quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: last night the senate defeat add misguided attempt to raise taxes on the five largest energy companies that are operating in our country. that bill, as we discussed, would have done nothing to reduce our gas prices, nothing to create jobs in america, and

nothing to increase domestic energy production. and, furthermore it would have hardly made a dent in our spiraling debt. put another way, last night's effort would have done nothing to address the problems that most americans care about, that most americans are talking about as they discuss things around the dinner table. this morning we're here to debate a very different bill. this is called the offshore production and safety act. this was recently introduced by the minority leader, myself, 16 other senators, and there's a very clear contrast, without a doubt, between this and what was brought up yesterday. instead of punishing a handful of companies within the oil and gas industry, we provide new opportunities to put americans back to work. instead of merely attempting to assign blame for our nation's energy challenges, we've seld a policy that -- we've developed a

policy that we're proposing now and yield real benefits into theees ahead and instead of raising taxes, regardless of the consequences, we enshoe that a -- we ensure that a far larger source of revenues, those that are derived from offshore oil production, that they will be generated in the years ahead. the bottom line, mr. president, is that our legislation is both common sense and i think long overdue. it will move our energy policy forward, not backwards, and it would do so by addressing three pressing needs. we provide a boost to offshore energy production, we improve the safety of those operations and we streamline our notoriously slow federal bureaucracy. and before i describe these sections in greater detable, i think it is important to -- detail, i think it is important to explain why we focused on offshore production while at the same time we're focusing on offshore shaft. th-- offshore safety.

the answer to the first spart that our outer continental shelf contains undisclosed quantities of oil and gas, 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. the answer then to the second part is that we all remember -- we all remember and we shouldn't forget -- what happened last surges and we're committed to improving the safety of offshore production activities so that it doesn't happen again. now, as i mentioned, we call our bill the offshore production and safety act because we understand that those terms -- both "production" and "safety" -- should be part and parcel of the same policy. we want our offshore industry to be working, but we need it to be working safely. and those were words that i used yesterday in the committee hearing on energy when we focused on the o.c.s. reform bill.

we want our offshore industry to be working, but we want to have that safety component. we know that our nation will need oil for decades to come, even under the most optimistic seine nature embryo that we have out there. we know that offshore production will create thousands of badly needed jobs, not just on the offshore rigs themselves but really all across america. understand that it will simultaneously -- and that it will simultaneously generate revenues for our government. and we know -- we know that for every barrel of oil that we produce here, that's one less barrel that we have to purchase from someone else, typically from somebody else that really could care less about our situation here in this country. now, it's not just -- it's not just me, not lisa murkowski from a producing state. it is not just republicans who understand these benefits. clearly, president obama and his team acknowledge these benefits

as well, and i do want to take an aside and recognize and commend the president for announcing that he will hold annual leases in alaska's national petroleum reserve, the npra, establishing a permitting office in alaska, and pursuing development opportunities in the mid and south atlantic. i have routinely criticized this administration on certain aspects of their energy policy. but the president deserves credit for taking these steps, and i acknowledge them, and i will look forward to seeing those actually carried oud, to she that -- carried out to see that followed through there. the act offers us a chance to make even greater progress to boost offshore production, the first part of the bill, would require lease sales in the gulf of mexico, alaska, and virginia to be put back on the schedule. those are areas that are

projected to contain billions of barrels of oil. but if we refuse to even offer up the leases, then that energy is never going to be brought to market. and we would also extend for one year all of the leases that were held back from production because of the administration's morer to yavment the second part of the bill relates to the safety, the safety of offshore production, and again it is -- it's pretty straightforward, it is pretty simple. we require that each lease holder develop a spill, response, and containment plan to make sure that if an accident does occur, immediate action can be taken to contain it and to protect the environment. this is critical. it is what we're all hoping and waiting for after the deepwater horizon last year. to further increase our nation's response capacity, we would establish a public-private task force on spill response and mitigation measures. we would also require the

comptroller general to identify any gaps in the legal authority or spill response capability that would need to be resolved. this bill, this bill that we have before us and that we will move to today with the vote this afternoon, will actually mark the first time that any safety legislation has been voted on in the senate since the deepwater horizon incident. so this republican proposal is the first time. we didn't see that happen last congress. i know chairman bingaman and i certainly hoped that we would see it. but it wasn't moved through last year. it wasn't part of the proposal that we took up yesterday. the third and final part of our bill addresses our notoriously slow federal bureaucracy. oil and gas projects are routinely delayed, not because of the technological limits or even the regulatory limits, but because the federal government is just simply too slow in

making decisions. and so to remedy this situation, we would limit the amount of time that interior can take to decide on drilling permits. now, we do allow for some flexibility here, but when delays do occur, we require an explanation as to why, what happened, what's holding it up. and because litigation is increasingly used to halt new development, we provide expedited consideration of those cases in a specific court. now, mr. president, we know that this bill does not contain every pro-production piece that every member may wish. i'd like to see an anwr provision in here, but it's not in there. there are additional items that i clearly would like to advance. most notably, revenue-sharing, critically important for a coastal state like alaska, my friend and colleague from louisiana. i'm going to be working to advance this bill, and if it

advances, offer amendments. if the bill doesn't advance, i'm going to be worging within the committee to -- i'm going to be working within the committee to continue to push revenue-sharing and other issues ha that speak to the pro-production piece. but for purposes of this bill before us, i realize that with the revenue-sharing issue, this does present a scoring issue, which we need to resolve. and so, clearly, more discussion needs to come for that to happen. regardless, i would urge every member who realizes the critical need for increased domestic production to join together to advance this modest and very responsible start. the purpose of this bill, the reason why we're ready to take it up, move it today, is that it really is so simple. we're not asking for that much. a handful of lease sales to be put back on the schedule, basic safety measures be implemented, and permitting decisions be made on time.

our goal -- pretty simple -- is to put offshore production back on track, closer to where it should be and closer to where we need it to be. mr. president, if there's one word that should be used to describe this bill, it would be "modest." everything within it is straightforward, nothing is outlandish, nothing goes too far, there's no poisson pill pi- there's no poison pills in it. the president has addressed provisions in it. our proposal is fair, sensible. and i believe it is time for the united states senate to send it offer on to the u.s. house of representatives. with that, mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask to speak as if we are in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to support the nomination of professor goodwin liu's nomination to the ninth circuit complete court of appea. very simply, america deserves and nieds the best of our legal profession on the best, the best americans on the best, and goodwin liu is really an extraordinary american and an exceptional lawyer, and he will serve with distinction on the ninth circuit court of appeals, if he is confidence by the united states senate, as i -- if he is confirmed by the united states senate, as i urge he should be. he's qualified by reason not only of his really remarkable intellect but also his professional experience, his life experience, which are really important to anyone who serves on the federal bench. as demonstrating his intellect, he graduated with honors from

stanford university in 1991, he was a rhodes scholar, graduating with honors also from oxford. he then went to yale law school where he was editor of "the yale la"yale law journal"" and clerkd for two distinguished federal judges, including supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. he has been a professor and a dean at the university of california berkeley school of law, and he has worked in private practice, including serving as a special assistant to the deputy secretary of education. but his life has really been about public service. and indeed he served for two years at the corporation for national service, helping to begin the americorps national service program. he has dedicated immense amounts of time to representing and serving the disadvantaged,

including minority and low-income children in public schools, and he's received numerous awards, not only for his academic performance but also for that public service. he brings to the bench also life's experience and diversity as an asian-american, and there is no asian-american member at the present on the ninth circuit court of appeals. there should be, and professor liu ought to be that judge. he has been endorsed by jurists across the political spectrum. ken starr, the former watergate prosecutor said about him that he has -- quote -- "obvious intellect and legal talents" and ken starr also highlighted professor liu's "independence and openness to diverse viewpts as we will as his -- jupes as we will as his ability to follow the facts and the law to their

logical conclusion, whatever its political balance may be." that is a quality that is priceless. -- priceless in a jurist. it is to be valued on the federal bench. it is to be sought. and it is the reason that he has been endorsed as w well by bob barr, john ewe, richard parenter -- the list could go on -- but that list is simply reflective of that quality of open-mindedness and willingness to listen that the federal bench, as any bench, needs today. he is supported by business leaders and by law enforcement officials, including a bipartisan group of 27 former judges and prosecutors in the california correctional peace

officers association. again, endorsements reflect quality. and i want to finish by talking about a couple of qualities that i think are particularly important. one of them is the willingness to admit error and to recognize the need for acknowledging error, as professor liu did in the hearing that i attended. by the way, he's had numerous hearings, extensive review by this body. and in that hearing most recently, he acknowledged statements that perhaps should have been said differently, could have been said better. we all from time to time commit those kinds of errors but rarely do people have the courage to acknowledge them. and professor liu is the kind of

human being who searches for the best in himself as well as in others. he has a quality of integrity that i think is perhaps most important in a federal judge or any jurist and i will -- i hope that across the political spectrum in this body there will be support for professor liu when his nomination comes to a vote within the next couple of days. thank you very much, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi.

mr. wicker: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without object mr. wicker: and, mr. president, i rise today in support of the offshore production and safety act, a another increase domestic production of oil and natural gas in this country. there are any number of things that make the united states the great nation that it is. three of these things relate directly to the debate on the legislation which we will vote on this afternoon. they include our bountiful natural resources, the freedoms established by our founding fathers, and the determination of the american people. the measure offered by the majority yesterday would have worked to stifle these very charnghcharacteristics by discog economic activity, by taxing industriousness and by putting more of our resources off-limits from development. from the oil wealth of the gulf

coast to the coal reserves of appalachia, from the hydroelectric power which characterizes mitch o much of te american west to the oil fields of alaska, america is blessed with an almost boundless supply of energy wealth. from the time of this nation's founding, americans have sought to explore and develop this bounty. i'm pleased to note that in recent decades, we've become more responsible stewards of this endowment. last night, i held a telephone town hall meeting with many of my constituents, and the issues of gasoline prices and energy independence were raised repeatedly and certainly this is not surprising in light of the high gasoline prices we're facing today. as i told mississippians again last night during this town hall meeting, i favor an

all-of-the-above approach to addressing america's energy needs. i have supported and continue to support innovation in the area of biofuels, geothermal power, wind and solar energy. and at the same time, however, we need to address current needs with currently available domestic energy resources, such as oil and natural gas. the measure we debate today, "the offshore production and safety act," is a balanced one that offers a timely way forwa forward. by presenting a path toward lower fuel prices, job creation and energy independence, this legislation is responsive to the needs of the american people, not at some uncertain date in the future but now, making use of resources and technology available today. the specifics of the legislation before us are straightforward and commonsense. this bill would require proposed

lease sales in the gulf of mexico, in the mid-atlantic and those off of alaska to be completed. it would cut bureaucratic red tape while speeding up the approval of drilling permits. and energy activity suspended during the administration's moratorium on offshore drilling would be extended by one year. safety considerations are also taken into account under this bill. taking lessons that we learned from last year's deepwater horizon tragedy to make deepwater drilling safer than before. energy independence, a goal we all share, can only be achieved through conservation, innovation and domestic exploration, but domestic exploration must be a part of this in order for us to obtain independence. according to a 2009 report by the congressional research service, america's combined

recoverable natural gas oil and coal endowment is the largest on earth. it is far larger than the reserves of saudi arabia, china, and canada. we have the resources to meet our energy needs. and i would point out, this is the independent congressional research service. that tells us this. closely related to this issue is the one of job creation in america, one that we should all be interested in, with the unemployment rate currently at 9%. america's oil and natural gas industry is responsible for 9.2 million jobs in this country. i know the people who have those jobs are proud to have them. i know the families that are supported by those jobs are

proud of their family members that work in this industry. and wouldn't it be great if we could expand that 9.2 million to a higher figure? now, there was much discussion yesterday about taxation and budget considerations. oil and gas -- oil and natural gas production in the gulf of mexico raised over $67 million in revenues for the federal and state governments in fiscal years 2008-2010. that's according to the department of the interior. millions more went to land and water conservation. but because of the administration's moratorium, energy production in the gulf of mexico is expected to decrease by 13% this year, as estimated by the energy information administration, again, an

official organ of this government. overall, u.s. production is projected to drop by 110,000 barrels per day this year. this is not progress. the fact is that the united states is dangerously dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. we import 60% of our petroleum needs in the united states. this is hardly a revelation, yet the proposed bill offered yesterday by my friends in the majority would have led to increased dependence on the importation of energy from foreign countries, many of which are not supportive of american interests, to put it mildly. furthermore, the suggestion that the appropriate response to soaring prices of gasoline is greater tax ache taxation on the

countries that produce gas -- companies that produce gasoline, simply runs contrary to commonsense. in the larger picture, the administration's energy policy is not comprehensive in nature because it fails to promote the utilization of proven domestic resources and the traditional domestic production it allows cops wrapped in bureaucratic red tape. if our goal is to increase our energy independence in the near term, the white house seems to want to lead us in the opposite direction. you do not encourage the increased production of any good by raising taxes and imposing more regulation on it. the mcconnell alternative that we will vote on this afternoon takes a different strategy, one that would increase access to domestic oil and natural gas. it is a strategy that would create jobs and spur economic growth while increasing government revenues and improving industry safety.

oil and natural gas reserves are abundant and accessible in the united states today. tapping these domestic resources is integral to lowering energy prices and making us more energy independent. i urge my colleagues to support the offshore production and safety act as a logical, prudent step in the right direction for u.s. energy policy. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

yothe presiding officer: the senator from alabama. session segregation i would ask that the quoru call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, yesterday the senate debated a bill to increase taxes on the production of oil and gas in the united states as well as the tens of thousands of americans that industry employs and really

the millions of americans it serves. we should have been debating a budget. in fact, the senate has not passed a budget for 749 days. but the majority decided to bring this bill to the floor yesterday in an effort, i think, to change some of the conversation from the problem at hand, which is our spending problem in washington. today we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. spending on domestic government agencies -- get this: domestic non-defense government agencies in the past two years increased 24%. that does not count the $700 -- almost $800 billion stimulus package added to it. the medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in 2024. the social security druft fund will be insolvent in 2036.

in the past decade our nation's debt has increased from $5 trillion to $14 trillion. despite the gravity of our situation, the majority has chosen to debate the bill to increase taxes on the oil and gas, an industry that employs 170,000 americans and a number are in my state, and added this past year 11,000 new jobs. the $1.9 trillion in taxes -- $1.9 trillion in taxes have been generated by the industry since 1981. the reid-menendez bill would not have decreased prices at the pump but would have shipped more jobs overseas and really resulted in the importation of more oil and gas. whenever you tax something, you get less of it. whenever you tax a refining process or whatever, you drive up the cost.

it's just that simple. so we are all aware that gas prices have doubled in the president's first two years in office, and raising taxes on energy companies operating in america would do nothing to help that situation. the real solution is for america to enact legislation that increases domestic american energy production. from a variety of sources: oil, natural gas, nuclear. we need to do more on nuclear. hydroelectric, biofuels and other sources of reliable energy that americans can put to good use -- our energy. conservation is a very important factor and should play a very important role. america needs an energy policy that strengthens our national security, fosters economic growth, protects the environment in a reasonable and cost-effective manner.

americans need affordable domestic energy. regrettably, our senate majority plan does not seem to be interested in that kind of energy policy. in april of this year -- get this -- just last month, the united states imported 344 million barrels of oil from foreign sources. 344 million barrels. that is over 60% of the oil consumed in america. that means that we sent $42.5 trillion overseas in april alone to purchase the oil that we imported. stated differently, last month alone, the united states spent over $980,000 per minute on oil from foreign sources. that's almost $1 million a

minute. this presents a significant risk to our national security as so many have told us, as many of these dollars are going to nations that are not friendly to us. this also further exacerbates 0 our nation's trade balance. we import far more than we export. and our exports now are beginning to rise a little bit, but those gains are being more than offset by importing of oil and the price of oil. so the reid-menendez bill would have increased the price of energy in america, which, i have to say, seems to be the objective of the administration and some in this senate. in september of 2008, steven chu told "the wall street journal" in an interview, "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the

levels in europe." close quote. dr. chu, who is now the secretary of energy for the united states of america, he needs to be thinking about thousand get the cost down and serve the constituency of america -- about how to get the cost down and serve the constituentive america. i don't know what idea he has that we ought to be raising the cougcost of energy to the leveln yiewmplet and the environmental protection agency in fact is enacting new regulations that will also drive up the cost of energy, in a way that should never have happened, in high view, and we've had some -- in my view, and we've had some votes on that, close votes on that. hopefully we'll soon be ail to pull back that effort. a study by the affordable power alliance concluded that e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas regulations could increase the cost of gasoline by 50%.

electricity by 50%, and natural gas by 75% over the next 20 years. that's a stunning figure. as know doubt it'll drive it up. so the majority has yet to recognize the negative impact these tax increases and new e.p.a. regulations will have on the economy. with gas prices up to $4 a gallon from $2.75 in september -- $4 from $2.75, this translates into a 5% cut in the average american's discretionary income. just for the same amount of gas you buy. this means less spend on home improvements, furniture, clothes, vacations, things people and families need. it is eaten up by increased

energy costs. it's in a way a stealth tax on the american people. furthermore, increasing energy taxes will make doing business in the united states more expensive. as a result, jobs will go overseas t means a family which pays $100 per month for gasoline will now pay over $140 per month for gasoline. if you were paying $200 a month -- and many are -- you'd be $280 a month, just the change in the gasoline price. add it up. that's what it amounts to. $80 for a family that uses $200 a month in gasoline. some argue that raising taxes will help reduce our deficit, but the bill -- the increases in the reid-menendez bill, would have raised approximately $1.2 billion in 2012, with a

projected deficit of over $1,600,000,000,000 this year. the revenue produced from these taxes would be a drop in the bucket. don't think it's going to balance our budget, that's for sure. furthermore, the bill's sponsors claim that the money would be used to reduce the deficit but there's nothing in the bill that does that. although the language sounds good, the language is essentially what we call a sense of the senate and has no binding power. in the end, nothing in the bill could have been construed as mandating deficit reduction. it's simply a tax increase, plain and simple, tax and spend. and as the majority tried yesterday to increase taxes on the energy industry, they ignored the convoluted tax

system that is increasing and inhibiting job growth in america. the united states has the second highest corporate tax in the world, 39.5%. all the developed nations have been radioing their taxes. only japan has as high a corporate tax rate as we do and they're reducing theirs. the canadian finance minister, i had the chance to meet him last week. canada is bringing their tax rate down to 14%, below 15%, and we're taxing at 39.5%. will that not cause a business to decide maybe to build their factory in canada rather than to the united states? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: and cost much-needed jobs? mr. president, i thank the cha chair. i believe -- i would ask for consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the chair and would say that i believe the mcconnell

legislation which has three components, one aimed at restoring american offshore production in the wake of moratorium that's -- wake of the moratorium that's been imposed, safety component aimed at preventing future incidents like deepwater horizon, an efficiency component aimed at streamlining the issuance of permits. i believe that's the right way to go, more productio. more production of american energy will help our country, our economy, and the american people. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i've come to the floor to talk about the republican bill to expand coastal drilling without environmental review, without the normal planning process, without important safety measures. but before i do, i just have to respond to my distinguished colleague from alabama's remarks about our bill, legislation yesterday. only in washington, only in

washington could taking $21 billion from the oil companies' tax breaks, which the legislation said clearly would go to deficit reduction at a time that oil companies are making anywhere between $125 billion and $144 billion in profits -- not revenue but profits -- would that be not reducing the deficit. only in washington could you say taking $21 billion from the oil industry and the tax breaks they get with record profits, the law says very clearly going to deficit reduction, only that could be viewed a different way. and to suggest that the oil companies cannot do without that $21 billion of the taxpayers' money when they're making $12 $125 billion to $144 billion in profits, it's pretty outrageous.

but, you know, i know what today's legislation is about. yesterday was standing up for big oil by the republicans. and today is standing up for big oil again because it's not about reducing gas prices. haven't we learned anything from the tragic death of 11 men aboard the deepwater horizon rig a little over a year ago? haven't we learned anything about the families that lost their livelihoods and the gulf economy that will take decades to finally rebuild? you know, just over a year ago i came to the floor to speak about this human and environmental catastrophe, a spill that many in this chamber said was inconceivable. well, inconceivable despite the fact that a remarkably similar spill had happened a year before off of australia's coast.

230 miles of coastline in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, florida were spoiled by toxic oil, and countless families who made their living on the coast had their lives turned upside-down. this is an example. this was the oil spill in australia. this is similar to what happened in the gulf. now, despite this sobering reality, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have introduced a bill that will open new areas to coastal drilling, put millions more families at risk of losing everything. and at the same time that they are calling on coastal communities like my home state of new jersey to risk everythi everything, they have blocked efforts to address the fundamental safety concerns raised by the deepwater horizon blowout and the results of what the commission said. this reckless bill would allow drilling in sensitive coastal

areas even though current safety and oversight laws have been deemed to be inadequate to prevent a repeat of the gulf disaster. so i ask you, mr. president: have we learned nothing? mr. menendez: my home state of new jersey would face a risk of drilling along virginia's coast less than a hundred miles from the jersey shore. if the gulf spill happened in virginia waters, many new jersey families and much of our coastal economy would be ruined. we have magnificent pristine beaches. the dunes along the coast are breathtaking. wildlife is abundant. tourism depends on it. and it would all, all be in jeopardy. this is the second major driver and billions of dollars in our

economy. now, for what? this photo shows what happens to wildlife when coastal drilling goes wrong. it shows a risk we cannot take. a spill similar to the one in the gulf could quickly travel to cape may and blanket the entire jersey shore in a sheen of toxic oil. this would not only be an environmental disaster but also an economic disaster for new jersey. if our coast was covered in oil and our wildlife disappeared, tourists wading into the ocean would replaced by cleanup crews in biohazard suits. that's not what i want for the people of the coastal communities of my state or any other state. with approximately 60% of new jersey's $38 billion tourism industry generated by the jersey shore, we cannot afford to let this happen.

and when we add the effect that a spill would have on my state's multibillion-dollar fishing industry, the economic consequences are unimaginable. it simply does not make sense to play russian roulette with an asset that generates thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars per year for drilling assets that could never generate even 1/10th of that. now, my colleagues argue that we must risk our coastal economies in order to bring down the price of gas, that what you need is more production domestically. but here's the problem. we have greater production than at any, as this chart shows, than at any time since 2005. and yet what? gas prices haven't gone down. so where's -- how's the theory at play work? we've got greater production domestically than ever before.

gas prices haven't gone down. and what's the department of energy tell us? it estimates that opening all the shores, all shores, to drilling would reduce gas prices by, how much, mr. president? one, two, three cents in the year 2030. that's the department of energy of the united states. drill everywhere, three cents in 2030. i don't think that's about providing relief right now. three cents per gallon in 20 years yet we would risk tens of billions of dollars in damage to our coastal economies. so instead of doubling down on 19th century fuels, we should be investing in a new 21st century green economy that will create thousands of new jobs, billions in new wealth and help protect our air and water from pollution. it's time for this country to move forward and embrace the future rather than clutch to the ways of the past.

over the last two days, we had two bills that present a clear choice, my bill to cut oil tax breaks and this bill to recklessly expand oil drilling. now, neither bill will do anything to gasoline prices, and despite rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, neither bill is about gasoline prices. i said it very clearly. my bill to cut oil subsidies was about lowering the deficit and doing so by cutting wasteful subsidies. it's hard enough to be paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas but then to have the taxpayers reach in their pocket and give more money to big oil to have them make bigger profits, it's pretty outrageous. the republican leader's bill is about enriching oil companies by granting them new areas to drill without normal safety or environmental review. my bill was designed to help taxpayers and their bill is designed to help oil companies. when it's all said and done,

that's what we are deciding today. are you with working class, middle-class americans or are you with big oil? i think there's only one fair answer, only one answer that makes sense for american families and only one answer that makes sense for ourselves as a country looking to future generations. the reality is, is that if we learned nothing from the tragedy of a year ago, then it's a sad commentary. but if we have learned, yes, we can pursue drilling in certain areas but it must be done safely or else we spend then billions afterwards cleaning up the mess. i don't want to clean the oil companies' messes up. i don't want to put future generations of americans at risk in terms of the conservation of their environment, and i certainly don't want to wait for 2030 to take all of that risk and to risk all of the billions of dollars in coastal economy for three cents, mr. president. let's vote "no" on this

suggestion and let's move forward to a green energy future that finally breaks our addiction to foreign oil and breaks our addiction to those gas prices that we suffer with today. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i'm here to talk about gas prices and the economy and the effect of the economy on -- on our future. we need to work hard to be sure that we're producing more american jobs, and, frankly, i can't think of a better way to do that than produce more american energy. we use about the same amount of energy in a good economy as we do in a weak economy. those are the -- the -- it's the place to go where we know the consumers are, whether it's the electric bill or -- or gasoline at the gas pump and we ought to be doing all we can to produce those jobs. certainly there are many factors that affect the price of oil, things like the value of the dollar, supply and demand, the

global events that affect oil, like the problems right now in libya and other oil-producing countries, or even the weather. you know, i live in a state that's bounded by the mississippi river and the flooding down the mississippi has had some impact on the north-south movement of refined products in the country. and all those things have impact on -- on -- on gas prices. one thing that will come up this summer that i've worked hard on and my colleagues have joined me on would be looking at what we can do to be sure that our efforts to have clean air don't needlessly restrict the supply of -- of gasoline. you know, as we get into the summer months, too many cities have their own unique blend of fuel and that means that we -- we turn the refinery centers -- the refineries into profit centers making these unique blends of fuel instead of places

that process oil into gasoline and different blends of gasoline only when necessary as opposed to whenever someone's convinced a city that that unique blend of fuel is the only one that they could possibly use. in my state, in missouri, we have one blend of fuel in the summer. in st. louis, another blend of fuel across the state in kansas, and a third blend of fuel inbetween. and all those have to be blended separately, trucked separately, sold, obviously, separately. and the gas act, which i hope we can talk about more in the next few weeks, is one of the ways that we can say, let's bring as much commonsense into the system as we can, let's take the supply that we have available and use it in a way that makes the most sense. right before katrina in 2009, the president was given new authority in cases of natural

disaster to suspend these fuel blends, if there was a restriction of supply. and the president did that. i don't think he had a he had the authority a month before katrina hit. the president did that, and in the six months that that authority was used, gas prices didn't go up in any significant way at all, as i recall, because for that six-month period of time, gasoline became a commodity again. and if you could get gasoline, you can sell gasoline. if somebody had gasoline, you could buy gasoline. and it didn't matter whether tbas the unique blend that -- it was the unique blend that you had become convinced in your community was the only one that was right for you. and we set some standards on those blends at the time in the gas act that 38 of my colleagues have cosponsored. we'll set more standards. that's one way to try to use the supply that we have in a twhai makes the most sense -- in a a

way that makes the most sense. but another way is clearly to go out and find more. you know, our approach to energy needs to be threefold. it needs to be to use energy more officiately, to use less -- efficiently, to use less and to find more. as we transition a system, and i'm not at all of the opinion that we won't have a system of -- a fleet of cars that is powered in different ways at some date in the foreseeable future. but the foreseeable future would be 25, 30, 40 years. i'm almost -- i'm equally convinced that no matter what direction we head in fueling automobiles, that 25 years from now, the majority of cars on the highway are still going to be using gasoline. and so that means, let's find more of it here. and that's what the offshore producing and safety act does

that senator mcconnell introduced, i, ao along with may of my colleagues cosponsored that. this bill really tries to restore our offshore exploration of energy. 30 of our energy has come from -- 30% of our energy has come from the novel, our domestic supply has come from the gulf. we want to make sure that that number continues to remain at that level. since april of 2010, the administration has only approved 53 shallow-water and 13 deepwater permits. most of those were underway before the deepwater horizon spill a year ago, and in fact the moratorium has for all practical purposes become what some people are describing as a permatorium. we permanently decided we weren't going to look at the gulf for the kind of oil that it can, should, and needs to produce. in fact, offshore energy

production is projected to fall by 210,000 barrels her day this year. 210,000 barrels per day this year. that means in the gulf, we'd be getting 210,000 fewer barrels of oil every day in year than we got last year. surely that's no solution to become more dependent on other countries who are the recipient of the jobs that follow our energy future. and we need those jobs to be here. the estimate is that 190,000 barrels would be down in 2012 because we've not been pursuing the drilling practices -- it's possible that 2011 could be the first year since 1958 that the federal government won't hold an offshore lease sale, the first

time since 1958. does that mean we're less dependent on oil and gasoline than we were in 1958 or 1959 or 1969 or -- no, it doesn't mean that. we're more dependent. and we need to move forward with looking at the resources we have. recently -- recently meaning sat dimeaning --recently meaning sa. the president appears to have reversed course on this issue and has called for the alaska and gulf of mexico lease leasese reinstated. i think this bill actually helps what the president called for on saturday. that would be lightning speed for the senate to pass a bill on wednesday or thursday that the president asked for on saturday. but i think this is very much in line with what i would add submit a new position for the

president to take. but it's one that he seemed to take firmly on saturday, and this legislation would help him out. the number of lease sales is undetermined by the president's address, but we could help by pursuing leasing and permitting with this act. this act directs the interior department to conduct the offshore lease sales that the administration challenged -- or, canceled, rather, in december of 2010. these were lease sales that were under way. the process was well along, and the administration canceled those lease sales in december of last year. these were lease sales in the western and central gulf and on the virginia outer continental shelf and the alaska outer continental shelf. let's go back to that point, let

those lease sales move forward, as they were doing before they were canceled. the president just said saturd saturday, let's do this. well, let's do t and let's give him the tools and encouragement he needs to do it right now. this would end the permanent moratorium that occurred last year in the gulf. it puts a 30-day time limit for the interior dopt review and decide on -- interior department to review and decide on drilling permits. if rejected, the interior department needs to disclose why it rejected the permits. shouldn't be anything wrong with that. if a permit should be rejected, everybody ought to be told, it ought to be part of the record. it also provides for default approval if the interior department doesn't maying a decision within 60 days. and finally, it improves the safety procedures by adding additional requirements for a spill response plan, a

containment response plan to see that that was done. this would mean that we'd have more american energy and more american energy has two impacts. one, it would inject more supply into the marketplace, putting pressure on the worldwide marketplace, putting price pressure. and if we fully pursue our own resources, that does have an impact on the short-term response of the industry because they know that america -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. blunt: and so i would urge that we approve this bill. i intend to vote for it and i yield back. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, let me just say that for starters, i -- i will be supporting the bill that we have today. it doesn't go far enough,

though. what we ought to do is open up everything. i'm talking about the pa sirvetion the atlantic, the -- the pacific, the atlantic particular, the gulf, i know there are some reasons why they are confining it to the gulf in terms of this legislation. while i respect that, again, it doesn't go far enough. let me make one comment about yesterday's vote. i -- i think when people -- right now the single issue they have in terms of energy is the price of gas at the pumps. i know it isn't just m mine. thethey're all that way. yesterday's bill for was for a major tax increase on big oil. those are the five bifght oil companies, but nonetheless, you know, they -- and i hate to say this, but sometimes you walk on the floor with half-truths and get by with and it people will assume that that's true.

and as much as i love my fellows on the other side, some of the things that were stated were just -- actually just totally inaccurate. to say that the big five don't pay taxes ... they pay huge taxes here. and i don't know where they come up with some of these numbers. i am going to single out one company here: exon mobile -- and just fell you something that you're not aware of, mr. president. because it hasn't been said on the floor yet. in 2010, exxonmobil's total tax expenses in the united states were $9.8 billion. that's what they paid in taxes 2010, that includes income tax expense of more than $1.6 billion. that $9.8 billion in taxes exceeded the 2010 u.s. operating earnings of $7.5 billion. what we're saying is, they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. they only received $7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the

united states. now why is that? it's because about 80% of their operations are in other countries. they're in countries -- 100 different countries. not one of the other countries charges taxes when they go offshore there. we're the only country -- i believe we're the only country that charges a united states tax on production that takes place in someplace -- some other country. now, for that reason, if you just single out -- if we taxed them like most people do, it would have been a tax credit and not a tax at awvment but nonetheless they were accountable for paying taxes that year of $9.8 billion. look at this year -- that was 2010, during the first quarter of this year, our u.s. operating earnings of this particular company were $2.6 billion. that's the first quarter of 2011. the rest of their earnings came from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide. here is a number we won't hear in washington. during the first quarter on those earnings, u.s. earnings,

of $2.6 billion, they incurred a sachs tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. now, they're paying more than they're getting out of this country. irthink that sooner or later you have to come up and just tell the truth of what's happening. it is all -- it's all class warfare and i think we know that. big, bad oil. you know, they're all bad. and yet, you know, we have a lot of production in my state of oklahoma. we have companies like devon and others, anadarko, who are really doing a lot to relieve this profnlt i know what is going to happen. it didn't happen. it is not going happen. but if it had, the next target would be some of the smaller domestic conforms i remember coming down to the floor last year when our good senator from vermont had a bill and he was bringing it up by u.c., and i just happened to get here in time to stop it and debate it and defeat it. now, that bill -- they even used

and held up a picture of a check from exxonmobil as to what their tax liabilities were. totally wrong in my opinion. and apparently in the opinion of 61 of the 100 senators because they joined me in opposing that particular legislation. now, we have a solution to the problem. this is not -- this is not rocket science. i mean, right now we have -- and i've said on the floor many, many times that it just happened in the last eight months, the congressional research service, nobody has stood on the floor and questioned the fact that they are -- they're nonpar nonp, and they looked at t our recoverable fuels are greater in america than any other country in the world. the problem is, we have a political problem where the liberals here will -- along with the liberals in the white house, including the president, will not exploit our own resources.

we have all of that oil and gas and coal that's out there. we could be totally independent of the middle east, totally. in a very short period of time if we just go offshore, on all three coasts, along with the north area, anwr, and with our public lands. and as i say, every other country does it. and so you have to wonder why don't we do it? why is it that we don't care about supplying ourselves with homegrown oil, gas, and coal and taking caver our own energy needs? we have the ability here, but the politicians won't let us do it. well, there's one reason, and that is that -- and this is really disturbing -- that in the case of this administration, they don't want to do it. i mean, this administration has said many times that they are not interested -- listen to what alan krueger, assistant secretary of treasury said. he said "a tax subsidies -- subsidies, they're not subsidized. threes tax increases. "tax subsidies harass currently

provided to the oil gansdz industry encourages overinv of domestic resources in industry." and slicked he says, "this administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels." well, look, i'm all for -- i'm for coal, gas, oil, aim for nuclear, all of the above, all of the reniewcialtion wind, sun, everything else, but we've got to run this machine trade, tomorrow, and the next five and ten years. you can't do that without fossil fuels. the -- further, they stated, "the administration's goal is to have resources invested in ways which yield the highest social return." social return. boy, this is a totally different thing. not an economic return, not the ability to run our country ourselves. but some kind of a social engineering that is going on. the best quote really and the

most telling is the one that came from secretary chu, the energy secretary for president obama, listen to this, mr. president. he said, "we're goings have to get some regulatory thing going on high drailic fracturing" and he said that "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." now, this is our administration saying this. this is the secretary of energy, that's appointed by president obama. "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe." they're intentionally raising the price of gas, and it's by their own admission. and we were warned way back during the campaign when president barack obama was a united states snorks he said "under my plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." so we have an effort by them -- and i would just warn my good

friends, my good friends on the democrat side of the aisle, you know, watch this pretty close. because just because the president wants to increase the price of oil doesn't mean that -- doesn't mean that your constituents do. in fact, i can assure you your constituents do not. unless there's something really unusual about my state of oklahoma. let's swhee the c.r.s. report said in a little bit more specifically. "in the updated report" -- since the one i just talked about -- "america's combined recoverable oil and gas and coal endowment is the largest on earth p. america's recoveriable resources are far larger than those of saudi arabia, china, and canada combined." that's resources we have in oil, coal, and gas. in oil, america is the world's third-largest oil producer and seine dowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil which will run the united states of

america for 50 years. we could run all the oil that we'll need for 50 years. we've got t just got to get the politicians out of the way. natural gas , america's supply of natural gas is over 2,000 trillion cubic feet, an increase of more than 25% just since the committee's 2006 estimate. at today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet america's demand for 90 years. now, keep in mind, on natural gas, it's not just natural gas for -- to develop energy but also natural gas is something that we're going to be using in our cars. today it's available and they're working on technology. we're working on the certification of engines that will burn natural gas. and when we are, it's going to be -- relieve that tension also. right now the price of a comparable gallon of -- of natural gas to run an automobile is $1.60 a gallon.

$1.60 as opposed to $4 a gallon. so it's out there. that's natural gas. now, in natural gas, i have to say this. the president made a speech -- and i responded on a couple of tv stations. this was probably three weeks ago, mr. president. it was on energy. and nesd that speech -- and he said in that speech, we have an abundant supply of good, clean natural gas, we need to be using it. then at the end of that speech, he said, however, we have to be very careful what we're going to be doing because we don't want to contaminate our drinking water with hydraulic fracturing. well, i happen to come from oklahoma. the first hydraulic fracturing job was done in oklahoma in 1948. we have not had one documented case of one groundwater contamination in 60 years. and yet right now they're going to stop us from going after natural gas by taking away hydraulic fracturing. now, hydraulic fracturing in these tight formations, the shale formations, you can't

develop a cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing. it's a way of inserting liquids in to force the gas out so that we can develop it. and so it's there. so what the president is saying we need to use natural gas but we don't want to use hydraulic fracturing. and there's an effort right now by many members in here to try to take that over as a federal function, the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. right now there's never been a rob with it. it's rated -- it's regulated differently in different states. for example, in my state of oklahoma in the anadarko basin, you're talking about depths of some 35,000 feet. you go just north into kansas, it's between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. so it's different in different states. it needs different regulation. it's not broke and we don't need to fix it. now, what has the president done? he has put secretary chu in charge of -- of determining what we're going to do with hydraulic fracturing. well, that's secretary chu.

he's the same guy that said we've got to raise the price of our gasoline to be comparable to the gasoline price in -- in europe and so that's -- that's the wrong guy for that kind of a study. besides that, i would remind you, mr. president, that we actually have a study that's going on right now by the environmental protection agency on hydraulic fracturing that isn't through yet. it would seem to me that we ought to at least finish and get this study before you rush in there and try to pass something that will stop us from being able to develop our natural gasses. same thing i could say for coal. america's number one in the coal reserves. right now people aren't aware of it, we are reliant upon coal for 50% of the power that it takes to run this machine called america. america's number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28% of the world's coal. so we have it here. we have gas. we have coal. we have oil. all we have to do is develop what we have. you know, how many people in america who have gone through elementary school don't remember

supply and demand? we have a huge supply and there is a great demand for it but we have our politicians who won't let us develop our supply. and as long as that happens, it is going to be very difficult for us to make -- so i would just say this. there's a wake-up call here for the american people. we have a vote this afternoon. it's not good enough. i'm going to vote for it but we ought to be opening up our exploration, our production all over america. and to do that, we have to go beyond this -- this bill. this is a start and it's a start that is worthwhile. with that, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. chambliss: mr. president? , i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise to speak about our nation's energy policy or frankly our lack thereof. georgians are shocked every time they pull up to a gas pump both at the price per gallon and at

the jaw-dropping cost each time they fill up their tanks. with rising food prices and a stagnant economy, skyrocketing gas prices could not come at a worse time. this situation illustrates why it is imperative touser congress to focus -- imperative for congress to focus on expanding and diversifying our energy sources so that the american people are no longer held hostage bryces at the pump. the necessity of congressional action has become all too clear as we watch gas prices climb and unrest spread throughout the middle east, potentially threatening major sources of energy we import. it highlights the fact that we cannot afford to keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year to foreign countries, many of which are not america's friends, to meet our energy needs. ait poses a threat to our national security and further harms our nation's struggling economy. this we can we are considering two pieces of legislation that both deal with domestic

production of oil and gas. the reid proposal that aims to stifle it and one introduced by leader mcconnell that increases offshore production while improving the safety of offshore drilling operations. funfortunately, the reid proposl would increase taxes on domestic production of oil and gas which would discourage domestic drilling and result in the loss of many american jobs associated with the oil and gas industry. without incentives to produce oil and gas in the united states, there's real risk that energy companies will take many of their drilling operations overseas. this goes directly against goals that i know many of my democratic colleagues share of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil and encouraging job growth. moreover, as we watch gas prices rise, why would anyone want to impose new taxes on energy which will only further increase prices that americans pay at the

pump. my colleagues across the aisle who support this legislation portray their proposal as a deficit-cutting measure. as much as anyone here, i recognize the importance of reducing our federal deficit. but i do not support targeting one industry to bear the brunt of the deficit-cutting measures while others enjoy tax incentives. rather than hindering domestic production of oil and garks we must edg encourage the developmt of abundant energy resources we have right here in the united states. and we must do so in an environmentally responsible manner. i was pleased that the reid proposal did not pass yesterday. as a cosponsor of leader mcconnell's offshore production safety act, i will continue to support domestic oil and gas exploration and production. it is an essential component of a comprehensive energy policy that will enable america to become more energy-independent.

as i hear more reports of new oil and natural gas deposits found within our borders and off america's shores, i am stunned that we are not doing more to encourage the development of these resources. i can't think of a better means of improving our economy by both reducing america's energy imports and encouraging job growth. after the oil spill last year, the obama administration reviewed its drilling and permitting process for domestic oil and gas production and is still in the process of revising it. while change is clearlied to be made, the department of interior continues to hold up and unnecessarily delay approval of drilling leases and permits. now is not the time to tie up much-needed energy production in bureaucratic red tape. senator mcconnell's bill would streamline the permitting process while improving safety. a responsible energy policy that

will make gas prices reasonable, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthen our economy will also result in increased domestic energy production, improved energy efficiency through technology, increase conservation in a diversified energy supply through the use of renewable fuel sources. along with supporting america's oil and gas verntle we must also focus on other domestic energy sources, including nuclear energy, wind, clean coal, and solar power. that will allow us to achieve sustainable energy independence. i am hopeful that in the 112th congress we'll take on some form of comprehensive energy legislation. for the sake of our national security and our economy, we need to take this issue on now. instead of kicking it down the road for others to hand. i encourage my colleagues to support the mcconnell

proposal. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven: thank you. i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak on behalf of s. 953. mr. president, today i would again like to speak about gas prices in our country today and the pressing need to increase domestic supply. in a nutshell, the way that you reduce prices at the pump for american consumers is by increasing supply. particularly domestic supply. more supply will not only help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump for american consumers but it will also help create good american jobs. for our workers across the country. now, it's important to remember that government doesn't create jobs but government can create the environment, the legal, tax

and regulatory environment that will stimulate private investment. and that private investment will stimulate the deployment of new technologies, new companies and, of course, create jobs to help grow and sustain our economy. i want to start out by giving you some examples close to my home in the great state of north dakota. in north dakota, we launched a comprehensive energy plan about ten years ago. at that time, oil companies had either left the williston basin, which is the energy patch in our state, or they were leaving. you might ask, well, why was that? well, first it was because they were getting better returns elsewhere. the technology was lacking to produce oil and gas economically from new formations in our state. companies were going to other places in the world where they could extract that oil more

cost-effectively. second, the data on confirmed reserves was also lacking and the technology to produce oil from shale wasn't sufficiently developed. third, our work force was aging, and, fourth, transportation constraints limited production. in other words, there were better places for those companies to go, better places than our state to invest their dollars and get a return for shareholders. to turn that around, we worked very hard to build a climate for investment and growth and i'd like to tell you about some of the things that we worked to put in place. first, we put tax incentives in place that made it worthwhile to invest. second, we established an oil and gas research fund. third, we initiated studies of the bakken formation, not only through the north dakota geological survey but also through the u.s. geological survey.

and we've asked for updates to those studies now as well. we improved infrastructure, including four-laning some of our major highways. we established a pipeline authority to expand transportation capacity to move product out of the williston basin to market, and we also developed a program at williston state college to train workers at oil production and recovery methods. up until that time, we had to send our workers to states like colorado or wyoming or maybe oklahoma for that education and training in oil field technologies and sometimes they dent always come back to our state so we established that training there at home. as a result of our advanced business environment, we drew investment capital technology and ingenuity to the williston basin and those unlocked the potential was not only the

bakken formation but also the three forks formation. this year north dakota will produce more than 120 million barrels of oil, the fourth most amongst all 50 states, and we've passed up states now like oklahoma and louisiana, and our production continues to grow. what's more, private investment that funded did deployed those new technologies to produce more oil more cos cost-effectively ad more dependably also funded the deployment -- the development and deployment of new technologies that helped us produce that oil and gas in more environmentally sound ways. new technologies in the way of directional drilling and hydraulic fracting enabled companies to recover more oil from one bore well than they had formerly recovered from up to a dozen bore wells. that means more domestic production, less environmental impact and better results for

the american people. now, bear in mind that most of these measures that i'm talking about, most of these measures that we implemented to enhance our business climate were not about government spending. they were about creating an environment that attracted private investment. increased economic growth not only generated revenues for our state and broadened or economic base but also actually enabled us to reduce taxes for our citizens. and it also has a national impact as w. increased north dakota oil production is also helping to reduce our dependence on foreign imports and increase the domestic supply of oil in this country. as i mentioned in my remarks last we're, between 1985-2005, domestic oil production in this country was going down, it was shrinking, and foreign imports were growing.

in 2005, we were importing 12.4 billion barrels of oil a day into this country, 60% of what we consume. by 2010, however, our imports had fallen to 9.4 million barrels a day, a reduction of about 3 million barrels a day over 2005. so over the last five years, we've actually reduced our daily imports of oil into this country by 3 million barrels a day. now our dependence on foreign oil has been reduced from 60% down to about 49%. so what changed? well, in part, we're using less, but the fact is we have increased domestic production. we have increased our domestic supply. increased supplies from onshore production in the lower 48 states, like north dakota, also from natural gas liquids throughout the country and from

offshore drilling have all raised domestic output by 1.5 million barrels a day in this country. that's what today's vote on s. 953 is all b. the bill before us which was introduced by senator mcconnell -- and i'm pleased to bone of its cosponsors -- is about more offshore domestic production from this country, more offshore domestic production from off our coast and, hence, more domestic supply in this country. like our approach in north dakota, onshore production, s. 953, the "offshore production and safety act," will encourage more domestic production with better environmental stewardship. it will open up -- it will open up areas in the gulf of mexico, in alaska's outer continental shelf and parts of coastal virginia to new exploration and production. at the same time, it will help to expedite the approval or

denial of drilling permits to a reasonable period of time. in this case, 60 days, thereby allowing projects to move forward in a timely fashion. but it doesn't just speed up the clock. this bill is also about safety. it requires companies drilling offshore to have safety plans that must be certified by the secretary of interior. to further improve safety, it also requires onshore -- ongoing review and research into spill prevention procedures and methods. this legislation, "the offshore production and safety act," is the kind of energy policy that will hope attract investment and increase production in this country. that means not only more supply to help bring down the cost of gasoline at the pump for american families but it also means more jobs for american workers. it's a good piece of legislation and we ought to pass it. and though it's a step in the

right direction, no single piece of legislation will do it all. congress has not passed a comprehensive energy policy in our country in years. but, frankly, we can no longer wait for that single sweeping master plan that will do it all at once. again, referring to my home state, we built "empower north dakota" over a decade piece by piece and saw firsthand the power of energy development in our state. the bill before us today is one piece, a piece that can become part of a comprehensive national energy plan. now, to build a national comprehensive plan, we need other legislation as well, other legislation like the boutique fuel reduction act of 2011, which would simplify our nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to american consumers. and my esteemed colleague, senator roy blunt from missouri, was on the floor just a few minutes ago talking about that piece of legislation.

also, legislation like the regulatory responsibility for our economy act, which would actually work with a directive from president obama to review and remove outmoded or excessively burdensome rules that may be impeding economic development and job growth across our country. and we need to work in a bipartisan way because high gas prices, high unemployment, and low economic growth are not a republican or a democrat issue. they're an american issue. and that's why we also need legislation like the e.p.a. fair play-act, which will prevent the environmental protection agency from rescinding previously approved 404 permits. and i'm pleased to be cosponsoring that legislation with my colleague, senator joe manchin from west virginia. collectively, all of these pieces of legislation and more are the bricks and mortar out of which we can build a

comprehensive national energy policy. but we need to get going and we need to get going today. let's get going with s. 953 and let's build a brighter energy future for ourselves and for future generations. thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask permission to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today in support of goodwin liu's nomination to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. years ago, in the early 1990's,

when i was working for the national "i have a dream foundation," i first crossed paths with goodwin liu who was then a senior program officer with the corporation for national service. an issue had arisen with regard to the corporation's support of one of our foundation's programs. we were running an americorps program. and mr. liu very quickly distinguished himself through his competence and obvious commitment to education and national service. in fact, my interactions with him were so positive and memorable that 18 years later, when i had joined this body and heard of his nomination, i immediately remembered him and was anxious to find out what he'd been up to in the intervening years. the opportunity to reconnect with goodwin liu as part of his confirmation process has turned out to be one of the real pleasures of this job. it is readily apparent to me, as well as to on many senators on both sides of the aisle who have had the opportunity to meet with him, to question him and to get to know him better, that professor goodwin liu is a good, decent, bright and engaging man.

his career, in my view, is marked by a profound commitment to service. from his time working at the corporation for national service, the organization of our federal government that supports vista and americorps and all sorts of different commitments to national service across our country, to his later work as a clinical and summer associate while in law school, to his work for the department of education as a young attorney, to his service as a judicial clerk, and then his scholarship in support of opportunities for all americans. professor liu has been guided by a desire to leave the world a better place than he found it. despite these many positive personal qualities to recommend him, it is perhaps something of an understatement to say that goodwin liu's nomination has been controversial. first nominated in february of 2010 and then after a searching and difficult nomination hearing and a vote here, a renomination in january of this year, a second confirmation hearing in front of the judiciary committ

committee, in which i was able to participate, we now stand on the verge of a cloture vote required for us to even get to the consideration of his nomination. professor liu is a prolific scholar who has written on a wide range of topics relating to educational rights, civil rights, public schooling, among many others. and when in the nomination hearing i heard the many vigorous attacks and questions against professor liu, i was concerned, even shocked. the charges that were being levied against him -- essentially that he is a radical who would use the bench to engage in aggressive judicial activism -- are serious and so i took it upon myself to meet with professor liu in person and to review his record and come to my own conclusions. i can say with confidence professor liu will be a first-rate judge in the finest traditions of the legal profession. professor liu knows the difference between being a law professor and a circuit court judge, the difference between lecturing and judging.

he knows that the role of a judge is not to advocate but to follow and obey the dictates of the constitution and the precedents of our supreme court. goodwin liu will obey the law. we can and should ask no more of our nominees. if we take a step back from the current heated partisan rhetoric, i think we can find broad agreement across the aisle that a judicial candidate ought to be evaluated according to his legal ability and experience, his standing within the legal profession, his integrity and his temperament. professor liu rates extraordinarily highly in all of these areas. his academic and professional qualifications demonstrate he is a lawyer of the utmost ability with a broad range of experience. he was a rhodes scholar. he got his law degree from yale university where he was the editor of the yale law journal. he clerked for one of the great intellects of the d.c. circuit judge david tatell and after that clerked for justice ginsburg on the united states supreme court. since that time, he's worked in private practice and has gone on to earn a tenured professorship

at the university of california-berkeley school of law. at berkeley, he has been a prolific scholar of exceptionally high regard. in addition to this sterling resume, professor liu enjoys the highest esteem of his legal colleagues. a classmate of mine, john yu, has in fact spoken in support of professor liu's nomination, as has kenneth starr. professor liu is the recipient of the university of california's highest teaching award and clint bulloc of the goldwater institute says professor liu's writings show intellectual honesty. this high opinion of professor liu is broadly shared. in giving professor liu its highest rating of unanimously well qualified, the american bar association interviewed scores of american judges who have worked with him and found his reputation to be one of impartiality, integrity and great ability. for the nominees to our circuit

courts of appeal, we could ask no less. professor liu's activity as a noted legal and policy scholar is in my view being used unfairly to impugn his judicial temperament. in meeting personally with goodwin liu, he explained to me he clearly understands and respects the difference between scholarship and jurisprudence. actacademics explore the contous and limits of the law, often advocating for specific policy outcomes. that is the work of a great law professor. judges, on the other hand, apply legal precedent to come to the conclusion that the law compels, without prejudice or pursuit of a personal agenda. when professor liu has been asked to apply the law as would a judge, any criticism that he allows a policy preference to cloud his judgment just does not pass muster. as an example, although professor liu has said that his personal views are that individuals should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation, he testified before

the california state senate in 2008 that california's controversial proposition eight, which bans same-sex marriages, in professor liu's testimony and in his view would pass muster on to the california constitution. this is a simple and concrete example from well before his nomination to the circuit court that professor liu is fully capable and willing to set aside his personal preferences and views when called upon to render an important legal judgment. i also examined professor liu's scholarship on the topics of education and welfare from which his opponents claim he would create a constitutional right if confirmed to the bench. i would be concerned if these charges had merit, but they don't. rather, they reflect a distortion of what he's actually written. professor liu has repeatedly clarified, both in my presence and the nomination hearings and in writing, his unexceptional belief that congress and not the courts has the power to create

new fundamental rights through the amendments to our constitution. an objective review of professor liu's qualifications, temperament and intellect lead to the conclusion he's an outstanding nominee and should be confirmed to the bench. former representative tom campbell, a five-term republican member of the house, agrees. in urging his swift confirmation, representative campbell specifically praised professor liu's reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness and collegiality. i call upon my colleagues to take a fresh look at professor liu and come to their own conclusions about him. in my opinion, he's a dedicated public servant who has undergone intense scrutiny over the past 15 months at great personal sacrifice. too often, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that judicial and executive nominees are also people, with families, careers and other responsibilities. the confirmation process can exact a steep cost, and as a result, too many qualified and decent individuals either

withdraw from or decline to submit to it in the first place. professor liu, in my view, is an exceptional nominee to the circuit court. he's borne the challenges of this confirmation process with grace and dignity, as is in keeping with his character and his dedication to public service. in voting on the petition to invoke cloture, i urge my colleagues to consider the content of professor liu's character. listen to those who know him, have met with him, have questioned him, above the interest groups who have sensationalized this nomination. i ask my colleagues to consider the bipartisan support from those who have worked with him and who know him best. i know goodwin liu. i trust him and i believe he will make an excellent judge, and i urge my colleagues to consider and support his confirmation. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i rise to speak in favor of senator mcconnell's production bill. the bill might be too much for some, too little for some. maybe it's not perfect. but we must take a step in the direction of adding production of our nation's natural resources if we are going to bring down the cost of gasoline, bring down the cost of fuel, bring down the cost of all of the elements that we have that are -- excuse me -- providing for our electricity, natural gas and other forms of -- of our electricity and climate control. so, mr. president, i hope that we can pass senator mcconnell's bill.

oil is today slightly under $100 per barrel, and with the summer driving season approaching, we know that this could even go up. it's graduation season and people are driving to their graduation procedures, their graduation ceremonies, and they are having to pay these enormous prices of gasoline at the pump. over $4 in many places in our country. i recently read a story about a constituent going to college station for a texas a&m graduation, and he complained, rightfully, that he had a diesel truck half full, and he paid paid $71.41 to do it. now, that is a lot for a half a tank of gasoline, and i think we can do something about it. over the past two years, the obama administration has put up

barriers to increasing our domestic energy potential. we must stop that policy and go in the other direction and open our natural resources, use our natural resources so that we can bring down the cost of fuel and try to help our small businesses and families have a better opportunity for low-cost fuel. the mcconnell legislation gets the ball rolling. supporters of the bill agree that long-term energy solutions involve removing the antienergy barriers to safely producing energy for americans by americans. on march 30, the president stated, "reducing more oil in america can help lower oil prices, create jobs and enhance our energy security." but, mr. president, what is happening is our regulatory

agencies are going in the opposite direction. they are stopping the production of oil and gas in our country. let me read excerpts from a fox news article on its website. it's by dan springer in april of this year. shell oil company announced that it must scrub efforts to drill for oil this summer in the arctic ocean off the northern coast of alaska. the decision comes following a ruling by the e.p.a.'s environmental appeals board to withhold critical error permits. shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion on plans to explore for oil in the beaufort and chukchi seas off alaska. the leases alone cost cost $2.2 billion. the closest village to where

shell proposed to drill is catobic, alaska. it is one of the most remote places in the united states. according to the latest census, the population is 245 people, and nearly all of them are alaska natives. the village, which is one square mile, sits right along the shores of the beaufort sea 70 miles away, 70 miles away from the proposed offshore drill site. the e.p.a.'s appeal board ruled that shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. at stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. that's how much the u.s. geological survey believes is in the u.s. portion of the arctic ocean.

for perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the transalaska pipeline through its 30-year history. the pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil, and at 660,000 barrels a day is carrying only one-third of its capacity. so we hear what the president is saying, but his own agencies are going in the opposite direction. let's take another example. we are approaching june. the department of interior has not conducted an offshore lease sale in the gulf of mexico, which usually occur twice a year. the lease sale does not occur by the end of the year, 2011 would be the first year since 1958 without an offshore lease sale. because of the president's

moratorium and lack of permitting in the gulf of mexico, offshore energy production is expected to decrease by 13% in 2011. senator mcconnell's bill addresses the need for increased domestic production by reinstating oil and gas leases and the sales of those in the gulf of mexico, alaska, and the atlantic which president obama canceled last year. this legislation also attacks the permitting delays companies in the gulf have experienced. since october, the department of interior has only issued 53 shallow water permits and 14 deepwater permits, and the monthly approval rate before the moratorium was approximately 10 shallow water and eight deepwater every month. this legislation eliminates the bureaucratic delays which have burdened operators and have taken away their ability to raise capital to do the

exploration in the gulf of mexico. in the bill, it does -- it says that the department of interior will approve every permit it receives or reject it within 30 days. it doesn't require approval, but it certainly puts a limit of 40 days on their process, so that people will not be hung out, as they have been since last october, with moratoria that require that they pay for the leases. they are still paying the costs, but they can't explore. so they are sitting idle. this has caused bankruptcy of at least one company that i know in texas, seahawk, and this is not good policy when we are talking, as the president is, about increasing production in our country and then doing the opposite by proposals that do

not make sense like a moratorium in the gulf of mexico, in the shallow water, which has never had a problem. and if it ever did have a spill, it would be easy to clean up because it is shallow water. the b.p. spill was in deep water. that's why it took so long. but yet, we have a moratorium on shallow water drilling because it doesn't seem that the administration knew the difference between what was the problem and what could go on and continue the production and help increase the capability for our people to have lower cost gasoline at the pump. on march 9 of this year, senator landrieu and i introduced senate bill 516, the lease extension and skaourlt -- security act. all this does is extend for one

year the leases that have had a moratorium but the people are still paying the costs of those leases when they have been prohibited from using them. the lease holder continues to pay the treasury for all expenses associated with maintaining a lease but they have been prohibited from exploring the lands that the lease are on. so it's very important that we pass this legislation. now, in the bill before us, the mcconnell bill, we have a variation of the lease act. it extends the leases for those that are going to be -- come to an end at the end of this year. if they come to an end at the end of this year, they will get a one-year lease. that's a good step in the right direction. senator landrieu and i believe every lease holder, even if their lease doesn't run out this

year, should have the full opportunity for the exploration of their lease capabilities in order to make it fair for the price they have paid in the open bidding process for those leases. so the president has said that he approves the extension of some leases. we agree with that. why not all of them? they have been paid for. in many instances the companies are still paying the employees even though the employees are not able to do the work. so this year alone, over 50 leases will expire -- over 350 leases will expire and many of them are in a moratorium. the bill before us would help those people be able to use the next year for determining if it is worth drilling for more of the oil on the leases that they have purchased. so, mr. president, i think that it is very important that we

pass this legislation that we will vote on very shortly today if we are serious about increasing the production of our own natural resources for the benefit of our own people. it seems to me that we need to back up the words of the president with actions that will be positive, proactive and product in getting the price of gasoline at the pump down. if we can start now, i would hope that the president would take some of the steps, for instance, to allow shell, with the investment that it's made, to drill for oil in the arctic ocean. that is a place where there are vast reserves that have not been tapped. the people of alaska support it. it is not going to harm the environment in any way. and if we would use our natural

resources, we could put people to work in america. we could stop the heavy importation of foreign oil, which is what we depend on now for over 50% of our fuel. and certainly we would like to add to our economy in this sort of precarious economic time. and we can do it with our own natural resources. i urge my colleagues to vote for the mcconnell bill, and maybe then we can open it for amendments and get started on doing the right thing for our country. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: i rise to address the offshore production and safety act. it is a piece of legislation that attempts to address the regulation and the critical need to drill for oil in this country. let me tell you, i understand the frustration from my colleagues who are upset about the bureaucratic agencies that

don't seem to understand the urgent need to review permits in a timely and responsible manner. mining in west virginia has long been a direct target of the e.p.a., and these unfair regulatory practices they have practiced for far too long. for example, in may of 2009 the e.p.a. had a permit backlog of 235 applications. two-thirds of them were already deemed complete for final processing by the army corps of engineers. clearly there's a problem. the question: is this legislation the right solution? the truth is i will love to sink my teeth in and vote for this measure, but i simply can't. i do not believe this legislation strikes the right commonsense balance between our energy demands, responsible regulation, our economy and the environment. in fact, the unintended consequences of this legislation is that it could make regulatory agencies more powerful and more draconian, a fact that would

actually hurt the drilling, the energy independent is i that we could gain and the businesses that need to achieve energy independence. quite simply, if we place a 30-day fix with two 15-day extensions, i believe we would see more permits denied than we would see processed. how does this make sense? it would create a perverse effect that could encourage government, bureaucrats to stop any and all permits. that will be a terrible outcome. the fact is that neither legislation that we have voted on today or yesterday addresses the bigger issue that our nation must declare its independence from foreign oil. and we can only do that by developing a true national plan for energy independence. i've come to this floor many times to urge my republican and democratic colleagues to work with me to put together an

energy plan that works for all of america. in fact, just last week i came here to address you about the importance of expanded domestic drilling. i truly believe that this nation needs to develop all of our domestic resources, whether it's drilling for oil or natural gas, mining coal, producing wind and solar, developing better nuclear, biomass or geothermal so that we can declare or energy independence within a generation. but in developing and pursuing a national energy plan, we can't lose sight of our commonsense values and our priorities. this bill falls short of those commonsense priorities. but i want to assure my colleagues that i will work with any senator from either party who will try to create a national energy policy that will truly help the nation achieve energy independence. i want to thank all of my colleagues, and i hope that we will be able to work together to move this nation forward for

true energy independence. i want to thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call: ,,,,

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to rescind the order for the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask that we move -- i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to proceed. the clerk will call the roll. vote: ,,

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote or to record their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 57. under a previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion, the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 80, the nomination of goodwin liu of california to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit. further, on thursday, may 19, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the nomination and the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form prior to a cloture vote on the nomination, as under the previous order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, goodwin liu of california to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit.

a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. kirk: mr. president, i rise today to call for the resignation of mr. dominique strauskan, the head of the international monetary found. the criminal allegations against him are alarming and undermine the confidence in the institution at a critical juncture of our economic histo history. he has forfeited our confidence and should resign or be fired from his position at the i.m.f. over the last two years, the i.m.f. presided over a european debt crises which included controversial bailouts of governments in greece and ireland and portugal. i remain especially concerned about the u.s. taxpayer share of

funding these european bailouts and the american taxpayers' exposure to new sovereign risks. while i have questions about the actions taken by the i.m.f. to handle this debt crisis, the institution's role in the global financial system requires strong leadership. the i.m.f.'s deputy managing director, john lipski, should assume full responsibility of the i.m.f. and process to determine a replacement should commence at once. i encourage the united states executive director to the i.m.f., meg ludzinger, to strongly advocate for mr. strauss-kahn's resignation or termination and aid in the search for a more worthy replacement. and with that, mr. president, i yield back.

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the senior senator from virginia who is about to speak, and i just will be brief. i wanted to applaud the president today on his comments, his comments and then there were the administration's comments,

especially trade ambassador kirk and gene sperling, the president's top economic advisor. they have made it clear that we will not submit the three free trade agreements, one with colombia, one with panama, one with south korea, until legislation has come to their desk to take care of the issue of trade adjustment assistance. this congress, because of some objections from the other side of the aisle, allowed the trade adjustment assistance language to expire in february. that simply means that many workers who lost their jobs because of free trade agreements -- or lost their jobs because of trade, not necessarily with countries we had trade agreements, were going to get some assistance -- they lost their jobs through no doing of their own. they are going to get some assistance so they can in fact get some assistance for retraining so they can go back to work. losing their jobs had everything to do with what happens in other ways, nothing to do with their

job performance or even their company's job performance. so the president made the right decision by saying we're not going to move forward on these free trade agreements. i don't much like these agreements, but that's not the point. we're not going to move forward until we have done trade to help these workers who have lost jobs. second, we need to make sure as senator casey and i have said on the floor before that the health coverage tax credit is also renewed. that matters to continue the health coverage of many workers. and third, that senator wyden's work, senator stabenow and senator mccaskill will work on trade enforcement, making sure these trade rules and trade laws that are in effect will actually be in force so that we can protect american jobs. when we pass these trade agreements, it's always cost us jobs. it's about time we take care of communities and workers that suffer from it. i thank senator webb and i yield back my time. mr. webb: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. webb: i would like to speak today on the pending nomination of professor goodwin liu for a seat on the ninth circuit court

of appeals. i would like to begin by saying regretfully i will be voting against this nomination, for reasons that i will explain, but at the same time i want to emphasize my profound respect for this institution and for my fellow senators from both parties, and i believe it would be wrong to vote against a cloture motion whose intent is to proceed forward with debate on the merits of someone who has been nominated to be a judge. i made this point loudly and clearly when the nomination of one of my virginia constituents, barbara keenan, was filibustered, and with respect to philosophical consistency and my admiration for all the work that chairman leahy has been doing in order to fill the many vacancies on our federal court system, i am going to vote to proceed on the -- for the debate on mr. liu, but i do not, however, intend to vote in favor

of his confirmation. i have met with mr. liu rany ofs and most of the testimony from his two confirmation hearings. he is clearly talented. whatever he ends up doing, he is certain to have a long future in our country. he also has been blessed beyond words by the goodness of our society. both his parents came to this country already as physicians. he attended our finest universities. he was a rhodes scholar. he is a yale law school graduate. he has spent almost his entire career as a talented if somewhat controversial professor of law. when i met with mr. liu, i found him to be personable and clearly bright. but intellect in and of itself does not always give a person wisdom, nor does it guarantee good judgment, and the root word of judgment is, of course, judge. and this is our duty today, to decide whether professor liu's almost complete lack of practical legal experience, coupled with his history of

intemperate, politically charged statements, allow us a measure of comfort and predictability as to whether he would be fair and balanced while sitting on one of the highest courts in the land. mr. liu's temperament and his frequently industry dent political views have been called into question by many well-intentioned observers, including my respected colleague, senator lindsey graham, who like myself voted in favor of justices sotomayor and kagan. professor liu seems better fitted for a life in politics rather than the bench. we don't know if mr. liu could conduct himself in a different manner if he were to be given a seat at one of the highest judicial positions in our country. the list is long and time is short, mr. president, but i would summarize my concerns through two observations. the first involves professor

liu's public comments regarding supreme court justice alito, which i know will be repeated by others. mr. liu's view was that -- quote -- judge alito's record in visions in america where police shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a purse, or a black men may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man. i humbly believe this is not the america we aspire to be. end quote. obviously, i share the view of many others that whether one agrees or disagrees with justice alito's view of the constitution, this is hardly a fair representation of his view of our society. the second observation is more telling, mr. president, and it goes to the america that we all should aspire to be, an america where every person, regardless of race, creed, national origin or personal circumstances, has the same opportunity to succeed to the full extent of their

potential. let me make a point, that a lot of people seem uncomfortable with on speeches on this floor. that means white people, too. economic disadvantage is not limited to one's race. ethnic background or time of immigration to america. and when it comes to policies that are designed to provide diversity in our society, we do ourselves an enormous injustice by turning a blind eye to the wide variance among white cultures as we discuss greater representation from different minority groups. for all of its emphasis on diversity programs, i do not see anywhere that mr. liu understands this vital point. in fact, one tends to see the opposite. in 2004, mr. liu made a speech at an american constitution society conference. in this speech, he mentioned -- quote -- "the power of the courts to influence society, the power of legal principle to ratify inequality." he then went on to comment that

-- quote -- "if we work hard, if we stick to our values, if we build a new moral consensus, then i think someday we will see millikin rodriguez adarandan be swept into the dust pin of history. so we know mr. liu wants to use the courts to change society and ratify society. what was ata -- adaran about? it was about randy peck. one of five kids born to a welder who lost his job during the great depression. the mom worked as a salesgirl in a department store. neither of them went to college. mr. peck left the company and started a company that put guardrails up along highways. his start-up was the money he

would have used in his fourth year of college. his loan was accomplished by using his parents' retirement pensions as collateral. he made a bid as a construction contractor on a highway in colorado that was by far the lowest bid, but he lost to a minority-owned company because our own government was paying bonuses to contractors who made subcontracts with so-called disadvantaged businesses, and mr. peck happened to be white. the supreme court decided that this was wrong and decided in mr. peck's favor. although the civil rights commission pointed out ten years later that the supreme court's decision was still not being complied with by federal agencies. mr. liu offered an explanation for his comments during his confirmation process, but taken in the context of his other remarks, i find that statement unconvincing. mr. president, last july, i wrote an article in "the wall street journal" saying that while i continued to support the

original goal of affirmative action, which was to assist african-americans who still suffer from the badges of discrimination and slavery, it's time for us to recognize that we harm ourselves any time we cut away any person or group from the opportunity to reach their full potential in our wonderful and unique society. as you might imagine, i got a few questions from a few groups about this article, so let me answer those questions and sum up my concerns about mr. liu with an observation. the same day that my "wall street journal" article ran, july 23, a remote area medical clinic was held in the open air of the wise county fairgrounds in the appalachian mountains of far southwest virginia. these r.a.m. clinics bring medical professionals into underserved areas where medical care is hard to find. they're not that different from what we used to do out in the

impoverished villages of vietnam when i was a marine infantry officer many years ago. 12 of my staff members went down to wise county to volunteer. working in tents, mobile units, horse stalls over these three days, the r.a.m. clinic took care of 6,869 patient visits and pulled more than 4,000 teeth in the open air of the wise county fairgrounds. in this part of virginia, nearly half the population lives below 200% of poverty. almost a quarter of them have no insurance whatsoever. age-adjusted mortality rates in some counties are as much as 70% higher than the rest of virginia. in this appalachian mountain region is, of course, predominantly white. and let me emphasize, mr. president, that these conditions proceed from cultural issues based on many generations of hardship and strife and not

simply individual choice. mr. president, back there in those mountains, there is no doubt somebody who's thinking, and if he could put together a little money and maybe get somebody to believe in him, maybe he could start up a construction company just like randy peck did and compete for government contracts on a completely fair playing field, which has always been the gift and the miracle of america. i want him to have that opportunity, just like i want every other american to have it, and i don't want a judge on a circuit court somewhere telling him that his own chance for a fair and prosperous future should be swept into the dust pin of history. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, over the past couple of days here on the senate floor, we have had a lot of discussion of domestic energy production. there have been a lot of good points made, but frankly it was more of a political exercise than something that's going to help the american people. if you were to listen to the debate, you might think there is really no consensus and no way forward. i disagree with that. i think given our energy challenges including $4 gasoline, we need a better energy policy that encourages more affordable energy, more reliable energy and cleaner energy. i think we can reach a consensus on a few of those areas and do it now. let me raise a couple of them today. first is natural gas exploration and development. in my own state of ohio, we have had exciting new developments over the past several years. geologists have known that we have big shale formations in the eastern part of the united states for years, but until recently, we haven't had the drilling technologies that allowed us to tap these huge reserves. we now have that. in ohio, we have both the marcellus and the utica shale

finds that unfortunately have not been tapped yet but have tremendous potential. some of the oil and gas reserve estimates associated with these finds are truly amazing. for the state of ohio alone, in one of those formations, utica, i'm told that we could yield over 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. so this is a great opportunity, both to be sure that we have the energy we need to power our economy, but also to create jobs that goes into energy production. and by the way, other states around us, including pennsylvania, west virginia, upstate new york as an example, have even more production potential than ohio. already, there are some ohio counties that are beginning to explore some of these finds, and we're very hopeful that in some of these counties where there is incredibly high unemployment that we'll be able to begin production soon. these counties have been hard hit by the downturn in the economy, and they can really use the economic activity and the

jobs that will be created by this production. earlier this year, i visited an ohio company that's an example of one of the industries that's going to really benefit from this natural gas production. it's v.n.m. star. it's a company that makes piping. it's near youngstown, ohio. they just decided to expand their manufacturing capability. why? because they are looking at the marcellus and the utica, understanding this is going to create great opportunities for them. they are investing in state and jobs. we've got to be sure we put out the federal policies to promote and encourage the development of these resources. in addition to using natural gas for electricity generation, and as a feed stock for a lot of industries, including the chemical industry, natural gas holds incredible potential as an alternative for gas. today we're talking about the need to be less dependent on foreign oil which happens to be one of the top issues on both sides of the aisle here. natural gas is where we can do that very directly because it

can be used particularly in fleets. today the equivalent price for a gallon of natural gas is $1.60 a gallon. think about that as compared to $4 gasoline, $1.60 for natural gas. the infrastructure costs creates some challenges. again for fleets where there is central refueling, it makes all the sense in the world. widespread conversion of fleets would help reduce the demand for gasoline. america arguably has the greatest energy reserves in the world. depending on which estimate you look at, we've got to find a way to responsibly tap these reserves in a way we can become less dependent, in a way we will stop sending so much our wealth overseas to pay for foreign imports particularly of crude oil. ohio is still in the throes of an economic downturn. we're at 9% unemployment in ohio. underemployment makes ohio's situation worse.

one way to create jobs and get ohio back on track is by expanding the use of our own resources, including natural gas. there should be a consensus on this. we should be promoting federal policies to encourage the exploration and the development of these resources, and we should do it now. another area where i think you can see some consensus on energy policy in the short term here in the united states senate is in the area of energy conservation and efficiency. we should both find more and use less, and it's that commitment to use less that led me last week to introduce legislation with senator shaheen from new hampshire called the energy savings act. it is a bipartisan bill targeted and a piece of legislation that would leverage energy efficiency investments in a number of areas, including the building and industrial sectors but also with the federal government. it will help consumers, help the federal government save money on energy bills and help industry improve the efficiency of their production processes. again, this is an example where

we should be able to come together as republicans and democrats and get something done. there's widespread consensus that energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit, a way to reduce energy use and make america's economy more competitive. as with anything, the devil's in the details. there will be some senators who may disagree with some of the specifics in this legislation, but again it's the type of bill we should be debating on the floor of this senate and with little hard work, i believe it is one we can ultimately get enacted into law. instead it again we spent the better part of this week debating two bills. one that in my view would have done more harm than good by raising taxes on certain businesses while doing nothing to increase energy production or lower gas prices. another, one that i supported but we knew did not have the necessary 60 votes to move forward and therefore we were not able to make progress this week for the american people. mr. president, we have all the ingenuity, know-how and resources within our own borders

to be able to have the energy we need to improve our economy and create jobs. i would hope moving forward we can find agreement on these issues and begin to tap this great american potential. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note -- the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his quorum call? a senator: i will. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. tkreupb i rise in support -- mr. cardin: i rise in support of goodwin liu and urge my colleagues to invoke cloture on this nomination. i am disappointed we had to file a cloture petition. i would hope my colleagues would want to vote up or down on this nomination and i hope they would vote for his confirmation. as we begin the debate on the nomination of mr. liu, let me start by telling my colleagues how thoroughly his nomination

has been vetted by the judiciary committee under the leadership of chairman leahy. president obama first nominated goodwin liu for this position in february of last year. that's over one year ago. the judiciary committee has held two separate hearings on this nomination. mr. liu's latest set of questions and answers for the record spanned over 130 pages. the judiciary committee has favorably reported his nomination on three separate occasions: in may of 2010, september of 2010, and april of 2011. so i'm disappointed that my republican colleagues have refused to allow this nomination to come to a vote without the necessity of filing a cloture petition. as you know, the majority leader has filed cloture on this nomination. senators have had ample information on the background, experience and qualifications of

this nominee and it's time for the senators to perform their constitutional duty to debate the nomination and to vote up or down on this nominee. mr. president, i was privileged to serve on the judiciary committee in the 111th congress and participated in the debate of goodwin liu on several occasions. i was pleased to cast my vote in favor of mr. liu's nomination, and i look forward to supporting his nomination on the floor. when i examine judicial nominations that are submitted by the president, i use several criteria. first, i believe judicial nominees must have an appreciation for the constitution and the protections it provides to each and every american. second, a nominee must embrace the judicial philosophy that reflects mainstream american values, not narrow ideological interests. third, a judicial nominee must respect the role and responsibilities of each branch

of government, including the healthy respect for the precedents of the court. fourth, i look for nominees with a strong commitment and passion for the continued forward progress of civil rights protection. finally, i want a judge who has the necessary experience, temperament and commitment to public service. i want to share with my colleagues a little background, a little of the background on mr. liu, his qualifications and why i intend to support his nomination. goodwin liu in many ways embodies the american dream. he's the son of immigrants in this country. his parents were doctors who came to the united states from taiwan in the late 1960's when foreign doctors were being recruited to work in underserved areas. goodwin liu did not speak english until kindergarten. during high school, professor liu had the opportunity to serve as a page in the united states house of representatives after being sponsored by the late

congressman bob matsui of california who i had the privilege of serving with in the house of representatives. professor liu has a sterling academic record. he earned his b.a., phi beta kappa from stanford university where he was elected copresident of the student body. a rhodes scholar, he earned his m.a. from oxford university. he received his j.d. from yale law school where he was editor of the "yale law journal." he then went on to clerk for d.c. circuit judge davis tattle and supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. professor liu has a track record of working on public policy issues in public service. he worked for two years at the corporation for national service. he served as special assistant to deputy secretary of education where he worked on numerous legal and policy issues. professor liu has worked in private practice. after his clerkships, he served

as an associate in the washington d.c. law firm of malvoney and myers, working on a wide range of business matters. about half of his practice consisted of appellate litigation, preparing him well to serve on a court of appeals. he's also maintained an active pro bono practice at that firm, which also tells me his commitment to equal justice under the law. professor liu then went on to his current occupation, joining the faculty of the university of california at berkeley school of law and helping to teach our next generation of lawyers. he serves as a professor at the law school, was promoted to associate dean of the law school and was elected to the american law institute. professor liu has received the law school distinguished teaching award. professor liu is considered an expert on constitutional law and education law and policy with a particular focus on the needs of

america's most disadvantaged students. he's the author of numerous law review articles and coauthor of an influential book on constitutional interpretation entitled "keeping faith with the constitution." mr. president, i heard my colleague talk about goodwin liu, but i would just urge my colleagues not to penalize an individual because he's active or expresses his own opinions. we should judge the nominees based upon their qualifications and their commitments to interpret the law as required on the court. professor liu answered numerous questions about his approach to constitutional interpretation during his two confirmation hearings. he testified that -- and i quote -- "the role of a judge is to be an impartial, objective and neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies that come before him or her. and the way that process works

is through absolute fidelity to applicable precedents and the language of the laws, statutes and regulations that are issued in the case." end quote. i don't know of who would disagree with that. that's what many of us have been calling for on both sides of the aisle. he's also answered questions about his ideology as a judge. he testified that -- and i quote -- "it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate appellate judge. the duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. and so that is exactly what i would do. i would apply the applicable precedents to the facts of each case." end quote. once again, mr. president, i couldn't agree with that statement more. in written responses to

senators' questions, he also stated that -- and i quote -- "i do not believe it's ever appropriate for judges to indulge their own values or policy preferences in determining what the constitution and laws mean." end quote. professor liu certainly has written a number of thought-provoking articles on krofrpl public policy -- on controversial public policy issues of the day but this should not disqualify him from being a judge. i am confident that professor liu understands the difference between being an advocate and being a judge, and i hope we can draw that distinction and will respect the differences if he is confirmed and puts on the judicial robe. mr. president, the specific question concerning affirmative action were asked during his confirmation hearings, so let me quote from professor liu's testimony to the judiciary committee -- and i quote -- "i absolutely do not support racial

quotas in my writings, and i think i made that very clear that i believe they are unconstitutional." end quote. he then said -- i quote -- "i think affirmative action as it was originally conceived was a time-limited remedy for past wrongs and i think it is an appropriate way to understand what affirmative action is." end quote. so i think we should take a look at his record on this, and i think that it's unfair to judge him based upon certain innuendos. professor liu also has broad support from distinguished legal scholars from both parties. former solicitor general and white house prosecutor ken starr praised professor liu. and i'm going to quote -- "his strong intellect, demonstrated independence and outstanding character." end quote. the qualifications that we all want to see on the court. we want to see intellect.

we want to see independence. and we want to see character. ken starr i think summed that up fairly well. in march -- in a march 19, 2010, letter to the senate judiciary committee, mr. starr joined with another professor stated -- and i'm going to quote again -- "goodwin is a person of great intellect, accomplishment and integrity and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals. what we wish to highlight beyond his obvious intellect and legal talents is his independence and openness to diverse viewpoints as well as his ability to follow the facts and the law to their logical conclusion. these are qualities we expect in a judge, and goodwin clearly possesses them. a judge takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. and in the case of a circuit judge, fidelity to the law entails adherence to supreme

court precedent and adherence to circuit precedent as well. goodwin knows the difference between what the law is and what he might wish it to be. and he's fully capable and unafraid of discharging the duty to say what the law is." end quote. mr. president, that is what ken starr said about a person he knows very well, goodwin liu. and strongly recommends his confirmation to our colleagues. i also want to discuss the importance of improving diversity on our courts. if confirmed, professor liu would be only the second asian-american currently serving on a federal appeals court and the only asian-american in active service in the ninth circuit. the ninth circuit is home to over 40% of asian-american population in the united states. finally, mr. president, professor liu has received the highest possible judicial

rating, unanimously well-qualified, from the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary. mr. president, with this distinguished record and recommendations that we have received, we have an excellent nominee to serve on the court of appeals. i urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. and with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, it is my privilege, it is my honor to support goodwin liu, a californian and a brilliant californian, who has been nominated by the president to the united states ninth circuit court of appeals. and what a fine nomination this is. and i want to thank the president for his belief in goodwin and his, you know, i think amazing perception, that this is a young man -- and he's

young; he is be he's about 40 -s the perfect example of the american dream and someone who has worked so hard to put him into this position where he was nominated for this great honor. i want to show folks a picture of goodwin. he's a very, very special and talented person, and he's had a long struggle with this nomination, which we will talk about. i also want to thank, of course, chairman leahy for working hard to bring this nomination to the senate floor, and senator feinstein, my colleague, for her hard work in the committee and her leadership in helping to shepherd this nomination in the senate. this vote is not only historic, because goodwin will make

history if gets this vote, this vote is long overdue. first rs, le let me talk about t is historic. it is historic because if we get the 51 votes that we need today, professor liu will be one of only two asian-americans currently serving as a federal appellate judge in the united states. there is currently only one asian-american among the 160 active judges on the federal court of appeals, and there's no active asian-american judge on the ninth circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40% of our nation's asian-american population. let me repeat that. there is no active asian-american judge on the ninth circuit, which has jurisdiction over an area that is home to more than 40% of our nation's asian-american population.

now, the beauty of our great nation -- one of the beauties -- is our great diversity. america is great because we are representative of so many faiths and so many ethnic backgrounds, and we know that all of our institutions -- whether it's right here in the senate or anywhere -- all of our institutions do better when they have a diversity of views and diversity around them. and, clearly, when someone as brilliant as goodwin gets this nomination, we should be so proud in this body, we should be joining hands over party lines, we should be pleased that our court would have such a brilliant member. now, professor liu was originally nominated in february 2010 for a judicial emergency

seat, one that's been vacant since january 2009, so we've had a judicial emergency and yet we've had a hard time getting this vote to the floor. now, chief justice roberts called on senators not to play politics with our nominees. he warned that delays in filling vacancies has created acute difficulties in some judicial districts. that's a quote. undoubted lirkts the ninth circuit certainly is one of the jurisdictions the chief justice referred to, because the ninth circuit is the nation's largest and busiest appellate court in the country, accounting for over 20% of all new appellate cases in the country, according to court statistics. now, i sat and i heard senator cardin, i think -- i thought did a beautiful job of laying out why he's supporting goodwin liu. but i also heard some other comments that didn't connect to

goodwin liu. i heard comments that just didn't fit what goodwin liu has said about his role as a judge. and so i wanted to put up a couple of the quotes directly from professor liu and what he said about his role as a judge. he said, "i think the role of the judge is to be an impartial, objective, and neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies that come before him or her. and the way that that process works is through absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the language of the laws, statutes, regulations that are at issue in the case." 0 another statanother statementr liu i wanted to share with you:

"if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process, it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate appellate judge. the duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation, not any particular nearry. and so that is exactly what i would do, is i would apply the applicable precedents to the facts of each case." couldn't be clearer. so, if you hear any colleague of mine saying something else about how professor liu views the role of a judge in this particular appellate area, just refer them to these quotes. professor liu has sat before the senate judiciary committee twice for more than five hours -- five hours -- answering any and all

questions posed to him during the hearings. he has also answered numerous written questions from committee members. he has been voted out of the judiciary committee three times, and i just ask the american peernlings as they tune into this -- the american people, as they tune into this debate. and they may not be familiar, you know, with the confirmation processment, if they think it is fair for someone like professor liu -- let me put his picture back up so we personalize this -- this young man, this husband, this father, this teacher, to have to sit for all those hours and then to finally be brought to the floor, after the third times a voted out -- that's why i really praise senator leahy for doing this again. but sometimes there are reasons that you go back and back and

back. there are reasons of fairness and justice and because we don't want to miss an opportunity to put someone like goodwin, professor liu, on the bench. now, i will tell you, there have been 12 months of attacks on goodwin liu, misrepresentations, unfounded distortions of his record, and i want the american people to know this. you know, politics is tough, and i could tell you running four times for the senate, it's tough, it's brute acialtion it's ugly, but -- it's brutal, it's ugly, but there is no reason to turn that venom on a nominee like this. and it is offensive to me. through it all, professor liu could have said, you know what? i can't take this.

my family doesn't need this. but he showed courage and character and dignity. i was so pleased when president obama nominated goodwin liu to serve on the u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals, because goodwin liu is considered one of the brightest legal scholars, not just in california but in the nation. he is a respected authority on constitutional law. at u.c. berkeley's bolt hall school of larks where he is an associate dean and a professor, he is admired widely for his wrights and his devotion to his students. to professorially. professor --o professorially. u, if you are watching these proceedings, i'm proud of you. and to professor liu's wife ann and his two small children violet and emette, i say thank

you for your patience and your unyielding spowmplet and you should be so proud of your dad. and let me tell you a little bit about goodwinly. u's background. he was born in augusta georgia, the son of taiwanese immigrants who came to this country to practice medicine in underserved areas. in 1977, they moved to sacramento, where his parents were primary care physicians for over 20 years. in goodwin, his parents instilled both perseverance and a strong work ethic, even leaving math problems on the kitchen table of the summer to supplement list supplement his cool work. he pulled all-nighters studying the dictionary to raise his s.a.t. scores. his hard work paid of course,

propelling him to stanford university where he graduated phi beta kappa and to oxford university where he was a rhodes scholar. so i say to my colleagues on the other side who often say, it ought to be, you know, the results of your life that count, it ought to be your record that counts, it ought to be your qualifications that count, stanford university, phi beta kappa; oxford university, rhodes scholar. liu's experience at stanford and oxford in student government as a summer schoolteacher for low-income youth, codirecting a k-12 youth education conference and studying philosophy encouraged him to pursue the law and public service. in fact, liu spent the next two years at the corporation for national service helping to launch the groundbreaking americorps program.

he led the agency's effort to build community service programs at colleges and universities across the country. he traveled to over 30 states to encourage service among students. the spark of public service and the law clearly ignited and liu then went on to attend yale law school. his stellar record of achievement continued at yale where liu, along with a classmate, won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition. several of his papers won awards and he earned prestigious clerkships on both the court of appeals and the supreme court. what more does anyone want from a nominee? i can't even imagine, frankly, even matching this. inbetween the clerkships, liu again chose public service, working at the u.s. department of education helping to implement a congressional

appropriation to help turn around low-performing schools. former south carolina governor richard riley, who was secretary of education at the time, called liu a go-to person -- his words -- for important projects and complex issues because of liu's ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems. now, what else do you want in a judge? an ability to see the big picture while also mastering the details of legal and policy problems. that's a quote from former south carolina governor richard riley. after completing his supreme court clerkship, liu joined the litigation practice at olmeviney and miers working on a wide range of business matters.

mrs. boxer: so there he was then in private practice. so you have a person who has either worked in government, in private practice, in education. he earned high praise from his peers, including walter dellinger, chair of the private practice, who said -- quote -- "liu was widely respected in his law practice for his superb ability, sound judgment and warm collegiality." then he joined the faculty at u.c. berkeley's bolt hall in 2003 and quickly established himself as an outstanding teacher as well as a constitutional law and education law and policy expert. think about this, in a young life. this is a young life, all these experiences, including raising a family. in the classroom, liu is

popular, he's well regarded. his introductory constitutional law course is consistently one of the most oversubscribed at bolt. they want to hear him. they want nobody his presence to understand how the constitution works and why this country is so special. in 2009, liu received u.c. berkeley's distinguished teaching award, the university's most prestigious teaching excellence award. he was selected by that year's graduating class to be commencement speaker. students often remark on liu's efforts to illustrate the impact of the law on everyday life. as anyone who's taken his con law class knows, to demonstrate the principle, liu us uses a wedding photo who shows he and his new bride,an leery, the daughter of a social worker from maine. the two married in virginia, a state that had restricted

interracial marriage, until the supreme court invalidated the provision in the landmark 1967 case loveland v. virginia. berkeley law school dean christopher edley described professor liu this way, "goodwin liu is an outstanding teacher, a brilliant scholar and an exceptional public servant." professor liu is widely respected and has tram support across -- tremendous support across the legal spectrum and from both sides of the political aisle. i want to read you what ken starr has said about goodwin liu. remember, ken starr, the former whitewater prosecutor. this is what he says. "in our view" -- and he wrote this with professor amar in an op-ed piece that ran. "in our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in the

evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such as goodwin are professional integrity and the ability to discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law. because goodwin possesses those qualities to the highest degree, we are confident that he will serve on the court of appeals not only fairly and competently but with great distinction. we support and we urge his speedy confirmation." i want to point out to my republican friends, ken starr is one of your heroes. come on. listen to what he says about goodwin liu. and don't come to the floor and say things about goodwin that aren't so. please, come to your senses about goodwin liu. and let's see, there's another supporter i wanted to talk about, too. this is former bush administration counsel richard painter.

"i've done my share of vetting and fighting the confirmation wars. i didn't know much about liu before his nomination but i became intrigued by the attention the nomination generated and i wondered if his republican critics were deploying the same tactics democrats used to attack republican nominees. they were. if anything, the attacks on liu have been even more unfair. based on my own review of his record, i believe it's not a close question that liu is an outstanding nominee whose views fall well within the legal mainstream. that conclusion is shared by leading conservatives who are familiar with liu's record." and that's richard painter, former bush administration counsel. we even have a quote from clint bolick of the goldwater institute, one of the most conservative institutes. they endorsed liu.

this is what they said. "because of his fresh, independent thinking and his intellectual honesty, as well as his scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important court." if that's not enough for my republican friends, i got some more. i've got congressional -- former republican congressman bob barr. he offered praise of professor liu's commitment to the constitution and to a fair criminal justice system. barr also noted that liu's views are shared by many scholars, lawyers, public officials from across the spectrum. and tom campbell of california, a former republican congressman, someone who actually attempted to run against me a couple of times for the senate. he wrote "goodwin will bring scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fairmindedness and collegiality to the ninth circuit."

reflecting on liu's many years of work in serving the public interest, campbell said, "i'm not surprised that liu has again been called to public service." yes, he's been called to public service. he's been nominated but he won't be able to continue his extraordinary work unless we get 51 votes here. and i know there's some letter that's circulating that attacks goodwin liu again. and i hope that my colleagues will read not what i'm saying but what leading republicans are saying about how talented goodwin liu is. every single thing the man has done has turned to gold. every single thing he's done. everything he does he's best at. he's best at. why would we lose this opportunity for the american

people to have him serve them in this important capacity? i ask that rhetorically. i can't imagine why anyone would vote "no." now, here's another one. professor liu has even drawn phrase from brian jones, who served as the general counsel at the department of education after liu's tenure there. and -- and this, brian jones, who was the general counsel at the department of education under george bush, this is what he said. "during 2001 and 2002 and even after he became a law professor in 2003, goodwin volunteered his time and expertise on several occasions to help me and my staff sort through legal issues

that he worked on during the previous administration. in those interactions, goodwin's efforts were models of bipartisan cooperation. he brought useful knowledge and careful lawyerly perspectives that helped our administration achieve its goals. but i am convinced based on his record and my own experiences with him that he is a thoughtful, fair-minded and well-qualified to be an appellate judge." i -- i don't know why the republicans filibustered this nomination. i don't know why they filibustered this. i don't understand it. let's look at some of the organizations that back goodwin. of course in the asian-american community, they are so proud -- so proud -- as they should be, as i am because goodwin's a californian, by choice.

in onop-ed published -- in an op-ed published today, former secretary norman mineta, that's the bush cabinet, he wrote that professor liu is an extremely well-qualified nominee who has the intellectual capacity, experience, temperament and integrity to be an excellent jurist. and minute to won't to -- minute to went on to warn -- quote -- "if liu is not confirmed, asian-pacific americans may be left with the impression that their continues to be a glass ceiling blocking asian-pacific americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications." let me say that again. norm mineta -- anyone who knows him knows what a wonderful human being he is. george w. bush chose norm mineta. norm's a democrat. to be the secretary of transportation. and norm mineta says, "because

professor liu is so qualified" qualified" -- and i've gone through it -- "and has so much intellectual capacity, such great experience, such great temperament and so much integrity," that he warns -- quote -- "if liu is not confirmed, asian-pacific americans may be left with the impression that there continues to be a gla glass ceiling blockg asian-pacific americans from top-level leadership positions regardless of their qualifications." we have a quote from the committee of 100, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that addresses sino--u.s. relations affecting the chinese-american community. they wrote, "liu's ascension to the bench would signal that talented people of all backgrounds are integral to our justice system."

you know, what we do here matters. it matters who we send to these important positions. we have someone here who will break down barriers. but you know what? that wouldn't be enough. he's got to be great. he's got to be outstanding. and he's all those things. and yet we're very nervous about getting 51 votes. we're very nervous that politics is being played. we don't know what's going to happen at the end of the day. and that's why i'm taking this time. i'm taking this time because i want my colleagues to know if they cast an "aye" vote, it should bring a smile to their face. they should feel good in their heart and their mind because

they'd be doing the right thing. 25 prominent asian-pacific americans who serve as general counsel to fortune 1,000 companies and other large companies wrote, "professor liu has earned praise from conservatives and progressives alike for his sense of fairness, open-mindedness and integrity. his intellect and qualifications are beyond dispute. indeed, professor liu has been rated unanimously well-qualified by the american bar associatio association." and they go on, "it is worth noting that professor liu would become the only asian-pacific american active appellate court judge in the ninth circuit and only the second asian-pacific american active appellate court judge nationwide. and given the large number of asian-pacific americans in california, hawaii, and other states covered by the ninth circuit" -- and i said, madam president, before that i think it's 40% of asian-americans live in this particular area.

that the court covers. we know that the lack of an asian pacific american judge in this circuit is striking. and they continue -- "we feel professor liu would serve our country well and with distinction." professor liu has drawn law enforcement support, including the california correctional peace officers association, the national asian peace officers association, which noted that professor liu has earned the respect of its members and a large audience of the law enforcement community. david lumm, the president of national asian peace officers association, went on to compliment liu as -- quote -- "a person of integrity, dedication, passion, enthusiasm and law and order." liu has received support from the business community, including from the prominent business executives with whom liu served on the stanford university board of trustees

with. in a letter of support, liu's fellow trustees wrote the following -- quote -- "across a wide range of complex issues, liu routinely asks thoughtful and decisive questions. it is good at thinking independently and zeroing in on important issues that need attention. even in a roomful of highly accomplished leaders, goodwin is insightful, constructive and a good listener. he possesses a remarkably even temperament. his demeanor is unfailingly respectful and open-minded. never dogmatic or inflexible. given these qualities, it was no surprise that he was asked to chair the board's special committee on investment and responsibility after serving just one year of his five-year term. again and again, there is a thread running through this man's life at 40." that's how oldest. 40. is that right? that's right. 40 years old. everything this man has done, this young man has been

unbelievably -- i want to say unimaginable at his age that he has done all he has done. his strengths are what we expect in a judge. objectivity, independence, collegiality. this is what the stanford trustees say. respect for differing views, sound judgment. goodwin possesses these qualities on top of the brilliant legal acumen that's well established by his professional record and the judgment of those most familiar with his scholarly work. i'll tell you, it goes on and on. the president of stanford university, along with two presidents emeritus, wrote to endorse liu's nomination. they said he has epitomized the goal of stanford founders which was to promote the public welfare by influence on behalf of humanity and civilization.

teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law with inculcating reverence for the great principles of government, as derived from the inalienable rights to man, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this eloquence that is coming out of people's lips about goodwin. honestly, i've stood here before you many times, madam president, and i have spoken on behalf of many nominees. i honest to god don't think i've ever had a situation where the eloquence and the passion of the supporters has come through as it has here for this young man. he's a blessing, honestly, and i feel at this moment we need to back him, all of us, and bring this country together around someone who epitomizes the american dream. i want to speak about as i wind down newspapers across the country who have weighed in to

support liu's nomination. "the washington post" remarked -- quote -- "mr. liu has sterling credentials that earned him the highest rating from the bar association. no allegations of impropriety to disqualify him from serving. the brilliant professor, they call him, who just turned 40 in october testified he would not allow his academic musings to interfere with the duties of a lower court judge to follow precedent." they write -- "he should be confirmed and given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do that." i was going to ask unanimous consent because i know senator tester has been waiting here for 40 minutes. do you need about five or seven minutes in morning business? then i would ask that he be able to do that five to seven minutes in morning business before we get to senator grassley. is that acceptable? i'm almost done. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: so i'm closing in the next two minutes. the sacramento be-- the "sacramento bee" noted that liu

would add luster to any court and the los angeles times joined "the new york times" in endorsing his confirmation. so we heard from -- we've heard from professor liu when i opened, and i think i'm going to close by saying this. when we ask people in this country to give back to this nation and they step up to the plate and they want to give their talent to this nation and they are supremely qualified and they bring with them mainstream views, mainstream endorsements, bipartisan endorsements from the progressive community to kenneth starr, for goodness sakes, give this man an up-or-down vote and don't say, don't say that you believe that judges deserve an

up-or-down vote when you're in the majority and suddenly now say well, they don't deserve it now. so i hope we'll see the 60 votes for cloture and then the 51 votes for confirmation, and i'm just privileged to have had this opportunity to share the story of professor goodwin liu with my colleagues. thank you. i yield the floor and i yield it to senator tester. mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i think this is appropriate. i would ask unanimous consent to be as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i want to thank senator boxer and senator grassley for their generosity. i'm not here to talk about goodwin liu. i'm going to talk about debit interchange. in a matter of weeks, the government is planning to price fix debit card swipe fees below, below the cost of doing business. they're going to price fix debit card swipe fees below the cost

of doing business. on the surface, the plan might make sense. peel back the layers, you'll see why there is a whole bunch of folks out there on both sides of the aisle that are raising a flag. now, i'm not asking to repeal the rules or even change them. i'm asking that we take a closer look so that we can get the information to understand the impacts, both intended and unintended. i have listened to the feedback my colleagues have shared on this issue, i've heard their concerns, and while it is important to stop and examine the impact of limiting debit card swipe fees, some would say that two years are simply too long. i'm willing to adjust my legislation to address those concerns. so senator corker and i have decided to shorten the time frame from 24 months to 15 months. now, here's how the 15 months are going to be used. 15 months will provide the agencies with six months for a study, and they will provide the

federal government six months for rules rewriting that study, and it will allow three months to implement the final rules. 15 months is the bare minimum to get this study right, and we want to get it right. for me, stopping and studying the unintended consequences of government price fixing has everything to do with access to capital for small businesses and consumers in rural america. make no mistake, the big banks are going to do fine, no matter what. so i opposed the amount. but all but two banks in my entire state are considered small community banks and will be affected by this debit interchange price-fixing rule. all of montana's credit unions will be affected as well. they will feel the pinch and they will lose because the government is going to set a price for doing business that doesn't cover their costs. let me say it again. the federal government is going to tell these folks what price

to set on interchange rates, and it will not be enough for the little guys to be able to compete in the marketplace. let me ask this. how would a big box retailer react if we set the price of t-shirts, if we set the price of t-shirts, what it cost to make, ship and market them? you can bet the retailers would be up in arms and rightfully so about the government setting prices and telling them how to run their business. some have suggested that the only way to have a competitiveness marketplace is by capping rates. that kind of reasoning doesn't make sense to a farmer like me. when you slant the playing field against small banks, they can't compete with the big guys. and if they go under, the business and consumers that rely on them are left hanging. that, madam president, is why a populous farmer from rural america is on the side of commonsense in this debate and i'm on the side of montana's businesses and consumers. last thursday, i asked fed chairman ben bernanke about the

impact of government price fixing as it applies to rural america. he's not only the major regulator who has raised serious questions about whether the supposed exemption will work for small banks. he's not the only one. last week, chairman bernanke said -- quote -- "it could result in some smaller banks being less profitable and even failing." let me repeat that. in the words of chairman bernanke, the small banks in montana and across america could fail under this planned rule. and what does it mean if small banks fail? it means more consolidation in the banking industry. how in the world is that good for consumers? how is it better for a small business in glenndive, montana, to have to ask the bank headquartered on wall street for a loan instead of going to the bank on main street? are big banks going to provide the same level of service as community banks? i think not. will they be able to evaluate the prospects of small businesses by only looking at data without understanding the communities that they serve?

while big banks create strong relationships with people in rural america, will they do that? how about those folks who are looking to start a small business? we know that credit unions are one of the few financial institutions to ever consider going into indian country, to help bring investment to some of the most impoverished areas in this country. do you think that if these small folks go under, there will be anyone else willing to lend on reservations? no way. no way. during last week's hearing, fdic chairwoman shea la baer said this new rule is -- quote -- "going to reduce revenues at a number of smaller banks and they will have to pass that on to their customers in terms of higher fees." rural america, especially in this fragile economy, cannot afford that, madam president. today i want to share a few businesses in montana that are opposed to this government price fixing. their stories are not uncommon. they are quite ordinary. i heard from a woman by the name of doris rushalo.

she runs doris' daycare in great falls, montana. she has been doing business for nearly 30 years with a community bank. she tells me that she is struggling to make ends meet as many small businesses are and paying more in monthly checking would hurt her very, very much. also, in great falls, there is a small business owner by the name of mark royals. mark owns why not trucking. his reasons for supporting my amendment to stop and study the government limit is because, and i -- quote -- "--" he doesn't want to pay more fees of his money in his bank." cabela's, a large retailer and popular sporting goods store in billings, montana. cabela's is worried about the durbin amendment because they offer a debit card. they have real concerns with government price controls and what it will mean for their ability to meet the needs of their customers. the bottom line is this, jowg the government to price fix debit card swipe fees is a slippery slope. maybe that's why my amendment is to stop and study the impacts of

this proposed rule. it has broad bipartisan support from folks like the national education association, americans for tax reform, different sides of the economic equation. and then there are nonprofit organizations like rural dynamics in montana. rural dynamics serves the entire state of montana. thousands of folks every year. their mission, to help individual people and families achieve economic intelligence, to make sure that folks can earn and keep and grow their assets to reach economic independence. rural dynamics is a well-respected organization. many of their strategies involve helping montanans manage their assets and save for their future, enabling them access to banking services, and anything that would result in undue higher fees would take their mission backwards. rural dynamics says simply we want to -- simply we want to understand how limiting debit swipe fees will impact rural america, how it will impact economic intelligence.

the administration experts have been tasked with trying to make this rule on debit interchange work. chairman bernanke just last week said he is still not sure whether the smallisher exemption would work, saying, and i quote -- "there are market forces that would work against this exemption." the chairwoman of the fdic raised similar concerns about the workability of the smallisher exemption. so did debbie matz of the national credit union association. so has the conference of state banking supervisors. so has the national association of state credit union supervisors. this represents all, all of the regulators of the small financial institutions at the state and national level, every one of them. these are the folks tasked with keeping our community banks vibrant and strong and make

they don't understand market forces and they don't understand small institutions. this couldn't be further from the truth. and no one has been able to explain to me why studying this issue, to make sure these issues, these rules do able what -- do what they are supposed to be do is a bad idea. stop, study, that's what the bipartisan bill does. stop and study the unintended consequences for rural america and this country as a whole. if this rule goes into effect the consumers and businesses who rely on credit unions are going to pay the price. we can bet retailers aren't going to be able to save the few pennies they pass down to you. banking fees will go down. mark will have to pay more to keep his money in his bank. folks will be asking what's next

and will it hurt their loyal customers and thousands of montanans who rely on rural dynamics will have more hurdles to jump over to reach economic independence. madam president, these stories hit home. they are the stories i tell when someone asks why would a populace farmer be against a government telling the small banks that drive our economy how to do business. i'm not asking to repeal this provision; far from it, madam president. i'm asking us to do our homework in this body, to make sure we understand exactly what it means for montana and all of america. with that, i yield the floor and i want to express my thanks to the good senator from iowa one more time. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to speak on the nomination that's now before the senate, the nomination of

goodwin liu to be circuit judge of the ninth circuit. i've said many times over the past two weeks and maybe even for a longer period of time than two weeks, by any fair measure, removing judicial nominees at a very brisk pace -- we're moving judicial nominees at a very brisk pace. this month alone we confirmed seven judges in ten days. in the short time that we have been in session this year, we've confirmed 24 judges. that's a rate almost of one judge every other day. this year the committee has favorably reported 51% of president obama's nominees. yet, it seems that the more we work with the majority on filling vacancies, the more complaints that we hear. furthermore, as we work together to confirm consensus nominees, we're met with the majority's insistence that we turn to

controversial nominees like the one before us today, goodwin liu. because this seems to be the most controversial of the president obama nominees we've had to this point. i have pledged and indeed i have demonstrated cooperation in moving forward on consensus nominations. there is no doubt that mr. liu does not fall into that category of being a consensus nominee. my objections to this nominee can be summarized in five areas of concern: his controversial writings and speeches and actist judicial philosophy, his lack of judicial temperament, his troublesome testimony and lack of candor before the committee. and, five, his limited

experience. mr. liu describes his writings as critical, infective and provocative, and that's really what they are. he states that he is simply a commentator, and his role is merely to poke, prod, and critique. the problem i have with this is that his legal scholarship goes well beyond simple commentary. the nominee argues that the 14th amendment creates a constitutional right to some minimal level of public welfare benefits. that's a real reach. he has said that -- quote -- "the duty of government cannot be reduced to simply providing the basic necessities of life, the main pillars of the agenda would include expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job

training, and robust earned-income tax credit. there is no doubt that those may be policy issues congress ought to deal with, but it's a real stretch to say that there are constitutionally protected right. mr. liu is a strong proponent of affirmative action and the constutionality of affirmative action. celebrating the supreme court's decision in grutter versus bollinger, he says -- quote -- "achieving racial diversity throughout our leading educational institutions is not merely constitutionally permissible, but morally required." he believes ban on gay marriages are unconstitutional. the nominee was one of several law professors who filed a brief with the california supreme court in a suit seek to have the

california same-sex marriage prohibition declared unconstitutional. these statements, just a sample of his works, are not merely scholarly reflection on the state of law. instead they are a prescription for change, big change. he stated following president obama's election in an interview with npr's "weekend edition," -- quote -- whereas i think in the last seven or eight years we had mostly been playing defense in the sense we had been trying to prevent as many, in our view, bad things from happening; now we have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the constitution and laws and policies into practice." end of quote. mr. liu holds a view of the constitution that can only be described as an activist judicial philosophy. the centerpiece of his judicial

philosophy, a theory that he describes as constitutional fidelity, sounds nice until you learn what it actually means. what he means by fidelity is -- quote -- "the constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every single generation." continuing, he states "on this approach, the constitution is understood to grow and evolve over time as the conditions and needs and values of our society changes." that's not a far cry from the unwritten constitution of the great britain where the supremacy of parliament makes a determination from time to time what the policies are as opposed

in this country where the natural law or the laws that are -- the rights that we have given to us by our creator, not by government, are the basis of our law. when i questioned the nominee at his hearing regarding his position, he stated that his book respects the notion that the text of the constitution and the principles that it expresses are totally fixed and enduring. i must admit some confusion with this contradiction. either the text and the principles are fixed and enduring, or they're adaptable, something that grows and evolves like it happens with the constitution of great britain. mr. liu is apparently comfortable with this contradiction. i'm not. it's a pattern that i find throughout his testimony. i'm concerned about his appreciation of the proper role of a judge in our system of

checks and balances. his philosophy leads to an inevitable expansion of the power of the judiciary. for example, according to mr. liu, courts should play a role in creating and expanding constitutional welfare rights. he argues that once a legislative body creates a welfare program, it is the proper role of the courts to grasp the meaning and the purpose for that welfare benefit. he states that the courts can recognize welfare rights by -- quote -- "invalidating statutory eligibility requirements or strengthening procedural protections against the withdrawal of benefits." forthrightly, an attack on the legislative branch of government of its power to make statute and law, whereas the courts are supposed to be interpreting, not making, law. the nominee also seems to favor a social needs space view of

living constitutionalism. his scholarly works that judicial decision making should be shaped by contemporary social needs and norms rather than the certainty of the constitution. notably, he has said that -- quote -- "the problem for our courts is to determine at the moment of decision whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly observed into legal doctrine." end of quote. just as if what the constitution writers in 1787, what they thought ought to be the basic law of this land means nothing today. so as you know, i think that this is very troublesome. our constitutional framer puts the legislative function in the

congress, not the courts. it is the legislative function through the political process where the people rule that determine when a particular value is to become part of our law. this is not the duty of judges. the judiciary is limited to deciding cases and controversy, not establishing public policy. i would note further that this view of constitutional interpretation does not rely on the acts of the legislative or on the precedents established by higher courts. rather, it is based on a concept of what he prefers to call -- quote, unquote -- evolving norms. furthermore, as he testified before the committee, it is those evolving norms to which inform the supreme court's elaboration of constitutional doctrine. mr. liu tried to sound like a mainstream skwraoufrt when he --

jurist when he stated the duty of a circuit judge was to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matter of constitutional interpretation. now who's going to argue with that? but again, that sounds nice, doesn't it, but what does it mean? if we accept his premise that the supreme court's instructions are based upon evolving norms, it follows that such evolving norms will shape the circuit court's decision as well. this activist theory leads to a judicial system substituting the whims of individual judges over the text and the original meaning of the u.s. constitution. this is not the duty of any circuit judge. mr. liu's legal views and judicial philosophy are clearly out of the mainstream. just a small example illustrates this points. i questioned four of president

obama's judicial nominees who followed mr. liu on the day of his hearing. i asked each of them concerning a specific point about mr. liu's philosophy. each and every one of them flatly rejected there liu's position. this included his views on judges' collective values when interpreting the constitution, on using foreign law when interpreting our constitution, and on interpreting the constitution, ways it adopts its principles and its text and on considering -- quote, unquote -- public values and social understanding when interpreting the constitution. based on his kwrouft mainstream -- on his out-of-the mainstream view, it is no surprise that his nomination is opposed by so many. included in that opposition are 42 district attorneys serving

the state of california. they are concerned, among other things, about his view on criminal law, capital punishment and the role of the federal courts in second-guessing state decisions. my third area of concern is that this nominee has made a number of critical statements which indicate a lack of judicial temperament. he has been very openly critical of the current supreme court. in one article, he said that the holding in bush v. gore was, quote, unquote, utterly lacking in any legal principle. he claimed the current court as the whole is unprincipled saying that -- quote -- "if you look across the entire run of cases, you see a fairly consistent pattern where the respect for president goes by the wayside when it gets in the way of result." end of quote.mr. .

mr. lugar: was highly critical. nomination of justice roberts. he published an article on bloomberg.com entitled "roberts would swing the supreme court to the right." this that article he acknowledged that roberts was qualified, saying, "there's no doubt roberts has a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." he then voiced concerns with -- quote -- "with remarkable consistence throughout his career, roberts had applied his legal talent to further the causes of the far right." he also spoke very disparagingly of judge robert's conserve beliefs. "before becoming a judge, he belonged to the republican national lawyers association and the national legal center for public interest, whose mission is to promote, among other things, free enterprise, private

property values, and limited government. these are code word for an ideological agenda hostile to vierntle workplace, and consumer protection." now, let's think about what he just said there about judge roberts, now chief justice roberts. private ownership of property, limited government, free enterprise, code words for an ideological agenda hostile to the environment, workplace, and consumer protection? does he think we're the communist-run klein, that the government runs everything, that its he a better place when they put online every week a coal-fired plant to pollute the air, put more carbon dioxide in the air than we do in the united states, and where children are dying because food is poissonned and consumers aren't protected and every minor i minner in thea

coal mines is in jeopardy of losing their lives? that's how out of place this guy is, when he talks about free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government being something -- somehow bad. but if you get government more involved, like dhow in china, -y do in china, it's somehow a better place. this nominee has been critical of another jus justice, justice alito in particular. he believes it is a valid criticism of justice alito to say that -- quote -- "he approaches flaw a formalistic, mechanical way, abstracted from human experience. " and we -- and we are all familiar with mr. . mr. lugar:'s scathing attack on justice -- with mr. liu's scathing attack on justice alito's testimony.

mr. liu admitted the language was unduly harsh, provocative, unnerks and was a case of poor judgment. mr. grassley: now, that's one statement of mr. liu's with wick agreement. i can appreciate that mr. liu now understands the unfortunate language he uses. the trouble i have with this, however, is that it shows that even when stepping out of the academic world, the nominee promotes extreme views and intemperate language. even if i accept his rationale for the tone of his work in the academic world, that does not explain his congressional testimony. that was one opportunity where he could demonstrate a reasoned, tempered approach, yet he failed the test. i think it may also indicate that we may expect from judge liewrks should he be confirmed, the same thing. to me, that's an unacceptable yowlt come.

the fadge major area of concern is mr. liu's testimony and candor before the committee, which was troubling at times and lacked credibility. even before he appeared before the committee, the nominee had difficulty providing the committee with materials required by his questionnaire. as senator sessions said at the time, "at best, the nominee's extraordinary disregard for the committee's constitutional role demonstrates incompetence. at worse, it creates an impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the committee." during his testimony, the nominee said in reference to his past legal wrieltings, "whatever i have written in the books and articles that have no bearing -- should have no bearing on my actions as a judge." oh,? trying to paint him satisfies judicial conservative, the nominee attempted to walk away from his previous position. he tried to distance himself on the proper role after jurnlings

on of use of foreign larks on the a. ppropriateness of racial quotas frandz his previous views on free enterprise and private ownership of property. even "the washington post" found his testimony a bit hard to believe. the "post" editorial stated "mr. liu is unlikely to shun aside the views but the real problem is not that he add hears to a particular judicial philosophy that he, like so many others before him, feels he needs to pretend not to have one." we have often heard the term "confirmation conversion" applied to nominees who appear to have a change of legal philosophy when they're nominated to the federal judgeship. as i review the record, i think this nominee has taken that concept a step further, and i would use the phrase

"confirmation chameleon." it seems to me that mr. . mr. lugar--it seems to me that t me give you a clear example. senator cornyn of texas asked him about his troubling record contained in his work product that expressed opinions on issues such as the death penalty, same-sex marriages and welfare rights. senator cornyn then stated, "you're now saying wipe the slate clean because none of that has any reflts whatsoever to how i would conduct myself as a judge if confirmed by the senate; is that correct? end of groat senator cornyn. and mr. lou liu responded, "that is correct, senator." a few minutes lairkts i asked him if he were -- quote -- "--

this is my quote -- "if we were to let us just say wipe the slate clean, as to your academic writings and career, what is left to justify your confirmation?" the nominee respond, "i would hope that you would not wipe my slate clean, as it were, you know, i am what i am." end of quote. mr. liu cannot have it both ways. either his record stays with him or we wipe the slate clean. perhaps in the long run it doesn't matter, because either way it leaves us with an individual who should not be given a lifetime appointment. if you include his record as a law professor, then we're left with evidence of left-leaning judicial activism. if you do not include it, then we're left with a two-year associatassociate with law clerk experience and little else.

that leads me to my final point: i am concerned about the nominee's lack of experience. after graduating from law school in 1998 he clerked for judge davidavid s. tatel on the u.s. t of appeals d.c. when his clerkship ended, mr. liu became deputy assistant for education. in 2000 he worked as contract attorney for a law firm, nixon peabody, l.l.p., where he -- quote -- "assisted with legal writings." he clerked for justice ruth bader ginsburg on the supreme court. after that clerkship, he became an associate at o'medical have en knee and my,where he remained for less than two years according this his question yairks he appeared in court only occasionally. he also reported that his other work as an attorney has not

involved court appearances. he has not tried any cases to verdict, jurntle or final decision. since 2003, the nominee has been a full-time law professor at u.c. berkly school of law and in 2008 he became associate dean. after his nomination last year the a.b.a. standing committee of the federal judiciary gave mr. l hivment u the rating of "unanimous, we will-qualified." i am somewhat perplexed by this rating according to the standing committee's explanation of the standard for rating judicial nominees -- quote -- "a perspective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least 12 years experience in the practice of law." further, "the committee recognizes that substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer and trial judge is important." at the time of his nomination and rating the nominee had graduated from law school less than 12 years prior. he has been a member of the

state bar only since may 1999. as noted above, he has no trial experience, has never been a judge. so, i want to conclude with this thought. given his record and testimony, i do not believe the nominee has anding and appreciation of the proper petroleum of a judge. i believe, if confidence, he will bring a personal agenda and political ideology into the courtroom. it is ironic that in comment on robert's nomination, mr.ly. u said "the nomination is seismic event that threatens to deepen the nation's red-blue divide. instead of choosing a census caned, the president has opted for a conservative thoroughbred who, if confirmed, will likely swing the court sharply to the right on many crit caicials." if confirmed, i'm concerned that mr. liu will deeply divide the ninth circuit and move the court even further to the left. if that's possible. if confidence, his activist

ideology and judicial philosophy will seep well beyond the berkeley campus. that seems like that's difficult. signature on the ninth circuit, his opinion and rulings would have far-reaching effect on individuals and businesses throughout the ninth state circuit, including places like boozman, montana and anchorage, alaska. hiss for the reasons i've articulated, his wrights and speeches, two, an activist judicial philosophy, three, his lack of judicial temperament, four, his lack of candor before committee, and, five, his limited experience as well as many other concerns, which have not expressed today, i shall oppose this nomination and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i might be permitted to speak for one half-hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: very much, mr. president.

i have bipartisan on the judiciary committee for 128 years. i have never -- i have been on the judiciary committee for 18 years. i have never heard a harsher statement about a brilliant young man than i have just heard. during those 18 years i have seen the standards for appointment change rather dramatically. i have seen a search engine develop on the republican side to go out and find anything and everything an individual may have written and then compile a dossier almost like you would of a criminal and then characterize and depict the individual in the terms that you wish to do. i really regret this and i hope to lay out how the democratic side, with a number of nominees, has not done the same thing. but to see a young man with the credentials that goodwin liu carries really belittled in the

way in which he has been belittled in these hearings and also on this floor really, really upsets meevment this man is a professor of law and the former associate dean of one of the 10 best law schools in america. he's a nationally recognized constitutional scholar. he is a truly brilliant legal mind. i have every confidence in his intellectual fireporks his integrity and his even-keeled demeanor and believe it will make him a fine judge. let me tell you a little bit about his background. he was born in august starks georgia. he is the son of taiwanese immigrants who were recruited to america for provide medical services in rural areas. he attended public schools in clewiston, florida, in sacramento, california. he first struggled to learn english and master vocabulary

but ultimately he graduated covaledictorian from rio americano high school in sacramento. he was admitted to stanford university, my alma mart. he graduated phi beta cap pavment he received numerous awards for his contributions to the university and he was elected copresident of the student body. prit pretty good. he received a rhodes scholarship. he grads waited with a master's degree from oxford university. he attended yale law school, once again he was at the top of his class. he was editor of the "yale law journal." he won the prize for the best team argument in the moot court competition. and he won awards for the best academic paper by a third-year student and the best paper in the field of tax law enforcement he received prestigious judicial clerkships with circuit judge david tatel of the united stat s

circuit court of appeals and then with ruth bader ginsburg. he worked in the department of education as a special assistant to the deputy secretary at the united states department of education. he spent the two years at o'melveny and miers, a prestigious law firm, where he handled commercial matters, antitrust, class action cases, trusts. appellate law comprised roughly half of his practice. and finally in 2003, he accepted a tenure track position on the faculty of bolt hal boalt halt f law. at boalt, he quickly established himself as one of our most astute legal scholars, with specialties in constitutional law, the supreme court, and education law and education policy. he published articles in the

"yale law review," "the stanford law review, "the california law review," the "iowa law review," the "harvard law and policy review," and many other academic journals. he received the education law association's stephen goldberg award for distinguished scholarship in education law, and he was elected into membership of the american law institute. in 2008, his colleagues on the faculty at boalt selected him as their associate dean, and in 2009, university of california at berkeley awarded him their distinguished teaching award, the highest award for teaching across the entire university. now, i believe he holds a deep appreciation for what opportunities our country affords. i believe his background and his

legal prowess are fitting for him to become an appellate court judge. and when you speak with him about his family and upbringing, you gain a sense of him as someone who loves this country and bears an abiding belief that ours is a land of opportunity and a place where everyone has a chance to learn and grow and to thrive. my colleagues, some of them, have questioned a number of his writings and his temperament and what figures very formidably, as i've talked to the republican side, was particularly testimony that he gave on the confirmation of justice alito. and what he did was provide a long analysis of alito's opinions and then at the end he used a rhetorical flourish that was, quite frankly, misguided.

he strung together a series of facts from cases alito had decided and then made a statement that i believe he very much regrets. it was over the top but he has acknowledged it. he has been forthright, and he has apologized. before the senate judiciary committee, he said -- and i quote -- "what troubles me most is that the passage had an add hominem quality that is unfair and hurtful. i regret having written this package -- this passage." he said if he had to do it again, "i would have deleted it." it was a mistake, no question about it, but a mistake should not color this man's entire record. i want to read from two letters that we've received in the senate from people who knew and know goodwin liu well. not just for a moment but for years. the first was sent to us jointly by three successive presidents of stanford university, and i've

never seen a lottery behalf of a nominee -- a letter on behalf of a nominee from three different presidents of a university of the quality of stanford. donald kennedy was president when goodwin liu was a student at stanford. he worked with liu at the haas center for public service and was present when liu won not only the dinklespeil award, which is the university's highest award for undergraduate service, but also the james w w.lyons' dean award for service and the president's award for academic service. gerhart caspar is president emeritus of stanford and currently provost of the university of chicago. he knows liu both as a stanford alum and also as a colleague in the field of constitutional law. he is familiar with liu as, in his own words, he calls -- quote -- "a measured interpreter

of the constitution." and finally, john hennessey is stanford's current president. he describes liu as insightful, hard working, collegial and the highest ethical standards. so today, these three presidents of the university wrote the following. "goodwin liu, as a student, scholar, and trustee has epitomized the goal of stanford's founders, which was to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty, regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it is fitting and i believe an accurate tribute. we have one of the most

brilliant scholars, legal scholars of our time and unfortunately there's a majority here to confirm him. we know that. but unfortunately the minority is going to use cloture to prevent us from ever casting a vote to confirm him. let me turn to another letter. this one is from eight top executives of major american companies, including yahoo, general atlantic, morgan stanl stanley, and google. they've all worked closely with liu on the stanford board of trustees, and they wrote to say the following: "even in a room full of highly accomplished leaders, goodwin is impressive. he is insightful, constructive and a good listener. moreover, he possesses a remarkably even temperament. his demeanor is unfailingly

respectful and open-minded, never dogmatic or flexible. goodwin's strengths," they say -- quote -- "are exactly what we expect in a judge. objectivity, independence, respect for differing views, sound judgment." we know the american bar association has unanimously rated him well qualified for the united states court of appeals. and his background is similar to many who have been confirmed to the circuit court in the past. but some on the other side nevertheless think he's too young and he doesn't have judicial experience or his credentials are not right. for those who ask for a judicial record to review, i would ask, what about edward chen? we considered judge chen's nomination last week. he was a district court nominee with a ten-year judicial record.

he had written more than 350 published opinions and the minority didn't criticize one. but most in the minority voted against his nomination anyway. so a judicial record doesn't get it done. then there are the criticism based on age or other qualifications. but liu's qualifications surpass those of many we have confirmed under republican presidents. since 1980, the senate has confirmed 14 circuit court nominees who are under the age of 40. that means they were all younger than liu is now. all 14 were nominated and confirmed during republican administrations. let me give you two examples. judge kimberly moore sits on the united states courts of appeals for the federal district. she was nominated by president bush at the age of 38.

she had two years of experience as a law clerk, less than four years in private practice, and six years as a professor at three different law schools. the senate confirmed her unanimously. judge harvey wilkinson is a judge on the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. he was nominated by president reagan at the age of 39. he had one year experience as a law clerk, three years as a newspaper editor, one year of government practice, and five years as a professor. he was confirmed. judge brett kavanaugh, who now sits on the united states courts of appeal for the d.c. circuit, also comes to mind. he was 38 when he was nominated. unlike liu, he had little track record to review and much of the record that did exist was partisan. he had been a law clerk for three years, spent three years in private practice, and spent

the remainder of his career in the solicitor general's office. ken starr's office of independent counsel and the bush white house. when the a.b.a. conducted its reviews, many troubling reports were received. but i voted for cloture, as did my colleagues on this side, and he was confirmed. professors are hardly a new game for us when it comes to judicial nominees. john rogers is a judge on the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. at the time that president bush nominated himself, he had only four years of practice experience, no appellate clerkships, and has spent the remainder. his career as a professor. he was confirmed by the senate by a voice vote. and finally, there is michael mcconnell from the state of utah. president bush nominated professor mcconnell for the

10th circuit. at the time, he had been a constitutional law professor for 16 years and his writings contained scores of controversial thoughts, ideas, and provocations. in reviewing mcconnell's record, many of us on the democratic side found writing after writing that we strongly disagreed with. mcconnell had repeatedly stated that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. he called the supreme court decision -- quote -- "a grave legal error." and "-- quote -- "an embarrassment." he wrote that the freedom of access to clinic entrances act and the violence against women act were unconstitutional. he criticized a supreme court decision barring racial discrimination at tax-exempt schools and one prohibiting sex discrimination in civic associations.

and he called the fundamental guarantee of one person, one vote wrong in from principle. but like professor liu, he made clear in the senate confirmation process that he understood the difference between the role of a professor and the role of a judge. here's what he said when asked about all of his writings. "i had a whole bunch of writings out there that were provocative and innovative and taking a different view. well, within -- my academic colleagues understand that that's what we do. if you try to make those look as though they are legal analysis, as if they were what a lawyer thinks the law is, of course they don't reflect the law. they're not meant to. they're not a description of the law." professor michael mcconnell,

senate judiciary committee, september 18, 2002. he then assured us he would apply the law as written, not as put forward in academic theory. and guess what? he was confirmed to the 10th circuit by unanimous consent. there was no cloture vote. he was confirmed by unanimous consent. because the democrats on this side of the aisle believed that he would do just what he said. i don't understand why this same situation is not accorded to this brilliant young american. so today we have professor liu before us. he's also written article after article as a law professor and people have