that was just extracted by one of the investigators without documentary proof. the second factual allegation in this article is that the judge -- should be removed for intentionally misleading statements of the recusal hearing. i think i can simply end this by encouraging you to read the recusal hearing. it's not very long. reach your own conclusions. don't listen to me. don't front house. you will see that judge porteous gives them hearings. a lot of judges don't. they just deny it. instead they gave him a full hearing,ed to him he understood why he was bringing this issue and acknowledged he had a relationship with these lawyers and then he went and said, tell me what i need to do to make sure you can appeal me. you have a right to appeal me. he stayed a case to allow an

appeal. most judges won't do that. he didn't say in detail what the relationship was. he understood that mole was going to apeople one thing he did want to correct is that mole said incorrectly that he had received campaign contributions from these individuals and he said that's just not true. and he corrected it on the record. he never denied the relationship. from his perspective having a relationship, a friendship, particularly from his time in get na was not a -- gretna was not a problem, not a recusable issue and so he left it at that. the third allegation is that judge porteous should be removed from office because he denied lifemark's recusal motion. that is the most dangerous allegation in article i. because that would remove a judge for the substance of his decision, in this case, a recusal motion. can you imagine if you start to remove judges because you disagree with the recusal

decisions. judges are constantly appealed on recusal decisions. if you start to remove judges because you disagree with their conclusion even though many judges shared this, then you open up the bench to unlimited manipulation. now, the evidentiary hearing in the senate, i do not want to tell you was a total bust. it was not. for those of you who were looking for a conspiracy, we found one, and it came out in live testimony, a scheme. a very corrupt -- scheme. in that judge porteous was the subject. it sought testimony from mr. mole who you have heard as a paragon of a witness. mr. mole brought the issue that he should recuse himself an mr. mole was shocked that he didn't. in fact, i think mr. goodlatte said that mr. mole had no

alternative. but the house members didn't mention how mole proceeded. of after he lost the recusal motion, mole dieded he had to get this judge off the -- decided that he had to get this judge off the case. he was not going have this west bank judge rule in this case of lifemark. he was going to be bounced to get another judge. a 14th reassignment of the house if mole had anything do about it. went and talked to a guy by the name of tom wilkinson. he was assigned to the lifemark case. he went to the brother of the magistrate and this is the former jefferson parish attorney. he was known as someone who could solve problems like this. he was known as the go-to guy to fix a problem with a judge who didn't want. wilkinson is now reportedly under investigation for corruption in louisiana. so mole met with him and then wilkinson got mole to meet with one of judge porteous's closest

friends, don gardner. and he went to gardner and offered him an extraordinary contract which we have put in the record. that contract promised mol mole $100,000 if he joined the case. and offered him another $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself. $200,000. but that was not all. the contract actually said, by the way, once porteous is gone, you're gone. so if you get him to recuse yourself, i'll give him dz -- i'll give you $200,000 and you go away and we can go perly on bouncing this case through the court system. the problem with this scheme by mr. mole is that it didn't work because don gardner said, you do not want to go to tom porteous. you don't want me to go to tom

porteous and tell him to recuse himself because he will react very negatively. and he refused to go -- this is his own testimony -- refused to go to porteous to ask for his recusal. ultimately the judge's decision cost his closest friend $200,000. mole, himself, admitted that he had never seen a contract like the one he wrote and witnesses testifying said they were shocked to learn of a contract where someone actually put a bounty on a federal judge and offered $200,000 if you can get him off the case. nevertheless, when gardner lost that case, he said, the judge gave him a fair hearing. he said, look, this judge is just not bribeable, he gave us a fair hearing. he disagreed with us and we lost. by the way, this isn't mentioned

by the house. creely also practiced before the judge. he was not the counsel, by the way, he was not the counsel in lifemark, but creely actually did have a couple of cases in front of the judge and the judge ruled against him and cost him a huge amount of money. in one case where he lost a great deal of money, creely actually took his best friend on appeal and got it reversed. but his friendship didn't stop the judge and one of creely's biggest cases from ruling against him. dent feel a need to recuse in those occasions and it didn't influence his decision. now, the article also talks about things of value, another general term, and these are small common gifts that creely and amato agreed they gave to porteous and said were common in gretna, as in many small towns. and, yes, they had lunch together. they had lunch together for their whole 30-year relationship.

and a few of those lunches did continue while lifemark was pending in front of the judge. the judge paid for an occasional rule, but officer goodlatte is absolutely correct, he he didn't pay for enough meals. and the house did not contest the only ethics expert in this case who said those lunches are permitted under state law. and they still are permitted today. back then they had the same rule the united states senate had. back then the senate allowed senators to be bought lunches. not because it invited corruption. senators didn't view it as a source of corruption. neither did the people of louisiana when it came to lunches being bought for judges. it was just a courtesy. now, there's been talk about creely attending tom porteous' bachelor party in may 1999.

i'm going to note if you look at the testimony, creely said he was friends with timothy. timothy's a lawyer. he was very close to timothy. and he had great love for timothy. he expressed that in a hearing. he went to a friend's wedding. when he bought the lunch at his table, porteous was not at the table. and he threw in with the other attorneys at that time. now, as i mentioned earlier, the wedding gift is, frankly, the most serious problem. it occurred three years after the recusal hearing. so i'm not trying to excuse it. but i do wish you would keep in mind because these dates get blurred. it was three years after the recusal hearing when this wedding gift was handed over. and, yes, he went on this fishing trip. it was a very emotional thing. he was having trouble paying for his son's wedding. and it was a huge mistake. and the judge admitted it.

it was not a bribe. not a kickback. it was a gift and it was dumb to be offered, dumb to be accepted. but both creely and amato made it clear that it was not a bribe or a kickback. in fact, jake amato testified that he felt that judge porteous was always -- this is a -- quote -- "was always going to do the right thing." in the case. he didn't see any connection to in terms of influencing the outcome of the case. now, one question the house has never been able to answer and one which the senate might be able to put to the house, and that is, if judge porteous could be influenced for $2,000 or some other -- quote -- "small things of value" as the house alleges, why didn't he recuse himself so his close friend could collect $200,000? why didn't he rule for creely in those other cases? he had two friends in the case of lifemark. he cost one $200,000. why didn't he accept money like

those other judges that were nailed in wrinkle robe. the appearance of inappropriatey is a dangerous -- for this body to purport in the impeachment standards. state bars have continued to move away from impropriety because it is ruled as basically meaningless. it is basically, don't be bad. he said state bars are moving away from it at the time the house is asking you to adopt it. -- adopt it for the impeachment standard. let's turn to article ii. article ii we've already discussed is the article that is the prefederal -- pre-federal conduct allegation. i will leave that tower discretion since -- to your discretion since we have not ruled on or you have not ruled on the motion i will try to

aaddress a few of the facts in this case. if the senate agrees with the defense that a judge cannot be removed for pre-federal conduct, then most of article ii is gone. the -- there's virtually nothing there in terms of federal conduct. the evidence that is supported in article ii in terms of federal conduct are six lunches. six lunches that took place over 16 years. so let me make sure we understand that. the evidence in article 2 in federal conduct that you're going to remove a judge for is six lunches. i should note that judge porteous attended several of these lunches, but there is no record that he attended all of the lunches. so the six might be a high number. you see, the house had no record that he actually attended some of these lunches, but somebody at the lunch had absolut vodka,

i kid you not. so what the house is saying that because judge porteous drank absolut vodka, you should just assume he was at those lunches and -- and use that as part of the evidence to remove a federal judge. i'm not overstating that. we hope -- we ask the committee to take judicial notice that judge porteous is not the only human being in louisiana that drinks vodka or even absolut vodka. what they're inviting you to do again is remove a judge on pure speculation. and, by the way, the value of these lunches over 16 years was also not mentioned. they're less than $250. over 16 years. the individual meals benefited judge porteous, the average wa .

and as i mentioned, experts testified in this case and were not contradicted that judges were allowed and are still allowed to have lunches purchased for them in this respect. the most that the house can come up with is that by attending these lunches, judge porteous, quote, "brought strength to the table." that is one of the statements of the witnesses, louis marcotte, that he brought strength to the table, and that's -- that's enough. imagine if that was enough. if you're permitted to have lunches bought for you but someone at the lunch benefited from your being present, a third party, because you -- quote -- "brought strength to the table," that would be enough for a charge of impeachment under this approach. the record shows that senator john breaux went to some of these lunches with the marcottes. does the house suggest that because senator breaux went to a lunch that he should be expelled

from this body? that would be ridiculous. virtually every witness called by the house and the defense testified that judges dealt exclusively with the marcottes as bail bondsmen. you heard the house say bail bondsmen would often deal individually with the -- with the judges. i just need to correct there. there weren't bail bondsmen, plural, on any practical level. this is a small town, and the marcottes were it. the witnesses testified that the marcottes controlled over 90% of the bonds. they were the bail bondsmen for gretna. it's not a huge town. by the way, if you think about that, it means that every judge that signed a bond was almost certainly signing it for the marcottes because they were the only bail bondsmen on a practical level. now, here's the thing that you might find confusing. at the evidentiary hearing, the

house conceded not only that they could not prove a linkage on these bonds but that they did not specifically allege a relationship between the size of the bonds and this relationship with the marcottes. the house stated, and i am quoting -- quote -- "the house does not allege that judge porteous set any particular bond too high or too low." close quote. so all of the references just now about setting things too high, too low, how they would have benefited a bail bondsman, the house stated it was not alleging that they set these things too high or too low, and once again, we find that the articles are being redesigned here in the well of the senate, irrespective of what was previously said by the house. the house does little beyond noting that judge porteous often approved bond amounts by the marcottes, and as detailed in

our brief, the house's own witnesses demolished that allegation. the amount of a bond is -- is set to reflect the assets of the defendant. the senate staff summed this up in its own report in front of you on page 18 and said -- quote -- "in many cases, the highest bond a defendant can afford may also be the socially optimal level, so as to eliminate unnecessary detention while providing maximum incentive for the defendant to appear." that's the point of a bond. you set it high enough that they're going to come back to court. and it was very good reason. the witnesses in this case testified that judge porteous was a national advocate for the use of bonds, and he connected the use of bonds to overcrowded systems. gretna was subject to a series of federal court orders that were releasing people, dangerous people from their jails, and judge porteous spoke nationally on the need for judges to use bonds, and he was correct.

as we submitted in the record, studies have proven him correct, that if you get a bond on an individual, the chances they will return and not resid v-8 are much, -- recidivate are much, much higher. judge porteous said start issuing bonds because people are not showing up. get them under a bond and they will. now, you also saw that the house suggested that somehow the marcottes got special treatment from the judge. the fact is they were the only bail bondsman on a practical basis. so if you wanted to give bonds, you gave bonds with the marcottes. by the way, his secretary rhonda danos testified that the judge also often told her not to let the marcottes into his office. on occasion, she would say, he would say not to let them in. she said they were not given any special treatment in access to the judge. she said that judge porteous was a very popular judge and lawyers

would gather in his office. now, let's turn very quickly to these two cases. i'm afraid i'm running short on time so i will have to ask you or your staff to look at our position in our filing, but i want to note that on the duhan expungement that has suddenly resurrected like a phoenix on the floor of the senate, we thought it was dead, and the reason we thought it was dead is because it had been downgraded in the trial because of the testimony of the witnesses where the house simply referred to it as noteworthy. by the end of the trial, it had gone from a matter for removal to a noteworthy case. the reason is that witnesses testified that this was a routine administrative process. the witnesses showed -- and there were no witnesses called by the house that were experts in this area. we called witnesses to talk about these types of setasides

and expungements, and those witnesses said this was perfectly ethical and appropriate. not only that, in the duhan matter, judge porteous was following the lead of another judge that was never revealed to the house. we revealed it in the hearing. it turns out that a prior judge had already taken steps in the case. louis marcotte testified that he wasn't even sure he asked judge porteous for his assistance on the duhan matter. nevertheless, the managers included the allegation in the article. as for the wallace setaside, the house could not call any expert to testify that it was improper, and we did call people who said it was perfectly proper. it was both legal and appropriate under louisiana law. now, i want to address one thing about the wallace setaside. the government once again is coming here, the house is coming here and saying, you know, he did this so you wouldn't know

about it. he waited to take actions in the wallace case after he was confirmed. and what do you think of that? well, i suggest what you think of that is it's not true. as we said in the hearings, this is why we were surprised to find it being mentioned in the floor of the senate today. it turns out it's not true, that the judge held a hearing before confirmation and stated in the hearing i intend to set aside this conviction. that's a pretty weird way to hide something. before confirmation, he said i'm going to do this, and i need you to put emotion together. why? it was the right thing to do. it's routine in this area. these types of things are very routine. one of the attorneys said they just -- that he just walked around with these forms in his briefcase. and do you know what mr. wallace said? he said that judge porteous was known as a judge who would given someone a second chance, and he gave wallace a second chance and wallace went on to become a minister, and he is now a

respected member of his community. now, a lot of this turns, of course, on louis marcotte who also, by the way, admitted at trial -- this is louis marcotte who said -- he explained why he lied on one occasion, and he simply said well, i wouldn't have any reason to tell the truth. that's louis marcotte. indeed, one of the witnesses told the committee that the house staff told him that the reason he was being called is because people wouldn't believe louis marcotte, that he lacked credibility. now, the marcottes ultimately said that lunches would occur sometimes once a month. car repairs that were discussed here lasted about six to eight months and consisted of a few minor repairs. we suggest you simply look at the testimony. you have to look at the

testimony because there is not any documents. there's no documents of exactly what repairs were done. it's all testimonial. so this isn't a debate over the standard of proof. there is no proof. finally, the house has continually referred to other state judges who were convicted of crimes, judge greene, judge bodenheimer. and i just simply want to note that judge porteous, of course, never accepted cash or campaign contributions from the marcottes. that put him in a small group, from what i could see. he -- they gave as much as ten grand to judges, including judges who were still on the bench. they never gave judge porteous any cash. why? handing out cash to other judges. if he was so corrupt, if he was this caricature that the house makes him out to be, why didn't he take the cash and run?

judge porteous, of course, was never accused of a crime let alone convicted. and those men, judge greene and judge bodenheimer, you just heard the house say look at the -- look at these people. judge judge porteous by their conduct. they were convicted of mail fraud and planting evidence on a business rival. article ii is a raw attempt to remove a judge for conduct before he was a judge. article ii, i submit to you, is nothing more than what mcbeth described as a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. article iii is the only article that does not rely on pre-federal conduct. what it relies on are a series of errors made in a bankruptcy filing that the judge made with his wife camilla. i'm not going to dwell on the intricacies of the bankruptcy code, which may be a relief to many. what the record establishes is not some criminal mastermind

manipulating the bankruptcy code. it basically shows people that had bad records, little understanding of bankruptcy, which, by the way, is usually the type of people that go bankrupt. they sought a bankruptcy attorney of well known reputation, mr. claude lightfoot, and he was -- they were given bad legal advice. but one thing the house doesn't mention today and did not mention to the house members when they got that unanimous vote, judge porteous paid more in bankruptcy than the average person in this country. he succeeded in bankruptcy. they filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2001. they paid $57,000 to the trustee. $52,000 repaid to their creditors. the only difference is that he was scrutinized a lot more.

he had two bankruptcy judges, a chapter 13 trustee, and the federal bureau of investigation and the department of justice. by the way, i mention the f.b.i. and d.o.j. because the f.b.i. and d.o.j. raised these issues that you just heard about while the case was pending. they didn't come into this case after it was done. they actually went to see the trustee and raised these issues with the trustee, and the trustee said that he didn't feel that any action would be appropriate, necessary. so he found that these actions actually wouldn't warrant an administrative action by a bankruptcy trustee, but the house managers would say that that's still enough to remove a federal judge under the impeachment standard. and by the way, after the d.o.j. and the f.b.i. went to the bankruptcy trustee and said look at all these things and the trustee said i don't think this really warrants any action on my part, the d.o.j. and f.b.i.

didn't take action either. all this sinister stuff about how they found this, it was found before the case was closed. none of judge porteous' creditors ever filed a complaint or an objection. that was also not mentioned in the case. now, when they retained mr. lightfoot, they had never met him before, and it's true that mr. lightfoot did suggest that they file with a fake name, orteus instead of porteous. that was a dumb mistake. to his credit, mr. lightfoot said this was my idea. he said i was trying to protect them, particularly judge porteous' wife who was upset about the embarrassment of the bankruptcy and the fact that at that time, the "times" picuyne

published everyone's names for bankruptcy in the paper. he thought he could help that by using orteus, and then -- that was just for the first filing, correcting it, so that no creditor would actually get that document or get that false name. and he did roughly 10 or 12 days later, he corrected it, and no creditor did, did get the misleading information. and by the way, in that first filing, he used the information, including the social security number, which is the primary way you track people, so he didn't falsify that. but it was a dumb mistake but it was a mistake done by mr. mr. lightfoot at his suggestion because he thought he could avoid embarrassment. he says he regrets it but it was his idea. in the fifth circuit, you are allowed to follow the advice of counsel. should judge porteous have followed this advice? no. he should have known better. this is one of those things

where yielding to temptation at a time like this was a colossal mistake. but when the trustee was presented with this, with the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. coming to his office, he said he felt that this was no harm, no foul. why? because nobody was misled because they changed it. no creditors were misled. he finished his bankruptcy filing. dewhat mosfiling. he did what most people don't do, he succeeded. he actually paid his creditors. henry heldenbrand, who's a standing chapter 13 trustee in tennessee, said that he has seen bankruptcy petitions filed with incorrect names. he's seen it. he says that what you do is you require them to correct it and you give notice to the parties.

in this case, they didn't have to do that because the parties, the creditors, had already gotten the correct information. former united states bankruptcy judge ronald barliant said on the basis of the facts of that use of orteus, he would not find any intent to commit fraud or otherwise impair the bankruptcy system. he just didn't see it. neither did the trustee and neither did the f.b.i. or the d.o.j., to the extent that they didn't charge it. he further -- the house further alleged other errors and inaccuracies in the bankruptcy schedule as part of this dark and sinister plan to co-opt the bankruptcy system. two empirical studies that were -- that were introduced at trial shows that 95% to 99% of bankruptcy cases contain errors and inaccuracies. in fact, we had testimony fro from -- from mr. hildenbrand who said he actually didn't believe that he'd ever mean? his 28 years as a -- seen in his 28 years as a chapter 13

trustee, that he'd ever seen a perfect filing. bankruptcy law professor rafael pardo also said that it's never been the standard to be perfect, that these things are -- that that's unrealistic and unworkable, people make errors. the people who are filing bankruptcy are people who couldn't handle their records before. it's not surprising that when they file bankruptcy, they have errors. now, i would like to talk quickly about these errors where the judge is alleged in summer of 2000, he gave mr. lightfoot his may 2000 pay stub but did not later supply an updated pay stub. what they left out was the difference between those two pay stubs was $173.99. a month.

trustee boleo said that it was such a small amount, it wouldn't have affected really the payments considerably to the creditors. the record shows that mr. lightfoot -- i'm sorry, it shows that judge porteous actually told his bankruptcy counsel that his income was higher than listed on the pay stub but mr. lightfoot elected to use the information on the stale pay stub. mr. lightfoot testified at trial he failed to ask the porteouses for the updated pay stub prior to preparing their bankruptcy filings. but now that's going to be part of a basis for the removal of a federal judge. let's talk about that bank one account. on that one, mr. lightfoot testified that he simply asked the porteouses to approximate how much money they had in their account. their bankruptcy lawyer said, just give me a ballpark figure, and they did.

there was no sinister plan here. how about the fidelity homestead association account that was just referred to? that account was omitted inadvertently. judge porteous testified before the fifth circuit he thought he told mr. lightfoot that there was this fidelity account. however, it's undisputed that the value of that account was $283.42. that was the account that was mentioned to you. now, there's also a reference to the fact that debt was incurred during the bankruptcy. there's no bar on incurring debt under statute during bankruptcy. there's no bar to do it. and, yes, the house made a great deal out of the fact that the porteouses gambled. gambling's legal, and it was a problem for judge porteous it was an addiction.

and he dealt with it in a public way that few of us would want to deal with it. he dealt with it. he dealt with his drinking and his addiction problems by going to seek professional help. and like many of us, he didn't do that until his life exploded on him. and he went and he got treatment for depression. should he have done it before? yeah. but gambling is not unlawful. and more importantly, what was just described to you about these markers is what the judges, judge dennis and his colleague, specifically objected to when they said, under louisiana -- this is a quote -- "under louisiana commercial law, markers are considered checks as defined by louisiana statute." markers are uncashed checks, not debts, for the purposes of bankruptcy. at trial, an f.b.i. agent called by the house confirmed this interpretation, that a marker was a temporary check. in other words, these judges, who are not part of a sinister plan to undermine the bankruptcy

laws of our country, these judges all said they actually agree with the interpretation that this is not debt. some people might disagree with their interpretation. but at most, it's an equipoise. they don't -- they did not believe it constitutes that, period. should they have gambled in their bankruptcy? of course not. that's a -- but that's not a failure as a judge. that was a personal problem that the judge overcame. let's move on to the last article. the fourth article of impeachment is a deliberate attempt by the house to resuscitate the pre-federal charges by recycling them through the confirmation proce process. and, by the way, senator leahy had asked about perjury in the confirmation process and i said i do believe that perjury is a removable offense. and then mr. schiff stood up and

said, ah-ha, then you do believe in pre-federal basis for removal. the answer is, no. the confirmation process is part of the federal process. it's part of your service as a judge. it's not pre-federal in the terms of what we are discussing. it's directly related to your being put on to the federal bench. obviously, if you acquit judge porteous on articles i and ii, you have to acquit on iv because iv is basically article i and article ii just basically recycle as an issue. there are three questions that the article refers to and i'd like to read you that question from the sf-86. here it goes. "is there anything in your personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail you? is there anything in your life that could cause you an embarrassment -- sorry, cause an embarrassment to you or the president if publicly known?" by the way, that's one question. those aren't two questions. it's a compound question.

now, i'd like you to put yourself in the shoes of judge porteous. he just answered 200 questions, a hundred of his closest friends been interviewed -- family, neighbors, colleagues -- this was the final question. i'd like you to ask yourself how you would answer that question. is there anything in your life that someone could say would -- could be used to coerce or blackmail you? would you answer that yes? or would you answer it no, because you know you wouldn't be coerced and blackmailed? sure, all of us have stuff we're not proud of or things that we might not want to be made publ public. that wasn't the case with porteous, which i'll explain in a second. but we heard uncontradicted testimony that if you just now said i'd answer no to that question, you wouldn't be alone. the f.b.i. agent who testified said in his 25 years in the f.b.i., he had never seen anyone answer yes to that question. we brought in the leading expert

on the confirmation process. he said that he was unaware of a single person ever saying yes to that question. it is so ambiguous that most people just say no. people have to sit there and wonder, what would be embarrassing to president clinton? and you're supposed to say, well, i can think of this or that, maybe that would embarrass president clinton. they don't do that. they say, look, i don't think my life is embarrassing to people. these lunches that they keep on citing? they were in public places. they weren't held underneath a car. they were held in open restaurants. he never tried to hide them. they were legal. they happen all the time. there was actually a table that the restaurant set aside for lawyers and judges. and the witnesses testified they had never seen any judge but one ever pay for one of those meals. now, by the way, this was raised about porteous's 2000 tax refund

check. that was raised with regard to things that he was trying to hide, and i believe the expression was, you know, that 2000 refund check went right into his pocket. well, you know what? it's supposed to. refund checks are not part of the bankruptcy filings in cases like this. they always go into your pocket. what they're asking you to do is to assume that judge porteous was embarrassed and then remove him for that. let me state that again. he was asked a question if anything would embarrass himself or the president. they want you to say, i think he was embarrassed, and then remove a federal judge on that basis. even though he didn't hide these things. they keep on talking about these relationships. they were public relationships. does that track with the constitutional standard, in your

view? it's now down to embarrassment? he didn't hide the creely relationship because creely said there was no relationship of gifts to curatorships. why would he hide that? creely said it never happened. and so once again they're asking you to assume facts and then say those assumed facts must have embarrassed him and, therefore, his answer to a compound question of "no" must be enough to remove him. this is not new. all of you have been involved in the confirmation process. there have been plenty of circumstances where facts have come forward that were embarrassing to a nominee that were not revealed. we saw with bernard karick, who was nominated to be a member of the cabinet, that he was actually criminally charged for saying that there was nothing that would be embarrassing, said said, "not to my knowledge." ask prosecutors said, that's a lie because we found something

to be embarrassing. that went to the federal court, and the federal court said -- and i quote -- "where a question is so vague as to be fundamentally ambiguous, it cannot be the predicate of a false statement, regardless of the answer given." the court went on to say, "plainly, the meaning of the word 'embarrassing' is open to interpretation and is hard to believe a federal prosecution would follow." so here's my question: if it's hard to believe that a federal prosecution would follow, how about an impeachment based on embarrassment? you can't even use this in that federal court. the judge said you can't even base a charge on it. and they are arguing that you should now base the removal of a federal judge o on it. a judge in the third circumstance ultimate who was found to have lied in his confirm -- circuit who was found to have lied in his confirmation hearing, but the judge in the third circuit said discipline was only warranted with the showing of intent. the house didn't attempt to make that showing.

united states district court james wear told people that his brother had been shot and killed in a racially motivated incident in alabama in 1963. 1997, wher waer was nominated te ninth circuit and he listed family members, including virgil waer, who actually existed, just wasn't his brother. and yeah, he been killed but it wasn't his brother. it was a lie. he was severely reprimanded by the court. and he should have been. but it's not an impeachable offense. he still sits on the district court in california. i mentioned to you goal black. we have plenty of those examples in the record. the fact is that if you start to remove judges for embarrassment, there will be no end to it. you will have house members lining up through that open door to bring forth things that should have been mentioned in confirmation by judges that they dislike. anyone.

not just judges -- presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members. that's the standard. if you read the newspapers this month, you'll see what i mean. you know, there are articles in the newspaper, "the washington post," where you have members of congress starting to make their case for the impeachment of supreme court justices thomas, roberts, kagan, and sotomayor. in fact, congressman peter defazio said -- quote -- "they've opened the floodgates and personally i'm investigating articles of impeachment against certain justices." if that's the standard, a president would have to raise nominees hydrophonically in the white house base fment they had any hopes of surviving on the bench. you cannot -- base fment they hapossibly hope toraise the impd with the wrong answer on that embarrassment question in confirmation.

article iv is an open demand for senators to engage in pure conjecture. if senators can simply assume embarrassment to remove a nominee, there is no standard of proof. our day is over. and there's no standard of removal. threl a just serve at your pleasure, just as madison feared. it's preslice what adams worried -- it's precisely what adams worried about, uncertain wishes and imagination as a substitute for proof. i want to conclude before i sit down and i rest this case for the defense and before my voice gives out. i want to address one thing about this case. and that is the fact that judge porteous didn't testify and some of you may be wondering about that. the reason can be found in the fifth circuit testimony when the fifth circuit sought to question judge porteous about the allegations in article i and

article iii, judge porteous took the stand and did not deny many of the factual allegations. somehow the house keeps citing that like that is a major sinister thing that he actually said, i'm not contesting these facts. and you know what? the house seemed to make fun of the fact that he couldn't remember details about what occurred with the $2,000. what was the point of that? you had a judge that had obviously addictions, he had depression, felt with them, and when he showed up in the fifth circuit, his memory was not clear, but he didn't say that to say, and, therefore, these things didn't happen. he said the opposite. he said, if i were you, i wouldn't rely on my memory. if creely and amato were saying that, they were friends of mine, i don't think they'd lie. what's bad about that? he is just disagreeing with the implications of these things. when they quote him and fact fun of the fact that he tried to

answer about what happened with that money, he was doing his best. they seem to leave out that at the end he said, just assume that it occurred and hold me to that standard. ultimately, he accepted he veer discipline from the fifth circuit for his poor decisions and he announced that he'll retire some months from today. did he betray his office? no. i think he betrayed him servings maybe his family, but not his office. his failings were that of being a human being, a man who was overwhelmed by addiction, the defnlg his wife, financial troubles. did he help bring those on? perhaps. whatever judge porteous may appear to you during this period, he was and he is proud of his nearly 30 years of public service as a judge.

but he believes that's for others to judge, judge now. he didn't feel it was appropriate in the fifth circuit to be contesting things that his friends had remembered, and he also doesn't think it's appropriate for him to beg to you excuse any of his actions. he wants you to judge his raksz. he believes he can be judged harshly, and he was judged harshly. he tainted his own legacy, but judges are humans. and that humanity can make some of them the best of their generation. jurists like thurgood marshall's experiences in life, louis brandeis's experiences in life made them towering symbols for lawyers and law students and the public. others, like judge porteous, that humanity showed frailties and weakness. some of the men and women who don these robes have those frailties and weaknesses.

this is going to happen again. judges will have bankruptcy problems. they only look inviolate in those robes. we elevate nem in the courtroom. but beneath those robes is a human being and some have problems, some of them make mistakes. but they shouldn't end upped here on the senate floor as we debate whether he's moocher, whether he paid for enough launches. he'll let the record stand and you judge him for t it. he felt he deserved to be disciplined. maybe he deserves to be here. i don't know. but he doesn't deserve for removed. he didn't commit treason. he didn't commit bribery. he didn't commit other high crimes and misdemeanors. he committed mistakes. but in the end only a u.s. senator can say what's removable conduct. it comes to you. a longer road has been traveled by two centuries by your predecessors, a road that began with people like james madison,

george mason. one senator who sat where you sit now was senator edmund ross of kansas, who stood in the judgment of president andrew johnson. many of ross's republican colleagues wanted johnson out of office for good reason. the public demanded his removal. he was viewed as a public enemy by ross. he was the subject of john f. kennedy's book "profiles of courage." he was one of those profiles. kennedy explained that the 11th article of impeachment was deliberately obscure which had been designated by thaddeus stevens to furnish a common ground for those who favored conviction and were unwilling to identify themselves on basic issues. does that sound familiar at all? well, the record was filled with abuses and poor judgment by

johnson. ross was forced to consider whether they amounted to an impeachable offense. as the roll call occurred, he found himself at the key vote standing between johnson and removal from office. ross described the sensation as -- quote -- "almost literally looking down into my open grave and everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man was about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever." he then jumped into that grave and he uttered the words "not guilty" to the shock of his colleagues. his career ended. he was chastised at home. but he became a profile of courage, snot not just for john f. kennedy but, i hope, for many people in this chamber. no career will be lost with your vote today. indeed, in a week of votes of sweeping immigration changes and nuclear treaties, i think the world is in a bit of amazement, in awe, that we would have so many of you here today that just

stop to decide the facts and future of a federal judge. that's a testament to this system. no matter what you do today, judge porteous will not return to the beth. he will be convicted or he will retire. no senator career will turn on his vote. but of course impeachment has never been about one president or one judge. but all presidents and all judges. the framers understood that. what will be lost today is not a career but a constitutional standard that has served this nation for two centuries, a standard fashioned by the very men who laid the foundations of this republic. a standard maintained by generations of senators who sat where you now sit in this very chamber. we ask you to do as they have done and hold the constitutional line. we ask you to acquit judge g. thomas porteous. the president pro tempore: thank you very much.

representative schiff will conclude the case for the house managers. and the house has 26 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. schiff: mr. president, senators, let me begin this conclusion by some agreement with my colleague. this is a remarkable proceeding, and the true import of it is demonstrated by the fact of how much you have going on this week and the amount of time we're devoting to this today. it is a reflection of the seriousness, it is a reflection of the fact that these cases come around very rarely and for good reason. the constitution sets the bar high. it doesn't want either the house or senate to take the process of impeachment lightly, and we in the house certainly do not, and we know in the senate you don't take that responsibility lightly

either. we've set out the facts about why this judge needs to be removed from the bench. i would like to take this opportunity to rebut some of the points that my colleague has made. i think when you go through the evidence and when you discuss it with the senators who sat through the trial, you will find on each of the articles as charge youd that -- as charged that g. thomas porteous must be removed from office. counsel began by stating that the judge wasn't prohibited from being prosecuted for many of these crimes, that he signed tolling agreements with the department of justice. but this is what the department of justice said in its letter transmitting the case. "although the investigation developed evidence that might warrant charging judge porteous with violations of criminal law relating to judicial corruption, many of those instances took place in the 1990's and would be precluded by the relevant statute of limitations."

the tolling agreements that judge porteous signed contained this clause: "i understand that nothing herein has the effect of extending or reviesk any such period of limitations that has already expired prior to april 5, 2006." so anything that was gone by then was gone for good and he made no agreement to revive it. and so the case was referred to the fifth circuit. the fifth circuit had two days of hearings and according to judge porteous's counsel provided unprecedented sanctions on the judge. do you know what those unprecedented sanctions are? that he has heard no cases and earned his entire salary for three years. he has paid his -- he is paid his full salary for doing nothing. that was the enormous sanction that was placed upon hirnlg the sanction that i think many americans would love to have, to be paid a federal judicial

salary for doing nothing. that is the sanction. now, counsel said he offered to retire. well, why didn't he? why didn't he three years ago retire from the bench? he could have. but the judge's whole intent, which has been demonstrated throughout the procedural history by changing attorneys and moving for delays and continuance, is to draw out the clock, to go another month with another federal paycheck, to just see if he can eke it out a little longer until he can get his full salary, his full retirement for life. it was nothing -- there was nothing preventing this judge from retiring three years ago. now, turning to the claims made by counsel in article i, that the articles don't charge a kickback scheme, let me read from article i. "while he was a state court judge in the 24th judicial district in the state of louisiana, he engadgetsed in a corrupt scheme with attorneys amato and creely whereby he appointed amato as partner in

hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from amato and creely a portion of the cure rarity fees." it says right here he sent them the cases and thereafter requested and received a portion of the money from those cases. if that's not a kickback, i don't know what is. now, i guess counsel's real argument is well, why didn't they use the term "kickback," and because they didn't use the term the counsel would iewrks therefore you must acquit. that is not the law in impeachment cases that we've to charge it use be a particular word. what we do have to do is oat out the conduct. senator leahy asked, well what about perjury? we don't use the word "perjury" in the fourth article. we set out in the fourth article that he had made material, false statements before the senate knowingly, willfully, deliberately. that is perjury. so we don't use that particular word. we don't have to use that word. we don't have to charge a particular criminal statute. when we do use particular word,

counsel takes issue. when we don't take particular words, counsel takes issue. what is the requirement here? that we charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, ants, yes, those words do appear in the articles. now, the gift, the wedding gift as counsel calls it. you will a he notice from the portion that he read to you, mr. amato never calls it a gift. mr. turley does in his questioning. in fact, after mr. turley asks those question, i asked -- both creely and amato, it is what a wedding gift and their answer was, of course not. now, counsel has just said, well, back in the fifth circuit when judge porteous was explaining what happened, you know, he really -- ah, he didn't want to contradict his friends. or maybe he didn't have such a good recollection. so three years ago during the fifth circuit when he said he called it not a loan that he just never paid back.

but he didn't have as good a recollection three years ago as counsel does now when he calls it a wedding guilty of. well, nobody has ever referred to this as a wedding gift. it is not a wedding present. it wasn't something they registered fomplet in fact the testimony in the trial was, amato says we're out in on a fishing trip. look, i invited too many guests to the wedding. i can't afford this. you got to help me out. can you get me $2,000? can you give me $2,000? can you find me a way to get $2,000? now, does that sound like a gift to you? you don't have to take my word for this. there were 12 senators who sat through these days of stm. ask them if this was a wedding gift. say, well, these were just really close friends of the judge. this was uncle jake and uncle bob. these were just close friends. and yet look at transcript that have reciewls hearing. where the judge says, bases at

that point he wants to distance himself. have we had lunch? yes. but i have lunch with all the lawyers in the courthouse. have i ever been to their house? no. well, that's odd. this is uncle bob and uncle jake. they're that close, according to counsel, the judge has never been to their house? clearly for the point of the recusal hearing where he's trying to mislead the parties, he doesn't really know these attorneys any better than any other attorneys he has lunch with. that is one thing. but here is uncle bob and uncle jake now. counsel also says there was a partnership between the cash and the curators. that's not the case. if you look at creely's testimony, he says the judge called him and was hitting him up for the curator money. creely says the reason creely doesn't like calling it a kickback apart from the

self-serving obvious reason is he says i didn't ask for these curator case, therefore, it can't be a kickback. i didn't want them. they are a nuisance. he said the judge sent them to me because he wanted to hit me up for the money. he basically forced me to take these cases. therefore, it wasn't a kickback. i don't think that's really how the definition of a kickback work. plainly creely testified that the judge understood the money was coming from the curatorships. plainly the judge knew it was a kickback. and even if creely doesn't want to admit it or call it that himself, that's exactly what it was. in fact, amato testified creely said look, the judge is hitting me up for the curator money. what do we do? and amato said, well, let's just give it to him. basically it wasn't going to cost them much. they're getting these cases, they're kicking back a portion of it, so they decide to do it.

counsel makes the suggestion here, again, he's being charged with being a moocher. he's being charged with having free lunches. again i would encourage you to talk to the senators who were there as my comments earlier about senator johanns' observations make clear. this is not about whether the judge was a moocher or had too many free lunches. this is about getting money from attorneys. this is about setting bonds not with a public interest in mind, but to maximize the profit of a bail bondsman and get a lot of gifts, favors, trips and car prepares and -- repairs out of it. counsel says everyone in the case agreed this is the best judge in louisiana god, i hope not. if that's the case, we're in much more serious trouble than any of us could imagine. but that was certainly not the testimony in this case. counsel says why weren't there records produced by the house of the curatorships? they could have gone and got the records. this is somewhat inexplicable

because we did go get the records. we went into the courthouse and got the box and found the records of the curator cases and introduced hundreds of curator cases that were in fact assigned to creely that were the subject of these thousands and thousands of dollars that were returned. counsel says the witnesses couldn't specify exactly how much. was it $20,000? was it $19,000? was it $21,000? therefore, you can't believe they actually got the money. the judge himself doesn't deny getting the money. you know why we can't be precise about whether it was $19,000 or $20,000 or $21,000? because the witnesses said during the trial they paid in cash so there would be no paper trail. i guess counsel is saying if you pay in cash, you could never be charged or impeached because the government can't prove exactly how many dollars went into your pocket. counsel then makes the claim that if you impeach him because he lied to the attorneys or misled people during the recusal

hearing that what you're really doing is impeaching a judge because of a judicial decision and that will erode judicial independence as if it was a problem with the case law on the motion, case law on the opinion or judicial philosophy. that is not what this is about. this is about taking money during a case. this is about denying a motion when you know you received money from the attorneys and lying about it. it's not about the merits of the cases you cite or judicial philosophy or what the standard ought to be. the judge set the right standard during the hearing. he understood exactly what was required of him. that's what makes it so egregious. he set out the standard, if you read that transcript, perfectly. he said if anything should come up during the trial that should require me to take myself off the case, i will let you know and give you that taoufpblt so what happens -- opportunity. what happens? the case is under submission. counsel points out it's under submission for three years. and during that period does something happen that would cause an objective person to

question his impartiality? yes. he hits him up for $2,000 and they give it to them. does he do what he said he would do during that recusal hearing and give the parties a chance to ask him to get off the case? of course not. no, instead counsel paints porteous as a victim of this conspiracy is to go through judge after judge in this hospital case. but, no, he's a hero. he's going to stay in there. he will not recuse himself. he won't let those parties manipulate the system. this was judge porteous' hero, occasionally as victim, but never, never as the abuser of the public trust that in fact he is. the fact that the opposing counsel who loses the recusal motion has to bring in another crony of the judge with an agreement that says if you get the judge off the case we'll give you $100,000 to start and $100,000 more if you get him off

the case, shows you how the system is corrupted by this judge, that the other party has to bring in the crony for his side of the case. counsel says that mr. amato testified that, well, he thought that porteous was going to do the right thing, as if that makes it okay. i guess you have to ask what did mr. amato think the right thing was. i'm sure he thought the right thing was he was going to rule for him. and in fact that's of course exactly what judge porteous does. he rules for mr. amato in an opinion that is excoriated by the court of appeals as being made out of whole cloth. now why didn'tse? that way his other crony would have gotten $100,000. if he did that, then mr. amato would lose $500,000 to $1

million because that's how much he stood to make in fees on the case. if he lost the case, he made nothing. if he won the case he made $500,000 to $1 million. here the judge had to decide do i favor my one crony who stands to make $100 thousand or my other crony who would make $500,000 or $1 million. article ii. counsel claims article ii 1 about six lunches, the same kind of issue raised with senator johanns. this isn't about six lunches. not even the portion of article ii which deals with federal conduct is about six lunches. it's about a skwrufrpblg recruiting -- a judge recruiting his successor into the same corruption scheme that he was engaged in while he was a state judge, a recruitment that was successful. judge bodenheimer was recuted. he went to work with a marketup so he wouldn't deal with until

judge porteous. then judge bodenheimer goes to jail. this is the character witness judge porteous calls during the trial -- judge bodenheimer, who went to jail for almost four years for the same charges. if you look at the charges judge bodenheimer pled guilty to -- counsel says, well, the house said at one point it wasn't going to show that any particular bond was set too high or too low. counsel didn't mention the fact that what we were saying is we weren't going to say that this particular bond in the case of joe smith should have been $50,000 higher or $20,000 higher. no, we weren't going to say in a particular case. what we were going to say is the arrangement with the bondsman, as the evidence showed during the trial, was that in each of the cases that went before the judge, the bondsman would say this is where i can make the

most money. set it at this point. that's what we said we would prove, and that's what we showed during the trial. counsel then says something to the effect that the duhan expungement was downgraded. i don't know what that means. mr. duhan was called to testify. he testified about the fact, just like wall -- wallace. he didn't hire the attorney. mark hunt did. he didn't tell the attorney anything. mark hunt arranged the whole thing. if you look at the transcripts of the expungements and set-asides between the judge, when the judge sets aside the convictions of these marcotte kpwhraoerbgs you know what is -- employees, you know what is said about them? there is no case about why these two deserve to have their cases set aside. the attorney doesn't say he really deserves this. it's silent.

the judge just says i'm going to do this. i'm setting aside this conviction under code blah, blah, blah. there's no discussion. the judge doesn't want there to be. he doesn't want anybody watching or listening to read the crypt to know -- to read the transcript to know what is really going on. the evidence during the trial showed that the judge lacked the power to set aside one of the convictions because louisiana law said you can't set aside a conviction where the person has already started their sentence. this person, wallace, had already finished his sentence. but regardless of that, even if you believe that somehow he had the power to ignore louisiana law, the question is why? why did he exercise that power? on this issue, counsel never had an answer. the uncontradicted testimony was the reason he exercised that power was because mark hunt asked him to. more important, duhan and wallace were doing him favors.

they were pick up his car, getting it washed, fixing the transmission, leaving $300 buckets of shrimp or bottles of vodka. marcotte asked him to, because he was doing favors for the judge. counsel continues to make the assertion which i really can't understand, that somehow the conviction wasn't set aside after the confirmation. the record is plain, that's exactly what happened. the conviction was set aside right after he was confirmed. there's no reason why that couldn't have been done before except for the fact he didn't want you to find out about it. he didn't want you to know about his relationship with the marcottes. and that the reason it was delayed. that's the reason it was concealed. that's the reason he said nothing about it. that's the reason why the record corroborates exactly what mr. marcotte testified.

in article iii, counsel says, he filed under false name. during the pleadings earlier, counsel called it a pseudonym, as if it's a romance novel, he's using a pen name. during the trial at one point koupb sailed it was a -- counsel said it was a typographical error. now he says it is the lawyer's mistake. this is not a situation where you have a layperson going to an expert lawyer and being advised of some arcane provision of bankruptcy law. this is a federal judge with 20 years of experience, and the lawyer concocts this scheme, let's just use a false name. and why don't you go out and get a p.o. box so we don't have to list your address. and the judge does this. this is not advice of counsel. this is collusion. what is the judge's explanation for why he is entitled to file

under a fake name? he doesn't want to embarrass himself. i guess now he doesn't want to embarrass his wife. what does this mean, that if you're a federal judge you have a right to file under false name under penalty of perjury because you don't want to be kpwarsd. but -- embarrassed. but if you're an ordinary citizen you don't have that right. is it only a judge embarrassed by bankruptcy? you don't think a teacher who files bankruptcy is embarrassed or a banker who files bankruptcy or a baker or anyone else would be embarrassed if their neighbors or employer or someone else finds out they had to file bankruptcy? it is a painful and embarrassing process for everyone. a federal judge doesn't have a right more than anyone else to use a fake name. counsel says no harm, no fall because he finished his bankruptcy proceeding and creditors got paid. he didn't want the notice in the paper, but the creditors found

out about it anyway. the creditors found out about it because it went public. the hope was it never would. and what the judge also wanted, in addition to avoiding the embarrassment, he didn't want the casinos to know. he didn't want the casinos to know. because if the casinos knew and they weren't listed as creditors, even though he continued taking out his gambling chips and gambling, if they knew, they would deny him credit and they wouldn't let him keep gambling which is exactly what he did during the rest of the bankruptcy. on article iv, counsel concedes that prior conduct can't be impeached as long as it's during the confirmation process. i guess they have waived any objection constitutionally to impeaching on prior conduct for the purpose of article iv because of course article iv -- the lying to the senate -- is during the confirmation process.

he says these questions were broad, they were about embarrassing facts. he focused on one word, embarrassing. when you look at those forms and the question that you ask in the senate is not just about embarrassment. it's are you aware of any negative information that may affect your confirmation? and he answers, i am, to the best of my knowledge, not aware of any negative information that might affect my confirmation. that's what he told you. it will be your decision, is that truthful or is that a lie? now, counsel implies it's impossible to know what that question really means. so i asked his own expert this during the trial, if information came out before confirmation that a candidate for judge took kickbacks from attorneys in exchange for the official act of sending them curator cases, would that be unfavorable information that would affect

the nomination? answer, this was professor mckenzie, if it were true, yes, it would be. question: it would kill the nomination, wouldn't it? answer: yeah. question: and a reasonable person would understand that. answer: yes. questions that wouldn't -- yeah -- no i agree with that. question, if information came out before confirmation that the candidate set bail to maximize the bail bondsman, et cetera. same answer to each of these questions their own experts said plainly that information is called for by that question. their expert said, you have no right to lie. if you don't want to suffer the humiliation of revealing that you're corrupt, you know what you do? you withdraw your nomination. in fact, that's why these cases are rare. it's rare, frankly, that you don't find this information during the vetting process. but when it comes out, when the white house nominates someone

and it comes out that there's a problem, you know what happens? they withdraw. now, they may withdraw and say, i've had second thoughts or i want to spend more time with my family or for whatever reason. they don't have to say why. but that's what happens. the confirmation process shouldn't be a game of hide and seek with senate where if you can keep your illicit conduct or corruption hidden by the senate and get by the confirmation hearing, you are set for light. that's not the precedent we want society. that was the unanimous view of the house of representatives. it will be for all of you to decide to what degree you want nominees in the future to feel that they can mislead the senate, that they can conceal information about corrupt activity if they can just get through the confirmation they'll be home free. they'll be beyond the reach of impeachment. i think that's a perilous path to go down as well.

when counsel summed up, he asked, did he betray his office? and i think that's the right question. i think hitting up attorneys when you have a pending case worth millions for $2,000 cash, that's betraig your office -- betraig your office. i think recruiting other judges into a corrupt scheme, that's betraig your office. lying to the senate is a betrayal. lying to the bankruptcy court is a betrayal. i think in the most plain terms, what does this mean to violate the public trust? it means what if someone -- let's say you don't impeach, what if someone walking into judge porteous' courtroom or any other judge in new orleans or california or anywhere else to think or do they think that, well, i guess i can file something under a false name because the judges do and that's all right. i guess maybe i need to see if i

can pay the judge some cash for fill up his car or fix his radiator if i want them to rule in my favor. can anyone go into judge porteous' courtroom after this without wondering those very things. isn't that the kind of abuse of the public trust that the framers intended to provide a remedy for so we wouldn't have to continue to suffer someone on the bench that would damage the institution in that way? we believe that this conduct is beneath the dignity of anybody to serve on the bench that is not only toward judge porteous but toward all who served with him and has raised questions in one courthouse and certainly in others just who's sitting on the bench. the remedy of impeachment is not

punitive. it is not designed to punish judge porteous. instead it is designed to protect the institution. and i believe on behalf of the house it's not possible to protect the institution by deciding that this level of corruption is okay. that solicitation of cash is okay. that striking deals with bail bondsmen that don't take official acts on the public's best interest or public trust but on how to enrich the judge is okay. these things are not ok. these things are not just an appearance problem as counsel suggests. this is unethical. this is criminal. and for the purposes of an impeachment proceeding, it is also a high crime and misdemeanor warranting removal. thank you. the president pro tempore: all time has expired. the questions have been submitted in writing and the clerk will now report. the clerk: senator franken to in

turley, isn't what happened before he was a federal judge relevant if he subsequently lied about it? mr. turley: senator franken, what i would say is that we've agreed if those lies occurred during a confirmation hearing, if it was an act of perjury, then certainly you would have a potential impeachable offense. i think that the lying is -- that the line being drawn here is i think this may be the thrust of your question is that if it is pre-federal conduct, the answer is no. that is -- this body has stated in cases like archbald that it will not consider pre-federal conduct for a very good reason, the constitution guarantees life tenure for good behavior in office. that's how the framers defined

it. if you allow for the house to go back in this case three decades -- three decades and say look at all these things you did before you became a judge, we're going to have a doover. we think that now you should be removed because of those things. not because of what you did as a federal judge. and i think there is a distinction. i'm willing -- i believe that if -- if there was perjury in the confirmation hearing, i would -- i'm not -- i don't think that mr. schiff and i would disagree on that point. but there is a big difference. that's the constitutional rubicon. that's where this body has never gone. and i do believe if you look at it objectively, you can see that the perils on that path are obvious and that this body should not go there. there are articles here that refer to federal conduct. and you have every right to judge this man, but you should judge him as a judge for what he did to the office that you gave him and i think that's what the

framers intended. the clerk: senator specter to mr. turley, why did judge porteous waive the statute of limitations? did he think the move was a realistic possibility that he would have been exonerated? mr. turley: thank you, senator specter. i want to emphasize with regard to section limitations, he waived the section limitations he was requested to waive and the house has come forth and said, well, they said they couldn't proceed in this area or that area as i mentioned they were able to do that with bodenheimer. the reason he did it is the same reason that he went to the fifth circuit and said i'm not going to contest these facts whether i remember how the money was given to me, he said i recall i was given the money. it was a gift. it was a mistake. i'm not going to fight that. it was wrong and the same thing

with the statute of limitations. he said i'm a judge, and if you can find a crime to charge me with, you should do it. there is no other point of waiving a statute of limitations, you take a risk and, you know, you -- yourself is well known defense attorney and a very well known litigator, i should say, but as many people in this room, but usually you encourage people not to waive statute of limitations because you don't know where it will lead. this judge decided he would. and ultimately the justice department found that in looking at all of the evidence they couldn't bring a charge and they certainly could not secure a verdict on that basis. but i don't think there -- i don't think there was anything sinister about waiving a statute of limitation to the extent that you believe that he waived it didn't think he could be charged with a crime. the answer is, i think, yes, he didn't think he did commit a crime and he waived it.

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. another question. the clerk will report. the clerk: senator merkley to mr. turley, judge porteous, while he had the lifemark case under advisement, solicited a cash gift from an attorney, amato, who represented one side of the dispute. he then accepted a $2,000 gift from this attorney. you have referred to this gift as only an appearance of a conflict of interest. how can parties to a case expect fair treatment from a judge if the judge solicits and receives a gift from an attorney on one side in a case? doesn't such a solicitation during a trial constitute a

complete abandonment of impartiality and a fundamental abuse of a judge's position and a betrayal of the public trust? mr. turley: senator, i -- first of all, i agree with the sentiments expressed in that question. he shouldn't have accepted the gift, that's why he accepted discipline. but it was an appearance of impropriety. that's how the court treated it and you can read the opinion by the dissenting judges and look into whether an appearance of impropriety should be an impeachable offense. there was no suggestion that it was a bribe. it's not alleged that it was a bribe. and so what you have then is something classified as an appearance of impropriety. and an appearance of impropriety does all the things that the question suggests. that's why you don't want appearances of impropriety

because it makes people uncertain as to whether the judge is being fair and unbias and he admitted to that. it was a mistake, but it was not during the trial. the trial was long over. this was years after the trial. but it was still a mistake because the case was still pending. and he should have realized that. and, yes, we do refer to as a wedding gift -- i'm not too sure why we're having the dispute because it was amato who said he raised the fact he needed money to pay for his son's wedding. and the result of that is that amato and thamato and creely ga0 cash and it is true that they are friends with timothy. it is true -- you know, i'm surprised to hear a suggestion that creely, that there might be an overstatement of the relationship. i suggest that you read the record. but they were very close to timothy. but it doesn't excuse anything. and that's why he accepted the punishment. but words mean things in

impeachments. you know, mr. schiff pointed out and said, why do we actually have to say kickback? why are you making us say kickback. look how these words hold together. isn't this what a kickback is? yeah, it could be conspiracy, it could be mail fraud, wire fraud, it would be a number of other things when you talk about corruption. the reason we want you to say kickback or bribe is because it's a specific allegation and one of those is mentioned actually in the constitution itself and, by the way, the house managers knew that the issue before the supreme court was whether you are going to allege a kickback, so they knew that courts, in fact, turn down honest services for the failure to allege kickback and they still didn't mention it. why? because they wanted to use corruption. and so the point is in answer to this question is that if it is not a kickback and it is not a bribe, it is is what the court said it was in the fifth circuit, an appearance of impropriety and that is not good. and mr. schiff and i will agree

on this, no attorney wants a judge to do what was done in this case and that's why he was disciplined. and he was disciplined harshly. that is the most severe discipline this court has handed down. mr. schiff might, in fact, say, what's that? you don't get to be a judge? that's a lot. because you're reprimanded by your colleagues, you're held up for ridicule. i've got toll tell you it is not something most people would want for themselves. it is an appearance of impropriety and he was severely disciplined for it. the president pro tempore: do you have anymore questions? the chair recognizes the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i move that pursuant to impeachment rule xx the senate now close its doors to commence deliberations on the motions and impeachment articles and ask unanimous consent that floor privileges during the closed session be granted to the individuals listed on the document i now send to the desk. [list] the president pro tempore: without objection, the senate

will now close its doors and only members and staff granted floor privileges may remain. the sergeant at arms will ensure the chamber, the galleries, and the adjoining corridors are cleared of unauthorized persons?

welcome back this afternoon to the center of american progress and welcome this afternoon's program on the u.s.-china dialogue. a view of the senate foreign relations committee. our featured speaker, senator john kerry of massachusetts will be formally introduced in just a moment. today's program with senator kerry is the third in a public series on u.s.-china relations that included the deputy secretary of state jim steinberg and last week the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen. these are part of a larger exchange between the center for american progress and the china-u.s. exchange foundation. our conference is being moderated by my colleague john

podesta and mr. c.h. tong of the china-u.s. exchange commission. so let me acknowledge john and let me acknowledge c.h. here in the audience. we welcome all of the participants of the congress, of the conference including senator tom daschle, u.s. secretary of state william cohen and now the chairman of the cohen group and professor wong g.c., the dean of the institute of international security studies at peking university. they finished an exchange that looks at u.s.-china relations in a change be world. responsibility, risk and leadership and that well spruces our keyneat speaker here today. to introduce senator kerr set 4th united states secretary of state, formally the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. professor in the practice of diplomacy at georgetown

university school of foreign service. the chair of the albright stoneridge group, the honorable madeleine albright. >> thank you very much, i'm delighted to have this opportunity. distinguished guests from the people's republic of china and visitors and friends. i am truly honored to be able to introduce to you today a person whose name and faith and career are familiar to anyone who has been paying attention these past few decades. john kerry first appeared before the senate committee on foreign relations as a witness about 40 years ago. his hair then was dark brown, his face unlined and his words eloquent. one of the senators boldly predicted that the young man might one day himself become a committee member. today, as you will soon see, his

hair is more distinguished, his face radiates the wisdom of experience and here in his capacity, want as a member of that senate panel, but as its chairman. john kerry was first elected to the senate in 1984 and he quickly earned a reputation for expertise and world affairs and especially on matters related to asia. during my years as secretary of state i counted on his leadership, his superb counsel any his personal friendship. in 2004 i was very pleased to support his candidacy for president of the united states. over the years john kerry's words have lost none of their eloquence. as chairman, he has restored the foreign relations committee to historic relevance and prestige, and as a diplomat in his own right, he has played an effective and appropriate role in his contact with world leaders from afghanistan and the

middle east to latin america and east asia. he is one of those people who truly give public service a good name, and i am very pleased to introduce to you our good friend, senator john kerry. >> well, i've heard lines calling everything and it's a wisdom of experience with an eloquent and polite way to put it. thank you. what a wonderful, wonderful privilege to be here today, thank you, madeleine and madam secretary for an extraordinarily gracious introduction, and i want to just say how much i think everybody in this room will join me in saying thank you to you for your remarkable contributions to our diplomacy,

to our thinking on the policy changes of the country and all of those issues facing the world and particularly, we thank you for your recent work on nato which i think is so important and has been a huge pleasure for me as chairman of the committee to be able to rely on you for counsel, and input and everybody here just values your gracious statesmanship enormously. thank you very, very much for all you do. i'm also flattered and pleased that good friends are here from public service, people who know a lot about this subject which intimidates me even more to stand in front of you, but senator tom daschle, our majority leader and my personal friend of a long time, sandy berger who has counselled me and others for a long period of time and sherman and my good old

friend, c.h. tong, thank you for leading this effort with this delegation and engaging with everybody here. this is important dialogue and your wisdom, mr. chairman, has been an important part of our relationship, and i appreciate the counsel you gave me as a young senator when i visited hong kong way before the turnover, and we continue to appreciate your participation in this dialogue. thank you for that. the -- let me just finally say a special thank you for john podesta. the cap has grown into this remarkable organization that in a world where there is not enough thinking, helps us to find the time and forces us to think. we need a lot more of that in our policy deliberations. i was thinking driving down here that i enjoyed a few days ago as all of us had, a wonderful feast of turkey over thanksgiving

which has now been changed into a rather deadly dose of daily lame duck, and it makes me stop and think hard about how well our process is working and how stuck we are and that's some of what i will talk about a little bit here today, but it's really important for us to have an opportunity to discuss an issue that bears on so many of the global challenges that we face today and that's the relationship between the united states and china. it's been 40 years since henry kissinger first shook hands and frankly changed the world with that handshake and what we do in the coming months to shape our relationship with china is going to have a profound impact on the next 40 years and probably a lot of time beyond that.

one thing is very certain, as we gather here. china the rise of china is no longer an obstruction. it's not a provocative phrase for writers and scholars and policymakers to sort of sit around the table and anticipate in the future. it's as present as those remarkable skyscrapers that rise in pudong across the river over shanghai or as pronounced as the remarkable pageantry of the olympics that we all witnessed recently. china's economy is now, it is the second largest in the world and moving rapidly towards claiming the number one position. it's grown almost 9% this year alone despite a global recession that has left our own economy stuck in neutral and with this economic growth, make no

mistake, there has been a huge increase in china's influence in the middle east. in africa, and latin america, across the globe, and to the awareness of all and the consternation of some, china is now bolstered by a military that is increasingly capable of projecting power throughout asia. now, while china has worked hard to orchestrate a peaceful rise, inevitably this emergence as a world power has raised questions of intention and direction. earlier this year, china leveraged its dominant market position in the stand off with japan. later, china shocked the region by declaring the south china sea

on par with tibet and taiwan, despite the fact that six different countries have long laid claim to territory and to resources there, and just two weeks ago when north korea shelled the south korean island of yoeongpyeong china refused t condemn the north. instead, beijing actually warned our navy to stay out of the yellow sea, despite the fact that we were simply coming to the aid of an ally. so all of these actions have taken place against an often troubling backdrop. china's economic growth has been accompanied by an enormous and still-growing trade surplus with the united states, turbo-charged by china's undervaluation of its currency. in addition, china's no-strings attached approach to trade and

aid has undercut our influence overstates like north korea, iran and burma. and china's transparent, non-transparent, i should say, transparent is the wish. its non-transparent double digit increases in defense spending every single year for two decades are now raising questions about intentions. so it is absolutely not surprising that this new-found power has prompted anxiety within the united states and elsewhere, leading to legitimate questions about china's rise. i think it is critical, and i know a lot of my colleagues who stop and think about these issues carefully, think it is critical that we not allow speculation about china's ambitions to easily degenerate and the fearmongering and

demagog demagoguery. there are those who would like to push for a declaration of china as somehow an opponent or even an enemy. from the days of marco polo until the present, the fact is the west has often gotten china wrong. in the 1990s some insisted china was the next soviet union. of course, 9/11 very painfully confirmed that china was not the next great threat to the united states. in fact, over the last 20 years china has integrated itself, however imperfectly, it has integrated itself into the international rules and institutions that govern key issues like trade and non-proliferation, but progress, stated frankly, has not been as comprehensive as some people predicted. despite the dramatic growth of private enterprise, the government in china still

controls key sectors of the chinese economy, and economic liberalization has not led to significant political liberal situation. now even though china does allow freer expression today than it did 20 years ago, we need to remember that we're also talking about a country that has imprisoned lee shxiaobao who refuses to allow his family to attend his nobel peace prize ceremony. frankly, china's failure to safeguard the basic human rights of all of its citizens especially those most critical of its government, impedes its development and undermines its standing in the international community and the united states must continue to highlight that reality, but whether we're impressed or disappointed with

china's progress, let me make this clear. the simple fact is we need china and china needs us. we have to get this relationship right. after all, we're talking about our connection to one-sixth of humanity on this planet. the most serious problems that we face today from nuclear proliferation to global terrorism, to climate change simply cannot be solved by the united states new york stock exchange united states and its current set of allies nor even one-half of the planet, and economically, economically which will be the great defining force of almost all of these issues, the fact is that our futures are already deeply intertwined and will remain so. if china succeeds in rebalancing its economy, then the global

economy will benefit and so will we. if china fails or worse, if we cut ourselves off from china in a mis-guided attempt to, quote, contain it as some have suggested, then we will all suffer, and even though we can't call china an ally today, we simply cannot treat it as an enemy. as winston lord recently reminded me in a conversation, the first of his two lord's commandments are number one, thou shalt not demonize china and thou shalt not sanitize china. i think he's right. quite simply, we must not have a any illusions about china positive or negative. the most important thing we can do is really see china as it is. i know it's always risky for an

american, and a politician to try and define any of that, but i'm going do that nonetheless. the first step in trying to see china without illusions is understanding that while china has become a great economic power, it still faces extraordinary challenges at home and abroad. when i met last year with two of china's next generation leaders and vice president ping and vice premiere lee chung, their mood was not triumphant. their mood was determined. why? well, just consider that china's government today is responsible for more than $1 billion people. think about that, those are $1 bi 1 billion people who need clean air and clean water and right now many of them don't have those things. we sometimes have trouble taking

care of 306 million or so people and we've been industrializing for more than 100 years. about 400 million chinese still life on $2 a day and inadequate housing. it's as important of the entire populations of the united states and japan combined and china's per-capita income is ranked about 100th in the world. so if it's a super power, folks, it's the first poorer super power in history. in the midst of this poverty, chinese societiy is undergoing dramatic transformations. this country that once prided itself on legal tearianism is now experiencing vast income disparities. the government is trying to accommodate the mood of some 00 million farmers in the cities and the society is rapidly aging. by 2030, there will be 240

million chinese over the age of 65. that will make it difficult to provide retirement and health benefits to the elderly without bankrupting the state or impoverishing working people. to fuel the economic growth that china needs, just to keep the lights on for the entire population, china faces a large and growing dependence on imported oil. sound familiar? 20 years ago, china was an oil exporter, but today china ranks second after the united states in oil imports at more than 4 million barrels a day and all of this growth, particularly in the energy sector brings a major cost. china's environment is deteriorating significantly because it relies so heavily on coal-fired electric power plants, china is now the world's largest number one emitter of greenhouse gasses, and in the frantic push for growth, china

has sacrificed environmental preservation. as a result, land, air and water quality have been seriously compromised. 16 of the world's 20 most air-polluted cities are in china and nearly 50% of river water in china is is unsuitable for agriculture or industry. these are just domestic challenges. china also faces a host of international foreign policy challenges. there was a time when china's leaders were encouraged to pursue an even-keeled and modest foreign policy. as deng xiao ping said china should hide brightness and cherish be on security, but more and more as i mentioned earlier, china's actions have beening any, but obscure. the truth is china shouldn't be worried about containment. it should be worried about overreaching and that's because its increased assertiveness has

done more to remind its neighbors of the value of america's presence in the asia pacific region than anything our diplomats could have done on their own. frankly, to see china as it really is is to understand that china doesn't yet know is, and this is a little presumptuous and i acknowledge it, but i will say it, that china does not yet know what kind of power it wants to be and that it's still feeling its way on the world stage, that these kinds of challenges are something new to its leadership and something new to its public value system. so as president hu jintao prepares to come to washington next month, he has a good reason to seek a closer partnership with the united states. for our part, we will be seeking greater chinese cooperation on a long list of issues. in particular, we want to talk about north korea's recent provocations. beijing may think that it can

restrain the north's bad behavior more effectively by deepening trade and investment, but the north's belligerent conduct, the sinking -- the construction of an illicit -- and the artillery tact on yeongpyeong island undermines the poor interest and regional peace and stability. china has a fundamental responsibility to its neighbors and to the rest of the world. as a member of the p-5 and as a member of the power, and to not turn a blind eye on north korea's -- over north korea's china does, and it has to use that influ tones bring the north's conduct in line with basic, international norms and china could send and should send a clear message to north korea. very simple message, its

behavior is unacceptable. a good place to start would be strengthening its enforcement of u.n. sanks and together china and the united states in concert with the south korean and japanese allies must find a way to resume the dialogue with north korea because sanctions alone would not convince the north to change course. we have the persistent issue of the value which economists is significantly undervalued. obviously doing that effectively makes u.s. exports more expensive and makes chinese exports cheaper, but -- and it significantly contributes to the trade imbalance. china's long-term interest are in changing that because it needs to build its own domestic consumer-or yented economy.

in recent months, china has begun to adjust that currency, but, frankly put again, not yet enough. a sustained appreciation needs to happen, and it needs to begin sooner rather than later in order to help bring the global economy into balance. if the g-20 can't deal with this problem, then we need to look at other multi-lateral tools, ones with teeth that can deal with it. by now it ought to be clear that the united states congress, all apart from the administration, we all have our domestic politics. the united states congress is growing increasingly impatient and it may, in fact, decide especially with next year's congress to take matters into its own hands. i also think we need to continue to press china on a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. now i know that in the wake of our own failure last year that

may not make sense to people, but let me tell you, if somebody's been involved in this issue since the first hearings we held with al gore back in 1988 and in all of the negotiations we've had and as all of the science comes back faster and stronger in every single respect, it is clear that the simple truth is that the united states and china together account for almost half of the world's emissions. china deserves credit, more in some ways than we have because they've made significant efforts to reduce their energy intensi y intensity, but these steps are not enough. we in china need to agree to measurable, verifiable and reportable reductions and emissions, and if we don't reduce our emissions and we don't move to cleaner energy, either of us will want only set off an unsustainable competition for resources on the global basis, but we will witness the

impacts of climate change that will become unmanageable at catastrophic levels for all of us. when we understand the full extent of china's challenges, foreign and domestic, it really becomes very clear that to demonize china and consider it the next great threat simply isn't based in reality. in fact, over the long run, i am convinced there is a remarkable potential for cooperation even as we have to deal with certain disagreements today. so how do we manage this complex relationship? over 40 years of engagement we learned that it's important to be flexible. that different types of problems require different types of tactics. we than on certain issues it's best to engage bilaterally in order to reduce the mistrust that lingers in beijing and washington about strategic intentions. we need sustained, high-level military dialogue.

i'm glad that after a long hiatus a new round of defense talks is going to get under way later this week. that's critical, and i hope that presidents hu and obama will pledge to insulate these talks from political disruption. precisely because this is a time of tension, whether over taiwan arms sales or an incident at sea, our military officers need to have open channels of communication any we will all be better off when we do. we also know that on other issues we'll be more successful when we augment bilateral engagement by weaving china into the fabric of international norms and institutions. the united states loses billions of dollars a year, billions in exports, because of china's failure to protect intellectual property. in 2006 china committed on the joint commission on commerce and trade that its government agencies will only use licensed

software, but china has failed to follow through. in the next round of jcc talks that takes place next week, i hope china is determined to move on this issue. the best solution may be to collaborate with other developed nations to convince china that its ability to innovate is being undermined by its failure to protect the intellectual property that it currently imports and increasingly china is developing its property itself and it's going to have an interest in making certain that that property is protected for its own interests. now while the united states is obviously not an asian country, let me make it clear that we are nevertheless a pacific country. there are days in the year when we remember that more vif edly than we do today on december 7th.

on this day 69 years ago japan attacked us, triggering america's entrance into world war ii. throughout the islands of the pacific, thousands of american troops daip gave their lives to protect our values and to protect others. this anniversary reminds us that we never want to return to war, but it also reminds us of the power of our engagement. today japan is a paesful democracy that we're proud to call an aye ally and let us never forget that the blood we spilled so many years ago allowed china to emerge as the nation it has become today. recent events on the korean peninsula on the south china sea, re-affirmed the importances of alliances that came out of that conflict and in forging new partnerships and strengthening regional institutions in order to maintain peace and stability. two good places to start in that effort would be approving the

new free trade agreement with south korea and fully funding the state department's lower mekong initiative, but we should also negotiate the transpacific partnership trade agreement in order to balance china's economic influence in the region. some have called this intensified u.s. engagement in asia, a hedging strategy and insurance against the possibility of china emerging as a regional hedge mono. frankly, i don't care what we call it. i just think it makes sense and we ought to do it. so much of our conversation about u.s.-china relations frankly centers on a lot of these abstract terms. we spend a lot of time talking about engagement and partnership, cooperation, hedging and balancing. obviously, we have to engage china. obviously, we want to fully ungreat china into the global community and yes, in the face

of an uncertain future, there is a place for hedging as well, but if we're going to adopt an effective china policy, let me make it crystal clear to any american that wants to rise to this challenge, that we have to first and foremost recognize that our greatest source of influence is our own power and our greatest challenge is to strengthen our own economic economic competitiveness, to see the u.s.-china relationship without illusions, you have to actually first see the united states without illusions. we have to focus on some concrete facts. here's one. the world economic forum publishes a global competitiveness report every year. for years, we led the world as a globally, most competitive economy, but in 2009 we dropped first second plates and this year we dropped to fourth place

and this is in no small part because we're saddled with an enormous deficit with an inadequate educational system and with a century-old infrastructure in place. we have to change that. we're going to sit around with all of the things i talked about being in theory is will be dependent on others for the technologies of the future. consid consider. >> i sometimes am baffled by this, but consider this. china is the leading clean energy producer in the world. it wasn't ten years ago. we invented solar panels 50 years ago in the bell laboratories and we don't boast one company in the top ten of the world. china boast the largest solar panel industry which exports about 95% of its production to countries including the united states. in 2008 for the first time china attracted more renewable energy

capital investments than the united states. in addition, the chinese government has a nouped a ten-year $400 billion clean energy investment program. in fact, folks, $600 billion will be spent in the next 20 years of clean energy investments and 90% of it is going to right now be spent in the united states. we're not in the game. that's true that an american company recently opened the world's largest private solar rnd facility, but you have to go to xian, china, to see it. as stephen chu said and the secretary of energy, he said for centuries america has led the world in innovation. today that leadership is at risk. how do you ensure that innovation remains the hallmark of america? tony blair said the talent is the 21st century's wealth? i think he was right. unfortunately, we're failing to educate and prepare americans for this globally competitive

economy, so we need a much more aggressive focus math, science, engineering for our own people and we had real problems when the microsofts of the worlds say the high-paying jobs and there's 59% of all u.s. doctorates and engineering and science are awarded to foreigners. i don't know how many of you read tom friedman's brilliant memo the other day in "the new york times" posing as if it were a wikileaks producer of information from the chinese embassy back to home, but you have to read it. it's brilliant and it tells a story of how we are sort of shooting ourselves in the foot and you may say to yourselves why is this relevant to what you're trying to say about the dialogue? i'll tell you why, because china makes its own assessments about us just as we make them about them. if one of their assessments is that the united states is sliding in this direction rather than that, that will have an impact on leverage and on

cooperation and on the future. that's why i introduced legislation to provide visas to immigrants, to immigrants who have a significant amount of capital, and entrepreneurs whose start-up ideas have the ability to be able to create new jobs and attract u.s. investment. so this is critical for us. in addition, we also need to create new and strong incentives for the building blocks of economic competitiveness. roads, simple things, roads and airports that move goods rapidly. while we spend roughly 2% of gdp on infrastructure and china is spending 9%. they're investing $13 billion in another 25 new airports including another one in beijing. we've begun work on a brand new high-speed rail network that have 90% of the country's

population, over $1 billion once it's completed. if our ability to move goods, energy and ideas is a century out of date. you tell me how we say to businesses, this is the place to be. to help capitalize investments including from china in our infrastructure. i plan to introduce a major infrastructure piece of legislation early next january and we have bipartisan support, chamber of commerce, governor bloomberg, arnold schwarzenegger and governor rendell and others. this their is the step where i believe we have to move. it's one step for america to get back on the path of global competitiveness. just because i'm looking at what we can do in america, in no way am i excusing china for anti-competitive transgressions that are actually harming our ability and the ability of other countries to compete in a fair playing field, but i'll tell you this, even if china does revalue

its currency, quickly and immediately, that's not a silver bullet. it will not bring a flood of jobs back to the united states, and it will not instantly cause a rebound in the american economy. what's more important is that we decide what kind of economy we want to have and make that happen. i have faith that we can get this right, folks. the 21st century can be a century of american renewal at home and continued leadership abroad and it can be a century of opening up a remarkable new relationship between two enormous economic powers. we need to remind ourselves that it was our economic strength after world war ii that gave us the ability to become the world's super power. we're able to lift europe, japan and others all at the same time. we need to put domestic economic strength back at the top of u.s. national security agenda as well as the jobs agenda and at the

center of our common purpose. the stakes could not be higher. at risk is our ability to provide for the country and to promote our national security. and we have to understand the time for action is now. if we do act, china's rise will do nothing to diminish our own power. on the contrary, it will allow us together, to define the fullness of this relationship that i'm talking about, and china's rise will not disrupt the international system that we have build that will be part of it. in fact, china's participation in renewing that system and better equip it to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. that's what's looking us in the face. that's why this dialogue, c.h., is so important. the story of u.s.-china relations can be the story of defining the 21st century. it can be a story of genuine cooperation, of fierce competition and of spectacular

ground breaking human accomplishment. we're going to disagree sometimes. perhaps even strongly, but i'm convinced that we can work together, that we shouldn't simply manage this relationship over the short term, but we should cultivate it and nurture it and believe in it. we have to resist the temptations of those in china and the united states, both places who seemed to relish a relationship that is defined in terms of conflict rather than cooperation. despite our differences, the two most powerful nations on earth have to find the common ground and in doing so, we can write the history of centuries to come. thank you. >> senator, thank you so much for those terrific and eloquent comments and insightful, too. we have about ten minutes for questions. so let me first turn to our

visitors from china and if there's anyone that -- yes, please. >> i have a piece of paper here, you can sign on the dotted line and we'll get going right away. >> well, thank you very much, senator kerry. i want to commend you on your leadership issues of clean energy and climate change here in this country and worldwide. in the last year when you were in beijing, you asked me about the data and how much of the power plant -- i didn't have -- i'm sorry, i didn't have the data for you, but i didn't have the data now for you. by the end of 2009 it was 8 giga watts of shutdown. that was just how much the entire power supply of a power

generation and the entire united kingdom. this year added another ten giga watts and that kind of shut down and closing of power plants did not come without a price and it was very high, including the unemployment of tens of thousands and also investment of the companies do not have to pay and this year as you probably have heard is the prices can go even higher. with a lot of the local governments are forced to have power in many places and it also suffers from that. my question is just looking at -- looking ahead here in this country and when you think the government and the congress will have -- will offer that kind of political leadership and the courage to convince the american people to take such a sacrifice

to fulfill a global responsibility at that time? >> thank you very much. it's a terrific question, and i appreciate you're following up and getting the information very, very much. that's an impressive amount of power that's been taken out and the size of it, obviously is extraordinary when you think of it in terms of other countries. everything that happens in china happens on a larger scale, obviously, but let me say this. nevertheless, it remains a problem because those plants are being replaced by coal-fired power plants at a rate that is far in excess of what the climate can tolerate. the truth is this is not known. so you say when will you and the united states take the steps to deal with this? >> i wish this was better known. but the fact is not one

coal-fired power not, not one, has been licensed in the united states for 20 years. and states where it would surprise you, utah, idaho, kentucky, north carolina, are denying permits for coal-fired power plants. in addition, the private sector is ney goschi is negotiating on their own & so they're switching to natural gas and declining to go either into coal-fired power plant or to switch their coal-fired power plant into newer, clean coal technology and they're moving into clean coal. i think we'll have a resurgence of nuclear in our country because i don't think there's any alternative in the near-term for reduction, but in this next congress, we will have a major debate over energy policy in the united states and we will, even

though we may not have a cap and trade mechanism which prices carbon, we will have very significant mishs adopted. i'm convinced that will move us toward energy efficiency as we are doing energy reductions and we will have energy efficiency and we'll have major conversions of our trucks to natural gas conceivably and we will have building efficiencies built into our codes and we will do various incentives for alternative and renewable energy. we will most likely set a renewable energy standard for the united states. i think all of this is achievable in this next year. so each though we may not have the cap system, we may get an almost equivalent level reduction of emissions as if we put that trading system in place providing we do the right things

in this legislation. final comment i would make to you, also not well known. when you say when will the united states begin to do this? you should tell your leaders, please, on our behalf that over half of the american economy today is already under a vol you wa wantary mandatory reduction system. we have a program called reggie, the regional cooperative system and massachusetts is one of them where we are committed toa a trading system to reduce emissions. in the midwest, you have four or five states that have joined a compact and in the west, they succeeded in beating back a referendum for them to proceed forward with clean standards, clean emission standards and california, oregon, washington and british columbia are in a compact to proceed in a trading

mechanism. so over half of the american economy is already voluntarily reducing and wanot even waiting for the united states congress. i believe that will grow in the next year and i'm determined to make it grow because we'll go out to the country with a national effort to educate and organize and do what we did back in 1970 when 20 million americans came out and demanded that we do something about rivers that would light on fire and water quality that gave people cancer, and our citizens demanded that we do something. so in 1970 those 20 million people translated that into action and it resulted in the clean air act, the clean water act, the safe drinking water act and we made enormous progress. we're going to rekindle that effort in this country, so, please, we're just getting going and we're going to continue this fight. >> yes?

>> francisco rodriguez. i would like to thank senator kerry for this interesting conference. i missed one topic in your conference, and it is the question of how do you think that diplomacy with effect with the relation and china could express the chinese power is working quite hard and at the same time -- for instance, the usia is dismantled in the '90s and there are -- >> thank you. i think we've got it. thank you. >> well, i think -- look, we're

going to have a combination as i said in my speech. i made it very clear. there are some things where we'll disagree and we may have to take tougher steps even as we build a stronger, broader, bilateral relationship. some of it will be diplomacy and some of it will be a little harder. obviously, we don't want it to become a fundamental relationship of conflict which would take us into some dangerous places with respect to the kind the kind of democracy we conduct. you know, that depends really on the good will of both sides. i think if we can restrain ourselves from making the mistakes that i defined the potential of making, defining china as an enemy and going off on some conflict tangent, i think we have unlimited possibilities. but china has to respond. china has to also accept a new level of responsibility. one of the interesting things when i was in china, i -- i was

talking with the foreign minister there. i wanted to learn more about how china picks its leaders and what the process of succession is. and i must say i -- about a half hour answer that it was intriguing to listen to the ways in which there's a sort of continuum, if you will, of guarantees, of competence, but also guarantees about a kind of similar thinking. the cultural revolution, obviously, was a shift from that. and some people suggest to me that maybe, maybe, in the transition that's taking place now, there may be another shift. and that could greatly change the possibilities of this relationship. 7 of 9 positions are open. and there's a big transition with a new president, new changes taking place next year. and elections. and so i think we have to kind of recognize that this year,

just as in our -- our politics last year, we're leading up to an election. it's very difficult in election mood to define the future direction of any country. and i think for the moment, some people are going to be very cherry of opening up themselves to any public criticism by offering come sort of definition that could be different. so i don't anticipate between now and next june, frankly. except perhaps some progress on the issues that are going to be on the table when the president visits here in the next days, which i think the can be anticipat anticipated. beyond that, i really think that this next year will define a lot for the next ten years of our relationship with china. >> and i -- we have time for just one more short question. yes, in the back.

>> louise diamond. >> no, that's all right. >> hi, i'll be the man. i'm rob dubois. i'm a security advisor. senator kerry, thank you for coming. i approached you after a flight from afghanistan some -- a couple of years ago. you were -- the first time i saw with you unshaven. an extension of the soft power discussion, do you think there's a positive arms race, if you will, on the sought pft power? china is pressing really hard on a campaign of soft power. could there not be a globally beneficial race for soft power in the world? >> well, there could be. look, i think -- i don't want to define it in the context of a race. i don't want to define it in a context of competition. i think these are the kinds of things where china and the united states can cooperate so effectively. but we're already doing those

things. look what we're doing in africa with our global aids efforts and look at what we do in terms of children around the world or our efforts with respect to violence against women and other things that we're engaged in right now. i'm very proud of what our country is doing. it's not a competition. we're doing it because it's what we believe with respect to our values and how we think the world will be safer in the long run and how we live up to the promises of our -- of the best of our diplomacy. i think that china, if i can say, has been excessively engaged in a mercantilest manner in too many places. i've been in sudan and pakistan and afghanistan and so forth. i see china, but i don't see china reenforcing the kinds of things that we're engaged in to try to stabilize or make life

better. i see china there guaranteeing its resources and guaranteeing its chain of supply. and i think that's one of the things that i would say in terms of accepting this new responsibility that comes with its emerging economic power. it cannot just be economic. if it is, i respectfully suggest to china they will wear out their welcome in many of these countries very, very quickly. and so i hope we can both cooperate in this without making it a -- you know, anything equivalent to a race. but to a mutually agreed upon set of interests by which not only do we benefit, but the communities that we're involved with in the rest of the world benefits also. that's the new role that china can play. and i think a lot of us are sort of seeing north korea as the initial definition of china's sense of their responsibility, if you will.

>> please join me in thanking the senator. thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you all for coming. i'd like to ask the audience to remain in your seats while our speakers have a chance to exit the room. thank you again.