the people who are -- who were harmed during that attack on pearl harbor. pearl harbor was the most deadliest attack on our nation, the most deadliest attack, until the morning of september 11, 2001, when 3,000 innocent people perished and tens of thousands of people came to their rescue. in the days that followed the 9/11 attack, america showed the very same resolve that it had showed nearly 60 years prior, and now we've seen thousands of heroes and thousands of survivors sick and dying from the toxins released at ground zero. it is a time for us to show that very same resolve again. as president roosevelt said, no matter how long it will take us, we will win through to absolute victory. we will provide the firefighters and police officers and the

construction workers and the cleanup workers and the people and the children who go to school and live at ground zero with the health care and compensation that they justly and rightly deserve. there are few things we do here in washington that are clearly a choice between right and wrong. there is no gray area when it comes to this issue. we truly have a moral, an undenial obligation to help these men and women. for the past week, on display in the russell rotunda, we have shown 29 police badges that belong to 29 members of the new york city police force who died since september 11 because of the diseases related to those toxins that were released when the towers fell. the 30th police officer, david mahmood, died last month of a very rare, disfiguring form of cancer after he worked 60 hours

at the site of ground zero. perhaps the most disturbing fact about the deaths of these 30 police officers is the fact that the average age of these men and women is 46 years old. the badges that we displayed were not just a memorial to those who we lost. they are a call to action for each and every one of us who call ourselves public service -- people who call ourselves public servants and for those of us who are here to serve on behalf of this nation. every single member of the senate should visit that memorial today to see and be reminded of those men and women who have perished. over 13,000 world trade center responders are sick today and receiving treatment. nearly 53,000 responders are enrolled in medical monitoring, and 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the world trade center health industry,

indicating that they were exposed to these toxins. these men and women are from all over this country, from every state in the union. in fact, approximately 10,000 individuals came from outside the new york area, including every state in this country to save lives and to clean up after the devastation that struck new york. their illnesses range from respiratory gastrointestinal and mental health conditions caused by the inhalation of pulverizeed cement, gas, lead and asbestos and other fatal toxins that were caused by the destruction of those buildings on 9/11. the 9/11 compensation act provides the proper congressional authorization and statutory structure to the 9/11 health programs that have received $326 million through annual appropriations since

2003. our bill would establish the world trade center health program within the national institute for occupational safety and health, to provide permanent ongoing medical monitoring and treatment for the world trade center related conditions to the world trade center responders and community members. the program administrator will establish a nationwide network of providers so that the eligible individuals who live outside of new york can reasonably access monitoring and treatment benefits where they live. these eligible individuals are included in the caps and the numbers of participants in the responder and community programs. i want to emphasize one important aspect of this bill that typically gets overlooked. our legislation will provide a level of accountability and trainers -- transparencecy for the disbursement of funds that has not been seen up to this point with the current programs. it terminates all of the existing six programs that were

hastily put together after the chaotic aftermath of 9/11 and establish one third-party administrator who will set reasonable rates, traffic expenditures and enforce eligibility requirements. it will be 100% transparent and accountable. further, our bill limits the health program to ten years and caps the number of people who can receive treatment at approximately 109,000 and limits the treatment to 22 respiratory, gastrointestinal and mental health diseases that have already been medically certified to be associated with breathing these toxins and other hazards at ground zero. under this bill, the government is the payer of last resort. individual health insurance funds and workers compensation claims will all be paid first. the federal government will only cover those after those first two payers pay. the city of new york is required to contribute 10%, matching cost shares of the community health program, and the legislation

will also formally reopen the september 11 victims compensation fund to provide compensation for economic damages and loss to individuals who did not file or did not become ill before the original cutoff date of december 22, 2003. the payments would be limited to to $4.2 billion over ten years. our bill would strictly enforce attorney limits to 10% of the payments from the fund, and it would provide liability protections for the world trade center contractors and the city of new york, limiting liability of defendants for claims previously resolved currently pending or filed through december, 2031. last, i want to emphasize that this bill is entirely paygo compliant. that means the bill is paid for. it will not add to our debt or our deficit. it is capped, mandatory funding that is offset completely by a pay-for that closes a loophole that foreign companies use to

avoid paying their fair share of u.s. taxes, which fundamentally makes our companies have to play on an unlevel playing field. we want to help american businesses, and that's what this pay-for does. in closing, i want to make i

weakened the squadron's ability