india is still reaping the benefits of the path set in the motion by minister singh in 1990. but i think india's at the point now where future growth will depend on success in this next wave of reforms not just in ther financial sector, butinan importantly in the financial sector. i think in many ways india's economies has outgrown itsutgr financial system, and if you've got the huge needs for capital financing by indian business, the success of the indian economy is going to depend to a substantial extent on the success of this next wave of next generation of financial reforms.ne and, of course, we hope to be a we faced challenges in the united states as well. on the trade investment side, we thinking there are substantial opportunities to improve access for indian companies in the

united states and for u.s. companies competing in india. indian technology and ideas and talent already plays a major role in the american economy, and that is only going to grow over time, and we are committed to not just running an open nondiscriminatory investment regime, welcoming indian investment, but we want to find ways to make indian companies have a greater role in our economy. we will talk about things that are important to us in the indian market, as the authorities look for ways to improve the quality of the investment environment. growth requires capital and investment and ideas, and there is a lot of room for improvement. we are working carefully to build a strategic economic relationship. we do that in the budget areas. we have very productive technical working exchanges under way on things like that management or how to build a more effected -- regime, a whole

range of issues. we work closely together and all the major international economic and financial furm, an indy g- 20 in particular, not just because of the credibility experience of indians economic leadership, but india is a model for with a more balanced system. a good example for the rest of the world in that context. that is one reason india plays such an important role in the g- 20 process to bring the emerging-market economies it together on things that are good for growth. that is our agenda. it is a personal privilege for me to take part in these talks. i spent a large part of my youth

in india growing up. i think i spent more consecutive years in india than any other country by the time i was 20. it had a huge impact on my view of the world and that makes it a particular privilege for me to have the chance to work to build a much stronger economic relations. i look forward to our conversations. >> thank you. i would like to express my deep appreciation to the brookings institution for organizing this conference. in particular, secretary geithner. i will have the opportunity of discussing with him in detail not only how to respond between

india and the u.s.a., and also there are issues on which we share common perceptions. one of the fundamental principles of our relationship is we share many common patterns. we have now engaged not only in strategic partnerships but also to expand the relationship in various international forums, particularly the g-20, as an important forum to address the problems [unintelligible]

it has developed into a major financial crisis. the weaknesses inherent in the system, and too much dependence on market results. effective regulations point out the weakness in the system. we have taken certain measures in this forum and a full cup summit, the latest one, which has clearly outlined the measures to be taken by the various countries to ensure that there is a proper and orderly

development on a sustainable basis. i would like to share with this audience the problems and prospects of the indian economy. many economies were badly hit, but not to the extent that many others suffered. one simple fact will point out the depth of the problem. at the beginning of the year to designate, our economy was growing almost at the same pace with the previous year, that was around 9%. but with the growth scenario, we

noticed -- in the last quarter, and indications were it would be as low as 5.8%. therefore we had to step then, and like many other countries, we had to provide the fiscal based by injecting a stimulus package, almost 3% of our gdp, but it had its cost. the fiscal expansion literally created a distortion that we prevented the [unintelligible] of the gdp growth and we had modest growth of 6.6%. the next. with 8%, and in 2010 it was

8.5%. of course in my budget, when i presented the details are predicted the 2011 level would be around 8.5 to 8.75%. but that does not mean that we are coming back to the path of higher growth scenario without any problems. one of the problems is inflation. inflationary pressure is putting a serious constraint. if we can have a moderate rate of inflation and a reasonable

level of growth, the monetary and fiscal policy must move in tandem. in india, where growing slowly. therefore, the point i would like to emphasize is that india, the growth potential is there. the rate of savings and the rate of investment is reasonably high. the various -- it will insure there is investments that can attract investment from

different parts of the country. sometimes questions have been raised, looking in the short term, in the initial months of the current calendar year. the question was raised, almost every year in the past few months of the calendar year, there is a slow down, but in the latter part of the year, it makes up. this is not in one year, but it has happened in the past.

as i was mentioning, inflation is an important constraint that we will have to tackle. to be very frank, a tolerable level of inflation is difficult to define. but in our economy, we have seen that if we cannot give the inflationary pressure -- keep it within 5% to 6%, it would have been ideal. this year i hope it will be a little more, not because of real supply constraints.

we have substantially address that by taking appropriate measures. but the international commodity price is causing serious concern. we are appreciative of the 60 billion barrels for the month of july, but when i look at the $90 billion, the 2 billion barrels is not very significant. nonetheless, it has had its impact. the prices have started coming down.

we have adjusted the price of oil and also by providing [unintelligible] appealing to the provincial governments. i hope it will have some impact. this is going to be a major problem and it will have its impact on our world. we have taken certain steps, as i was talking of, we have

recently finalized the guidelines. we have also decided that all investment of policy to be more friendly -- more user-friendly. it has been consolidated into one comprehensive document that will be reviewed every six months. we have gotten the specific intent of our policy. it has been clearly defined in this regard.

certain important legislation like reforms of the banking regulations act, the announcement on the insurance sector [unintelligible] these three important legislation as i have introduced in the last session of parliament, and i do hope it will be possible for us to get these legislations past, but i will -- as i was mentioning to secretary geithner, in our system, we have to have the consensus from the other party because we do not have that simple majority to get the laws passed in our parliament.

the talks about the consensus are going on and i hope it will be possible, with the help the parties concerned, we will be able to get these decisions past. in that area of taxation, we have allocated new reforms. i hope from the next financial year we will be able to it.ational lieize the goods and services tax, we are trying to evolve a consistent as part of our constitutional practice.

there are areas of taxation which the constitution has authorized the federal government and provincial governments to enforce taxes. unless the state agreed and a solution is introduced fast, this is not possible to make it effective. for that constitutional amendment, a special majority and 50% of the provincial government. the consensus among the major political parties, we are working on that to get this legislation passed.

we have decided to allow the internal cost to directly affect the investment from foreign investors who meet the guidelines with a view to facilitate investment opportunities in india. only to the foreign institutional investors. [unintelligible] it has been enhanced considerably from the existing $15 billion. the original limit being available for the bond offerings. for this announcement also there

will be a lockout. three years. introducing this subject, during the next five years from 2012 to 2017, our infrastructure investment will be very substantial. is about $1 billion u.s. 50% of that is to come from the private sector. we do expect that these immediate measures including the recent guidelines which we have issued, it will be possible for

the present sectors to come and make investments. in order to make it successful, we are providing a funding mechanism which is quite effective. the last point i would like to emphasize, as i mentioned at the beginning of my observations, that in order to prevent the dissolution of growth, in 2008 we had to lessen the fiscal expansion. today with the problem of fiscal consolidation, while presenting

the defense budget, with the mandate of the people, i declare that we shall come back to this sooner than later. i am happy to inform this this thing which gathering that we have been able to do so. for the year 2010-2011, i predicted that the fiscal deficit would be 5.5% of our gdp, but we have been able to manage it to four 0.7% of gdp -- 4.5% gdp. for the next year we have predicted 4.6%. i hope in the next couple of years it will be possible for us to come back to the fiscal deficit to the level which we had before the crisis.

thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i have taken more time that i intended to. [applause] >> thank you, mr. minister. thank you, mr. secretary. we will now join our discussion session. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure and an honor. perhaps the first question to secretary geithner, i know that you and the obama administration or admire in india's growth rate. >> and fiscal deficit. [laughter] >> but there is some time of feeling in the advanced countries in europe and the u.s. that this growth rate somehow subtracts from progress

in other countries. how do you explain, how do you elaborate on the interdependence of economies on how, in fact, wrote in the emerging market economies, particularly in india, in some circumstances is actually quite beneficial to the u.s. economy and u.s. consumers and investors? it is sometimes a hard thing to really explain and get the message out. maybe you can take this opportunity to say a few words on that. >> it seems self-evident to us, but it is not necessarily accepted immediately by anybody. the way i think about it is this. if you look at the american economy today, the most rapidly growing and strongest parts of the american economy are those most able to benefit from the

rapid growth we are seeing in india and other parts of the world. export growth has been good in the early stages of recovery. if you look across agriculture, high technology, manufacturing, the most resilient and dynamic parts of the american economy are those most exposed to the growth opportunities we see in india and the emerging economies. with that export growth, you see more jobs, more opportunity, you can demonstrate to the average people why we have such a strong taken this relationship. growth in india is good for the united states. it is no threat to the united states, and the more successful they are in putting in place reforms to help a lot future growth, the better it will be for the united states, just as is true that we benefit greatly from the sheer scale of indian

talon we have operating in the u.s. economy, the ideas and innovations they bring is good for our economy. as president obama was so successful in doing in india, you can point to the tangible benefits that come from more investment opportunities and they understand it better. >> this morning there was discussion on the world economy on current account deficits and so on. one point that was made by several speakers is that india contributes to world a man. >> as do week. >> in terms of absolute size, maybe you want to reduce your as a little bit. >> you are right. let me step back and make a general point. for the world economy as a

whole, to grow at the kind of highest, most sustainable level possible, we need to see more balance across the economy as a whole. we need to see more modest deficits over time in countries like the united states but you need to see more modest surpluses over time in countries like china. if you are not able to achieve that, the risk is that future growth will be more volatile. you see more volatility in exchange markets they can put pressure on governments trying to develop. for the united states, that means that we have to see the basic pattern of growth shift dramatically from what we saw in the last decade. it was an expansion built on a more tenuous foundation of

consumption fueled by borrowing and a substantial decline in savings rates. to be successful in the future we need to see a growth strategy were driven by investment and export growth, and we need to see a shift to more responsible saving pattern, not just by the average american, but by the government itself. we are seeing that pattern start to take shape in the united states. >> these are the questions much debated in the g-20. india is now a member of the g- 20. it is a wonderful development to be emerging economies like india. how do you see the role of india in the g-20 and cooperate -- cooperation with the u.s.? exchange-rate policy issues --

how would you about your weight the discussions and the progress made at the g-20? -- how would you evaluate the discussions? >> the establishment of the g- 20 has clearly demonstrated the -- 85% of the world economies are represented by the countries of the g-20. it is because of the g-20, [unintelligible] to prevent money laundering and

to counter terrorist activities, the positive contribution made is the contribution of the g-20 to ultimately [unintelligible] it compels the jurisdictions to cooperate to prevent money- laundering effectively. i am just giving you one example. there is a sustainable framework as you look for sustainable development. without taking into account

[unintelligible] but we are basing the current crisis by providing resources and there is an important ingredient in that some that is an important contribution. the most important piece, the free and frank discussions which take place. at least that is my experience. the secretary will agree with me, in most of the issues, we arrive at consensus. this practice should be

encouraged at all times. i think the g-20 is doing well and we should encourage it to play a more effective role in the coming years as we reach sustainable growth. >> there is sometimes a simplistic view that says in the g-20 you have the old d-7 and then there are the developing countries. there are quite a few issues. on some issues, maybe it is closer to the emerging markets. would both of useppa few words on the dynamics of the g-20? are there two separate groups, where is it much more intact and flexible -- would both of you say a few words on the dynamics of the g-20? it goes across that line of

emerging markets. >> it might be cultural, there will be convergence in india. one of the characteristics of in the yet, we say there is community in diversity. therefore, when we meet in the g-20, there are countries having different perceptions, different culture, different values, but having a common approach of approaching the issues that affect all of us in a consensual way.

there is a convergence of views in certain issues in all of the emerging economies, whether g-7 or g-10, all are converging into the g-20. the divergence will be narrowed down. >> i agree, there for coalitions depending on the issue. one of the things we have done together over the last few years was to build consensus on reforms to make the governing structure of the international financial institutions more balanced and open and legitimate. in that context, many of the europeans have a somewhat different view. our position was closer to india than to them. there are lots of other issues.

we all recognize that for there to be better economic outcomes for the world as a whole, we have to find a way for countries to work together more carefully to make sure they take into consideration the external effects of our policies. think about international financial reform. you cannot create a more financial -- more stable financial system by leaving the design of capital requirements assembly to national authorities. if you do that, you will just raise them in one place but shift all the risk to somewhere else. we saw that happen in the years before the crisis. there is a compelling compared to for closer cooperation because we are more integrated now. the g-20 is doing a good job of building a foundation to take advantage of that natural interest we have together,

mutual interest in negotiating better, and outcomes. >> the projections in india, very convincing projections for growth of to 10% in a couple of decades. china may go down a little bit, but growth is more likely to be rapid. we hope the u.s. will grow at 3% in the long run, it seems possible. all this when you add it up, given the bigger weight of this rapidly growing economy, adds up to world growth that is unprecedented. are there any worries about natural resources, environment, climate? how to manage an economy that grows so rapidly and provide so many new benefits to billions of

people, but do we have the natural resource base, are we investing enough in new technologies to allow this to be sustainable from an internal point of view? >> i do feel there are areas of cooperation. many of the countries, including india, require technological support. the cooperation we are having with a usa, education and development, in our concept of sustainable development, the climate is most important ingredient. we cannot allow all the internment to be disturbed further.

it will have to be preserved but essentially there is no confrontation between environmental protection and development. we will have to synchronize it in such a manner that development takes place, maintaining the environment as required. sustainable development, the most important ingredient is maintaining the environment. >> the world at the moment is such an interesting mix of huge promise in terms of the growth trajectory of the emerging economies, not just india, and much of the rest of the world still digging out of a crisis

that could have been a second great depression. there is huge promise in the growth potential of emerging economies. that will help the world heal the damage caused by the crisis more quickly. it will bring tremendous pressure on resources, and demands for capital, and a lot of pressure on the system as a whole. that is why it is important that we build a better framework for cooperation so we have a better capacity to manage the inevitable tensions that come with that growth. >> we will have to request is. you'll have to tell me when we are out of time but want to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity. i have to give someone in the back the first question.

>> i have a question for each of you. what do you perceive to be the biggest obstacle to greater u.s.-india economic and financial partnership? >> clearly there is a different in the perception, but for discussions and negotiations, we have been able to remove the obstacles which were there. for example, after the visit of president obama, the restrictions on exports in the

entities from the list of the u.s.a. is a major step forward. of course the cooperation agreement is an important landmark. therefore, i do not think there is any big hurdle. sometimes there are concerns to be addressed and we will be doing exactly the same. >> i cannot improve on that. i think if you look at this relationship, one of the things that is so encouraging is the relative absence of trauma -- of drama.

there is a complementary interest that the private sector has ample room to take advantage of but there are a lot of things that stand in the way of that. we will try to work through some of those things. >> i think we can do with a less drama in some parts of the world. we'll take to questions as a group and then go back to the ministers. >> in the context of the u.s.- china relationships, secretary geithner laid out exactly what the u.s. wants from china and what china wants from the u.s.. despite the notions of generic cooperation, do you have a similar specific list for india? i would be interested in mr. -- minister mukherjee's views.

>> i am really happy to be here because i have a slightly different view on the economies. i have lived both in india and here and identify with both equally. what i am trying to do is add a little bit of drama, but it will depend on your answer. you talked about strategic bought -- partnerships and there is definitely room for collaboration and mutual benefit. one industry i am curious how this applies to is the outsourcing industry. obviously, india faces inflation or if they are able to cope with inflation, it has an impact on the u.s. economy. i would love to your boat your views on that.

>> i will talk about our side of the ledger, our objectives. from our perspective, the most important things we would like to see our progress on financial reforms that provide a deeper, more liquid market for corporate debt, infrastructure financing that allow more access to american companies. our interest are pretty complementary as a whole. we are working with the grain of the reform imperative as well, which is the only way to make progress. i do not see any conflict between our interest or objectives there. that is where writer at a good motors -- most of the near-term emphasis. -- that is where we put most of the near term if this is. if you look at what is going to

happen to wage costs, the cost of doing business, in india and in china, to, they will be increasing more rapidly over the next decade or so. what that means is the economics of the decision about where a u.s. firm may decide to produce or build something is going to change. it is tilting back in the direction of investment in the united states. you can hear more people talking about reintegrating the supply chain, bringing some things back. i think that is encouraging for the long-term competitiveness of the u.s. manufacturing industry, but it creates no risk for india. most of india's growth is going to come from the natural dynamics of an economy that has a huge amount of room.

that will not be affected by this modest shift in the relative competitiveness of where some services locate going forward. it is good for us at the margin but i do not see any risk to india's growth and development agenda. >> i would like to clarify one point, that india's growth is essentially [unintelligible] a 2014 we have a $500 billion. but still, the momentum coming

from domestic demand, and our inflationary problem, apart from high oil prices and international commodity prices, it is the supply constraints. from the demand side we hit take appropriate measures by adjusting the crucial rate and controlling the demand side. appropriate steps have been taken. from the supply-side constraints, i mentioned my observations that it was largely related to the bottle neck and supply constraints which have been addressed.

[unintelligible] it all contributed and this trend is going to continue in subsequent years. secondly, even the growth in highly developed countries is slow down as far as expanding our cooperation. we did not have any defense cooperation with the u.s.. it has started within the last couple of years. it is expanding very fast. therefore that areas of cooperation whether it is in the

area of technology, knowledge, education, agriculture, you can have cooperation. growth, inflation, these are temporary measures to be tackled, but let us not stand in the way of long-term cooperation and understanding. thank you. >> is there anybody from the press? >> both of you touched on the importance of the g-20 meeting. it is clear that for the past

two years, one important point of the g-20 was to reform the international institutions to ensure [unintelligible] tomorrow there will be an executive board meeting to decide the next managing director. it has been reported that china has already expressed their support, and it is an important opportunity for both countries to express your views for the future of the financial institutions. how are you going to cast your vote tomorrow? [laughter] and based on what kind of thinking.

>> secretary geithner era, banks were too big to fail before your bailout, and now there are even bigger. when you talk about financial for -- reform, what do you think of that? it is widely regarded that you have not had the political will to push through reforms. the thing that is true, and if so, are you going to change that action? >> we will go back to the ministers for their final remarks. who would like to start? >> i would like to answer the question about the internal

institutions, [unintelligible] i must say that the institutions when they are established in a particular context, and when that context no longer demand irrelevant, new institutions are to be formed. the world has undergone a major change since 1925. this is in the process of these institutions. at the same time i am quite confident that these

institutions will be in default. other institutions have attempted under similar pressures, but it did not materialize. after 30 or 40 years, we could establish [unintelligible] therefore, institutions ought to just -- ought to adjust. the point is a continuing one. [unintelligible] in india we are going to work

continuously for those reforms. 20 years ago, it was to deregulate, and that process was complete. we had to make reforms in other areas as required. most of it has been done, but most new reforms, it is a constant exercise.

the structural differences, i have given some examples as my colleagues have stated. , rabatin the bond market's -- reforms in the insurance sectors, the banking sector, pensions, the necessary legislation have been introduced to ensure its passage. there has to be a consensus and get support from the others. they will have to carry on the process of default. >> on the first question, i have no interest in announcing our position to you right now. [laughter]

i do think we are on the verge of having what i felt is necessary, which is an open, contested process two excellent candidates and a quick resolution. i am sure we are on the verge of having someone emerge that will be able to command. it is a time when you need strong leadership. on the question about the u.s. financial reform, let me sell you things quickly about this. if you look back at the top 20 financial institutions in the united states before the crisis, almost half of them no lumber exist today as independent entities. we had a huge restructuring of the american financial system, huge amount of failure of very large institutions. the ones that survived had to meet a market test. could they raise enough capital on their own so they could

exist going forward? the surviving institutions today are on average, much better capitalized than their major international peers. but is better than that. if you look at our system in comparison to that of any other major economy, it is a much less concentrated banking system. look at the shares of the top five u.s. firms compared to the top two banks in most of the other major economies today. our banking system is smaller as a share of gdp. banks at the root in the united states together are only about one times r annual gdp. a comparable number is about five times gp in the u.k., eight times in switzerland. despite the fact that we had

such a lot of restructuring or because of it, we are less concentrated and there is a much better capacity to withstand the risk of failure of a major institution because there's more capital in the system. one of the great strengths of financial reform in the united states was that we took away the ability of the executive authorities, regulatory authorities, to intervene, to sustain nonviable institutions and give them a chance of living again. women did that discretion because of the moral hazard risk -- we limited that discretion. we are at the early stages of preparing reforms, but we have a lot of work to do. i am confident we will have a much more stable system and better capacity to withstand

shocks in the future and to insulate well-managed institutions from the barriers and mistakes of the less prudent. >> thank you very much. the way addressed in a very substantial way and an open way the questions that asked and engaged with the audience conversation was wonderful. i would like to add my hope that these two democracies will cooperate together and both will contribute to the rest of the world economy for the many countries that will benefit from the good performance of both the american and indian economy. i will turn over to our chairman. >> it has been an expanding -- outstanding session by the two leaders today. thank you for your time and giving us this honor and this interaction. it has been one of the most

outstanding sessions in the recent past that we have had between the united states and india. we saw several opportunities as we discussed the challenges throughout the day. the outstanding team from india, including the chairman, the chief economic adviser, and the deputy governor of the world bank. also a very strong team from the indian industrial. it has been an outstanding day and thanks to both of you we get so much on the table. the support we have received from the indian embassy and the u.s. treasury has been exemplary

in making this conference a success. th [applause] >> and we go live now to capitol hill as the u.s. senate convenes today. up first on the agenda of domination for justice department positions. at the attorney general, assistant attorney general for the office of legal affairs, and assistant attorney general for national security with votes at about noon eastern today. a break for party caucus meeting. they will returned at about 2:15 eastern. and naturalize senate coverage here on c-span2. -- now to live senate coverage here on c-span2. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, whose glory has been revealed through the

generations, renew within our senators a true understanding of your purpose for this nation and world. illuminate their minds with the light of your wisdom so that they will know how to meet the complex challenges of our times. use them to lift the spirits of the american people, to encourage the hearts of those on life's margins, and to bring peace to those troubled by the problems in our world. may their trust in your word

fill them with confidence in your providential leading. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, june 28, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

reid madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in executive session to consider the cole, monaco, and seitz nomination. i'm hopeful that the monaco and seitz nominations can be adopted by voice vote. following that the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly caucus meetings. following the recess, the senate will resume consideration of s. 679. madam president, h.r. 1249 is due for a second reading. i would ask the clerk will report. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the second time. the clerk: an ablght to amend title 39, united states code to

provide for patent reform. mr. reid: i would now object to any further proceedings to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14. mr. reid: madam president, yesterday i sat down with the president to talk about thousand avoid a default crisis. it would be a black mark on this country's reputation for generations to come. if we fail to avert this crisis, it will be the first time in our great nation's history that we've defaulted on our financial obligations t would send shock waves through the global economy. but i'm not the only one saying that. the most respected voices in the business and financial community are saying the same thing. default would be awful. business leaders, bank executives, and credit ratings agencies and even the republican advisor of president george bush, the same advisor, used

some very serious words to describe the crisis, a word many may have used would be a catastrophe. the legendary warren buffet said a few days ago, "allowing the united states to default on its debt would be for congress the most asinine act ever." that's quote p timothy geithner said it would have a catastrophic economic consequence that would last for decades. that was a quote. failure to avert this crisis would result in the most serious financial crises this country has ever dpaisd. millions of americans would lose their jobs. federal prisons would have to be changed dramatically with their personnel. water security would have to change. the court systems would no longer likely be able to have trials. security checks would stop. so could paychecks to our

troops. that's how desperate this would be. so what could be so important to my republican colleagues -- that my republican colleagues are willing to put our country's dmi at dire risk? what could be worth walking away from the negotiating table, as they have done? so as the republicans walk away to save tax breaks for corporate jets. so which big industries and special interests will fight -- are they willing to fight for next? oil companies, ship jobs overseas, corporate companies that ship jobs overseas. if they were truly serious about reducing the deficit, they would admit this kind of waste should end. yet some republicans say it shouldn't be part of the

discussion, as we try to find way to avoid a catastrophic default. civil s. convenience said handouts to oil and gas companies should be on the table. 34 republicans endorse the view that any taxpayer give is aways should be part of the negotiation. it seems republicans can't even agree among themselves whether subsidies are sag sacrosanct. one thing they can agree on, they're willing to balance the budget on the backs of seniors instead. they're willing to end medicare as we know t they're willing to slash medicaid, jeopardizing coverage for 80% of americans and seniors in nursing homes. medicaid is for the poorest of the poor. about 70% of medicaid money goes to people who are in rest homes, nursing homes. the republicans' priorities are they clear. they're dead wrong, though. democrats know we need to make difficult spending cuts to

reduce our deficit. but to dig ourselves out of this financial hole, we must also create jobs to spur our economy. and we must break the cycle of wasteful give ways not break our promise to seniors. the junior senator from south carolina, a republican, threatenethreatened this that ay republican who votes to avert a default crisis would be gone. those are his words. voted out in the way of tea party anger. this kind of inflammatory language is responsible for simply -- there's simply too much at stake. also this same senator mentioned that 235 republicans in the house and 40 in the senate, including my friend from south carolina who have i have just talked about, have already voted to increase our debt this year. their ideological budget came from the house that they wanted to support here and didn't vote for it, would increase the debt by more than 60% over the next ten years. the so-called hole -- ryan

budget, so-called ryan budget would increase the debt by the more than 60% over the next ten years. that's about $9 trillion in a decade. and what did republicans get for the so-called $9 trillion? what will we get? a plan that ends medicare part-b, a plan that would slash medicaid, jeopardizing coverage, as i've indicated, for 80% of america's seniors in nursing homes, a plan that protects tax breaks for millionaires putting millions of seniors at risk. that's the choice. it was one said, "it is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." the republicans shouted loudly and repeatedly they are real estate not reducing the debt. then they gave us 9 trillion reasons not to trust this rett reich. the time for empty rhetoric is over. now it is time for my republican colleagues to put the good of our economy ahead of their own plifntlpolitics.

madam president, will you be so kind as to announce morning business. we have no morning business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to aexecutive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. nominations, department of justice, james michael cole of the district of columbia to be a deputy attorney general. virginia a.seitz of the district of columbia to be assistant attorney general. lisa o.monaco of the district of columbia to be assistant attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate concurrently on the nomination, equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. reid: madam president, i would ask that all the quorum calls during the debate on these important nominations be equally charged against both sides and i would ask -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would ask that the

final 15 minutes be set aside for debate on these nominations be set acid for the chairman of the) pa traik leahy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. i ask consent to speak as in f. no morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. mr. president -- madam president, the last thing we need when we're trying to get back on track is a default crisis that would bury us under even more debt. yet the latest round of republican politicians threatening to default on our debt have made their priorities clear. they'd rather stop paying our md women fighting overseas, force deep cuts to social security and medicare and throw even more americans out of work than tell big oil companies and corporate jet attorneys pay their fair share. clearly our republican colleagues are serious about politics, not deficits. you can't be serious about deficits and at the same time

recklessly jeopardize our economic standing in the world in order to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few. yet, that is what leaders like mitch mcconnell seem to be saying. just yesterday my republican colleague drew a line in the sand on cutting wasteful spending in the tax code, calling elimination of special interest giveaways politically impossible. politically impossible, really? two weeks ago 34 senate republicans joined democrats in repeal of the tax break to ethanol. politically impossible? right now in america, middle-class families are living paycheck to paycheck while

senator mcconnell and his colleagues are going to the mat to protect billions in tax breaks to oil companies. they say two things. senator mcconnell says two things. he says he is not raising taxes. he wants the average american to think it's your taxes. no one wants to raise taxes on people below $250 million, many below a million. yet when oil companies get big giveaways, when corporate jets get huge deductions, a greater deduction than delta pwaoeuz a plane -- buys a plane for commercial use, that should be on the table. we should ask senator mcconnell, the press should ask senator mcconnell, when you say no taxes, do you mean some of our largest corporations should pay no taxes? when you say no taxes should be on the table, are you saying we shouldn't close corporate loopholes? are you saying people who are making $1 billion should not sacrifice, and all the sacrifice

should be the middle class? because that is what senator mcconnell is saying. again, we do not wish to tax and will not tax average middle-class people. that's the president's pledge and that's our pledge. the question is: when you tell an average teacher or cop or firefighter, you have to sack tpaoeurbgs are you going to -- sacrifice, are you going to tell the millionaire they have to sacrifice too? not because we dislike them, but because it should be shared across the board. but senator mcconnell has said no. the only way they're going to sacrifice is closing loopholes in the tax code. they don't need loans to help their kids get to college. and one other thing, senator mcconnell says we should take anything about corporate loopholes, about taxing wealthy people off the table. his "my way or the highway"

approach is what is standing in the way of getting an agreement. the person standing in the way right now is senator mcconnell. you haven't heard such strident language from the other leaders. when he says take everything we want and nothing you want, we will not get an agreement. that is what he is saying. so the bottom line is very simple. senator mcconnell cutting medicare benefits will not make us stronger. firing teachers will not make us stronger. rolling back investments and innovations in research and high tech in the future will not make us stronger. but ending tax subsidies will make us stronger. meet us part of the way here. don't say my way or no way. because that is too risky.

and that is telling the world that we will not fulfill our obligations the way every family in america has to fill theirs. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kirk: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: madam president, i rise today with great concern -- the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. mr. kirk: i ask for the disptiodispensization of the qum call and to proceed in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: today i rise to speak about a program that was just revealed in the sunday "new york times," outstanding work called "uses plan: stealth survey on access to doctors." i am asking my colleagues to join in a letter sharing concern

with the legality, standards, and repercussions of this program. i have deep concerns regarding the department's recent plans for this so-called stealth survey, its legality, the notification to congress, the lack of standards for any misconduct or bad reporting by the staff hired to carry out this work, and looking clandestinely at american doctors and their paragraph medicine. the cost and proposed clandestine method of collecting information on physician offices is questionable, and, therefore, i'm going to be requesting details on how this survey will be conducted, how investigators will be punished for any misconduct or extortion that they may carry out in their duties, and how patient and physician confidentiality will be maintained. in our letter we're outlining 12

key questions. first, since there are already a number of surveys answering this question, does this expenditure of taxpayer money add anything? we're asking for the department to provide detailed records of their literature review on the current research that has already been published on the subject before launching this taxpayer expense. we're also scwg for the total cost of this program to be revealed. second, we're asking for records on how the national opinion research center of chicago, illinois, won a federally competitive bid to carry out this work. number three, in concluding the results of this survey, how will it decide what qualifies as an acceptable response or best practice from physician that they have targeted? number four, how how will patiet

and doctor confidentiality be maintained? if researchesser report bad information or use the survey for extortion, bribery or other arctic acts, how will they be dispalestinianed? number five, once concluded, who has access to this information? the department, the white house, the congress, the press? number six, by what criteria will individual physicians be targeted for participation? will age, average incomes, surrounding office locations, or political affiliation be excluded from factors considered when targeting physicians? number seven, will federal employees carry out this work or will it be conducted by a contracted call center for data collection? and who is qualified to conduct this survey and how will they be chosen? number eight, if the staff improperly released patient or physician data, how will they be

disciplined? number nine, like their description of the fy 2011 program or account number on which this was funded. number ten, i also want to describe the statutory authorization used to carry out this work. and provide the congressional notifications informing the committees of jurisdiction of their intent to obligate funds for this purpose. number 11, also asking for specific sections identified in the president's budget under which the funding for this work was requesting. and number 12, if a physician wishes to correct data collected by the report, what legal redress does he or she have? there have been a number of very reliable studies which confirm that many patients on medicaid and medicare cannot find a doctor to see them. previous studies also confirm that we do not have enough

doctors, particularly primary care doctors, and we all know that government programs often suffer from fund corruption. in this time of serious fiscal constraint, i would urge us to focus our limited federal resources on ways that we would actually address these problems rather than launching another taxpayer-funded spending program to clandestinely review the work of our physicians. and, madam president, with that, i yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. kyl: madam pres?

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. kwraoeup i ask unanimous consent further -- mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with and i be allowed to speak for seven minutes. i want to bring to my colleagues attention a disturbing op-ed piece in the "wall street journal" by one of our country's leading economists, larry lindsey. in this piece entitled "the deficit is worse than we think." he gives three reasons why we really need to get serious about deficit reduction.

and i'll just mention the three reasons, put this in the record and make a comment or two about it. first he says that if interest rates in this country go back to their historic levels, we would have annual interest ask expenses on our debt, roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020. and the ten years -- ten-year rise in interest rates would be about $4.9 trillion higher than under the current cost of borrowing. that would obviously wipe out any savings and then some that we are trying to achieve right now in our deficit-reduction discussions. the second problem is that the official forecasts for growth are probably far too rosy considering the current circumstances. if we were to grow at a rate that he believes is much more

realistic than those projected by the president's budget, we will miss his budget number by a cubing la alternative 5.-- cumulative 5.2 percentage points and accumulate additional debt of $4 trillion. third, the cost estimates for what we call obamacare are going to be well off the mark, unfortunately on the low end, that the prognostications by people who have surveyed the businesses who will either keep their insurance or turn that cost over to the government will result in an extra bill for the taxpayers of roughly $74 billion in 2014, rising to $85 billion in 2019 because of the subsidies that the government will have to pay under that. his conclusion is that only

serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems because that's where the bulk of the money that we spend goes. i think he is absolutely correct. but if he is correct about these projections, we're not even close to achieving the savings that we need to in order to avoid a cataclysmic future for our country. also today i noted in another piece, an associated press article, that the growth rate for the first quarter of this year was 1.9%. they're forecasting that for the next quarter it will be 2.3%. that's way lower than any of us would like and it's too anemic to keep up with our population, of job growth. this article notes -- and i quote -- "the economy has to grow 3% a year just to hold the unemployment rate steady and keep up with population growth, and it has to average about 5% growth for a year to lower the

unemployment rate by a full percentage point. it's 9.1% today." we're growing at half the rate needed to begin to make a dent in unemployment. this bodes very, very badly for our future. and finally, in a national review by andrew styles, there is this reference to a harvard economist, alberto alcina. i'll quote from the article. "analyzed the ways in which various countries responded to large fiscal crises concludes that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt without harming the economy. 'in fact, in several episodes spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions,' alicina

writes. these were quoted in another analysis which corrected every major fiscal correction since 1975." the point of all of these things is the projections about economic growth, increases in interest rates and expenditures by the federal government all point to the need for us to reduce our expenses at the federal government level, and that spending cuts of a much more effective way to stabilize the debt and not hurt the economy than tax increases. i say all of this because as everyone by now knows the negotiations that were being conducted under the auspices of vice president biden have broken down over the issue of whether or not tax cuts have to be a part of the resolution of the issue. the point -- the point that

we've been making is that tax increases in times like this, when we're trying to come out of a recession and we need economic growth, would be the wrong medicine for this ailing economy. the better way to do it is bill spending reductions. it is obvious from lindsey's piece that the spending reductions we're talking about are not enough in order to achieve the result we have to to avoid the interest rate increases he predicts. madam president, i hope my colleagues will think again. they sort -- the sort of ideological commitment they have to raising taxes. in the context of today's issue, that shouldn't be part of our discussion. that will only hurt the economy, inhibit job creation and economic growth and delay the day when we begin to recover from this economic downturn. instead we need to focus on the

kind of spending reductions that were embodied in the budget that the house of representatives passed, and those of us on this side of the aisle have been trying to put forward as a condition for increasing the debt ceiling. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. kyl: may i ask first unanimous consent to insert in the record the "wall street journal" op-ed by lawrence lindsey. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. quorum call: mr. kyl: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: iding officer: the

senator from iowa. without objection. mr. grassley: i assume that we're now on the cole nomination? the presiding officer: we are on the nominations. mr. grassley: madam president, earlier this year the senate expressed its opposition to proceeding to mr. cole's nomination when it failed to invoke cloture. i was a strong advocate against the senate invoking cloture on mr. cole's nomination because the justice department had failed to respond to a

legitimate oversight request that both senator chambliss and i made relating to two separate topics. the justice department was withholding vital documents related to my inquiry of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms operation "fast and furious" and to an inquiry by senator chambliss in his capacity as vice-chairman of the select committee on intelligence. as ranking member of the judiciary committee, i have been and still seek documents, information, and access to witness interviews to determine who approved operation "fast and furious." this was an oppose reagan administration that you've -- this was an operation that you've heard me talk about often where a.t.f. agents were ordered to knowingly allow straw buyers

obtaining weapons on behalf of criminals and trafficking intent on smuggling those weapons into mexico. the courageous agents who blew the whistle and testified about their efforts to warn supervisors about the dangers referred to this practice as "walking guns." of the more than 1,800 weapons allowed to walk, hundreds have been recovered in connection with crimes in the u.s. and mexico. including two such weapons in connection with the murder of border patrol agent brian terry. after seeking information from the justice department, i was repeatedly told that the a.t.f. did not knowingly allow these sales. working with congressman issa, who's chairman of the house

government oversight committee, we released information that showed that the initial denials were false. this risky policy was in fact implemented at a.t.f. and the justice department. despite the seriousness of the whistle-blowers' allegations and my repeated inquiries, the justice department continued to deny me access to the documents. as a result, i urged my colleagues to oppose cloture on james cole to be deputy attorney general. well, that cloture opposition worked, and we have since reached an agreement with the justice department and senator leahy that will guarantee my access to vital documents, information, and witnesses

regarding this a.t.f. operation. i also understand that senator chambliss has reach an agreement on obtaining the information he has sought on behalf of the intelligence committee. accordingly, i know lift my opposition to the senate holding a vote on mr. cole's nomination. however, i want to explain that i'm going to vote against this nomination for many reasons. i oppose the nomination of james cole to be deputy attorney general at the department of justice because i have serious concerns regarding mr. cole's qualifications. in addition, i'm troubled by president obama's recess appointment of mr. cole to this position. i have been a consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years on committees where i have been chairman or ranking member.

whenever the president bypasses the senate -- in other words, bypasses our confirmation of a person by making a recess appointment -- such nominees will not receive my support where i have been lead on my side responsible for reviewing such nominees. we have a process in place for nominations, and if the president isn't willing to work with senators to clear nominations, the nominee shouldn't get a second bite at the apple. deputy attorney general is second in command at the justice department and responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the department. managing this fast bureaucracy is a difficult task that requires a serious commitment to protecting our national security, enforcing our criminal laws, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.

we need a qualified leader who has the smarts, the capability, and the willingness to manage department programs and root out inefficiency and abuse in those programs. after reviewingal of his responses and his hearing testimony, i concluded that i could not support mr. cole's nomination to be deputy attorney general. in particular, i'm seriously concerned about mr. cole's views on national security and on terrorism. back in 2002, mr. cole was author of an opinion piece in the ""legal times"." in that piece he stated -- quote -- "for all the rhetoric about war, the september 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against civilian populations, much like acts -- terrorist acts of timothy mcveigh in blowing

up the federal building in oklahoma city and omar abdel raymond in the first effort to blow up the world trade center. the criminals responsible for those horrible acts were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal justice system without the need for procedures that altered due process rights." end of quote. but i want to quote further. "the acts of september 11 were horrible, but so are other things." end of quote. the other things he referred to were the drug trade, organized crime, rape, child abuse, and mured mr. president. cole's opinion piece argued that notwithstanding the involvement of foreign organizations, such as al qaeda, we have never treated criminal acts influenced by foreign nationals or

governments as a basis for -- quote -- "ignoring the core constitutional protections ingrained in our criminal justice system." mr. cole -- that was the end of the quote. mr. cole concluded his opinion piece by arguing that in addition to stopping future terrorist attacks, the attorney general is a criminal prosecutor and that he has a special duty to apply constitutional protections ingrained in our criminal justice system to everyone, including terrorists captured on foreign battlefields. mr. cole wrote this opinion piece two days short of the first anniversary of the september 11 attacks. given the close proximity and time to the september 11 attacks, we must accept this opinion piece as mr. cole's true beliefs about the application of the civilian criminal justice

system to terrorism cases, including those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. from the opinion piece and his responses to our inquiry, it appears that if given a choice of prosecuting high-ranking terrorists in civilian courts or military commissions, mr. cole would likely favor civilian courts based upon his long-standing belief in the role of -- that the attorney general plays in protecting the principles of the criminal justice system. absent a clear statement from mr. cole about what factors would warrant collecting a civilian or a military forum, it is hard to look at his entire record of past opinion, his testimony, and responses to our questions and reach any different conclusion. in fact, my concerns about the individuals at the justice

department supporting prosecution of terrorists in civilian criminal courts have been validated by recent events surrounding the arrest of two iraqi nationals at bowling green, kentucky. these iraqi nationals have admitted targeting american troops in iraq, plotting to equip foreign fighters in iraq with weapons such as grenades and missile launchers. they made their way to our country and somehow got passed the department of homeland security. now, after they were identified, the justice department is seeking to try them in civilian court, even though their activities -- regarded terrorist activities take a very military approach. attorney general holder has been steadfast in supporting their prosecution in civilian court.

it appears to me that no one in the justice department, including mr. cole, have objected to prosecuting these individuals in civilian court. this is despite the clear nexus to the battlefield in iran. so it now appears the justice department where mr. cole currently serves as a recess-appointed deputy attorney general rewards terrorists who are smart enough to evade homeland security, determination whether or not they can come to this country, and at the same time make their way from the battlefield with the same rights and privileges as american citizens. all of this occurred on mr. cole's watch as deputy attorney general.

military tribunals have many advantages to civilian criminal courts and are better-equipped to deal with dangerous terrorists and classified evidence while preserving due process. i'm troubled that mr. cole does not appear to share this belief. because of his responses and testimony, i have serious concerns about his support for civilian trials for terrorists captured on foreign battlefields. this is a particular concern given that the deputy attorney general oversees the national security division at the justice department. now for a second reason. i have concerns about mr. kohl's abilities -- mr. cole's abilities relative to oversight programs. we ask about oversight of the department of justice grant programs. and when he was asked, mr. cole failed to commit to a

top-to-bottom review of the program. nor has he undertaken a review since he was recess appointed. given the enormous federal deficits and enough examples of the tremendous inefficiencies, duplications and waste in these programs, you would assume the deputy attorney general would be looking for cost savings in the department. i'm disappoint that had mr. cole has failed to recognize there is a need for a comprehensive review of justices grant programs not only for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars at a time when we face skyrocketing fiscal deficits, but also to ensure that grant objectives are being met in the most efficient and effective manner possible. a third reason. i have concerns about mr. cole's abilities based on his peformance as an independent

consultant task with overseeing the insurance firm a.i.g. by way of background, the justice department provided copies of the reports mr. cole issued when he was overseeing a.i.g., but they were labeled -- quote unquote -- committee confidential. as a result of their being labeled "committee confidential," i cannot discuss with specificity the contents of those documents publicly. nevertheless, when taken into context with public responses provided by mr. cole to my questions, a troubling picture develops about mr. cole's peformance in his role as independent consultant. the responses and reports do not dispel the serious questions raised about mr. cole's independence or his completeness. further, they reveal what

appears to be a level of deference to a.i.g. management one would not expect to see from someone tasked with the responsibility of being -- quote, unquote -- an independent monitor. in order to clarify a number of questions on this matter, senator coburn and i sent a follow-up letter seeking additional answers from mr. cole. mr. cole's reply clarified that the department of justice, the security and exchange commission, and the new york attorney general's office were aware of his practice of seeking input from a.i.g. and making modifications to the reports. he indicated that the changes a.i.g. made were often factual changes, such as a.i.g. employee names, dates, and materials and events. he also indicated that some of the changes requested by a.i.g.

were included in a section of the report entitled -- quote unquote -- "a.i.g. response." however, he added on -- quote unquote -- on a few occasions, a.i.g. would -- quote -- "suggest a stylistic change of phrasing in the analytical section of the report." he stated while it included the edits made by a.i.g., he -- quote -- "did not believe that a detailed presentation of this factual review process was necessary to an understanding of each party's position." end of quote. as a result, the reports did not necessarily show which edits a.i.g. made that were incorporated. instead he said that those changes were available in working papers that were -- quote -- "available to the s.e.c., the d.o.j. and the new

york attorney general's office." end of quote. unfortunately, he added -- quote -- "the agencies which were aware of this practice did not request such documents." end of quote. while i appreciate mr. cole's responses to these clarifying questions, they raise concerns about how independent his monitoring was, what changes were ultimately requested by a.i.g., what changes were included and how much the s.e.c. and the department of justice really knew about edits a.i.g. was making to the independent reports. in addition, i have serious concerns about mr. cole's decision to suspend compliance review at a.i.g.'s financial products division following the government bailout of a.i.g. in his testimony, mr. cole

acknowledged that subsequent to the government bailout of a.i.g., he suspended efforts until the future of a.i.g. was determined. after mr. cole suspended his monitoring, a.i.g. restructured his compliance office and terminated a number of staff overseeing the company's compliance with the s.e.c. regulations. mr. cole said that after it was determined that the a.i.g.'s financial products division would not be dissolved, compliance and monitoring were -- quote -- "revived and were being reviewed and implemented where applicable." under mr. cole's watch, a.i.g. not only got $182 billion of taxpayers' dollars for bailout, but was able to talk the independent consultant, mr.

cole, out of monitoring what the company was doing. i'm concerned about mr. cole's ability to perform the duties required of a deputy attorney general. in that role he would be in a position to potentially influence future compliant monitors appinted under settlements with the justice department securities and exchange commission and other violations. independent monitors need to be truly independent and, of course, completely transparent. they are selected and appointed to ensure that the interests of the american people are protected. for these reasons, i cannot support the nomination of mr. cole to be deputy attorney general, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call: senator: madam pre?

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requested be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i'm very pleased that soon we'll be voting on jim cole for the deputy attorney general of the united states. this is a person who puts a principle -- puts principle over politics, a person who is i think very important in our war against terror, who will use all lawful tools to keep our nation safe, so i'm proud to take a few moments to urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. i think that's in our national security interests, and i know he will be and is already is an incredible asset to this country in keeping us safe and doing the best traditions of the u.s. attorney general's office.

i want to talk for a moment on a personal basis because i got to know jim cole when i was serving in the house of representatives. i was on the ethics committee and the ethics committee is not a committee, as you know, that a member asks to serve on. it's something that we must do. and we had a very sensitive investigation in the house of representatives concerning the speaker of the house, newt gingrich, and the six of us who served on the ethics committee needed to come to a fair bipartisan or nonpartisan conclusion to this very challenging investigation. to tell you, madam president, that we thought that this would be impossible i think is an understatement as to where we first thought we would be in regards to the investigation, but then we reached out and agreed on bringing in an independent counsel to help us in our deliberations. that person was jim cole. jim cole worked with all of us to look at the facts and do what

was in the best interests of the house of representatives, the best interests of our country, and to leave our politics aside so that we could come out with the result that was fair and that would restore confidence in the legislative process. in fact, we did that. we were able to reach a totally unanimous judgment, one that was agreed to on the floor of the house of representatives, and i think spoke volumes about our ability to get things done in the best interests of our nation. i thought jim cole did a fabulous job, great job helping us, but that was also the view of porter goss, who was the republican leader on the ethics committee, the chairman of the committee at the time. he said that he felt that jim cole brought professionalism at the highest level to our investigation and allowed us to come forward with a fair, nonpartisan conclusion.

madam president, that's the exact person we need in the department of justice. it's the person that we need to be deputy attorney general of the united states. the attorney general, the deputy attorney general are our nation's lawyers. they don't represent one party. they represent our country. we need leadership in the department of justice that will work in a nonpartisan way, that will bring nonpartisan leadership to the department of justice. jim cole is that type of person. he has the experience, he has the character, he has the commitment to fill this very important position in our nation. 13 years in the department of justice. experience in public interest law. his career has been devoted to the public interest in community service. i was listening to my colleague and friend, senator grassley, talk about his concerns about some of the private law

practices of jim cole. here is a person who has devoted his life basically to community and career and public interest law. he has been a prosecutor, he has been a person who has dealt with white-collar criminals, and yes, he is an effective attorney. as we all know, those of us who are lawyers, we'll represent our clients aggressively but we don't lose sight of our system. that's been jim cole throughout his career. he will bring that expertise that he has had in his previous experience to represent our nation well. these are tough times. we're dealing with threats around the world where we need an attorney general, a deputy attorney general who will use all lawful tools in order to protect our country. it's interesting, madam president, that jim cole enjoys the endorsement from both sides of the aisle.

when we look at high-ranking department of justice, former officials from both democrats and republicans have endorsed jim cole's confirmation to be the deputy attorney general. let me just quote from one republican source which i think is typical of the endorsements that we have received encouraging the confirmation of jim cole. we received a letter from fred fielding. i think most of you know fred fielding. he was the white house counsel for former president george w. bush, a person who i think most of us had close dealings with and respected him greatly in his service to the bush administration. this is what fred fielding said about jim cole. he says -- "mr. cole combines all the qualities you would want in a citizen public servant. he understands both sides of the street and is smart and tenacious and is a person of

unquestioned honor and integrity." i agree with fred fielding. this is the type of person that we need to be deputy attorney general of the united states. i'm pleased that we're going to have this vote a little bit later on today. i would encourage my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. it's important that we have individuals in these key positions that enjoy the full confirmation from the united states senate, and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this nominee. madam president, i would 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 vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, after extensive and unnecessary delays, the senate is finally

going to vote today on three important nominations to fill high-level posts at the department of justice. two of these positions have national security responsibility i have been here since the ford administration. i can't recall a time when the justice department and the country were deprived of such critical appointees, whether republicans or democrats were in charge, and the majority whether we had a republican or democratic president. we always filled very, very quickly these kind of national security positions. so it's hard to understand why we haven't been able to vote nominees for positions with national security responsibilities like the deputy attorney general and the assistant attorney general for the national security division, especially when we're only two or three months away from the tenth anniversary of

september 11. and of course the distinguished presiding officer does not have to be reminded representing, as she ably does, the state of new york. the nominations of jim cole to be deputy attorney general, lisa monaco to be assistant attorney general for national security and virginia seitz to be assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel have been blocked for months by republican obstruction over matters not related to the qualifications of the nominees and real disregard to the needs of the justice department and the country. so i'm glad we're finally going to have votes and i trust confirm these superbly qualified nominees. the unprecedented -- and it is totally unprecedented filibuster of the nomination of deputy attorney general has been especially egregious. deputy attorney general is the number two position at the justice department. it's a position with key national security responsibilities. and despite significant

bipartisan support and certainly unquestionable qualification, jim cole's nomination has been blocked for nearly a year. he was reported favorably by the senate judiciary committee in july of last year, 11 months ago. republicans prevented a vote. he was renominated. he was reported favorably a second time in the middle of march but republicans saw the filibuster consideration of the nomination last month. i have been here and see many, many deputies attorney general go through every time they have been confirmed by the senate judiciary committee or have been voted on favorably by the senate judiciary committee, whether under republican or democratic control, they have then been voted on within a matter of days on the senate floor. this is the first time in the nation's history that a

president nominated to serve as deputy attorney general has filibustered and that was wrong. his nomination should have been noncontroversial. it's a nomination supported by former republican senator jack danforth, appointed by president bush to be -- nominated by president bush to be our ambassador to the united nations. he worked with jim cole for more than 15 years. when he introduced him in his confirmation hearing, senator dan forth described him as someone without an ideological or political agenda. nothing suggests he is nothing more than a steadfast support defender of america's safety. we have received letters of support for his nomination, including from many former republican public officials. the senate should have heeded those recommendations, as wellals the advice of former dedeputy attorney generals of

the united states who served in both the republican and democratic administrations. so the senate was wrong to filibuster this nomination. the senate now has the opportunity to finally confirm this good man public servant. i trust the institution will take that opportunity. it is hard for me to understand at a time when experts are concerned that al qaeda will seek reprisals that some in the senate have delayed action to ensure that president obama has his full national security team in place. no matter who is president, we should want that president to have their national security team in place for the good of all americans. in addition, senate republicans have blocked the nomination of lisa monaco. that's another key national security position. now, in this case, what makes it

even more egregious, she is reported unanimously by both the judiciary committee but also by the senate select committee on intelligence, reported unanimously by all republicans and democrats in two key committees. her nomination has been supported by former justice department officials, including former attorney general mukasey who served during the george w. bush administration. now, i have a two-month delay. she should have been confirmed right after she came out of the intelligence and judiciary committee. the national security division has been without her leadership, and they've been without another key member, virginia seitz, another superbly qualified nominee, bipartisan support, who should have been confirmed before the memorial day recess,

blocked from confirmation by senate republicans. now after seven weeks of obstruction, we'll finally get to vote on her. and the senate judiciary committee has considered two national security-related bills during the past two weeks. both times republican senators professed their support of the legislation as they voted against it. the most critical and time-sensitive is the bill before the snoot authorize a limited extension of the term of service of f.b.i. director robert mueller, as the president has requested. we have to consider and pass that bill without delay -- actually both the house and senate have to pass it before the august recess, it has to go to the president. so let's all senators, republicans, democrats, independents join together for the good of the country and pass the f.b.i. extension, s. 1103. so i do thank today's nominees

for their dedication. i look forward to working with them, as they faithfully execute their important responsibilities of the justice department. i might also just note parenthetically, madam president, i also thank their families. i mean, in my 37 years in the senate, i have never seen a time when so many good nominees are just held up and held up and held up and held up, even though eventually so many of them then go through unanimously. i wish senators would stop and think for a moment. this is awfully hard on their spouses, on their children. it's awfully hard among their friends who keep looking at them saying, is there something we don't know about? why do we have them so long? we can all take our political positions and should, we all vote and should. but let's not take it out on good americans who just want to

serve their country, oftentimes at great sacrifice. remember, we also take it out on their families. madam president, i reserve the balance of my time, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: