topics of our day that are extreme. he believes that the longstanding definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. he filed a brief with some other law professors in california on that subject and we asked him about that at the hearing. and, frankly, his answer was not satisfactory in the sense that he said he was only referring to california law when, in fact, his brief cited the u.s. constitution which had similar language. he's also made statements that raise questions as to his temperament. it is -- he was very nice at our hearing. we've heard things said about him in that way. i would just ask if you consider

these nice comments that he made about chief justice roberts, for example. he said, chief justice roberts has -- quote -- "a vision for american law, a right-wing vision, an tag insist particular to important rights and protections we currently enjoy." close quote. and criticized him for being a member of -- quote -- "the republican national lawyers' association and the national legal center for the public interest, whose commission is to promote, among other things, free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government. these are" -- this is all mr. liu's writings. "the mission of this republican law center or the national legal center for public interest is horror of horrors, to promote free enterprise, private ownership of property, and

limited government." he considers those improper goals and says -- quote -- "these are --" this is his quote -- "these are code words phon an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workerplac workpd environmental protec protection" give me break. with respect to justice alito, a fabulous member of the supreme court, so experienced, so far -- so much more seasoned as a nominee than this nominee comes close to being -- he went further. appearing in person before the judiciary committee to testify that justice alito -- quote -- "envisions an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse, where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance, where a black man may be extensioned to

death by an all-white injury for killing a black man." he acknowledged that was unnecessary -- unnecessarily colorful language at the committee when asked about it. nobody said that kind of thing it was an intemperament remark and it was unfair to justice alito. thus, i have concluded that the nominee presents an extraordinary circumstance that requires me to oppose cloture on the nomination, which i'm reluctant to do. i voted against some nominees. i voted probably for 90% of president obama's nominees, 90% of president clinton's nominees

when i was in the senate, but this nominee, i believe, is -- represents an extraordinary circumstance. his record reveals that he believes the constitution is a fluid, evolving document with no fixed meaning, that he believes the role of a judge is to participate in a -- quote -- "dialogue" -- close quote -- with the legislature about what welfare benefits are to be required by the constitution and that the traditional definition of "marriage" is unconstitutional. his record reveals he's willing to use the courts in order to achieve what he thinks is the proper level of social welfare benefits and that he is willing to attack even -- and distort of record of honor bible judges to promote his own views of what he thinks the constitution should require.

mr. president, i do believe that our senate would have done better not to have had filibusters. that was my view. but we had a debate on that, and it changed. if senator boxer and other democrats now have rethought that matter and would like to talk to me, i would certainly be willing to consider restoring the traditional view of dissent with regard to filibusters of judges. i don't think that's likely to happen, because it was done systematically and deliberately, with great deliberation and determination, by the democrats in the early -- in 2001, i believe it was, and they imposed that change on the senate. and that's what we're operating under today. and based on that, i do believe that senate -- presiding officer

liu should -- professor liu should not be confirmed. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i want to join my colleague from alabama, who has served for a long time on the senate judiciary committee, as have i, in voition my strong opposition to this -- in voicing my strong opposition to this nominee. it is odd, it seems to me, to have someone who's actually been nominated three separate times by this president, and i think it tells us something about the president's determination to nominate and see confirmed someone who is, i think, unsuited for service as a federal judge. now, saying that, it doesn't mean that they were, you know -- they don't have rights to speak freely about their strongly-held views. in fact, they do. that's what we do, though, here

in the electricallive brage -- in the legislative branch. that's not what we expect out of a life tenure judge. we expect judges to be impartial and to render justice and to decide cases, not to be roving policy-makers and making the country into their image of what it should be. because judges -- we can't vote for judges. judges are -- once appointed, they serve senator a lifetime. -- they serve for a lifetime. in return for that lifetime appointment and protection from sort of accountability that otherlet elected officials are required to -- other elected officials are required to have, we understand, our constitution provides that they have a limited but important role. that is to apply the law as written to apply the words of the constitution as written, and not to sort of make it up as you go along, or to dream up new rights alongelong the way, that aren't subject to a vote of the american people or subject to an

election. so, based upon nearly everything that mr. liu, professor liu has written or said, i have some very serious concerns about his impartiality and his suitability to serve as a life tenure judge. my concerns start with his lack of judicial temperament. during the confirmation hearings of justice -- now justice sam alito on the united states supreme court, mr. liu went out of his way to testify, under oath, for the senate judiciary committee in a really -- real any i--really in a way that i cy describe as vicious and disgraceful. that is what he said. he said -- quote -- "judge alito's record envisions an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a

stolen purse, where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistan resistance, where the f.b.i. may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on, unless an informant is in the room, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white injury for killing a white man, absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination, and where police may search where a warrant permits and then some." mr. chairman, i humblably submit this is not the america that we know, nor is it the america that we aspire to be. these were the words of a person that president obama has three times nominated to serve on the ninth circuit court of appeals, one of the highest courts in the land, that's supposed to decide cases without fear or favor or

any preconceived notion about the outcome. but i think these words perhaps more than anything else demonstrate professor l iu's suitibility to serve as a federal judge. these were not an off-the-cuff set of remarks or a temporary lapse in judgment. but they were a product of carefully scripted and prepared testimony provided to the senate judiciary committee during the alito hearings. despite professor liu's comments, justice alito was confirmed with bipartisan support. during his failed confirmation process last year, i asked professor liu that if given the opportunity, would he change anything about his remarks about justice alito. in response, mr.ly. lii saims clay he regrets having written that passage calling it "unduly harsh and provocative."

well, professor liu waited four years to provide that semi apology to justice alito for the shameful prarks and like so many nominees who come before the senate judiciary committee, they seem to undergo a nomination conversion that changes the tone and the nature of their remarks and their attitudes, and frankly we just can't depend on this conversion sticking. we need greater assurance that the nominees who come before the senate are going to exercise a sort of dispassionate judgment that we expect of judges. and, frankly, professor liu has shown himself capable of incredibly poor judgment and not just one time. after chief justice roberts was nominated to the united states supreme court, mr. liu again

went out of his way to criticize then-judge roberts. he argued that justice roberts' record -- quote -- "suggests that he has a vision for american law, a right-wing vision, an tag insist particular to important priets and protections that we currently enjoirks and that he's not afraid to flex judicial muscle to adheef it." in that same article he attacked justice roberts' membership in the national legal center for public interest, calling its mission to promote free enterprise, private property, and limited government. he called those code words for an ideological agenda hostile to the environment, workplace, and consumer protections. so, professor liu considers free enterprise, private property,

and limited government code words for ideological agenda hostile to the environment, workplace, and consumer protections. that's what he said. is that the kind of person that we want -- that the senate should want, that america should want to sit in judgment, to enforce our constitution and laws passed by the united states congress? well, i think not. and yet another -- in yet another dramatic nomination conversion during his failed nomination process last year, professor liu responded to my written questions by calling this statement a -- quote -- "poor choice of words." close quote. a poor choice of words. well though there's several more examples of professor liu's lack of judicial temperament, his record is already crystal clear. now, its eats one thing for professor liu to disagree with a

person. we do that every day here on the floor of the senate, in committee, and around the cufnlt acrosaacross kitchen tables in r homes. but it is quite another to repeatedly engage in these types of inaccurate and frankly disgusting attacks against a public official trying to do their job the way they think that it should be done. for professor liu to only reflect upon his statements once he's offered a life tenure judgeship on the court of appeals is unacceptable. given his lack of experience as a practicing lawyer, obviously his lack of experience as a judge, never having served as a judge, it's impossible for me to trust his assurances that now all of a sudden he will calmly and impartially apply the law as written by congress or as written in the constitution of the united states. i would cite just one other

example of my experience on the judiciary committee. this one involving now justice sonia sotomayor. justice sotomayor is a charming woman. she came into the senate judiciary committee hearings and won over many people who -- who were frankly a little skeptical of his nomination, based on some of her previous writings and speeches. but i remember in one particular question, she was asked whether she accepted as an individual right the guarantee in the second amendment of the constitution the right to keep and bear arms, and she said she did. she accepted the decision in a case called the heller case that said that that was an individual right of a citizen. a few months later, in a case called mcdonald versus chicago, she wrote a dissenting opinion from a supreme court decision where she said the

right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right. well, you can parse the words, an individual right, a fundamental right, but to me it's clear that justice sotomayor during her confirmation hearings tried to parse the words in a way so as not to raise alarms about her commitment to the bill of rights and the second amendment to the constitution, but then once she was confirmed as a judge on the highest court in the land, of course she serves her life with no accountability, either to congress or to the voters, and she indeed serves with impunity, even though her testimony before the committee and her decisions once on the court, i think, are inconsistent. so we can't just take a chance that professor liu has somehow had a true conversion in his

views and his attitudes during the nomination process, but aside from his questionable temperament, professor liu's activist views of the law are equally troubling. in his book called "keeping faith with the constitution," professor liu summarized his activist philosophy in this way. he said -- quote -- "fidelity to the constitution requires judges to ask not how its general principles would have applied in 1789 or 1868, but rather how those principles should be applied today in order to preserve their power and meaning, in light of the concerns, conditions and evolving norms of our society." what does that mean? does that mean that the words on the page don't necessarily mean what they say, that a judge is somehow going to subjectively

read into those words what the evolving norms of our society are and to change an outcome to decide a case, to decide what our constitution means based on their subjective impression of those words and what evolving norms in society means? well, that's sometimes called a doctrine of believing in a living constitution, that the words on the page are changeable and can morph over time into meaning different things based on a judge's interpretation of what those evolving norms are. but to me, that is a license to lawlessness. it is a license for a judge, an unelected lifetime tenured individual who takes an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states that is untethered to any concept of what the law means, something that can be applied with equal

application to every man, woman and child in america and gives a judge a chance to impose their political or ideological views on what the constitution means. that's dangerous, it's lawless, and it is not upholding the constitution that we, even as members of congress, swear to uphold in our different jobs as policymakers. what is particularly troubling for professor liu is his proferl and i would say ridiculous view, that our constitution somehow guarantees a european-style welfare state. we're engaged in a very important debate on the floor of the senate, and during the course of the vote on the debt ceiling which i suppose we'll have sometime in july or not with whether we are going to continue to be an opportunity society or whether we have become an entitlement society.

a welfare state. professor liu in his article "rethinking constitutional welfare" writes that the constitution includes -- quote -- "an affirmative right, an affirmative right to health insurance, childcare, transportation subsidies, job training and a robust earned income tax credit. "close quote. well, i must have missed that in my copy of the constitution. i don't remember the founding fathers writing in the constitution nor the states ratifying language in a constitution that guarantees a right to a robust earned income tax credit. when senator sessions gave professor liu the opportunity to clarify his views in april, 2010, he replied -- quote -- "i

do believe that, senator, but those arguments are addressed to policymakers, not the courts." close quote. well, i think professor liu is being disingenuous, and i'm trying to be charitable. when he says the constitution includes these rights but says those arguments are addressed to policymakers, not the courts, he's denying that a court that might agree with him woulden fa- would enforce those rights as a matter of constitutional law. this does not -- this is not just addressed to policymakers. that's not being honest. i mean, i don't blame him if he has an honestly held view about these matters. i would welcome candor and expression in those strongly held views, but they are views more appropriately expressed in the court of public opinion, where we debate the values and

meaning of our laws and what kind of country we want this to be, not in people who want to be judges and impose those views as a matter of judgment in an individual case, transforming the written constitution into something completely different than what each of us can read on a printed page or what we learn in school our constitution actually means. in other words, professor liu believes that the constitution contains an unenumerated list of goods and services, an unenumerated list of goods and services like free health insurance, daycare, bus passes that federal legislators must provide to every citizen. it's not difficult to see how an activist judge might one day use professor liu's theory to force congress to provide for these lavish welfare benefits even though our country faces a

historic debt crisis, as we do now. what's more, professor liu has suggested that under his view of the constitution, it may be unconstitutional to repeal certain welfare programs once they are enacted. for example, in rethinking constitutional welfare rights, professor liu wrote that legislation may give rise to a could go -- to a cognizable constitutional welfare right if it has a durability reflecting the outcome of a station and the considered judgment of a highly engaged citizenry. well, that's a mouthful, but what he is saying is once the legislature passes a law, the legislature has no power to repeal that law because it somehow then is transformed into a constitutional right and beyond the power of congress to

change. that's radical. professor liu's writings have also suggested his unconventional beliefs about the death penalty. he said -- he has expressed the views that it is unconstitutional, that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, and that it's appropriate for judges to consider foreign law when reaching their legal conclusions about what american law means. well, taken as a whole, professor liu's record demonstrates that he would use his position as a federal judge to advocate his ideological theories and undermine the well-settled principles of the united states constitution. madam president, that is simply unacceptable to me. i think it should be unacceptable to the senate. and given his lack of temperament, his poor judgment and his activist view of the role of judges and the law, i'm

left with no choice but to fight professor liu's confirmation with every tool at my disposal. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i rise today to continue to express my views in support of the nomination of professor goodwin liu, a nominee, as you know, to the ninth circuit court of appeals. many different things have been said on the floor here in recent hours, and i rise to offer my comments on some of the concerns that are being debated. for once, it is great to actually hear debate on the floor of this chamber. i have been here, as you know, madam president, just six

months, and as someone who is new to the judiciary committee, new to the debates and dialogue of this chamber, i am struck at the things that i'm hearing about professor goodwin liu and the significant divergence between what i have found in questioning him and looking at his record, in speaking to my colleagues, and in what i have heard here on the floor just today. so i will do my best, if i might, madam president, in a few moments to try and lay out what i see as the real record of the real professor of goodwin liu, our nominee to the ninth circuit court of appeals. some have come to the floor today and argued that professor liu lacks the candor or the temperament to serve on a circuit court, and as someone who clerked for the third circuit court of appeals for a distinguished judge, i will suggest something that i think is commonplace, which is that candor and an appropriate temperament are critical to service on a circuit court of appeal. a lot of these charges raised against professor liu seemed to center on a few comments that

professor liu made during the nomination hearing for now justice alito or some purported deficiencies in his disclosures to the judiciary committee. let me speak briefly to both of those, if i might. professor liu has apologized at length and in detail for the intemperate tone of one brief passage that he wrote as a part of his testimony before the judiciary committee during the alito nomination hearings now some six years ago. i take this apology at face value. i take his expression of regret at the tone at face value. but anyone who has taken the time to meet him, to interview him, to question him i think has to conclude that despite this one brief episode of the use of intemperate language, he is not an intemperate person. in fact, the american bar association, as my colleague, senator boxer, pointed out previously today, specifically considered professor liu's temperament when it gave him its highest rating of unanimously

well qualified in the recommendation for his consideration by this body. let me next turn briefly, if i might, to claims about candor before the committee, which i believe are equally unfounded. he has, in fact, testified before the judiciary committee for a total of five hours and answered hundreds of questions and requests for additional information. he has been sharply criticized for missing some documents from his initial response to what is a searching committee questionnaire, but i will comment for those following this that professor liu has been a prolific scholar and speaker. he is someone who has published extensively, he is someone who has spoken extensively, and he is the first controversial circuit court nominee to have his confirmation take place, not just in the computer age but in the youtube age, when a combination of cell phones and video recorders have literally made a record of every brown bag lunch, every five-minute speech, every off the cuff remark made by this nominee before us.

the argument that is needed to supplement the record to include some documents not initially produced in my view and that somehow that reflects some lack of candor and that somehow that suggests a lack of truthfulness that should disqualify him, not for a vote but not even for consideration of a vote i think is wholly without merit. as the chief white house ethics counsel under president bush, richard painter, has written, professor liu's -- quote -- "original answers to the questions asked by the judiciary committee were a careful and good-faith effort to supply the senate with the information it needed to assess its nomination." close quote. it means a great deal to me that someone like mr. painter concluded that professor liu provided a lot more information than most nominees do in similar circumstances, and frankly it seems to me overreaching to try and suggest that simply because in the youtube age, this professor who provided us with hours of testimony, pages of responses failed to notice the

committee about some brown bag lunches and off the cuff comments does not rise to the standard of justifying a filibuster. let me next turn to the suggestion that he is insufficiently qualified to hold the position of circuit judge. an important concern, because we want judges of judicial temperament, of openness and candor and good character and also those who are sufficiently experienced. as i said a moment ago, the american bar association, after a searching, confidential, comprehensive review of his qualifications, concluded he was unanimously well qualified, its highest possible rating. in previous nomination debates, senators of this body, senators of the other party, have touted the a.b.a. rating as a comprehensive and exhaustive evaluation that provides valuable insight that ought to be trusted. several folks, several members of this body, several senators, including some who spoke immediately before me, have made those exact references to the value of the a.b.a. rating

process. reasonable minds may be able to differ on the margins, but it is not credible, in my view, to claim that a candidate with professor liu's remarkable legal education, long record of public service and experience and the a.b.a.'s highest rating is not qualified to serve on a circuit court. the charges or suggestion that is professor liu was unqualified because he is young or because he lacks significant courtroom experience are also hollow and one-sided when we look at the real record. since 1980, 14 no, ma'am younger than professor liu advanced by republican presidents have all been confirmed. judges, for example, neil gorsuch on the 10th circuit, who was 38 when nominated. judge brett kavanaugh, an acquaintance and i would say friend of mine from law school, now on the d.c. circuit, was 38 when nominated. now justice samuel alito was 39 when nominated to the third circuit. republican nominees with similar or lesser practical courtroom

experience than professor liu have also been nominated and confirmed. circuit court judges frank easterbrook and harvey wilkinson were both under 40 when nominated without any practicing legal experience at all. and yet this lack of practical experience didn't prevent either of these judges from becoming among the best respected, most widely regarded in their respective circuits. i would ask that my colleagues seriously consider instead looking at the standard that was applied when a similarly controversial professor came before this body. i was not here at the time but i understand from the record that democratic senators approached the nomination of michael mcconnell, president george w. bush's nominee to the 10th circuit, in a way that was generous, that accepted at face value some of his assertions. like professor liu, professor mcconnell was a widely regarded law professor who was nominated to a federal appeals court without having first

served as a judge. many democratic senators at the time had concerns about professor mcconnell's conservative writings which included strong opposition to roe v. wade, congressional testimony that the violence against women act was unconstitutional, and harsh criticism of the supreme court's 8-1 decision in the bob jones case. despite these positions, which one could argue are at the outer edge, even the extreme of the legal cannon of the time, professor mcconnell was confirmed not after a filibuster, not after a long series of grinding nomination hearings and public discourse, but professor mcconnell was confirmed by voice vote of this chamber just one day after his nomination was confirmed by the judiciary committee. in supporting professor mcconnell's nomination, democratic senators at the time credited his assurances that he understood the difference between the role of law professor and judge, that he respected and would follow

precedent. in my view, the senators of this body should credit similar assurances that professor liu has provided during his confirmation hearings and that professor liu has provided to me in a individual interview, in answer to hundreds of written questions from members of the committee, as well to in answer to challenges presented here. let me next turn, if i might, to some challenges or concerns that have been raised about professor liu's view on education. a bipartisan group of 22 leaders in education law, policy and research have written to support professor liu's nomination and to highlight his scholarship and reputation in the field of education law and policy. they wrote -- and i quote -- "based on his record, we believe professor liu is a careful, balanced and intellectuall intey honest scholar juan outstanding set of academic qualifications and the proper temperament to be a fair and disciplined j." later they wrote in this letter that his work is nuanced and

balanced, not dogmatic or ideological. and i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that this letter be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: during his confirmation hearings, professor liu testified to the judiciary committee -- and i quote -- "i absolutely do not support racial quotas and my writings i think have made very clear that i believe them to be unconstitutional." professor liu also stated to the committee that "i think affirmative action as it was originally conceived was a time-limited remedy for past wrongs and i think that is the appropriate way to understand what affirmative action is." these two statements which reflect professor liu's testimony to the committee are well within the mainstream. professor liu has written and spoken about his support for diversity in public schools, and in my view, there is nothing extreme in this view. ever since brown v. board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united

states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his

actual record. as a scholar, professor liu has supported market-based reforms to promote schoolhouse diversi diversity, reforms that are often labeled conservative. professor liu believes and his written in support of school choice and school vouchers, stating that they have a role to play in improving educational students for disadvantaged children. he has publicly advocated for these programs on a nationwide scale, earning praise from conservatives in the process. clint bolick, director of the conservative goldwater institute, referred to by my colleague, senato senator boxer, previously has written -- quote -- "i have known professor liu and since reading an influential law review article that he coauthored, supporting school choice as a crisis of inner city public education, i believe it took a great deal of courage for him to take such a strong public position and i find professor liu to exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty." he closes his letter by saying, "professor liu clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and

experience to serve with distinction on this important circuit court." professor liu has, in my view, made very clear that he understands the difference between being a law professor, a scholar, an advocate and a judge and has assured us during his nomination hearings before the committee and again in personal conversations with me that he would follow the court's precedent if confirmed. during his confirmation hearings, professor liu testified to our committee -- quote -- "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 theory." and so that is exactly what i would do. i would apply the applicable precedence to the facts of each

case." as i said before and i will say again, this quote, i know, from professor liu deserves exactly the same weight and deference and confidence as similar assertions by then-professor mcconnell, now circuit court judge mcconnell when he was confirmed by voice vote of this chamber. mr. coons: to speak otherwise i think is to do violence to the tradition of deference to those who give sworn testimony to hearings and to the deliberations of this body. last, let me turn to some points that were raised just recently about whether or not professor liu believes that americans have a constitutional right to welfare benefits like education, shelter or health care, and, if confirmed, would somehow declare those constitutional rights from the bench. professor liu has authored, as i've said, many different law review articles and in one, the 2008 stanford law review article entitled "rethinking constitutional welfare rights," he, in fact, criticized another

scholar's assertion from a 1969 article that courts should recognize constitutional welfare rights on the basis of a so-called comprehensive moral theory. professor liu rejected that. in 2006, he penned a yale law review article that argued that the 14th amendment authorizes and obligates congress to ensure a meaningful floor of educational opportunity. his record is replete with sources that make it clear that professor liu respects and recognizes the role of this bo body, of congress, and the role of the supreme court in establishing, interpreting and applying both precedent and constitutional theory and that he accepts, acknowledges and will respect the very real limits on a circuit court judge in innovating in any way. madam president, in closing, allow me to simply share with you and with the members of this body that new to this body, new

to the fights that have divided this chamber and have so i think deflected real deliberation on nominees to circuit courts to the supreme court, i have taken the time to review his writings, to interview him individually, to attend a nomination hearing and have come to the conclusion that candidate, nominee, professor goodwin liu is a qualified, capable, competent, in fact, exceptional legal scholar who understands and will respect the differences between advocacy and scholarship and serving as a member of the circuit court in the judiciary of the united states. i urge the members of this body, i urge my colleagues to take a fresh look at the record and to allow this body to vote. why on earth this record of this exceptionally qualified man would justify a filibuster is utterly beyond me and suggests

that unfortunately we've been mired in partisanship rather than allowing debate and votes on this floor, which, in my view, if we follow the best traditions of this body, would lead to the confirmation of goodwin liu to the ninth circuit. thank you. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, madam president. and i would tell my colleague from delaware that he makes some very excellent points and very well said. i've spent a number of years, now almost seven, on the judiciary committee and my observations are painfully awarant to me about our process. goodwin liu is a stellar individual. there's no question about it. he's a stellar scholar. there's no question about it. but my observations have taught

me, as we've voted and put judges on the appellate court and to the highest court, that what is said in testimony before the committee really doesn't bear out any impact on what happens once somebody becomes a judge. and my observation is, is people are who they are. i actually spent a significant time with goodwin liu. i think he's a genuine great american. the question, however, is not whether he's a stellar scholar, a stellar intellect or a great american. the question is, is do his beliefs match what the constitution requires of appellate judges and higher judges? and i've come to the conclusion

that being stellar, being a great teacher and professor, being a wonderful judge is not enough. and i really take the words to heart that my colleague said because we all make mistakes. his comments on judge alito and judge roberts he said were poor judgment, he shouldn't have done it. there's not anybody in this body that hasn't done the same thing. so we can't hold that against him, and i don't. but what i -- what i do think matters is whether or not the oath to the constitution and our laws and our treaties and the foundational documents of our constitution do matter. and i believe that where we find

ourselves today as a country, not having the debate on the senate floor as we should be having the debates on the senate floor is partially a blame because of where the judges have put us. that they haven't been loyal to the document, they've expanded the commerce clause well beyond its ever anywhere close intent in the general welfare clause that now finds us at a time when we're nearing bankruptcy, we can't get out of our problems without retracting tremendously the size and scope of the federal government, we can't grow our economy with the tax revenue increases that are going to be required to get out of this problem, that it comes back down is what do they really believe about the constitution. and the best way to find that out is before they were ever thought about being nominated and before they're trying to be

controversial in a teaching environment, is what are their great thoughts and what are their beliefs. and i don't believe professors write articles to be controversial. i think they write articles based on what their learned research tells them. and i just have a frank disagreement with professor liu on the role of a federal judge. i actually believe what the constitution says. and it says, "the judicial powers shall extend to all cases in law arising under this" -- and the word is "this" -- "constitution and the laws of the united states and the treaties made or which shall be made." and the problems i have with professor liu is that i believe he advocates for an unconstitutional role for judges. he believes the constitution is a living document.

that it is indetermin indetermi. i recognize i'm just a doctor from oklahoma and i don't have a law degree, but i can read these words like anybody else. i think some of the things the founders did were wrong and we've corrected them through the yearses, both through wise supreme court decisions but also through amendments to the constitution. and he also believes that the constitution should be subject to socially situated modes of reasoninreasoning that appeal cy and 0 historically to contingent meanings. what that says to me is -- what this says is wide open. and i really like the guy. i got along fabulously with him. he is a wonderful individual. but i don't think that's who we want on the appellate court.

and i think what judges say -- potential judges say and write when you take the totality of what they say and write, not what they say in a hearing, because it all changes once they're nominated -- what they say and write is very important about what the judges are going to become. and you heard senator cornyn relate to justice sotomayor. here's her testimony. and the first case she does is exactly opposite of what her testimony was. so, you know, it used to, the judiciary committee didn't bring the judges before it. we looked at the history. now, let me address something else. what the a.b.a. says doesn't matter to me anymore because there's been a controversial nomination from oklahoma that the a.b.a. has rated "qualified," that four distinct people who were interviewed by the a.b.a. said the individual

wasn't qualified. that was totally discounted by the eafnl a.b.a. the people that were actually interviewed said the person wasn't qualified. the a.b.a. gave them a "qualified" rating anyway. so that basis for something that we have qualification is no longer trustworthy in my mind. it hasn't been for sometime. i think the due diligence is lacking on the a.b.a. and their method for scoring who is "qualified" or who is not. the final point that i would make is that lows a written a lot -- a lost it has been controversial -- a lot of it has been controversial, one of the things that really bothers me is his profound belief that he has the right to use foreign law to interpret the u.s. constitution. what that really is a code word

for saying, if i don't like what's written in this document, i'll go find some jurisprudence somewhere else and ally it that gets me the result that i want rather than being truthfully and honestly obedient to what this document says. i know that sounds overly simple, but it's not. the fact that we're not applying our constitution and its meaning and what our founders said about what it meant and we're ignoring it is one of the things that has put us in the peril 0ous state that we're in -- that's put us in the perilous state that we're in today. we're going to have a great test sometime in the next year on the mace simplify expansion of the commerce clause that was -- on the massive expansion of the commerce clause that was put into law through the affordable care act. and i will predict in this body today, if that is upheld, there will be no need for state and local governments anymore because there will be no limitation on what we as a

federal government can do to limit the freedom and free exercise of the tenth amendment to the states. the idea that you can take what this constitution very clearly says -- all cases in law of equity arising under this constitution, not foreign law, not foreign constitution, not foreign thought, but our law. it doesn't mean we can't learn from other things, but you can't use foreign law to interpret our constitution. it is a violation of a judicial oath every time one of our supreme court justices references their opinion based on foreign law. it's a violation of their oath. because their oath is to this constitution, not some other constitution. and so we see that occasionally,

especially in minority opinions, and oftentimes in previous majority opinions that have got our country into the trouble that we're in. so i believe goodwin liu is a generally wonderful man. he's stellar intellectual thinker. by reports, he is an outstanding professor and is a great human being. that does not qualify him to be on the ninth circuit court of appeals. what will qualify him is an absolute fidelity to our constitution and our future, and not the creative ways that we can change that through our own wills or whims of judges to get a result that's different than what our constitution would say we should have. and so i regrettably and -- and truly with regret -- will be

voting against cloture because i don't like this process. i think it hurts us, and i think it divides our body -- for his nomination. and my hope would be that we can handle these in the future much better than what we've handled them in the past. i sigh see the assistant majority leader on the floor and i would yield to him. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i have 10 unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the minority and minority leaders's majority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. officer without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, at 2:00 we'll have a vote on the floor. a man is seeking a judgeship. there's no question in anybody's mind that this is a judgeship that should be filled. professor goodwin liu wants to serve on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. he was nominated in january of

2009. here we are in may of 2010. the significance of that delay is the fact that this is a vacancies that causes a problem. the administrative office of the u.s. court -- no political office but the court's office -- declared a judicial emergency in this circuit and said they they'd needed this vacancy filled. so nobody questions that there was at least a sense of urgency in filling the seat. you ask yourself, if the president nominated someone back in january of 2009, why in may of 2010 are we just getting around to it? i think that question needs to be directed to the other side of the aisle. they have found reasons to delay this and to raise questions, which have brought us to this moment. so how about this professor? is he qualified to serve at the second-highest level of the courts in america, the ninth circuit?

well, the american bar association didn't waste anytime evaluating professor goodwin liu. they awarded him their highest possible rating -- "unanimously well-qualified." if you look at his background, it is no surprise. he is the son of immigrants. he aattended stanford rust of university where he graduated phi beta cap parks won a rhodes scholarship, atentdzed yale law school where he was editor of the yale law review. served as a law clerk to judge david tatel of the d.c. sairnghtdz to supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. after finishing his second clerkship, the one at the supreme court, he worked for years at the law firm of o'medical have en knee & meyers this walking. then he joininged the faculty at the university of berkeley law school. he has won numerous awards for his teaching and academic scholarship, complug the highest teaching awards given at the cal berkeley law school. so what's the point of this

debate? we know he is well-equal fievmentd we know there is a judicial emergency that requires us to fill this seat, and we should have done it a long time ago. and when you look at his resume, it would put every lawyer, including myself, to shame. when you consider all that he has done leading up to this moment in his career. wcialtion iwell, it turns out that they think he has the wrong philosophy, the wrong values. they criticized him for a handful of statements he made while searvetion a professor. isn't it interesting the double standard that's being applied here. i was here in 2002 when a tenth circuit court of appeals nominee by the name of michael mcconnell was up to be considered. he'd been a law professor at the university of utah and the university of chicago. at his nomination hearing, senator orrin hatch, who strongly supported his

nomination, said, "i think we should praise and encourages the prolive of scholarlyiting assuming they know the knowledge to follow the law as written and to follow precedent." what was senator hatch defending in professor mcconnell's background? it was the fact that he had called roe v. wade a landmark supreme court decision illegitimate. professor mcconnell had defended bob jones university's racist policies on the grounds that they were -- quote -- "church teachings." even though the supreme court rejected his argument in an 8-1 decision. and he claimed the violence against women act was unconstitutional. now, that was fodder for a lot of questions that should have been asked and were asked. he had made some very extreme statements as a professor. but professor mcconnell

assured the senate that when he left the classroom and entered the courtroom he'd put his views assigned follow the law. the senate did not stop him with a filibuster. the senate took professor mcconnell at his word and gave him an up-or-down vote on the floor, and he was confirmed. that's all we're asking for when this comes to professor liu. i'd point out that other well-respected federal judges have also served in academic roles before coming to the bench. richard poser in, seventh circuit in chicago, is a friend of mine. every once in a while we goat together for an amazing lunch p. he is such a brilliant guy. we disagree on so many things but i can't help but sit there in awe of this manns knowledge of the law and of the world and his prolific authorship of books on so many subjects and i think most would agree, he's he taken some pretty controversial views himself n2005 debate on civil

liberties with jeffrey stone, judge posner said "life without self-increme nation clause, without the fourth amendment's disclosureary rule, without on amended patriot being a, with the depiction of the 10 exphandzments on the ceiling of the supreme court, even life without roe v. wade, would still in my opinion anyway be eminently worth living." is there any fodder there for political commentators? he was a signature judge when he said that. somehow my friends on the left could have had a field day with that quote. some of my friends on the right might have greed strongly with judge posner's 2008 when he wrote about hecialtion a case where the court stated the second amendment confers an individual right. judge posner wrote that the court's decision in heller -- quote -- "is questionable in both message & result and it's evidence the supreme court in deciding constitutional cases exercises a freewheeling screrks

strongly is flavored with ideology." end of quote. i'll bet you there are a lot of senators on the other side of the aisle that disagree with that yoat. so let's get down to the bottom line here. we recognize the value of academic freedom and discourse. we understand that a professor has a different role in america than someone signature on a bench judging a case. we trust them. we give them basic credit for integrity when they say they can separate the two lives. they understand the two responsibilities. professor liu is a man widely recognized for his integrity and independence. that's why he has the support of prominent conservative lawyers. kenneth starr, no hero on the democratic side of the aisle, has said he would be a great judge. bob barr, former republican congressman, and goldwater institute director clint bollock

express support for his nomination. it was written -- quote -- "in our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such as goodwin are the professional integrity and ability to discharge faithfully an abiding duty to follow the law, because goodwin possesses these qualities to the highest degree, we are confident he will serve on the court of appeals not only fairly and competently but with great distinction. we support and urge his speedy confirmation." end of quote. well, we're not going to meet their wishes with a speedy confirmation. the question is whether or not 60 senators will decide today that professor goodwin liu is entitled to a vote, a vote, an up-or-down vote in the united states senate. professor liu said in his confirmation hearing, "the role of a judge is to be an impartial and objective arbiter in specific cases and controversy that come before him. the way that process works is

through absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and language of the law, statute or regulations that are issued in this case." professor liu is committed to respect and follow the judicial role. i'm confident that he will fulfill that role with distinction. this is a good man, a great lawyer, an extremely well-qualified nominee. his nomination has been languishing before this senate since february of this year. he has had to put his life on hold, many respects waiting for the senate to act. we'll have a cloture vote in just about an hour. i think we know what's going on here. for many on the other side of the aisle, they are guided by advisors who tell them keep as many critical judicial posts open for as long as possible. help is on the way in the next election. we don't want to allow this president to fill these vacancies. and particularly when it comes to the circuit courts because of

the tremendous responsibility and opportunity there is for important and historic decisions. and so professor liu has been caught in this maelstrom. he has now subjected to this filibuster vote. i sincerely hope that my colleagues will be fair and honest in their vote. i hope that they will look at the obvious record of this man to fill an important vacancy, a man found unanimously well qualified by the american bar association, a person with a legal resume that is peerless, someone who has stated clearly and unequivocally that he will follow the law, to dwell on statements that he has made as a professor is to do a great disservice to academic freedom and to ignore the obvious. we have when republican nominees came before us used our discretion to separate out their academic lives with the promise that as judges they will look at the world in a very sober,

honest way. i intend to vote in support of cloture in support of this nomination. i urge my colleagues to do the same. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: several of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the nomination of goodwin liu. i share many of those concerns and do not wish to blaib points that they have -- to belabor points that they have already made. i will limit my comments today to two fundamental reasons why i am myself unable to support the nomination of professor liu to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. first, i'm truly dismayed by the lack of judgment displayed in professor liu's 2006 testimony regarding the confirmation of samuel alito as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. throughout extensive written testimony and during an appearance before the senate judiciary committee, professor

liu unfairly criticized then-judge alito and his long judicial record as, among other things, having shown -- quote - "a uniform pattern of excusing errors and eroding norms of basic fairness." in particular, in the final paragraph of professor liu's written testimony, which served as a summary of his entire analysis on then-judge alito, was nothing short of an inflammatory attack. he wrote -- quote -- "judge alito's record envisions an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse, where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance or the f.b.i. may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on unless an informant is in the room, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man." professor liu's unseemly attack on justice alito generated

considerable attention at the time, as well as understandable concern about professor liu's temperament, his judgment and his basic ability to be fair. so far as i know, it was only after he was nominated to become a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit that professor liu offered any apology for his testimony about justice alito. just a few weeks ago, professor liu told members of the judiciary committee that he had learned from the outrage his remarks caused -- quote -- "that strong language like that is really not helpful in the process." close quote. professor liu's observation is certainly true, but it misses the central point. his comments about justice alito were offensive not simply because they were unhelpful in his confirmation process but because they were misleading and they were an unwarranted personal attack on a dedicated judge and public servant. professor liu's treatment of justice alito and his

last-minute and incomplete handling of the concerns raised by his remarks lead me to believe that he lacks the basic judgment and discretion necessary to be confirmed to a life tenure position in the judiciary. the second reason i feel compelled to oppose this nomination has to do with the integrity of our nation's system of constitutional government and the rule of law. in my careful and considered judgment, the judicial philosophy espoused by professor liu is fundamentally inconsistent with the judicial mandate to be a neutral arbiter of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law. i do not base this conclusion on the fact that his approach to the law is in many respects different from my own. that's not a prerequisite and that's not the basis of my opposition to this nominee. most of the judges nominated by president obama do not share my personal textualist and originalist commitments.

yet, in my short time as a member of the senate, i have voted to confirm many nominees with whom i fundamentally disagree. professor liu, by contrast, is not simply a progressive nominee with a somewhat more expansive view of constitutional interpretation than is common among many sitting judges, nor is he a nominee whose controversial remarks are few and can be overlooked. you have had a long history of mainstream legal practice and observations. throughout the course of his numerous speeches, articles and books, professor liu has championed a philosophy that, in my judgment, is incompatible with faithfully discharging the duties of a federal appellate judge in our constitutional republic. his approach advocates that judges go far beyond the written constitution, statutes and decisional law to ascertain and incorporate into constitutional law, in professor liu's own

words, shared understandings, evolved understandings, social movements and collective values. in a 2008 stanford law review article describing the judicial role, professor liu wrote -- quote -- "the problem for 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 absorbed into legal doctrine. "in so framing the process of judicial decisionmaking, he advocated a conception of the judiciary as a -- quote -- " culturally situated interpreter of social meaning." close quote. in a 2009 book entitled "keeping faith with the constitution," he wrote that the constitution -- and that constitutional interpretation rightly -- quote -- "incorporates the evolving understandings of the constitution forged through social movements, legislation and historical practice." close quote. in an interview later that year,

professor liu suggested that the judicial role is an individual process that includes -- quote -- "lessons learned from experience and an awareness of the evolving norms and social understandings of our country." close quote. these are just a few examples of a clear, consistent and extreme approach to judging that professor liu has championed in many settings over the course of many years. his approach necessarily requires a judge to violate a separation of powers principles making law based on the judge's subjective understanding of public opinion, communal values, historical trends or personal preferences rather than faithfully interpreting and applying the laws made by the legislative and executive branches. a noted judge who has faithfully served in the role to which professor liu has been nominated and who as a result is intimately familiar with the very real dangers of legislating from the bench shared this vital insight -- quote -- "it is as important to freedom to confine

the judiciary's power to its proper scope as it is to confine that of the president, congress or state and local governments. indeed, it is probably more important for only courts may not be called to account by the public." close quote. i rise today in defense of our nation's constitutional separation of powers and ultimately in defense of the essential liberty that it protects. i also feel the need to respond to the point made by my distinguished colleague, the senator from illinois moments ago. this is not an opposition that is based on a disagreement with a particular set of legal analyses. my colleague from illinois noted that there was some opposition to judge mcconnell who was confirmed by this body to serve on the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit. notwithstanding the fact that many in this body disagreed with particular legal conclusion that is had been reached by then-professor mcconnell. this is different than that.

this is not about a disagreement with a particular legal conclusion. it is instead about a concern or rising out of a systemic, broad-based interpretive approach, one that i believe doesn't give due regard to the rule of law, to the notion that we are a nation that lives under the rule of law, that our laws consist of words, that words have defined finite meaning, that in order for our laws to work properly, that meaning needs to be respected and interpreted in and of itself and held as an independent good by the judiciary on a consistent basis. professor liu's appalling treatment of justice alito leaves great doubt in my mind as to whether he possesses the requisite judgment to serve as a life-tenured judge, and i have come to the conclusion that professor liu's extreme judicial philosophy is simply incompatible with the proper role of a judge in our constitutional republic. for these reasons, as well as

those articulated by many of my colleagues, i'm compelled to oppose this nomination. thank you. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the president. i rise in support of the nomination of goodwin liu to be a member of the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. i believe that mr. liu's academic qualifications, strong intellect, his character, his temperament make him a -- a person who would be a valuable addition to the federal bench, and therefore i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and then in favor of his confirmation. professor liu brings an outstanding academic and professional background to this nomination and a personal life story that is quintessentially american. it's not a reason in itself certainly to vote to confirm him

as a judge of this high court, but it speaks to the endless opportunities for upward mobility in this country for people who work hard. where you end up is not determined by where you start out in this country. goodwin liu is the second son of taiwanese immigrants. as a young boy, his family settled in sacramento. he began to work hard from the beginning, ultimately graduating from stanford university, received a rhodes scholarship to oxford and eventually graduated from yale law school. should he be confirmed to the ninth circuit, professor liu would become the second asian american currently serving on a federal appeals court. he is now the associate dean and professor of law at the university of california california-berkeley school of law. he is widely recognized and respected broadly throughout academic and legal communities

in the united states. i note that prior to entering academia, he was an appellate litigator with o'melveny and meyers, a first-rate firm here in washington, and clerked for both circuit court judge david tatel and supreme court justice ruth baider ginsburg, representing different points on the ideological legal spectrum served them both i know with great distinction though i do not agree with everything goodwin liu has he have written or said, his views, it seems to me, have been well-expressed and well-reasoned and quite intelligent. i think he's got a thoughtful approach to complex legal questions and i'm impressed that he's earned the respect and support of thinkers and lawyers from all sides of -- of the legal, ideological spectrum, which i think speaks ultimately

to his personal evenhandedness, to the power of his intellect and to what we can expect of him as a judge of the circuit court. i was particularly impressed. i know it's been quoted before but it speaks volumes by the comments of former judge ken starr, former dean also, who said that goodwin liu is -- and i quote -- "a person of great intellect, accomplishment and integrity and he is extremely well qualified to serve on the court of appeals." madam president, i know that many of my colleagues have concerns about this nomination, about things professor liu has either written or said, and i understand those. i have some of those concerns. i read the statement that he made about judge alito. it has the ring of a passionate litigator making an argument with probably more zeal than he himself appreciates as he looked at it in the aftermath.

but for those who have concerns, i urge my colleagues to vote accordingly on an up-or-down vote not to sustain this filibuster and, therefore, prevent an up-or-down vote on this nomination. madam president, i always felt that in our advice and consent rule, and this is my own personal reading of it, the president, by his election, earns the right to make these nominations. we don't have to decide in confirming a nominee that we would have made this nomination, only that the nominee is acceptable, is within the range of those acceptable and capable of doing the job for which he's nominated. not so long ago, 2005, there was a move to reduce the right to filibuster and acquire 60 votes, particularly with regard to supreme court nominees, but

others as well, and that led to the formation of the so-called gang of 14. i was proud to be a member of that group and we reached an agreement, one of whose parts i want to read now. of future nominations -- and this is one of them, goodwin liu -- signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the united states constitution in good faith. nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist, end of quote from the agreement of the gang of 14. i just -- i just don't think these are extraordinary circumstances here when you consider goodwin liu's intelle intellect, his varied backgrou background, the character that he has and this broad range of endorsements from people.

to me, a disagreement about a statement made in the heat of an argument or even the substance of an article published is not strong enough to prevent this nonominee from having what i thk is his right. and the president's right to get a vote up-or-down, not to block him by requiring 60 votes. so i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. i'm going to do so with a full measure of comfort and confidence about the kind of judge goodwin liu would be but, really, with a full measure of comfort that i am exercising my responsibility under the advice and consent clause as i've always seen it, including as it has been informed by my proud participation in the memorandum of understanding of the gang of 14 in 2005. madam president, i thank you

very much and i yield the floor. mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, madam president. i would rise in regretful opposition, quite frankly, to having to vote to deny cloture for a judicial nominee. i also was in the gang of 14 and the whole effort was to make sure that the senate follows constitutional historical norms and that is giving great deference to presidential selections when it comes to judiciary. to my conservative colleagues, the best way to make sure you have conservative judges is to win elections, because if we stop -- start blocking all the judges that we don't like that have a different view of the law than us, our friends on the other side will return the favor and you'll wind up having a chaotic situation. there's a reason that judge ginsburg -- justice ginsburg got 90-something votes and justice scalia got 90-something votes.

it used to be the way you did business around here, when the president won the election, they were able to pick qualified nominees for the court unless you had a darned good reason, they went forward. and i think that should be the standard. and to me, i do give a lot of deference. it's not one speech, it's not an article. justice sotomayor, who i voted for, had made a famous speech as she thought the experiences of a latino woman maybe were more valuable to the court than that of a white male and people got up in arms about that. it bothered me. she explained herself. i looked at the way she lived her life. and i understood, based on the way she lived her life, that she was a fair person. that did not represent bigotry on her part toward white males. and we all make statements and write articles and get in debates and i'm not going to use that as a reason to disqualify

somebody from sitting on the judiciary. i wouldn't want that done to our inspect knees and i don't intend to do it -- done to our no, ma'am dismeez i don't intend to -- nominees, and i don't intend to do that to the other side. but here's what mr. liu did to me which was a bridge too far. when a conservative wins the white house, you expect people like roberts and alito and scalia. when a liberal wirntion wins, yt people like justice ginsburg and elena kagan and sotomayor. that's the way it works. and all of them are well qualified. they just have a different approach to the law. but there are a lot of 9-0 decisions. the one thing that would -- that drives my thinking here is that mr. liu chose not in a article that he wrote as a young man, not in some debate that got carried away but to appear before the judiciary committee and basically say that judge

alito's philosophy would create an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse. that line probably comes from some case that judge alito was involved in where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid even after no sign of resistance, where the f.b.i. may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on unless an informant is in the room, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination. these statements about judge alito and the decisions he's rendered and his philosophy are designed to basically say that people who have the philosophy of gentleman alito are uncaring,

hateful, and really should be despised. that is a bridge too far because i share judge alito's philosop philosophy. and we may come out at a different result on a particular case but i don't think i fall in the category of being hateful, uncaring, and someone you should despise. these statements given to the judiciary committee were designed to inflame passion against judge alito based on his analysis of cases before him during his judicial tenure. and if that's not enough, judge roberts' record, according to mr. louisian lieu liu, is a rigw

against current rights we enjoy. it's another thing to debate your o opponent. i think another thing to have strong opinions. but this is not an accidental statement. this was calculated, delivered at a time where it would do maximum damage. and all i am saying to future nominees, i expect president obama to nominate people of a liberal judicial philosophy. i do expect -- do not deny you access to the court because you may have said something in an article i don't like. you may have represented a client that i disagree with. but the one thing that i will not tolerate is for a conservative or a liberal person seeking a judgeship to basically impugn the character of the other way of thinking. these words are not that of a passionate advocate who may have went too far, according to

senator lieberman, in my view. these words were designed to destroy and they ring of an ideologue. and he should be running for office not sitting on the court. there's a place for people who think this way about conservative judicial philosop philosophy -- run for president, run for the senate. don't sit on the court. because the court has to be a place where you accept differences, you hash it out, you render verdicts, and based on the way he views justice alito and roberts and his disdain for their philosophy, i do not believe he could give someone like me a fair shake. so at the end of the day, i ask one thing of my democratic colleagues, i will try my best to make sure the senate stays on track and that we do not get in

the road of filibustering judges haphazardly based on the fact that there's somebody we don't agree with. i have tried my best not to go down that road because i think it will destroy the judiciary and disrupt the senate. if you're a conservative in the future wanting to be a judge and you come before our committee when a liberal nominee? before the committee -- when a liberal nominee is before the committee, and you question their patriotism and you suggest that they're hateful people who should be despised for their philosophy, then i will render the same verdict against you. we want people on the court who are well-rounded, who are qualified, who understand that america is a big place not a small place. and judge -- in mr. liu's world, i think he has a very small view

of the law. those on the other side who think differently not should be engaged intellectually or challenged through academic debate, he's tried to basically rip their character apart. and he will not get my vote. and a conservative who feels the same way about liberal philosophy would not get my vote either. i'm looking for the model of miguel aestrada, who was poorly treated, wrote a letter on behalf of allane akagan. saying she was my law school classmate, we don't agree on the law but she's a wonderful person, well qualified, deserves to be on the bench. that's the way liberals and conservatives should engage each other in my view when it comes to the judicial nomination process. this was a bridge too far for lindsey graham. i yield.

mr. grassley: mr. president? i'd like to inquire how much time we have on our side. the presiding officer: 3 minutes and 45 seconds. mr. grassley: okay. my objections to this nominee can be summarized with five areas of concern: his controversial writings and speeches, an activist judicial philosophy, his lack of judicial temperament, his troublesome testimony, and a lack of candor before the committee. mr. grassley: i would hope that the president would withdraw the nominee and send up a consensus nominee. we on this side have demonstrated over and over again our cooperation in moving forward on consensus nominatio nominations. the president needs to nominate a mainstream individual who understands the proper role a judge. nominees who would bring a personal agenda and political ideology to the courtroom will

have great difficulty in being confirmed. i have troubles with a statement that's been made that the court of appeals is where law is made and we need the finest minds in the world for that. first, intellect is an important element that we ought to consider in any confirmation process. this nominee has an outstanding academic record. his intellect is not the issue. the nominee himself noted there was more to being a judge than intellect because he said this in regard to chief justice roberts' nomination -- quote -- "there is no doubt roberts has a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." that's the end of the quote. he then voiced concern that with remarkable consistency throughout his career, roberts

had applied his legal talent to further the cause of the far right. mr. liu went on demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament to disparch justice roberts' view on free enterprise, private property and limited government in my statement yesterday, i made my views very clear on how i feel about mr. liu's remarks. the point is intellect is only one component. using mr. liu's standards, a nominee -- quote -- "must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." end of quote. mr. liu does have a fine talent but he has used his talent to consistently promote views that are far out of the mainstream. shortly after president obama was elected he said -- quote -- "now we have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the constitution and of the laws and the policy into practice."

i will not give mr. liu that opportunity. a second problem i have with his statement is the assertion that -- quote -- "the court of appeals is where law is made. we have heard this view before. while serving as a circuit judge, justice sotomayor stated that the court of appeals -- quote -- "is where policy is made." i understand there are elements of our society who wish this were the case. those who can't get their policy views enacted through the legislative process, as our constitution requires, often turn to the courts. but i flatly reject that notion. the constitution vests legislative power in the congress, not the courts. judges are simply not policy-makers. unfortunately, this philosophical disagreement occasionally finds its way into debate on nominations.

let me remind the senate where this started, going back to the tphopbgs of william -- nomination of william rehnquist in 1971, democrats used the filibuster to delay or defeat judicial nominees. fortunately, it is a rare occasion. there have been a total of 46 cloture votes, including this one, on 32 different judicial nominations in american history. of the 32 judicial nominees subject to cloture vote, 22 were against republican-nominated judges, between 1971 and the year 2000 there were 11 cloture votes on judicial nominees. most of those filibusters attempted by democrats were unsuccessful, and cloture was invoked. however, beginning in 2002, senate democrats changed the rules. i ask to put the rest of my statement in the record, and i would also ask for additional statements -- opportunities to put documents in the record in

opposition to the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'd ask consent that my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and certain attachments be made part of the record. i've listened to a lot of the debate about professor liu, and having set on the hearings with him, having met with him, having gone through the whole record, i sometimes wonder who this is everybody's talking about. it's not the man i heard from, the man who, unlike speeches we can all make, a man who testified under oath and had to speak very candidly and very honestly about his positions. he's a man who is admired by legal thinkers and academic scholars across the political spectrum, and it shows.

he spent his career in public service, private practice, as a teacher since receiving degrees from stanford university and yale law school, a rhodes scholar. when you look at the support among the letters i will put in the record, we have one from kenneth starr, the former solicitor general during president george h.w. bush's administration. actually also for those who may have forgotten, the independent counsel who investigated president clinton during the clinton administration. he and distinguished professor omara wrote it is our privilege to speak to his qualifications and character and to urge favorable action on his nomination. in short, goodwin is a person of great intellect and exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals.

he will leave academia to engage in important public service. we heard from clinton bolick, executive of the goldwater institute named after barry goldwater. he said having reviewed several of his academic writings, i find professor liu to exhibit fresh independent thinking and intellectual honesty. he clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important court. i put in a number of other similar things from republicans and democrats across the political spectrum. after law school, he clerked for d.c. circuit judge david tatel, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. don't question his intellect or qualifications. he should be treated with

respect and admired, not maligned in caricature. his honest testimony in two hearings before the judiciary committee should be credited rather than ignored. the son of taiwanese immigrants and he would bring much-needed diversity to the federal bench. there is no asian pacific american judge on the nine circuit court of appeals, which of course includes california and hawaii and a number of western states. rather than debate, vote for him or vote against him. but vote. cloture vote means you vote maybe. most want to see us vote yes or no, rather than an up-or-down vote, republicans argued a few

years ago every nominee deserves, we have had to file cloture on this. many serving on the other side of the aisle claim to proscribe to a standard that prohibits filibuster on judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. a nominated outstanding lawyer, the president has supported by his home state senators, favorably reported by a majority of the senate judiciary committee, for a vacancy of judicial emergency on the ninth circuit. we've had a lot of judicial nominees that have gone through here that i may have disagreed with, some i may have voted against, but we've allowed an up-or-down vote. we have 14 senators who signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005, the gang of 14. they wrote about their

responsibilities under the advice and consent clause. well, let's be responsible. let's be responsible. let's bring it to a vote. i think of the vote on janice rogers brown. she was a nominee who argued that social security was unconstitutional. i think most of us disagreed with her on that, but she got an up-or-down vote. they agreed to vote cloture on the nomination of priscilla owens. owens, a d.c. circuit nominee whose rulings in a texas supreme court were so extreme, they drew condemnation of other conservative judges on that court. in fact, president bush's white house counsel, later attorney general called one of her opinions an unconscionable act

of judicial activism, but she was a republican and she did get a vote. now i hoped two weeks ago when 11 republican senators joined in voting to end the filibuster against jack mcconnell of rhode island that the senate was moving away from partisan attacks on judicial nominations. indeed, for the sixth time since president obama took office just over a couple of years ago, we've had to seek cloture to overcome a republican filibuster on one of president obama's well-qualified judicial nominations. those senators who claim to subscribe to a standard that prohibits filibusters of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances should not be able to support this filibuster because, as i've said, there are no extraordinary circumstances here.

i think of the memorandum of understanding i referred to earlier saying how we should fulfill our responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the united states constitution. in that, these 14 senators wrote about the need for the president to consult with senators. well, this president, unlike his predecessor, has been a model in that regard. unlike president bush whose nominees i always supported, president obama actually has consulted with both republican and democratic senators in the home states. and unlike my predecessor, the republican chairman of the judiciary committee, i have not proceeded with any nominee against the wishes of a home state senator. so apparently we have one rule,

eager to adhere to if it is a republican president and republican chairman of the committee. but man, oh man, nothing changes a rule faster than to have democrats here. i protected republican home state senators. in return, i would expect republican senators to respect the views of other senators and to work with the president. by the standard utilized in 2005, supported by republicans to end filibusters, to vote on president bush's controversial nominees, this filibuster should be ended. the senate should vote on the nomination. last year senate republicans filibustered the nomination of judge chen, an outstanding judge with 16 years experience. they delayed his senate consideration for months.

there was no reason to do it. finally, when that filibuster ended, the senate proceeded to vote and confirmed only active asian pacific american judge serving on the federal appellate court. the only one in all our courts. well, this nominee is likewise deserving of a vote and not a partisan filibuster. vote up, vote down. don't vote "maybe." that's not what we get paid for. when the committee healed second hearing on the -- held a a second hearing on the nomination, a hearing that i allowed, i hoped they would evaluate him fairly with open

minds. any senators who listened to professor liu's answers during hours of questions at two confirmation hearings and considers his responses to hundreds of written follow-up questions, hundreds to come away understanding this is an exceptional lawyer, a scholar who will make an outstanding judge, a judge who respects the rule of law and reveres the constitution. professor liu's answers under oath, his reputation as a well-respected law professor paint a very different picture than the caricature created by the attacks of special interest groups. no fair-minded person can or should question his qualifications, talent or character. nobody can doubt his temperament. hours, hours and hours of questioning, we heard of

judicial temperament. and unlike some of the nominees supported by the other side, he actually answered the questions. he assured the committee time and time again he understands the rule for a judge, the need for a judge to follow the law and adhere the rule of law. he met every test presented to him by senators on the judiciary committee on either side of the aisle. he skpaoedz every -- he exceeds every standard used to measure judicial nominees. i have concerns a conservative activist law professor nominated by president bush, professor mcconnell, would turn out to be a conservative activist judge on the tenth circuit. but i put faith in professor mcconnell's assurance he understood the difference between his role as a teacher and advocate and his future role as a judge. he o.ssured us he -- he assured us he respected the doctrine of stare decisis and as a federal

appeals court judge he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. his home state senator, senator mache, vouched for -- senator hatch, vouched for him. the similarity, except for the philosophy, is exactly the same between mcconnell and liu. we voted for mcconnell. they want to stop liu. i would hope every senator would treat professor liu with the same fairness that the others have, that we treated them. so give the same weight to professor liu's assurances that we did to professor mcconnell's identical assurances, identical assurances. then vote up or down. mr. president, how much time does -- the presiding officer: 13 minutes and 30 second. circumstance i'm understanding that you have the time that you need. felled need the rest, you're going to have your -- if he

would need the rest, you're going to have your time. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: over the past two years our nation has been engaged in a debate about the kind of country we want america to be, a place of maximum liberty and limited government or place where no problem is too big or too small for the government to get involved. this debate arose because of a president who made no apologies about wangtszing to move america to the left and it continues today despite widespread opposition to the president's policies, because of the president's clear determination to forge right ahead. but just as rome wasn't built in a day, neither is president obama's vision assured. rather, it's a work in progress. a big part of the president's plan was to put government in charge of our nation's health

care system. another part was making sure government calls the shots over private industry and elections. so much so that we're actually having a debate right now about whether businesses need to ask the white house permission to move to another state. and whether private businesses should be forced to disclose political contributions in order to get a federal contract. and still another part's president's vision involves the people he wants to put on our nation's courts. do we want people who have a reverence for the u.s. constitution and who believe it means what it says? or do we want people on our courts who care more about advancing an ideology that's antithetical to the constitution an they do about upholding it? this is the question presidents need to ask themselves when it comes to judicial nominees, and i think this president's preference in this area is abundantly clear. based on some of the nominations

we've seen, president obama wants men and women on the courts who will advance his vision, who would expand the scope of government beyond anything the founders could ever have imagined. yet not until now has the senate been asked to confirm someone who has so openly and vigorously repudiated the widely accepted meaning and purpose of the constitution. and here i'm referring of course to the nomination of goodwin liu to the ninth circuit court of appeals. so this afternoon i'd like to take a moment to explain why i believe it is so critically important a that the senate rejt this nomination now by opposing cloture on it. the first thing i'd like to say about mr. liu is that i have nothing against him pearnlly. no one disputes that he has a compelling personal story or that he's poe ssessed of a fine intellect. but earning a lifetime appointment isn't a right, nor is it a popularity contest. rather, it is incumbent upon those of us who are required to

vote on judicial nominees like him to evaluate each one of them closely, to examine he their judicial philosophies, to look at their records, and to consider their temperaments, and that's just what we've done here. what have we found? well, when this comes to mr. liu's record as a practicing lawyer, the first thing to say is tha it's almost nonexistent. he has no prior experience as a judge and minuteal in experience actually practicing law. this means that in evaluating what kind of judge mr. liu would be, and in trying to determine his judicial philosophy, we're necessarily limited to what he has written. and what do mr. liu's writing reveal in they reveal a left-wing ideologue who views the role of a judge not as this athat have an impartial arbiter but as someone who views the bench as a portion of power. as recently as two years ago, mr. liu said believes that the last presidential election gave liberals, as he put it -- quote -- "a tremendous opportunity to

actually get their ideas and the progressive vision of the constitution and of law into practice." end quote. here is an open acknowledgment by mr. liu that a judge should use his position to advance his own views. this is repugnant. anyone who holds such a view as a judge who undermine the integrity of the courts. so what are mr. liu's views? well in an article he push lished three years, he wrote that courts should interpret the u.s. constitution as containing a right -- a right -- a right to education, shelter, subsistence, and health care, a constitutional right. by this he meant that the court should determine how particularly welfare goods should be distributed, rather than the people themselves through the democratic process. the point here is that mr. liu appears to view the judge not as someone whose primary job is to interpret the constitution but

as someone whose lifetime tenure liberates him to advance his views of what the constitution means and empowers him to impose it on others. in his view, it is the job of a judge to create new rights regardless of what the constitution says or what the american people acted on during the democratic process. and while this philosophy may be popular on left-wing college campuses, it has no place whatsoever in a u.s. courtroom. anyone who enters our courtroom shooft assurance that judges will uphold their rights equally and that they won't overstep their bound. mr. liu's writings provide no such assurance. on the contrary, they suggest a deeply held commitment to the view that the constitution can mean, you know, pretty much whatever a judge wants it to. that judges can just sort of make it up as they go along. in his court, the defendant couldn't expect to be protected by the constitution and the laws

because the law is subject to the whim of the judge. this is precisely the opposite of what americans expect in a judge. it also happens to be the opposite of what the founders envisioned for the courts. as it says in federalist 78, the judicial has neither force nor will but merely judgment. compare this with his writings, which suggest again and again that a judge shouldn't look so much at words of the constitution when setting out to interpret it as they should -- quote -- "our collective values" -- unquote -- or our -- quote -- "evolving norms." -- end quote. well, let's be clear. it is the judge and his view that will determine which norms are evolving, not the american people. clearly, the constitution itself would take a back seat in his court. indeed, even a brief review of his writings suggest that as a judge, he might very well accord

greater respect to foreign law than he would to our own constitution. as he once wrote, the u.s. can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solution to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world. again, this might apply in a left-wing classroom, but it's cold comfort to those who look to the courts for equal jurchtdz the law. americans shouldn't have to wonder when they walk into an american courtroom which natio nations' law they'll be judged under. so as i see it, there's no question based on his writings that mr. liu's judicial philosophy is completely and totally antithetical to the judicial oath that he would be sworn to uphold. now, upon his nomination to the bench, professor liu has sought to distance himself from his legal writings. he told the judiciary committee that he stands by them, however. well, he can't have it both ways.

and as others have pointed out, if we can't go by the things he has written, there's nothing left upon which to evaluate him. so on the question of qualifications, professor liu just doesn't have much legal experience outside the classroom and while no one is saying teachers can't be good judges, this particular teacher's judicial philosophy, as evidenced bier his writings, is so far outside the mainstream, is that anybody who believes in the privacy of the u.s. constitution, should be deeply, deeply troubled by prot expect of his appointment to the court. i believe this nominee is precisely the kind of judge we want to prevent from getting on the bench. he should not be confirmed. i will vote against cloture, and i would urge our colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the majority. we're in a quorum call, sir. mr. reid: mr. president, i will use leader time to make nigh speech. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call, sir. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the quorumming terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'll use my leader time to give my remarks as soon as the -- i finish my remarks, i ask consent that the vote would go forward at that time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, two days ago came to the floor to talk about the nomination of goodwin liu, an extremely we will-qualified, fair-minded and respected legal consoli amplet the president has nominated thoim serve his country in the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. all week this body has heard speeches about mr. liu's merits.

so i'll repeat them only briefly. avenues rhodes scholar, clerked in the united states supreme court, served as associate dean at the california berkeley school of law, and is a professor there right now. he's done a lost pro bono work, even helped launch americorps. on top of that he is a lived the american dream. he's highly successful coven immigrants. his integrity has been praised by democrats and republicans. not just one or two, but many. former republican congressman and very conservative congressman bob barr commended lieu's commitment to the constitution. one of president bush's former lawyers says liu falls within the mainstream. even ken starr, whitewater special prosecutor, endorsed this man who served in the clinton administration. the record is clear. anyone who claims that goodwin

liu is anything but deserving of our confirmation is simply inadequate. -- inaccurate. but i recognize every senator has a right to vote how he or she feels they should vote. it's worth noting, however, that the vote before us now is not a vote to confirm him. it's a vote on whether he deserves an up-or-down vote and there's no question that does deserve that up-or-down vote. the simple up-or-down vote is hardly a controversial request. this not only my view or the view of my fellow democrats. it's the view of my republican friends as well. in a 2004 law review article, one of our republican colleagu colleagues, the junior senator from texas, a longtime member of the texas supreme court, wrote the following -- and i quote -- "wasteful and unnecessary delay in the process of selecting judges hurts our justice system and harms all americans. it is intolerable no matter who occupies the white house and no matter which party is in the majority in the senate, filibusters are by far the most

virulent form of delay imaginable." the junior senator from texas is in the chamber today. we will see if he still feels that way or if he will, in his own words, hurt our justice system and harm all americans with intolerable, virulent delays. we'll be carefully watching how he votes today. we'll also be carefully watching another republican senator, the senior senator from tennessee, who said this in 2005 -- and i quote -- "i pledge then and there i will never filibuster any president's judicial nomin nominee, period. i might vote against them but i will always see they come to a vote." the senior senator from tennessee's here today. never is about as unintig with s it gets. we'll be watching to see if he up holds his pledge. a third republican senator, the

junior senator from george george, said this in 2005 -- and i quote -- "i will vote to support a vote up-or-down on every nominee, understanding that were i in the minority party on the issue -- and the issues reversed, i would take exactly the same position because this document, our constitution, does not equivocate." the junior senator from georgia will be voting this afternoon. now, as he predicted, is he in the minority and the issue is reversed. we will see if, as he promised, he will take the same position or if he will equivocate. and here's a fourth. four years ago, another republican senator, the senior senator from utah and former chairman of the judiciary committee, said this on this floor -- and i quote -- "we may not use our role of advise and consent -- we may not use our role of advise and consent to undermine the president's authority to appoint judges. it is wrong to use the filibuster to defeat judicial

nominees who have majority support, who would be confirmed if only we could vote up or do down. that is why i've never voted against cloture on judicial nominations." yet another pledge never to vote against cloture on a judicial nomination. that's four. there are more. that is precisely the vote before us now. we'll be watching to see if the senior senator from utah follows his own counsel or if he, in his own judgment, undermines the authority of 9 president of the united states -- authority of the president of the united states. these pledges were made publicly and plainly. in a court of law, this would be -- they would be considered pretty clear evidence. it doesn't take a great legal mind of a goodwin liu to recognize that simple principle. we've heard the promises. now we'll hear the votes. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion.

we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, heeb move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of goodwin liu of california to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of goodwin liu of california to be united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit, shall be brought to a disploaz thclose? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 43. one senator responded "present." three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed agreed to. the presidinmr. durbin: i ask te senate proceed to legislative seangsdz proceed to a period of morning business until 6:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. officer without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska.

mr. johanns: mr. president, i come to the snroor to speak about the free trade agreement. i hope that this is the last time that i come to the floor on this issue. until we are actually debating these job-creating agreements. but i must admit i feel liege a holding my breath. 1,420 days have passed sidgesz the ution-korea free trade agreement was signed. 1,422 days have passed since we signed an agreement with panama, and it has been 1,640 days since we completed negotiations with our close ally, colombia. now, we have heard the administration tout the job-creating benefits of the agreements, so why more

roadblocks? our unemployment rate, mr. president, is nearly 10%. our workers deserve a consistent message on job creation from this administration. it has been over a month since president obama and the president of colombia made an announcement. the announce many was that negotiations had been completed -- i might add -- yet again. i was relieved that president obama finally announced that there was an agreement and that there was a need to complete the long overdue agreements. i am confident that the agreements brought to the senate and the house would finally win bipartisan support, and i still am today. in fact, over a month ago in the "wall street journal" my colleague, senator baucus, and kerry, called for congress to --

quote -- "restore a broadly shared bipartisan consensus on trade" -- unquote. now the administration seems to be moving the goalpost, suggesting continued delay. they're trying to hold these agreements up to force us to make spending increases that were contained in the ill-fated economic stimulus bill. during the challenging economic times that our nation has endured, we should all be doing all we can to exert every single ounce of energy to get our economy moving again and create jobs. this is not done by heavy-handed government. massive new spending, and new entitlements when our current programs are unsustainable. it is accomplished by lowering and removing barriers to our job creators so they can flourish.

korea, panama, and colombia all have much higher tariffs to our exports than we have to their imports. these three bipartisan votes should have been at the top of the agenda two years ago. by now we should be voting on new agreements that this administration has negotiated, not the leftovers from the previous administration. and we'll need an even greater focus on leveling the playing field through trade agreements if we're really going to double our exports in the next five years, which is the goal the president has set. yet the administration, claiming that reopening negotiations with korea, colombia, and panama was necessary, continued to talk through these agreements. i'm not saying every single agreement before us -- or hopefully before us -- is perfect.

no agreement ever is. however, let's not forget that these agreements were originally negotiated in good faith between allies. what does this delay to our -- delay do to our reputation as a reliable negotiating partner? back where i come from in nebraska, a lot of business is still done with a handshake. we trust our neighbors because they're good people with good values. but if you make a deal with someone and you shake on the deal and then keep changing the terms other delaying the follow-through, well, you tend to stop dealing with those people. i sure hope that doesn't happen to us. the fastest-growing opportunities for american businesses, farms, and ranches are outside of our borders. our greatest opportunities are overseas in rapidly developing

countries. i fear that these long delays have hurt our ability, the ability of our government to negotiate high-quality trade agreements. but most importantly, mr. president, it has hurt the ability of americans to compete in these growing marketplaces. and let's not predheandz this -- pretend that this delay has not cost american workers. since the colombia agreement was initially signed, all those days ago, our businesses and our agricultural producers have paid nearly $3.5 billion in tariffs for goods exported. that's enormous, especially when you consider that the u.s. international trade commission estimates that american -- that an american job is supported by every $166,000 in exports.

instead of wasting money on tariff payments, the u.s. manufacturing and ag sectors could have spent billions of dollars creating jobs here at home. i hope that we can soon get past the continued delays and the administration can signal to us that they're serious about doubling exports in five years. on july 1, less than two months away from now, the trade agreement between the european union and south korea goes into effect. it's also the date that the f.t.a. between canada and colombia goes into effect. the negotiators forbe other countries -- the negotiators for other countries are watching the united states, and they have seen a lack of trade policy. they have seen a change here, and they're doing everything they can to fill that vacuum with negotiated and approved

agreements. now our exporters will face even greater competition when our trade agreements are approved -- and hopefully they will be. the president said it very well in his state of the union address: quote -- "if america sits on the sidelines, while other nations sign trade agreements, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores" -- unquote. and that's exactly what's happening. i'll give one example. in 2007, american wheat farmers supplied colombia with almost 70% of the wheat market, even though they faced tariffs of 10% to 35%. by 2010, our wheat farmers' share of the market had dropped to 46%. where did that business go? well, meanwhile, canada's share grew from 24% to 33%.

that percentage will skyrocket when canadian farmers can export their products, duty-free, on july 1. our wheat farmers may effectively be shut out of the market that they come to nailted at one point in -- dominated at one point in time. americans who are out of work know firsthand that an opportunity is being missed. nebraska farmers, businesses,, workers those across the country know that we can compete with anyone, given a level playing field. after the absence of leadership on trade in washington during the last two years, though, the job of competing is harder and harder. in proclaiming this week as "world trade week," the president noted the connection between the global economy and prosperity in our own country.

he said, "to ensure our success, a robust, forward-looking trade agenda that emphasizes exports and domestic job growth" -- unquote -- must be put in place. it is disappointing that the positive steps forward we've seen over the past few months have slowed in recent days. and we just can't afford more setbacks. i look forward to working with the administration over the next two years on forward-looking trade efforts. real progress forward would produce great opportunity here in our country. but we've got to get this work done first. therefore, it is my hope that the president will bring to us, without delay, colombia and

panama and korea trade agreements for us to vote up or down. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from owe/. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciated the words from the junior senator from nebraska about these trade agreements and i take him at face vasm i know that he means wsm i know that he believes that these trade agreements help the american people. i also know that every time there is a major trade agreement in front of this congress, the presiding officer's first one, my first one -- something called the north american free trade agreement. they promised and promised and promised saying there would be all kinds of creation of jobs, all -- our trade surplus would grow, it would mean not just more jobs but better-paying

jobs. well, it didn't quite work out that way with nafta. then they did the same kind of promise and overpromise with pntr, permanent normal trade relations with china. we went from -- we had a small -- with mexico and with nafta, we had a trade surplus with mexico, not too many years before nafta was signed and it turned into a multimillion-dollar trade deficit. with china we had a small trade deficit. a deficit in trade simply means that we buy more from that country than we to that country. president bush the first said that a billion dollar trade deficit or surplus turns into $13,0013,000 or 19,000 jobs. the spoints that if you are saling a lot more than you're buying, it's going to create jbs in our country. if you're buying a lot more than you're selling, you're going to lose manufacturing jobs. well, when we went fro to litery

hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficit with china after pntr. all you got to do is look at going -- go into li any store in the country and see the number of products that are made in comien that used to be canadian vermont or ohio or michigan or pennsylvania or miss moirs wherever. so, mr. president, we know that these trade agreements that every time they come to the floor, the promises, going to create jobs for americans. they did it with nafta, they did it with pntr wit with china. now they're saying the same thing with south korea and panama and colombia. well, it just doesn't ever -- maybe the mai theory is good. i don't think it is. but may maybe the theory is but it doesn't seem to work out that way. i urge my clerks listen to what supporters of these trade agreements say. but you know trust but verify. and really ask the tough questions about why is this going to create more jobs in we

know the cost of south korea trade agreements liltly $7 billion. this is going to cost us a lot of money. they're not paying for t these fiscal conservatives don't want to take away the subdispris the oil industry. they're notin noting about to pr this -- they're not is going to pay for this trade agreement. we know what these lost jobs, we know what it means to mansfield, owe. we know what it means to sandusky and chillicothe and dayton and cleevmentd proud cities with -- proud cities with a proud middle class that have receive these manufacturing jobs so often go straight to mexico, go straight to china, go straight to countries all over the world after we sign these trade agreements or after we sign -- after we change these rules about -- about trade. so at a minimum, mr. president, i've asked the president of the united states by letter about 35 or so senators have signed this letter, we'll release this

letter -- we'll send the letter to the president tomorrow -- underscoring the president's commitment, the trade rep's -- the united states trade representative, ambassador kirk, and the president's economic advisor, jean sperling, who said they will not send these trade agreements to the congress until the president's had an opportunity to sign trade adjustment assistance. trade adjustment assistance simply says that when you lose your job because of a trade agreement that you at least are eligible for assistance for job retraining. to me, the problem is the trade agreements and that's costing us jobs. but at a minimum, in the great majority of democratic senators here understand with the president that we don't pass these trade agreements without helping these workers that are going to lose their jobs. to me it's a little bit of a counterintuitive, well, why pass these trade agreements at all if we expect job there is to come from them but the other side will argue that jobs will increase overall even though they always promise that and it

doesn't steam work that way. but everybody -- doesn't seem to work that way. but everybody acknowledges some people are going to lose jobs as we do these trade agreements. that's some sort of circular thinking that i don't particularlparticularly buy. but as a minimum, i said, because so often -- when these trade agreements pass, conservative republican sort of pro-corporate interest senators will say, well, we want to take care of these workers and let's pass a trade agreement and then at the just don't get around to taking care of the workers. that's why we've got to do trade adjustment assistance first, why we need to begin to enforce these trade rules. we saw in ohio alone in 2000 -- in the last three or four years because we enforced some trade rules because the president of the united states, president obama, and the mercy department and the international trade commission stood up and enforced trade rules on china's -- on gaming the system, on tires, on oil country tubular steel and less so bought coated paper, we've seen jobs in the united states come back because we're

leveling the playing field so they can't game the system as much. that's why it's important that we take care of workers before these trade agreements come to the congress, then we'll debate the trade agreements. i hope we can defeat them. i think it's going to be hard. and we make sure we do the enforcement of these trade rules that are for you in existence, that are -- that are now in existence, that are now part of the law before we -- and get that in place and strengthen that before we pass these bills, these trade agreements. so, mr. president, it's a pretty simple thing to do but it's important. and one of the trade agreements that the senator from nebraska mentioned, he was talking about the colombia trade agreement. i could talk on each of the three and -- and to the point of perhaps boring some of my colleagues but on the one trade agreement that's particularly egregious with the country of colombia, just last year, 50 trade unionists, 50 labor activists in clom yarp murdered. -- in colombia were murdered. 50 murders. and they're saying, the supporters of these trade agreement says yeah, but they're getting better in colombia, and

fewer trade union activists are getting murdered so really it's getting better. well, not that long ago, a labor rights lawyer was shot, did not die, is surviving, was injured badly. but it's just something a bit untoward about saying to this country, because you're getting better and fewer trade unionists are getting murdered that we ought to -- we ought to give them free trade, we ought to do a free trade agreement. i hope we'll stand back. if we really care about justice, if we really care about human rights, if we really care about the values that we embody of democracy and fair play, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with a country that -- where the labor environment is such that these labor union activists who believe in collective bargaining and free associations -- collective bargaining like the consensus we have in this country around collective bargaining, at least we did until some radicals in ohio and wisconsin tried to write legislation and have passed legislation that unwinds some of that, that's helped create a middle class.

but if we believe in collective bargaining, we believe in free association, we believe in the right of a people to voluntarily organize and then bargain collectively, we shouldn't be passing a trade agreement with the hazard -- with a country that has an environment where so many labor activists have been murdered. mr. president, i want to remind my colleagues again how important these trade adjustment assistance is before we pass these trade agreements. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to voice my concerns about a great deal of the controversy surrounding a complaint issued under the national labor relations act against the boeing company. boeing recently decided to open a new plant in south carolina. the national labor relations

board's acting general counsel, lief solomon, issued a compliance because of evidence this decision was made in retaliation for recent strikes at the boeing plant in the puget souped area. souped -- puget sound area. now, i hope that there is no dispute about a couple of points. first, boeing is a highly reputable company that produces great products valued around the world and great jobs. not just jobs but good jobs. and there should be no doubt also about the importance of public debate, robust criticism of government agencies, including the national labor relations board when it makes decisions that spark disagreement. and i have the greatest of respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who may have been critical of nlrb decisions in the past and of

this action in the present. and there should be no doubt also about the importance of the integrity of the nlrb process which begins with a complaint, which is all we have here, against boeing and then has a procedure for consideration by administrative law judge of the facts and the law, then to the full board of the nlrb and a right of appeal to the court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. here in this instance there have been a series of attacks on the complaint and the acting general counsel that involve apparent efforts to impede or derail that process and to prejudge and event preempt that process.

the effect is so politicize and potentially stop what should be a legal proceeding handled under the appropriate rules and laws and statutes by an independent government agency. this issue is about the integrity of the process. at this point, there is only a complaint against boeing. this complaint was issued on the basis of statements and documents and actions by the company itself. there is certainly evidence, including at least one boeing executive's statements, that the company may have retaliated against workers. the nlrb and the acting counsel have not only the right but the responsibility to investigate and act where the facts and the law establish, a right, an

obligation to do so. so no one should be trying to prejudge this case before it goes to the administrative judge and no one should be seeking a pass from the appropriate process and no one should be seeking to intimidate or to interfere with this lawful proceeding. i come to the floor today because of the prospect of exactly that danger occurring here. on may 12, chairman darrell issa, representing the chairman on government oversight and reform, sent a letter to the acting general cowns he feel the the -- counsel of the nlrb, requesting that he produce all related documents pertaining to this case. indeed, the letter has a number

of paragraphs that are sweeping in their scope, requesting, for example, demanding that all documents and communications referring or relating to the office of general counsel's investigation of boeing, including but not limited to all communications between the office of general counsel and the national labor relations board. the house committee, with all due respect, is not a court, it is not the administrative judge, it is not a proper party to be demanding these documents in the course of a lawful judicial proceeding. and the chairman's attempt to insert the committee into this case by conducting its own round of discovery at this point would interfere with the nlrb's ability to prepare and present its case before a real judicial officer. these actions and some others are an attack on the integrity

of the nlrb, an attack on its ability to make decisions and enforce the law as the united states congress has instructed it and required it to do based on decisions involving the facts and the law alone. the nlrb is part of our nutritional system, part of our justice system, and it should be given the opportunity to do justice in this instance. it should be given the opportunity to protect fairness and peace at the workplace which is ultimately its mandate and its very solemn responsibility, its tradition and its mandate from the congress is so protect jobs and to foster economic growth by maintaining peace and fairness at the workplace.

and these priorities should be shared by all of the country. i certainly believe and hope that the people of connecticut want fairness and peace in the workplace, as we do in our workplaces. the nlrb, very simply, should be given that opportunity to do justice here without improper or inappropriate interference by members of the united states congress or anyone else, and my hope is that it will be vindicated and that the attacks will cease and that it will be given the opportunity to go forward lawfully and appropriately and properly. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: madam president, are we in morning business now? the presiding officer: we are. mr. pryor: thank you, madam president. i'd like to speak for ten minutes or maybe even less on an issue that's very important to not just my state, but really important to the country, and that is we know this flooding is going on around the country. this is a picture from arkansas. clearly there are people all over the country or all over the south that are under waugt. you can see -- under water. you can see a lone mother sticking -- a lawn mower sticking up under the water in

east arkansas. we certainly say our prayers and any sort of assistance we can to people in my state, louisiana, mississippi, other places, missouri. obviously in missouri they have had lots of water up there and tennessee, other places that are under water right now. what i want to talk about today, though, madam president, is not this flood that the country is experiencing right now, but a flood in my state that happened three years ago. we had a situation three years ago where we had some flooding on the white river near a town called mountainhome, and fema paid out some money to the flood victims there. turns out some of that money was paid out wrongly. i want to talk about that here in just a minute. but let me start with june 1, 1865, president lincoln

described our government as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. and i liked president lincoln's descrichtion our government and i firmly believe that our government was created by our citizens to protect our citizens. it's therefore the benefit of our citizens and that's what i want to talk about today. many of you have heard me talk about fema's disaster assistance recoupment process, which by the ways and means 100% for recou recoupment. our federal agencies make mistakes and they send out things in air. there is some double-dipping, some lack of oversight, poor systems in place from time to time, some fraud, some dishonesty out there. and i think the taxpayers -- we owe it to the taxpayers -- the federal government owes it to the taxpayers to go out and recoup as much money as possible, and i want to focus on

one sliver of that and even within that sliver a very, very small piece of that small sliver, and that is fema's disaster assistance recoupment process. i have a bill on this subject, and since the last time that i've spoken about this on the floor, we've taken our bill, we've been in the homeland security committee, it has been reworked and modified, our staff and many other staffs on the committee worked on this late last week and over the weekend and early this week, and i think they spent over an hour with fema on the telephone to make sure that he understand all of fema's processes and how this really works. but the bottom line is, yesterday at homeland security, i was able to offer my new substitute bill, which was adopted in the committee. the substitute was adopted -- the amendment was adopted to the

bill. so we now have a new bill in terms of the text of the bill. the changes were negotiated. again, we spent a lot of time talking to staffs and members from both sides of the aisle, both sides of the committee, and basically what it does is very simple and it's much simpler than what we were doing a week ago on this. it's very simple. what our bill does is it gives the fema administrator the authority to waive disaster assistance recoupment efforts if three conditions are met. you have to meet all three conditions. first, the disaster assistance must have been distributed based solely on a fema ai air. so there can be no fault on the part of the person. second, there cannot be any fraud or any misrepresentation on the part of the debtor. and, third, the collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience.

and the reason we chose that phrasphrase is because that's a standard in current law. the department of defense uses that language when they talk about recoupment. the social security uses that language but also o.p.m. has that language in their law as we well. so this is not setting a press defnlts this is basically applying other standards, recognized standards in the federal government to fema. the reason this is important is fema technically has discretion right now. but fema can't tell us the statistics because they don't keep the statistics. but basically what we hear over and over and over from fema and other folks that are familiar with this process is that they cannot -- or they are very reluctant to waive these debts. they feel like they have a mandate to go recoup this money and collect this money, and that's what they do. and quite frankly, in some

circumstances what they'll disco they force someone to go through this appeal process. they'll make a determination that maybe that person has $100 a month in disposable income, and they'll basically take that $100 a month from that person, every month, for, say, five years. and in the case in arkansas i want to talk about in just a moment, the people supposedly owe back, according to fema, owe back $27,000, and so if they did that and they took all of their disposable income, and let's just say it's $100,000 -- we don't know what it is, because we don't know all the facts. i'm not trying to get into awl their personal financial in fact. but let's say it's $100 a month-on-of disposable income. but for five years fema takes all their disposable income and at the end of the five years fema has selected $ 6,000 hon ads 27,000 debt. are we really getting what we

want out of this? are we traig to squeeze blood out of a turnip here? and i've been work on this legislation for two monthe mont. all we're trying to do is give fema some discretion to let them make decisions, again, when equity and good conscience would dictate that there ought to be a waive. and it's not that hard. and i know that right now in the congress -- and this is a good thing. i know right now in the congress people are very money-conscious. that's good. we're pinching pennies. we're etrying to recover every federal dollar we can. that's good. i know the president -- the presiding officer right now has been leading the charge on that and that's good. we applaud her and we're cheering for her to continue to do that. we want her to do that. we want that for the government. but -- but -- one of the things that our government should do in dealing with its citizens, they

should consider the equity and they should consider doing things in good conscience. and in this situation, i want to talk about the situation here in arkansas. i want to talk about one family who's received one of these letters from fema. there's not very many. we don't know the exact number but we know there's not very many that will fall under this statute we're troig to address. but in this one family, they're in their 0*e7s, on social security, they bought this home or built this home, i'm not sure which, nears and years ago on the white river -- near mounta mountainview. when they purchased the home, they bought flood insurance. they knew they were on a requirement they knew it might flood. it is a river, for crying out loud. it's in arkansas. it rains from time to time. they knew it might flood. so they bought flood insurance. after so many year, the flood insurance company said, we're not going to do anymore flood snurnls.

we're not even offering that line anymore. they went to lloyd's of london and they bought flood insurance. they carried that for a number of years. finally lloyd's of london said we're not doing flood insurance anymore. then they tried to buy flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. they could not do that because the county where they reside had not passed an order thans that fema had approved -- an ordinance that fema had approved. don't know why they couldn't. but the bottom line is that the county knew that fema had not passed this ordinance. they had to know t femme in a ma keeps it all by flood zone. they keep it by flood zone map. they take photos. they get rid of the paperwork. they are asure that couple -- they assure them -- that they're entitled to this money. and they walk them through the process. the people did it. got $27,000 in fema.

and this individual assistance money. those people took every dime of it and put it back in their whom. every dime, put it become back in their home. they played by the rules from the beginning to the end. then three three years later, fema writes them a letter and say, oh, by the way, we made a mistake. we should never have given you that money in the first place because your county hadn't passed this ordinance. so you owe us $27,000 back. you have 30 days to pay it back or you'rin you are you're goinge penalties and interest. again, this countr couple son sl security. this could ruin them financially. probably will ruin them financially. i don't know how in the world they would ever pay this, anywhere close to the $27,000. nonetheless, fema says, look, our hands are tied. we've to squeeze everything we

can get out of these folks. my view is that this was completely fema's mistake. that's why i opened with the quote, "we're supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." this doesn't sound shrike he fema is acting like that type of government right now. fema has caused these people hample our government should never harm its own people, should never harm its own people. that's exactly what they've done heemplet because of fema's incompetence back three years ago, they are harming these people. these people three years ago, had they known that they were not jicialtion had they known that they shouldn't apply for this had they known fema shouldn't have given them this money, they would have that ena different course. they would have made decisions based on the circumstances they had at the time. now they're having to go back -- who knows if they can ever pay this money back. who knows if they can ever borrow any money. who knows how this is going to

work out. i feel like if we gave fema the discretion in this particular case, you'd see a different result. you'd see fema say, okay, we'll waive this entirely. we're just not going to pursue you because this is all our fawvment i think clearly fema needs to have is that discretion in the statute. again, if you look at the regs, look at the law, their practices, they do on paper have this discretion. but they're re-reluctant to use it. and their inspector general is really pressuring them to collect every dime they can. so fema feels like their hands are tied. madam president, let me say just a couple more words about this. i have asked the homeland security committee to allow us to reconsider this in the committee. there was a little bit of an odd circumstance in the committee yesterday. we had the votes, but some of the senators who were there and for this either had to leave or -- that ar that were on the waye

voted and we ended up not having enough to pass it. if everyone were there, we would have passed this. now what we're asking is we're asking to reconsider that we be allowed to bring this back up and put it back on the next mark jurntion which i think is going to be next week. we would like to do that. we think it is a matter of fairness. and the reason i'm asking this and i'm so insistent on this is because this is not limited to my state. i'm just not -- i'm not trying to just help a few people in the state of arc ancht i think there are -- state of arc ancht but what's happening around the country is -- i saw it today -- there were two stories, one from tennessee, one from mississippi, sage same thing shaping in those states. people are starting to get these letters from fema. what's going to happen is all of my colleagues, they are real estate going to start coming to the homeland security and say, do something about this. we have these hardship cases in our states that need to be addressed.

and, trust me on this, this is going to happen for most people in this chamber in their home states because fema has a backlog of 165,000 of these cases. they've only gone through a little over 5,000 of them to send these back and process these and send these letters out. they have 165,000. they've done about 5,000. they have 160,000 of these to go. you can bet your bottom dollar that most senators in this chamber will have people in their home states that need a little equity, need a little grace, and need 20 have their government stop beating up on them. again, i feel very strongly that in this particular case, fema has done these people harm. they've put them in a very dangerous position financially. they gave them some money. now they're trying to jerk the rug out from under them and take the money back. i just think that's unfair. and i think that once these

cases -- and there won't be many of them. there may just being a couple hundred arnghtdz country. i think that once people get into these cases, they're going to want fema to clearly have in discretion. and the first numbers we ran, it was only about .3%. .3%. but now probably -- it may be a little higher than that but we zoo know because fema doesn't keep accurate statistics. one last thing on fema. i feel like fema has fixed this for the present time and going forward. i feel like when director few de came in, this was one of the cleanups he had to do from the previous administration. i think they've done that. i think they have better systems in place. i think that their competence level has gone up in the last couple years. i think generally he's doing a pretty good job. i don't agree with him on every single thing but he's done a pretty good job and we've had

him in the committee and we've asked pointed questions before but i know he's trying. he took over an agency that was in great distress. and i think generally he's done a good job and i think he's fixed this. at least he thinks he has and as far as i know he has. i think they much more have their act together now than they did back then. so my point is that hopefully will you not see these kind of cases come from the flooding that we're seeing right now. these are really legacy cases from the previous fema administration. so i'd like to thank my colleagues for being aware of this. i'd like to ask my colleagues on the homeland security to allow us to bring this back up, put this back on the markup. let's get it out of the committee. un, one of the great things about home -- you know, one of the great things about homeland security is very, very seldom do we have party-line votes in that committee. we do sometimes but very seldom. that committee's very nonpartisan. in fact, the chairman and ranking member insist on that. and when we sit in that committee, we actually sit around the table, democrat,

republican, democrat, republican, democrat, republic republican. it's a great committee to serve on. i love being on that committee. and i just hope that my colleagues on the committee and also in the chamber will encourage us to -- to move this through the committee next week and try to get this done to help a lot of people around the country. madam president, with that, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call for -- and be recognized as if in morning business for two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: thank you. madam president, i rise today to commend the work of our navy operating off the coast of somalia. over the weekend, the u.s.s. steven w. groves encountered a pirate mothership, a captured taiwanese fishing vessel. the pirates aboard exchanged fire with the steven w. groves and once the firefight ended, a boarding party found the taiwanese captain had been murdered along with the death of three pirates. the crew of the groves captured 19 surviving pirates. but, unfortunately, by much higher command was instructed to return them directly to somalia. now, i recently visited the

groves shortly after a previous engagement with this same taiwanese ship in april. and i want to personally commend the commander, matthew rick, and his crew aboard the steven groves for the work they've done fighting piracy in the gulf. their actions over the weekend eliminated the pirate ship of one mothership and unfortunately we have many more to take out. also on monday, a helicopter from the u.s.s. buckley responded to a distress call from the m.v. artimus glory, a german-owned crewed carrier. the helicopter from the buckley saw the pirates firing on the merchant ship and returned fire, sinking the skiff and killing the four pirates aboard. also on monday, u.s.s. bainbridge responded to a distress call from a cargo carrier, the m.s.e. alia after the crew of the alia repelled a

pirate attack. the bainbridge arrived and located the mothership responsible for the attack. the crew made contact with the pirates who ultimately agreed to abandon their mothership that they had hijacked just four days before. ironically, the skiff of the pirates then sank and the pirates were rescued by the bainbridge. madam president, i want to commend the men and women serving on the u.s.s. steven groves, the u.s.s. buckley, and the u.s.s. bainbridge for jobs very well done. my hope in the future is that we can have far more robust rules of engagement empowering commander rick and his fellow commanders to eliminate the threat of piracy. of course, this mission would be in the highest traditions of the united states navy and in the tradition of the jefferson administration that so ably handled this threat when it

emerged in the early part of the 19th century. my only hope is in the coming administration review by secretary of state clinton that she adopts a more jeffersonian policy with regard to this threat and so that the sea lan lanes, which control 70% of the world's supply of oil, and so that the ransoms, one-third of whom are now being paid to terrorists that operate the largest terror training camps on earth, can be eliminated. and with that, madam president, i yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise today to speak about the importance of getting our young people involved -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, senator. mr. manchin: permission to address the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise today to speak about the importance of getting our young people involved in our electoral process and to highlight a west

virginia school with a standout record for going the extra mile to encourage students to register and to participate in voting. i tell young people all the time, you cannot sit on the sidelines and watch life happen. you have to get in the game and start making the calls. the same can be said about our democracy. if you want results, you have to first become an informed and active voter. voting is one of the greatest rights of the free people of a free nation possess. over the course of our history, many have fought tirelessly to gain the right. it was jennings randolph who relentlessly pushed for the 26th amendment to the constitution, ensuring those 18 years of age or older had the right to cast a ballot. it took him almost 30 years to get this passed. he started during world war ii. it didn't pass until 1971.

each vote matters, and the individuals casting those votes matter even more. i know that firsthand because i was honored to serve west virginia in the highest elected office for the electorate -- elections officer was the secretary of state. i served from 2000-2004. during my tenure, we established a program we called saving history and reaching every student, which was known as the shares program, which promoted democracy in west virginia schools. we registered 42,000 high school students. in my state, so many of the students, if they are 17 years of age but they turn 18 on the election day, november 4 or before, they can vote in the primary while they are 17. they didn't know that, and we started promoting. we had ambassadors, and they were all working and trying to get 100% of their class that was eligible to participate to register and then vote. and then we would reward them with a school of excellence. my staff and i traveled the

state speaking with high school seniors, encouraging them to complete a voter registration form and to participate in our elections. a decade after that program began, it gives me great pleasure to stand here on the senate floor today and recognize a school, one school that truly takes it to a whole another level with their students, and they took it very seriously as far as democracy and their right and their responsibility to participate. every year for the past decade, the staff and the members of fayette county's meadow bridge high school with their outstanding principal have registered 100% of each senior class. this is truly a remarkable accomplishment, and i am unaware of any other school in our great state or across this nation that has produced voter registration numbers like those for ten years in a row. think of it. every student in the senior class of this school for ten

years got everybody registered to participate. the school takes important steps like explaining the registration form, the election process and the importance of one's vote, all of which go a long way in opening the minds of young adults and showing them that it is easy to become involved, cast a vote and make a difference. and i have said this to so many young students and the students that come and work with us every day. the most valued thing that you will ever own in your life is your vote. it belongs to you and nobody else. there's only one -- your vote. nobody can take that away from you. i applaud meadow bridge high school students, faculty and staff for their commitment to our democracy, and i challenge other high schools to follow meadow bridge's example. let us work together to encourage our nation's young adults. even more when it comes to our democracy and our national issues. this is not a partisan issue. as so many things might be in this body, this is not. it's all of us working together

to continue to lead this great country. it's all of us being americans and that we should support for the future of our great nation this democracy of ours the freedom to vote. i'm so proud that west virginia's own meadow bridge high school is such a great example, not only for the state of west virginia, but for young students all over this nation. thank you. madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: is

recognized. a senator: madam president, i rise today to -- the presiding officer: senator, i think we're in a quorum call.

mr. blunt: i move to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i rise today to talk about president obama's speech today on the support of the arab spring, or at least what we're calling the arab spring. i believe and hope that as many of my colleagues do, that it's in the united states best interest to advance freedom in the middle east, supporting free people and democratic governments has always guided american foreign policy. lending our support to people who yearn to freedom is really part of our national d.n.a., and doing so in a practical and pragmatic way within the context of regional stability is imperative to our national security. in recent weeks i've been very supportive of the president's actions as threelted to osama bin laden and the decisions that were made there. in recent months i've thought that the president has been a

little unsteady in advancing the principles that i mentioned earlier. he demonstrated uncertainty in dealing with president mubarak before withdrawing his support, and if i can say so, withdrawing his support suddenly. after hesitating for several weeks and allowing mr. qadhafi to regroup, we then authorized u.s. participation in a nato air operation with a confusing mission that doesn't have the kind of u.s. leadership that it might have benefited from. and then in syria, we stood on the sidelines for weeks while terrible things happened to pro-freedom demonstrators before we fine lail us an nod a series of sanctions just this week. we all recall that in 2509 the iranian regime possibliably could have been unseeded by proponents of freedom. at that time, the president and the united states barely liflt

add finger to support those elements. indeed, the president's entire narrative has been unclear since he took office as it relates -- since the time he took office from the time of his cairo speech in 2009. i think that speech has left our friends in the arab world both disillusioned and confused. nobody from the american people to the arab streets seems sure what our policy is in support of freedom. so i was very interested in the president's speech regarding the new american policy in the region, targeted toward rapidly changing situations in the middle east. the president laid out a plan for an aid program for some middle eastern countries hoins ternal stability is challenged by recent events. the plan would consist of a combination of grants, of loans, of debt forgiveness, and the president's plan, i believe, madam president, has merit --

madam president, has merit and there is value to a robust growth in the united states to support these certain governments at a critical time. however, it's important that we recognize that any support given to these emerging or existing arab governments can only be of helpful to them if they're helpful to themselves. i believe that congress must be a partner in the development of this package for it to work. congress will have to ensure that whatever aid is given is both targeted toward an outcome that is in the national security interests of the united states and doesn't increase the u.s. deficit. so it'll be a matter of looking at where we can find resources to use them in this new and different way. my support for the president's idea will also be contingent on several principles being met by the government that receives any u.s. aid. as a member of the foreign

operationoperations --operations committee, i'm going to be looking for things this awhere the president would certify that the following conditions are being met to proceed further with this plan that he outlined today. first, i think the government and its leaders must reject all forms of terrorism if they expect to receive this kind of assistance from us. secondly, they must demonstrate a credible plan for economic development and poverty reduction. lack of access to economic opportunity has been the driving force behind what's happened in these countries. it was not about us. it was not about israel. it was about jobs and food and economic opportunity. and so that has to be one of the criteria that these governments would be looking at. third, they need to demonstrate a record of support for the rule of law, a prerequisite for ensuring that u.s. aid dollars will not be used to subvert the system of justice or to jail opponents or to undermine

constitutional government. fourth, they must respect minority and religious freedoms, including women's rights. fifth, they must have a sustained commitment to democratic reform and institution-building. nobody believes that democratic societies spring up overnight. but recent months remind us that failing to demonstrate commitment to a more open system of government can end in upheaval and force change. six, these governments, if we help them, must respect international norms such as honoring their treaty obligations and respecting universal human rights. and lastly, but certainly not least, any government participating in the aid package like the one the president talked about today must be committed to regional peace. and in particular, madam president, that includes peace with israel. israel has both the most to gain and the most to lose as new

attitudes towards freedom and democracy spread throughout the middle east. leaders that are tempted to bait their populations with anti-semitism and other -- and then respond to their passions may be even more dangerous to israel than the regimes that they're replacing. but an adage of international relations is that truly free and democratic societies respect others' existence, recognize one another's right to peace and solve their conflicts through peaceful resolution, not violence, not threats, not terror. as nations throughout the middle east undergo change, we should closely monitor their attitudes toward israel. only nations that are constructive in their attitudes and policies towards our allies rail should be eligible for the kind of aid the president discussed in his speech. none of these conditions are met -- meant to suggest that these governments must be identical or that their leaders must always

agree with the united states. i believe, for example, the kingdom of jordan currently meets these standards. i'm hopeful that egypt tion new leertds will commit to these principles as we will. leaders in the palestinian authority should look to them as a model for receiving aid from the united states and other western governments. the president also addressed the need for a peace settlement between the israelis and the palestinians. it would be hard to find anybody in this body who doesn't agree with that concept. we need peace. the israelis need peace. the palestinians need peace. but we need to be very careful that we don't set expectations so high that we create deep challenges, not only for that process but also for the kind of regional acceptance of israel that must occur in order to achieve peace. in particular i'm concerned that the president believes that unilateral concessions by israel, including redefining its

borders, are a pathway to peace. i just simply don't think that makes sense p. there doesn't even appear to be a palestinian partner capable of making the hard decisions that must be -- must occur in order to get an agreement. do we really think that hamas that's recently joined the government is going to be a part to a peace deal with israel? the palestinian authority has made real progress on the west bank in recent years while hamas has brought chaos to gaza. a palestinian authority that can't recognize israel can't peace. that's why any financial relationship that the u.s. has with the palestinian authority neighs to be based on the principles i just described. in his famous westminster speech in 1982, president reagan told the world the following: "while we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take

concrete actions to move toward them. we must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative a lucky view but the inail enable right of all human beings." i believe those words are no less true today 30 years later than they were then. we're in an extremely important moment as we watch a movement toward freedom unprecedented in the history of the arab world. -- unfold. it is important to note that those taking to the streets are not burning american flags or shouting anti-western slogans. the a also probably important note that they're not waving american flags. madam president, it is not simply about us. it is about them. their passions are driven by generations of economic sag nation and a lack of political and economic freedom that's left them behind much of the free world's prosperity. these freedoms are exactly what the united states stands for. america's role is to support

responsible leaders committed to peace and sustainable democratic change. i'm hopeful the president will work with my colleagues and in the congress to extend a helping hand to those leaders who are truly committed to these values and if he does, i hope to be part of that process as well. i believe that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. thank you. quorum call: