um, so that was my basic experience with enron. they were very friendly and, you know, basically, open to talking at that point about this. and so i had some positive views of enron to the degree that they were, you know, at least a talkative corporation. then as you mentioned, i got sort of pulled in in august of 2001 when an event happened that, essentially, changed the future of enron, i think. jeff skilling, who was the then-president, chief executive officer and really the architect in many ways of the enron that karen was talking about, firmly up and quit after just six months or so as the chief executive, you know? and he was at the time in his late 40s, 47. so, you know, people thought he would be the head of enron for the next decade or more, and suddenly he quits. gives the reason as family, you know, family reasons which, of course, no reporter ever believes when a chief executive resigns for family reasons.

.. >> very different from many corporations. in preparation for this possible interview with skilling, i did a quick search of most recent filings because i literally knew very little about the corporation and its operations beyond the california

electricity stuff. and it just so happens the day before, but equally, enron filed its 10 q., quarterly report, with the acc for the second order. i had been taught by other older and wiser reporters how to read an fcc report when you don't have a lot of time. one of the places you go is to, they have to list all the possible dealings, all the dealings that corporate executives had with the company outside of their regular job. you get the conflicts of interest like the chairman's idiot nephew was made vice president of fingerpainting, $250,000 a year, and it had report that to the public. i went to the enron section and i saw these transactions involving hundreds of millions of dollars of dealings between enron and unnamed entities that were being run by some unnamed senior executive, which i initially thought was skilling.

made here is why he quit. and i called up palmer and he tells me no, andrew fastow. and i knew so little about enron at the time i said who is andrew fastow? and he told me he's a chief financial officer of our company. made me felt like something of an idiot but i didn't know. but that was our first moment when i started thinking, this sounds like an incredible conflict of interest. that's what sort of, that discovery set us off on digging deeper into what turned out to be so-called ljm partnerships, that andrew fastow was running on behalf of, well, himself into an dealings with enron, which is as it later turned out were basically hiding hundreds of most of dollars of losses of the company otherwise would've had to report in 2000 into 2001. that report is what took a sort of up to the crisis and helped trigger the crisis.

>> there's one sort of, many seminal moments in the sort of in the story of enron, but one was the night before the earnings were released in october, i believe october 16. can you tell us all at the bit about what was happening, this is basically the comfort i don't think i've ever recorded a loss possibly, it had been a tale of steady growth in this day they reported a loss of several hundred million dollars which i think shocked everyone. >> let me explain a little bit about how corporate earnings release took place at enron. and when i started at the company, the earnings, the quarterly earnings press release was generated by the pr department and we would get the numbers from finance or investor relations. we released before the opening of the market so we would have a core pr team that would stay late the night before. we would get hotel rooms. there was a hotel adjacent to the enron building. we would basically stay up late into the night. we would lock the earnings release and then we would be

there the next morning for it to go out on the wires. about a year before this happened, the earnings release process shifted to investor relations. so we were no longer responsible for the content of the press release. all we did was put it out on the wire. is really a blessing in disguise because of the two top investor relations executives served time. [laughter] >> could have been you. >> hopefully not. but the night before that release we went through the regular process, checked checked into the hotel can change a close, went back to the office. we were on the 49th floor, actually 47th floor, and executive forms on the 50th floor. so we would hear word trickled down from the 50th floor that was a problem with the numbers. every hour we were checking, where are we on the numbers? we would really like to get at least two or three hours of sleep tonight. and, finally, word came down

that the accounts were having trouble signing off on the numbers. and, finally, i think is probably around two or three in the morning we started talking about what would happen if we just didn't have the numbers to released before the market. and, finally, the numbers came down, none of us went to the hotel, none of us got any sleep. we literally just put the release right out on the wire. and i think we got it just moments before the 5:00 or 5:30 release. and i remember at the time and was second in the press release that didn't make sense, that i had questions about. my background was as a newspaper reporter so i knew there were phrases that were red flags, things would get question about that didn't make sense but i was just reassured that's nothing, everything is fine. don't worry about that. they were indeed the very quotes and phrases that john and rebecca picked up on. >> go ahead, john. >> the funny thing is, $600 million loss, they took write-offs of what turned out to be these lousy assets that the

ljm partnership had been hiding through various hedging transactions that they had done. so they come up with this huge loss. enron spun in the sense of they reported a surge in operating profits, which, of course, is a classic corporate way of dealing with bad news. you find some part of your, result of good news and and sync the other stuff is just one time events. and the press basically on the day they announced the earnings bought it. the stock price actually went up the day they announced the $600 million loss. some of the stories actually didn't mention the 600 million some odd million dollars write-off, and ken lay went on all these talk shows on cnbc and stuff, and blessing recorder, you know, we are set for the future, everything is going to be great. they are heading towards $200 billion, revenues for 2001

pixel everybody was, you know, seem to be very happy with what was on the face of this terrible news which i think in part said something about the company's position at that time in this sort of corporate a permanent. and something about the press you of the world in 2001 still. and the fact is

>> precluded us from going beyond that black and white. i mean, granted had we been asked a question, have you met with bankruptcy counsel, we never give an answer that we knew was not accurate. however, we didn't open up and say yes, we met with them on this day, we retain them, to pay for business on the go ahead and put that in the paper and then we'll see how the dynegy merger goes through. [inaudible] palmer and i have is shining, shouting match, steve king i think his boss on the phone screaming at each other because i basically called him a liar. he was grinning i never lied, i never lied. but i think somebody did like to mark. and i think somebody who wrote

the sec filings, for two years enron have sort of buried in the sec filing stuff about the ljm partnerships. some of the wording was explicitly precise and misleading. >> can you give a very brief description of what the ljm partnership is just a we sort of understands because there were two of them. ljm was the initial of the first, the first letter and a first name of andy fast house wife and two sons, some legacy to leave them. so basically what the idea was that fast out what he remained the cfo of enron was going to become a part owner and managing partner of these partnerships which could be treated as separate entities for accounting purposes. so that if enron wanted to hedge some assets they had, in other words, to protect the value of it, they could go to a third party who would then take on the risks theoretically of the

assets. normally you might go to goldman sachs or morgan stanley, somebody was real money on their own. so they went to ljm. ljm had a certain amount of money because andy fast i went out to some degree strong-armed a lot of enron vendors, big banks, to invest, particularly in ljm 2. they had this pool of capital from their investors. been enron also worked out a very collocated deals in which hedging the valley of some other assets like their power plants, power deals with her own stock. so that if enron, if the valley of the assets went down, ljm would absorb those losses but essentially to be using enron stock to absorb the losses. which is one of the reasons why enron stock price became so critical for the company. because when enron stock price was 50 or 60 or $70 a share, it

could absorb a lot more losses than when it was at 35 or $36 a share, which was in october of 2001 by the time the crisis started. that start putting enormous pressure on to ljm deal. they were set of in entities called the raptors which enron had all kinds of, some of these -- andy fast at these weird names. one of the other partnerships was called to go, named after chewbacca. >> it was deadly and extraterrestrial beast. karen, what about the relationship between the press office and the executives? i know you were sort of felt that you were purposely misleading reporters, but what about your relationship with senior management and the kind of figures and information you're getting from them? how did that change the? we worked very closely with top management, both before the crisis ended throughout the crisis. i think when the third quarter earnings were released, that

access at the free flow of information really dried up. in part because there was internal chaos in upper management just didn't know what was going on. i remember one moment where ken lay didn't know how much debt the company had to do with answer the question how much to does anyone have. that was a pivotal moment that the chief financial officer, the chief accounting officer didn't know. at one point, this was further on in the crisis when we have court lawyer, steve kane was her chief of staff knew that we really, we have tried very hard to have a strong media relations. the one thing i will say is it's important to establish a solid relationships, the good accessibility long before the crisis but it will pay off in stage. and my trouble getting information internally, and everything have to be vetted by a little. said steve aqsa got a lawyer and

said you're going to sit on the 474. we had a trading and private a big open room. he did nothing but sit there and that every statement. anything stated in have to be able to answer the question what was the basis for that statement. they were incredibly cautious. recalled -- you describe everything that we were able to tell the media. but it was frustrating for us internally because we're so used to having a lot of accessibility. we really pride ourselves on being able to get back to reporters quickly and with answers and really helping them do their jobs. it was frustrating and we knew that there was a lot going on but through such internal chaos that we are stuck. but i will tell you that the one moment that physically made me sick to my stomach was i had really done a lot of, i've been a company spokesperson for the california energy crisis, and we have been assured by our trading team, by

top management that we had done nothing wrong with the california electricity market and when we heard the tapes of the traders manipulating the market, it just made me sick because i knew -- >> can you give us details. >> basically it was burn baby burn, grandma, you know, you don't need any electricity tonight. they had manipulated power outages but it taking equipment down and cause rolling blackouts, which jacked up energy prices. and again, if they are trading, megawatt hours and they were really able to manipulate the trading process, and so that was just, it was sickening to realize that we have been on the front lines saying we had done nothing wrong, which clearly there was this behavior. >> with the senior executives come at one point there's a lot of pressure on the cfo,

antipasto, and ken lay is forced to basically make a decision about tranfive, and how did that play out? >> ken lay held a conference call with analysts, and at the media was on as well, basically saying i have full confidence in india. he has done nothing wrong. everything is fine. in the next day he was put on leave. so again, from a company perspective you've got to have credibility cannot have your actions match what you are saying. i think the further problems, even the and was put on leave from it took the board six months to actually fire him. spent the other thing, the company i think didn't know, and partly did know because they didn't try to know. some of the key things about the ljm partnership. the board of directors and top management approved what was unique in a corporate relationship, in history of american corporations perhaps. i mean, i once did on as part of

all this went to the findings, the fortune 500 companies. all 500 -- 500 just to see if there's anything like it and essentially there was nothing comparable to the ljm partnerships. so they sent this conflict of interest. and then a ignored it for two years to let it roll along. and he is doing what and he is doing. he is sucking in losses and covering them. then this crisis hit and we start writing about these partnerships. sadly this are saying well, we better find out about what's going on here. so the board of directors actually request a meeting with andy, which i thought was incredible when the directors have to request a meeting with the cfo who works for them. so he meets with them, and ask them, andy, how much money have you made from these to partnership in the last two years quick supposedly andy was on to spend a lot time on these partnerships, he's going to be like a little add-on money, and

then argue, any compensation to add to his paycheck. so he tells them come he said i made $42 million. that was on the afternoon i think of, after ken lay had given the bearhug of supportive and he passed out in front of the world. andy tells the directors i made $42 million. they practically swallowed their tongues. i think that's not what pushed andy out but they kept finding out these timebombs that they should have known. any competent responsible directors first of all i don't think in my humble opinion wouldn't have approved the ljm partnerships. but if they had, somebody should've been on it like every day finding out what are you doing, how much are you making, is the enron shareholder getting shafted or not? they just let it roll on but it was one of the most irresponsible things i've ever seen a board of directors do spent how much of this was apparent to you as it was unfolding? you said you are so there's going to be some kind of future for enron into the very end when

fastow is put on leave, i don't know what the stock price was at this point, but -- >> it started at about passionate it jumped up to about 37 i think on the day they announced their earnings. we started writing our story over the next 10 straight trading days it felt. i know from eighth which was the day they were toast, that's when they came out with her final and said you can't rely on our last two years of financial statements because we made mistakes. >> and they readjusted earnings but i think six or more than $7 million? >> basically, they renounce their previous, their financial statements that they had to write off things for this to go partnership. >> so karen, as the company is basically then announced that the previous five system six years of earnings information which he that sat there and helped produce and help disseminate, can be relied upon, how did it impact your job and how did you communicate that to

the investing public? >> keep in mind we were in the eye of the store because long before, 10 years ago before any company just collapse in the blink of an eye. so we really didn't have any sense of the magnitude of what we were in the midst of. what did happen was a number of media called escalated to a business crisis takes much longer to catch on publicly. i mean, i think the journal was on it worse before anyone and it took a long time for it to escalate, but by the time we filed for bankruptcy we were yielding upwards of 300, 400 media calls a day. there were four of us and to assist its. we just couldn't keep up with the onslaught. >> it's also interesting, the question like dealing with the media for cover like enron. part of the media open i think, i think kerry will probably agree, was in large measure a reflection of the person out of

jeffrey skilling and his approach to corporate affairs. jeff was a very self-confident man in many ways. and believed almost with religious fervor in the enron story, which he helped write. so he was always open, much to his credit even after the crisis hit and things went south for him. about talking to the reporters. and when he left i think there was a change at the top. ken lay was much less open to talking him especially about things that were critical towards enron. so when we put in a call, we started digging up the stuff that we felt was very serious questions and allegations. so we called in want of an interview with ken lay and fastow and achieve account officer. fully expecting that they would make everybody of able like they always did. and instead i get a callback from mark palmer sang send us a list of written questions. in my expense and becky's expand

and many other chose, nobody would have ever asked for a list of written question. that was odd. so we put together a very extensive list of written questions your and there's apparently a large debate within enron, i later found out, about whether, how to respond. and a faster was a much against talking at all, and lay went along with the. they send us back a one paragraph very bland basically restate the we haven't done anything wrong. and in some ways that was my first real sense that we might be onto something big stack that was sort of here's a map to where the treasure is buried kind of response? >> they wouldn't tell us anything about it but they sort of by not talking, they suddenly gave me a sense there must be something really seriously wrong here, they're not willing to talk about it. >> early on?

>> businesslike late september. >> before they even announced their loss of? >> right, they basically shut us down. this list of questions came back to haunt, particularly ken lay, i mean because when the company collapsed and the federal justice department came in and they basically scooped up every document in enron, one of the documents they scooped up was our list of questions. so ken lay at the trial, 2006 when he was on charm, basically was trying to tell understand basically claiming i did know this until then, i didn't know this until then, you know so, therefore, statements he had made publicly, which the government says he was lying about because of his knowledge, he said i didn't even know that in. they brought this list of questions at and some of the very things he said he did know about were being asked by us in late september. and so the prosecution just our list of questions actually that

they insist on getting in helping to undercut lay's credibility, which i think helped convict him. >> karen, do you member this episode of the questions johnson. >> mark palmer virtually on the frontline dealing with upper management on that, but i knew that there were problems. and we were pushing again because would have such an open relationship with reporters in the past, we were of the belief that any time there was negative news, get it all out at once and be as up front as possible. and there was a lot of hesitancy, again i think of upper management because they really didn't know what was going on. they didn't know the extent of -- >> some of them did. >> of the day after the a.k., when earnings were restated, ken lay declared we have a pr problem. the pr team knew that this wasn't a pr problem. this went far deeper than that, but he really did it i think

probably until his dying day that the collapse of the company was caused by "the wall street journal." >> that was their defense at the trumpet it was our star that caused the collapse of the company and otherwise there was nothing wrong with the company spent and if the stock price would've just gone up none of this would've been disclosed. >> i was about mr. lay and mr. skilling were a little too modest about their contribution to the collapse. >> they are now. >> can you just kind of talk about id in managing this is shipped with media, we have been opened and then all of a sudden that accenture to your own senior management disappears, and what was it like again to kind of confront the press with this kind of new phase of enron? >> we tried to be, we had a solid relationship with a lot of reporters and so we were on us. and we did so, you know, what? i don't know. i can't get straight answers internally. and when we did get answers were always able to counter them with its my understanding that, or

what i'm told is, but as i think we realize at some point that we couldn't necessarily trust the answers we were getting internally. or that they would change from day-to-day. as mark found out was, you know, the amount of the ljm write-downs. what do you think the reporters picked up on when the tone changes and your certainty also changes because they definitely knew something was going on. reporters are reported for a reason. ask questions, and they know if something is not right. >> john, at a certain point you towards getting decent amount of information from outside enron. people started giving you tips and clues about where to look for things. how did that change your reporting? >> well, i mean our initial, we got an initial break very early on after we wrote our first story mentioning these ljm partnerships briefly. we got a call from a source who

actually we never identified, but was very helpful in telling us there was a lot more and actually pointing us to some documents that we were able to get, helping to start the lenny eight the ljm relationship and activities. but we were still going in the dark law. we didn't have a lot of it is because enron was a collocated company. tried to figure out, and if you read their sec disclosures, they were almost indecipherable. like somebody got paid to make them as unintelligible as possible. a special regarding the ljm partnerships. they were almost laughable. at one point i sort of pushed the paper early on to put an entire section from the sec filing in, which i would never do because it is so boring, but just to show that these things make no sense to an outside reader. even analysts. the incredible thing is many of the analysts who covered enron did know about the ljm partnerships until we wrote about them even though they had

been in sec filings of the company, buried, but there for two years. these guys are getting paid half a million, a million bucks a year to do their job, and they don't even bother to read the entirety of an sec filing of one of the biggest companies they cover. and i'm thinking, i'm getting underpaid. [laughter] >> you brought up a good point which is, again, another one of the frustrations internally was that they need anymore information than than we had. i mean, as more sources came forward and shared information with a journal and with other reporters, and they would call us. we would think what's this? the partnerships. out of left field came chewco and then jedi and then all the rafters. we looked at each other and said what's that? >> you can't make these names up, right? >> early on there was clearly -- >> though you still believe in the company come it was 10 years ago today that the deal from

dynegy was announced. that dynegy was going to essentially by enron and dynegy had been a much smaller competitor basically. when that happened, when they came about, how did that change your perception about the seriousness of the problem? >> that was really the saving grace. that was what was going to get us out of the crisis. dynegy was going to merge with enron, and i was going to shore up our balance sheet and everything would be fine. and i'm sure ken lay thought in a couple of years will either split again or he would be head of the new enron. and so then the focus became on we've got to face the company and this is how we do it. so we focus on intel can we put together package of communications. how are we going to convince them that this is a good thing. and then how are we going to can get it external he. >> you say that if that can lay thought that somebody is going to still be emerged from this impact. and this is an attitude we've also seen 2008 and 2009 with a

lot wall street titans that just sort of still believed that they somehow were going to get by no matter what. lehman brothers, gene kane at bear stearns, et cetera. can you tell which is a little bit about, both of you about what your impression of what ken lay was thinking and how he was doing this at this time. >> i worked closely with both ken lay and jeff skilling, and ken was kind of the father figure of the company. everyone loved them. he was very well respected. he had a tremendous civic identity. he was very philanthropic. and from a distance, jeff was the traitor mentality. but as you got to know both of them, people tend to like geoff moore and ken lester q. is very concerned with how things look. there were rumors that he at one point had been out for a cabinet

position in the white house. he was very politically connected. and at one point he tried to get the government to step in and bail out the company. >> he was just 10 years too early. [laughter] >> on a lot of things. >> ten years early and alone. it helps when have the entire wall street coming and saying i don't think the bush ministration could have saved them, but number two, it wasn't worth the political cost of george bush to try to save a dying company run by a political crony. so they basically said -- >> it was long before too big to fail. and again as he found, he really wanted, this was his identity. he had created this company with a merger of two pipeline companies and he was going, he was going to say the. he just wasn't going to have his reputation or the company's reputation tarnished. >> let's just talk about the very end here of enron and then we will have an opportunity for questions. but the dynegy deal, very

quickly comes together, and then fairly quickly falls apart. what was alike as that was falling apart from inside the company? >> so the dynegy, and i think this was thanksgiving weekend, the dynegy deal was falling apart at we knew we are going to file for bankruptcy, that that was it. so it was i think a sunday night of thanksgiving weekend we filed for bankruptcy in delaware, and also sued a dynegy for the failure of the merger. and at that point all hell broke loose inside the company. because employees turn on their tv, saw the company was bankrupt. the traders brought in texas beer and they started partying. a lot of other employees simply started taking furniture. so they wielded their chairs out the front door. they took potted plants. they loaded up anything they could come and they headed out the front door. we had i think have a dozen or eight satellite trucks out in front filming all of this, and it was just absolutely surreal.

and that was really not even the end of the crisis. i mean, it continued going long, long after that. >> john, do you expect and cropsey to be the way that this story was going to end speak with well, sorting not initially. we started this would really as a corporate conflict of interest story. you know, back in august, september of 2001 thinking okay, and a fast and has found a way to make some extra bucks, maybe at the shareholders expense. so it really, you know, you never foresaw the snowballing that this would have. i don't think i really figured they were toast until that november 8 sec filing, would have basically renounced what they had been reporting as their financial for the past two yea years. then it was pretty clear that the public were not going to survive as an independent entity. they would either have to merge with somebody. there had been rumored already going around they were looking for somebody, and as you know

the next day they had somebody. or if they couldn't get somebody, they would end up in bankruptcy court because they're trading operation which is starting to go into vapor lock because as your stock price collapsed, your confidence collapses, all your trading partners which was the heart of enron, were asking for more and more collateral, more and more cash up front if you want to do a deal. they were sucking cash in like a sponge. they took down their entire credit line one day, $3 billion the accused in a week. i think they got another billion from dynegy. they used that up in like nothing. they ran out of cash. so without cash, you don't have any alternatives as a corporation. so by early november it's clear they weren't going to be enron anymore. wasn't quite clear whether they would be someone else. >> do you remember your last day at enron? did you work pass the bankruptcy because i was part of the restructuring team so i was retained for tw two and half yes after the bankruptcy.

>> what was that like? >> it was much, much slower pace of. [laughter] >> fewer employees. and are messaging and our interest change. we were then working for the creditors. so our job became preserving value for our creditors but i remember in the midst of the crisis we made a strategic decision not to do any broadcast interviews because we didn't have confidence in the answers or the information we're given and we just weren't going to put ourselves, or anyone on the pr team, we were going to put ourselves in a position to stand in front of a television camera and not have acceptable answers. after the bankruptcy -- [inaudible] >> and fbi confiscating the shredders. but after the bankruptcy, i think is a year and a half, two years after the bankruptcy again because we're working for the creditors, we were going to auction off the surplus items, the big e. in front of the

building, the excess computer, the chairs, boardroom furniture. and at the time we made the decision that it made sense to do a broadcast interview. there was an online auction and we thought we will generate as much interest and as i went on the today show to talk about the auction. and as soon as it aired, the number of auction lines that they had our phone lines they have for the auction blew out the circuit. it just completely exceeded the capacity. >> so it really should have been in -- john, you went on to write a book about this with becky smith, "24 days" which is still taught in this school. and elsewhere. still available. and you continue to fall the enron story for years afterward. the court cases, jeffrey skilling appeal which went to the supreme court. is there one sort of big lesson that you kind of took away from this whole experience? >> i don't know. some of them are so self

evident. i don't know, better to be honest than july. fashion than july. it is worse to lie and be caught than july. so, you know, i don't know. enron in some ways, jeff skilling used to say all the time that enron was caught in a perfect storm. and oddly enough in some degrees he was right. when enron collapsed it was still lots of things we didn't know about the inner workings of enron. that would come out through this gigantic federal investigation, which i think was the largest federal investigation ever of a single corporation, and they created this task force that was unprecedented. and, of course, one question people could have is, you know, there have been relatively few indictments out of the 2008-2009 meltdown of top corporate officials. now, that may be because this is not evidence there, it was so widespread.

but i suspect that there was not a single corporation out of that that was investigate the way enron. they had a dozen federal prosecutors, probably 20-25 fbi, irs and fec investigators working full-time for four years. do we do note and cranny of that company, i suspect if you do that with every corporation you would probably find some things. so enron was -- [inaudible] spent many others are serving time, but might not be. so, you know, enron i think, it did some outrageous things, you know, like -- but more outrageous than some of the other things that went on? i'm not sure. some of the mortgage-backed securities that these companies were peddling were just astonishingly bad.

so i don't know. i mean, i'm not sure what lessons to draw from that but certainly enron -- [inaudible] >> you said it was certainly, a formative experience. looking back on a 10 years from now, what comes to mind? what's the sort of, what's your take away from this whole chapter? >> there are a couple of lessons and again it was a lifetime or to a career's worth of expensive pressure put of time, but i would have done it again to go such an amazing expense. i would've taken notes and written about. i would've exercise my stock options and it would have been, my 401(k) was one of his enron stock. >> one point on this though, looking back on it now do you sort of see red flags that you had ignored? what were some of those? >> there were red flags long before john and rebecca started writing the stories. there were a lot of insider stock sales, and --

>> executives on their own sheer? >> right. significant enough they had to be reported. when we got questions about them they're always good and. they had to sell for tax purposes, they're getting a divorce, or they are buying a new house but there were always explanation. so that was one concern. anytime you have odd executive behaviors, jeff skilling calls an analyst an expletive on an analyst call, that was concerning. ken lay called the pr department and said it is all up be, can we change to hold music. things like that. [laughter] >> for a while their hold music was tina turner singing simply the best. that was during the better days spent there were a lot of executive departures to read a number of business units and the ceos of those positions were gradually dropping off and leaving the company. >> okay. at this point i would like to open up the opportunity for

memos of the audience to ask our panelists about this experience. i hope there are some questions here. let me look through. i see bob surprising has the first question. and remember, it is a question. [laughter] [inaudible] what we are talking about is a criminal enterprise. and yet you say you were happy, they were smart, you would go back and do it again. no remorse. i don't quite get it. if this was a mafia enterprise, ñen on a much lower level, doñ some soul-searching, what is th damage, who got hurt when people lost their savings.ññ but his cheerful, wonderful mood in describing his enterprise, and then we have the idea that it's not -- that others may even be worse. and so my question first of all

is when you say we had this great relationship with the media, i have gone back and done research on the. yes, very close. when we had all this deregulation including -- the enron loophole pushed through by phil gramm, the husband of wendy gramm who was the head of your audit committee. it was very cozy. and the question is was there corruption in the media? we just particularly effective at spinning and many believing? didn't have anything to do with campaign contributions? there's a larger story of the enabling of enron, which after all as a company that didn't actually make things of value. they manipulated. this is not the old industrial and so my basic question to you is, do you feel that you were essentially part of something that was destroying the best part of american? >> you said a lot of questions. >> basic one question.

>> i will tell you speed do you feel corrupted by this experience? >> absolutely. despite that, i can still say it was a tremendous professional experience. the pr team that it worked with were among the best in the industry. they were fantastic. they were great people. as the company was collapsing and a new they're going going to lose their job, they slept at the office, they worked around the clock. to me that's a tremendous professional. where people are by the company? absolutely. i was one of them. my 401(k) was 100% in one stock. i lost all of it. i'm not here to defend the company. what i'm here to do is tell you about the experience from inside and what it was like from a pr perspective. and found that there were certainly things that we did know about. keep in mind i was not the account. i was not a finance person. we were as good as the information we were given.

so oftentimes we had inaccurate information, but i don't, i'm not karen denne enron represented anymore. at the time i was. and that's something that i lived with. but it was a strong experience. the people who were involved in the criminal activity are doing time. >> chris? >> thank you for a great conversation. a question for john emshwiller. in the five years that separated the precipitation of the collapse and the criminal, you know, findings in the criminal case, the derivatives market are grew even bigger and mushroomed even more. and it seemed like that developed and was missed by financial reporters. what explains the identification of the risk posed by derivative instruments with enron,

worldcom, others? what sort of created that? did people get so captivated by the cap, you know, the hubris represented by the ceos like leigh and dennis kozlowski and bernie ebbers, that they got so fixated on individuals and did we dig into the systemic questions that were being posed by these estimates that ended up leaving to the '07-'08 collapse? or any thought on what was going on with the investigative reporting around derivatives during the first half of the decade of the 21st century. >> i think most reporters probably don't understand derivatives. so you tend to shy away from what you don't understand, which is not a good excuse for reporters, i'd happens. it's reality. i mean, frankly i think a lot of regulators didn't understand derivatives and tended to shy away from them. and politicians basically didn't

care about them because everybody seemed happy. i think to some degree people convinced themselves that enron, worldcom, you know, some of the other one off, okay, this company was bad because they did ask. worldcom was bad because it is cooked its books on account. koslowski just been money like there was no tomorrow. and they all went to jail. it was a certain amount okay, that probably is fixed. congress passed a law, sarbanes-oxley which made congress feel like they had done something. but then you had this whole of the world over here that was similar, connected, in a sense, you know, with things like mortgage-backed securities market. but in the 2000 time period, the last decade up to the collapse, there was shuja mounts of momentum pushing those kind of markets forward. the president of the united states were behind, everybody should all make -- own a home. congress both republicans and

democrats were happily sing let's make it easier to own homes. and let's not take a look at how it's happening, whether these people can afford it, where the people are lying on the loan application. i mean, the system got in that eddie got almost laughably uncontrolled. and nobody much seem to care. there were some stories that raised some red flags, but it was such a huge, you know, tidal wave of activity and optimism that, i don't know, maybe journalists could have stopped it, certainly could have done more. but there was a certain systemic large numbers of people involved in it that's, you know, didn't stop until they couldn't keep the merry-go-round going anymore. >> other questions? >> first of all, thank you for coming and speaking with us. one of my classmates has pointed out today that when all this was

going on, 10 years ago, a lot of us students in this room were young and we had no idea what was going on. all we saw was just the commercials on cnn and from what our parents, you know, which is telling us basically. here, i say kids, for students that are planning to go into corporate america, are there any can get them when working with a y out there? when they start to cut some is going wrong with something with the comely, when do they say i need to leave, something doesn't feel right, so they can avoid having questions, you know, such as these are just looking back saying, i really should have worked for enron. at what point should they feel so they can leave? >> those are exactly the right

points to raise. you need to ask why and ask questions. and if you don't get satisfactory answers, you keep asking. and if you have reason to not trust your executives or the people who you work for, you've got a decision to make, whether to leave or whether to stay. it's a very difficult question. but you really do, particularly post-enron, where that is a possibility that a company can simply evaporate. you really do have to have confidence in the people you work for. you want to trust them. you want to believe them. you don't want to come to work everyday and represent a company that you don't believe in big so you do have to ask those questions. >> other questions here from the audience? >> i'm trying to understand how you decide to stay when all of the stories of corruption came outcome used it for even two and half years. wasn't there a point where you're like, you just said

before in your talk that you weren't sure that what they were saying was the truth. how can you continue to stay? like, how can you can't just let you do that? >> once the company filed bankruptcy and became a different company but it was owned by the creditors. and i was one of the creditors. we had a chief restructuring officer brought him. there was entirely new management team brought in. it was under the eye of the bankruptcy court, and he became a completely different company but our job at that point was to cooperate with investigations. it was to maximize value for creditors, and it was to preserve jobs. we still had a number of employees working for the company. the pipeline companies were really the only asset driven businesses that the company had come and those employees kept their jobs. they continued working. so they were still a viable business that was part of the bankruptcy. [inaudible] >> i was.

>> and it was a different company. i mean, enron, the old enron, enron that everyone wrote about and cared about in some ways was no more. it was a ghost, a corpse. i don't know if this is karen's case but another a number of people who say that enron partly they want to get a paycheck. they needed a job. having anyone on your resume wasn't exactly giving you recruiters knocking on your door. so that was i supposed another issue for some people, but it really was a different, you know, entity. it wasn't going to be borrowing any more money from people. it wasn't going to be selling more stuff but it wasn't going to be doing anything, the things that it did in that incredible run a data for essentially 15 years. >> other question? >> you brought up the legal teams being part of public relations, and then do not to broadcast images. in your view, public relations

changed with something like this? because in terms of sarbanes-oxley come into play and public companies, now with media kind of con anybody can do videos and such. it's not in your control anymore. how has public relations change? >> when this happened there weren't so many blogs, that wasn't the social media, there was that facebook. there was any other social media vehicles. -- there wasn't any social media vehicles. >> is there any difference in terms of companies being more cautious because of legal repercussions? things like social need that kind of come back and backfire a lot more quickly? >> i would say, i mean, there's certainly more legal guidelines, but if you look back since 2008,

i mean, companies have still had questionable practices and they still have losses. that's really continued. >> i must say that some of my colleagues have covered corporations on an ongoing basis more than i do have told me they have been told sort of, you know, and occasional sort of frank p.r. person that a lot of corporation not caring much less about publications like "the wall street journal," "the new york times," and focusing much more on social media because they feel it's much easier to get their message out and kind of an unfiltered way, you know it and i guess they think maybe it's even easier to mitigate the social media picture than it is the press picture, and given how easy it is to make the oppressive times that's quite a statement. but i do think that is those kinds of sources are diminishing the power and importance in a lot of corporations mind of traditional media.

>> i think we have time for one more question here. gas. >> ms. denne, you brought of the point how you weren't involved, you were not an accountant, you are not the one cheating the numbers. you got a great point. you shouldn't be blamed. because, because the fact you don't feel plan, you weren't a part of the people, the individuals that are causing this entire problem. but how about the people that caused this current economic crisis and ordered -- another one serving any jail time. there's no repercussions for the. and i just want to hear your opinion on that. >> i think it's unfortunate. i mean, enron was the first. enron really, i mean to john's point, the onslaught of government investigations and scrutiny was, was unique. i don't think about the wall

street firm, the financial houses have that same scrutiny. i think the government was willing to step in and bail them out. and it's, again, jeff skilling is the one in the jail cell. >> john, do you have any final comment on that? >> i agree. jeff skilling is in jail. aspect spent and i think, is his sense 24 your? >> twenty-four years, four months. they still has -- they still have his appeal going on. grimmer and grim as far as his chances of getting out. so yeah, he's not due for, not to to be released, absent some court decision, until i think another 10, 15 years maybe. he's been in this coming december he will be in five years. >> and andy fast of served? >> fastow got a very, got very

lucky. he cut a deal with the government to cooperate, after spending, after waiting a while, long enough to get his wife indicted and put in prison for a year. he cut a deal, and basically took a 10 year prison sentence that was supposedly, you know, not reducible. but then he got a judge who felt sorry for andy. felt andy had been kind of badly treated. and so again, yet six years. so and the i think fastow is now, he's either in a halfway house or just about out the usually your last six month in a federal prison they take to a halfway house to kind of transition back into the community. so andy fast out has never talked as far as i know to anybody in the press, and certainly wouldn't talk to me. and so i don't know what his plans are. i think is still married. his wife stuck with them. but i think --

>> he did name a partnership after. >> and the kids. i think skilling was the last of the enron people still in jail. >> we are out of time as i do want to thank our panelists, and thank you all for coming. [applause] hope you enjoyed it. [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays future live coverage of the u.s. senate on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> we go live to the u.s. senate. general speeches and tilt 11 a.m. eastern when senators

consider a judicial nomination for the district of columbia circuit. there's a procedural vote on the nomination at about noon. republicans are trying to block confirmation of the nominee. we are also likely to hear speeches about the payroll tax cut which expires at the end of the month. democrats offered a plan to extend the tax cuts and pay for it with a 1.9% surtax on people with annual incomes over $1 million. now live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, who has blessed us abundantly with inner joy and an outer supply of all good things, we're grateful for your helping us in our poor attempts to do your will. lord, forgive everything that keeps us divided,

the false pride that leads from unity. give us a yearning for a life shaped and supported by a will better than our own. guide our senators during today's labors. help them know the strengthening joys of your spirit. keep them from being intimidated by the world's problems and threats, because you have overcome the world. we pray in your great 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., december 6, 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. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum.

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

the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: following leader remarks -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. following morning business, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 this morning. the majority will control the first half, republicans the second half. i would ask consent that the order be changed to allow both sides a half an hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following morning business, the senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of caitlin halligan to be a judge for the district of columbia circuit. at noon, there will be a cloture vote. i ask to make sure the consent i just asked doesn't change that at all. there will be a little less time to debate that, but i think that would be sufficient. at noon there will be a cloture vote on halligan. following that, the senate will recess until 2:15 this afternoon to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. i understand that s. 1944 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill

for a second time. the clerk: s. 1944, a bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle-class families and businesses, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, my friend, the majority leader, unveiled what he rather misleadingly referred to as a compromise on the payroll tax. i say it was mislead because we had to find out about it from reporters. this was not a compromise. this was nothing more than another bill designed to fail, so democrats can have another week of fun and games on the senate floor while tens of

billions of working americans go another week wondering whether they are going to see a smaller paycheck at the end of the year. now, i have said i support this extension. i don't think americans should have to suffer any more than they already are for the president's failure to turn this jobs crisis around. unfortunately, the majority leader has yet to introduce legislation that can actually pass the senate or the house. you would think that this is in the president's top priorities and the democratic leader of the senate would put together a proposal that is designed to actually pass, but we haven't seen it yet. we all know what a successful bill would look like. so i hope the majority leader comes forward with a real proposal soon because time is running out. it makes absolutely no sense at a moment when 14 million americans are looking for jobs to raise taxes on the very people we're counting on to create them. that's why the senate rejected

the idea last week on a bipartisan basis. look, democrats know as well as we do that this is a terrible idea. they have seen the same letters that i have. the national association of manufacturers says this tax hike would seriously impair the ability of their members to put unemployed americans back to work. the democrats know as well as i do that four out of five of those who would be hit by this are business owners, people who create jobs. the only reason, the only reason we even went through this exercise is because it obviously polls well. so this is what washington has been reduced to. the president and the senate that would rather spend their time doing cheap political theater than giving people the certainty that they want. what we need to do is to step back and realize that the only reason we're talking about a one-shot stimulus measure nearly

three years into this presidency is because of the president's failure to turn this jobs crisis around. we need to get beyond the taxpayer fixes and start talking about fundamental tax reform that puts the american worker in charge of this recovery, not washington. but for now, it's perfectly clear that the path to a compromise on this issue does not run through tax hikes. yesterday, the president warned congress to keep its word to the american people and -- quote -- "don't raise taxes on them now." end quote. i would just like to remind my colleagues, the republican plan is the only plan that meets the president's standards. the president just warned us don't raise taxes on the american people. the proposal that we offered is the only one that meets that standard. so if our friends are serious about passing this extension of the payroll tax cut, they have got a choice. we can have an accomplishment or we can have additional partisan

showboats. now, madam president, on another matter, later this week, the senate will vote on whether or not the new consumer financial protection bureau should move forward with their director before addressing concerns that have been raised about the bureau's lack of transparency or accountability to the american people. i understand through press reports that the president plans to make a big push for this nominee to the cfpb. let me tell you something the president hasn't done when it comes to this position. in the seven months since 44 republicans sent the president a letter outlining some very serious and very reasonable concerns about it, he hasn't done a thing to address these concerns, not one thing. if i -- if he had picked up the

phone to talk these issues over with anybody in our conference, i haven't heard about it. if he's put some thought into how he can ensure the perfectly legitimate concerns we raised in that letter or addressed, he hasn't let us in on the game plan. here's what we asked for in that letter which now has been signed by 45 republican senators -- not 44, 45. all we ask for before we vote to confirm anybody to run the cfpb, regardless of their party affiliation, regardless of who the president is, are three clear, simple commonsense reforms that would make sure that this new agency is accountable to the american people. first, replace the single director with a board of directors that would oversee the bureau. under the deeply flawed dodd-frank bill, the director of the cfpb by design is set to

lead one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in washington. what we're saying is that no single person who is unaccountable to the american people should have that much power. we're asking for the same structure. we're asking for the same structure as the f.e.c., the cftc and the fdic. the f.t.c., the nlrb and the consumer product safety commission. the same structure we use any time we give unelected bureaucrats new powers that need to be checked to protect against abusive. second, subject the bureau to the congressional appropriations process. subject this new cfpb to the congressional appropriations process. currently, the cfpb is housed at the preserve and funded through

a percentage of their annual budget, giving it a funding stream that is completely unique in government. entirely without a check from the american people, and making it one of the least transparent agencies in washington. if you like the level of accountability over at the fed, you'll love the cfpb. a journalist who wanted some information about the fed's lending practices recently had to sue to find it out. this is information not even congress could have gotten on its own. if you ask me, the american people should be getting more transparency out of this administration, not less. we don't need any more unelected, unaccountable czars in washington. number three, we ask for a safety and soundness check for the prudential financial regulators who oversee the safety and soundness of

financial institutions. this would help ensure that we're not inadvertently causing bank failures through excessive regulations. so our proposal would do nothing more than give congressional committees a proper level of oversight and accountability over this new bureau and ensure that its decisions were subject to the checks and balances that were meant to be inherent in our system, something we owe the american people. everybody supports strong and effective consumer protection, but the cfpb in its current form cannot stand. in its current form the cfpb could easily be used for political purposes at the expense of access to credit, job creation, economic growth, and financial stability. now, what's needed is transparency and accountability. that's all we've asked for. and the president has done nothing to address these concerns. instead, he's ignored these

perfectly legitimate concerns and now he's suddenly making a push to confirm his nominee because it fits some picture he wants to paint about who the good guys and the bad guys are here in washington. once again he's used the senate floor this week to stage a little political theater. he's setting up a vote he knows will fail so he can show up afterwards and say he's shocked. this is what passes for leadership right now in the white house. and it's truly unfortunate. look, we all believe americans need access to financial products that aren't rigged against them. we just think that nobody should be above oversight. including the overseers. and we don't think that a bureau designed 20 watch wall street should have the ability to squeeze out hiring on main street. and frankly, the president's refusal to even consider our calls for oversight and transparency only serve to deepen our concerns about this agency. so once again, we'd like to call on the president to to take

these concerns serving and working with us on achieving something positive together. the fact of the matter is the cfpb needs a drastic overall before any nominee can be confirmed. this won't come as a surprise to anybody at the white house and our doors remain open. now, madam president, on yet another topic, a number of things going on this week, today the senate will vote on the nomination of caitlin halligan to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. i'll be opposing this nominee and i'd like to explain why. first and foremost is ms. hal began's record of add advocacy for the judiciary and a legal career that leads any reasonable person to conclude she wouldingly bring that activism right to the court. the proper role of a judge is an

impartial arbiter who gives everybody a fair shake under the law as it exists. the role of a judge in our system, in other words, is to determine what the law says, not what they or anybody else want it to say. yet looking over ms. hal began's record it's pretty clear she doesn't share that view. in her view the courts aren't so much a forum for the even-handed application itself law or as a place where a judge can work out his or her own idea of what society should look like. as she herself once put it, the courts are a means to achieve "social progress" with judges presumably writing the script. my own view is that if the american people want to change the law they've got elected representatives to do that and these elected representatives are accountable to them. this also happens to be how the founders intended it. and it's what the american people expect of their judges,

fair, impartial arbiters. but that's not what they would get from a judge halligan. so how do we know this? well, it's true that like many of the president's other judicial nominees ms. halligan's repudiated president obama's empathy standard for choosing judges and explained an activist bent in or confirmation hearings. but her record belies this now familiar confirmation conversion. let's just take a quick look at her record to see what it does suggest about the kind of judge she would be. on the second amendment, as solicitor general of new york ms. hal began's advanced -- halligan advanced the dubious legal they are those who make firearms should be liable for third parties who mishughes use them criminally. the state court in new york rejected the theory noting it had never recognized such a

novel claim. moreover, the court called what ms. halligan wanted to do to manufacturers of a legal product legally inappropriate. so let me say again the new york appellate court turned ms. halligan's novel and activist legal theory to be -- quote -- "legally inappropriate" end quote. congress passed legislation to stop these sorts of lawsuits because they were an abuse of the legal process. undeterred, ms. halligan then chose to file a brief in the second court of appeals in another frivolous case against firearms manufacturers. not surprisingly she lost that case, too. what about her views on enemy combatants? in 2005 the u.s. supreme court ruled in the hamdi vs. rumsfeld

the president has the legal authority to detain as enemy combatants individuals associated with al qaeda. yet despite this ruling, ms. halligan filed an ameek us brief years after that arguing the president did not possess this legal authority. on abortion ms. hal afind filed an amicas brief arguing pro-life protesters had engaged in extortion within within the meaning of federal law. the supreme court rejected this theory, 8-1. on immigration ms. halligan chose to file a brief arguing that the national labor relations board should have the legal authority to grant back pay to illegal aliens. even though federal law prohibits illegal aliens from working in the united states in the first place. fortunately, the court sided with the law and disagreed with

ms. halligan on that legal theory, too. the point here is that even in cases where the law is perfectly clear, or the courts have already spoken, including the supreme court, ms. halligan chose to get involved anyway using arguments that had already been rejected either by the courts, the legislature, or in the case of frivolous claims against gun manufacturers, by both. in other words, ms. halligan has time and time again sought to push her own views above those of the courts or those of the people as reflected in the law. ms. halligan's record strongly suggests she wouldn't view a seat on the u.s. appeals court as an opportunity to adjudicate even-handedly disputes between parties based on the law but instead as an opportunity to put her thumb on the scale in favor of whatever individual or group cause she happens to believe in. so, madam president, we shouldn't be putting these kinds of activists on the bench. i have nothing again against the

nominee personally. i just believe as i think most americans do that we should be putting people on the bench who are committed to an even-handed interpretation of the law so everyone who walks into a courtroom knows he or she will have a fair shake. in my view ms. halligan is not such a nominee. on the contrary, based on her record, her past statements, i think she would use the court to put her activist judicial philosophy into practice and for that reason alone she shouldn't be confirmed. so i'll be voting against cloture on this nomination and by urge my -- i would urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: would the chair announce morning business,

please. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will thousand be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 413. i send a cloture motion to the desk. in fact it is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: bureau of consumer and financial protection. richard core drai -- cordray of ohio. we the undersigned senators hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of richard cordray of ohio, signed by 18 senators as follows, reid of nevada, lieberman,

bingaman, murray, leahy, conrad, whitehouse, are reed of rhode island, franken, baucus, menendez, tester, brown of ohio, harken, and johnson of south dakota. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum rule under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move we retsunami legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: could you notify me what stage we are in the proceedings? the presiding officer: there are

28 1/2 minutes left to the majority in morning business followed by 30 minutes for the minority in morning business. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. i'd like to speak in morning business and respond to several things said by the republican leader of the senate. the first relates to caitlin halligan who is the nominee to serve on the d.c. circuit court. the d.c. circuit court is the appellate court in the district of columbia which i would argue that next to the u.s. supreme court is one of our most important. the decisions of government are often sent to this court for review. at the current time there are eight who are sitting on that court and three vacancies and of the eight on the court, five are republican appointments. so it is clear that any effort now to bring a new nominee to the court may tip that political balance. i'm afraid that has a lot more to do with the fate of caitlin halligan than anything that has been said on the floor of the senate this morning. it's mistifying to me that the

senate republicans would filibuster her nomination. she's extraordinarily well qualified. she served for seven years as the solicitor general for the state of new york, currently serves as general counsel for the new york count district attorney's office. she has argued five cases before the united states supreme court, served as counsel of record in dozens of other cases before that court. the american bar association looked at the qualifications of caitlin halligan and here's what they said "she is unanimously well qualified to serve in this position." and ms. halligan's legal views are well within the judicial mainstream. she's received widespread support from across the political spectrum. what i heard from the republican leader were isolated cases she may have argued but he doesn't speak to the fact that the national district attorneys association, the district attorneys from the state of new york including daniel dan avan, william fits patrick and jot

comburns, have all publicly endorsed her nomination. raymond kelly, police commissioner for the city of new york, robert morguen you that -- morgenthal who served in new york county for 34 years and endorses her. the new york association of chiefs of police, the new york state sheriffs association. when you listen to these endorsements and wonder is that the same woman the senate republican leader questioned as to whether she was serious about stopping terrorism? i listened to some of these things and i wobder -- wonder how people of her quality would consider putting their name in nominations that there would be suggestions on the senate floor perhaps she is not as strong as she should be in keeping america safe. this is simply -- there is simply nothing in the background of caitlin halligan that suggests that we have any extraordinary circumstances that warrant the defeat of the cloture motion on her nomination, a moment in

history, please, when there was a suggestion of filibustering judicial nominations years ago and the so-called nuclear option was being discussed, a gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators, came up and said unless there are extraordinary circumstances, we should vote on these nominees on the floor. there are no extraordinary circumstances in the case of caitlin halligan. the only thing that's extraordinary is house how manye from different walks of life have endorsed her candidacy and the american bar association finding her unanimously well qualified. there are no legitimate questions about her competence, ethics, temperament or ideology. all she has done throughout her career is serve as an excellent lawyer on behalf of her client. the republican awrmingts boil down to just two. first, it doesn't matter if there are vacancies on the d.c. circuit and in the past they have argued to fill those

vacancies when they had the opportunity to install republicans. their second argument, republicans are not happy with how certain nominees were treated years ago and see no problem taking out their unhappiness on this nominee. this is a dangerous path, madam president. i believe our country needs excellent judges. time and again in your state of new hampshire and my state of illinois you go to people who are sitting on the bench in a state court or in private practice and ask them if they would consider serving their nation on the federal court. they know that it's a big decision. whether they are going to change a career. but they know just as well that by submitting their name to the process, they are subjecting themselves to criticism which many people just don't care to withstand. in this case, the criticism against caitlin halligan is baseless. if judicial nominees cannot be considered fairly by the senate on their own merits, good lawyers are simply going to stop putting their name into the process for consideration, and our country will suffer as a

result. we should give miss halligan an up-or-down vote on her merits, and on that standard, she should clearly be confirmed. madam president, i ask that the next statement i am about to make be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i come to the floor today, madam president, with a sad story for my colleagues. on the day after thanksgiving, a young man named with joaquin lua committed suicide in the town of mission, texas. this is a picture of joaquin with his mother, a handsome young man, full of promise. he took his own life on the day after thanksgiving. he was a senior at juarez lincoln high school where he was a straight-a student in mission, texas. he had a passion for architecture. in fact, he designed the home where his family lives. he was an accomplished musician, played guitar in his church choir. his family said he loved helping his neighbors with their

landscaping and he always had a smile on his face. joaquin luna dreamed of becoming an engineer. he had been accepted into a number of excellent schools including rice university and texas a&m, but joaquin luna was struggling with a problem that most american kids don't even imagine. joaquin was brought to the united states of america when he was 6 months old by his parents. he came here as a baby, lived his entire life in the united states and was undocumented. because of his immigration status, joaquin luna was unable to obtain financial aid to attend the universities that accepted him. he was unable to find a legitimate job. joaquin's brother said his world just closed. he saw that everything he was doing was just for nothing. he was never going to be able to succeed. joaquin's death is still under investigation, so i don't want to jump to any conclusions about

why this tragedy took place, but i felt it was important to come to the floor today to pay tribute to this young man's all-too-brief life and to deliver a message to other young people like joaquin luna. there are tens of thousands of young people in this country facing the same challenge as joaquin. they were brought to the united states as children. they grew up every single day, just as we did a few moments ago in the united states senate, pledging allegiance to the only flag they have ever known, our american flag. they would sing the only national anthem they ever knew. it wasn't their decision to come to america. certainly joaquin didn't make any decision at the age of 6 months, but america was their home, and for tens of thousands of others in his status, america is their home and their future. but they are undocumented and their future is uncertain. i have a message today for all young people like joaquin --

don't give up hope. keep your dreams alive. america is a generous and caring country. we can and we will find a way, a fair and just way, to give you a chance to be part of our nation's future. if you or someone you know is feeling hopeless because of the failure of the dream act to pass in the united states senate, there are people available to help and talk to you. you can call the national suicide prevention lifeline. the number is 1-800-273-talk. that's 1-800-273-8255. today, my thoughts and prayers are with joaquin luna's family. i want to send them my sympathy and condolence and assure them that i will honor his memory by continuing to fight for all the young people in america who are just like joaquin. madam president, i never dreamed ten years ago when i introduced the dream act that i would be standing on this floor ten years later with that bill still not

enacted into law. time and again, we have had a majority vote in the united states senate stopped by a republican filibuster. time and again, we have brought this issue to the floor and argued the cases of young people just like joaquin luna. we are only asking that they be given a chance to earn their way to legal status. that's it. they have to graduate high school. they can't have any serious criminal issues. they have to be willing to either serve two years in the military or graduate from college. those requirements say that they have to be people who are determined to make america a better place. we just have a debate going on now about bringing in talented people from all over the world to work in the united states. think about that. we're going to bend the immigration laws so that more talented graduates in other countries can come to our country and help build it into a better nation, creating more jobs and opportunity. at the same time as that's being proposed, we are saying that tens of thousands like joaquin

luna, there is no place for you in america because your parents brought you here when you were a child. therefore, you were forever banished from being part of america's future. that is a cruel outcome and one that we shouldn't accept as americans. this is a great and caring nation, and it is a nation of immigrants. madam president, 100 years ago, in 1911, a ship arrived in baltimore, maryland. a woman walked down the stairs, two little children by her side and a baby in her arms. she didn't speak a word of english. she came from lithuania. she was bringing her children to america and trying to find how to get from baltimore, maryland, to east st. louis, illinois, where my grandfather lived. he was there waiting for her. had a job in a place that they could call home. i don't know how she possibly made it, but she did. that baby in her arms, that 2-year-old infant, was my mother. i am a first-generation

american. i have the honor of serving in this united states senate. i don't know if my nom was legal or not legal. later in life, after she was married and had two children, she became a naturalized citizen. upstairs in my office, her naturalization certificate is right behind my desk as a reminder about who i am. that's my story. that's the story in many families in america. it's the story of america. if we cannot open our arms and our hearts to those who will come here and work hard to make this a stronger nation, we will have lost one of the core elements of america's strength and america's future. we are great in our diversity. we are great in the fact that so many people are willing to work hard to come to this nation and make it a better place to live. sadly, joaquin luna won't be part of america's future, but his story, i hope, will inspire others to step up and speak up for those who were promoting the dream act. i want to bring this to the

floor again, i want to pass it. i want to make sure that the hopelessness and despair that many young people feel is replaced by the hopeful belief that if they will continue to work hard in their lives and continue to be dedicated to america, they can make this a better and stronger nation. madam president, in the honor of -- the memory of joaquin luna, i ask my colleagues to reconsider their position and join us in passing the dream act. madam president, the last statement i'd like to make i ask that it be put in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, there was a question raised this morning by the republican leader about where we stand in the closing two weeks before the holiday recess. we have a lot of important issues left. one of the most important is the payroll tax cut. here's what it means. if you have a job in illinois, an average job in illinois, that pays about $50,000 a year, currently you have a break on your payroll taxes that are collected, about 2%. so what it means for those

families is that they are able to have an additional $125 to $150 a month to spend. for some members of the united states senate in the house of representatives, $125 a month might not make much of a difference, but for a lot of families struggling from paycheck to paycheck, $125 is make a big difference. when gasoline prices go through the roof, you can fill that gas tank in your car or pickup truck and make it to work. you might have a little extra money left for the utility bill when the natural gas prices and oil prices go up during the course of a cold winter. you might be able to afford some christmas gifts for your kids, maybe even some clothes for them to go to school, a warm jacket for cold weather. $125 is important. if we don't act and act before we leave at christmas, as of january 1, that payroll tax will go up 2% on working americans, and they will have less money to spend. as they spend less money, our

economy struggles. when they buy things, goods and services, it creates more economic activity in businesses small and large and creates profitability and jobs, job opportunities we desperately need with our high unemployment. we have taken a position with senator bob casey's amendment here when it comes to payroll tax cut that it's not unreasonable to ask that the wealthiest people in america, the top 1% in america pay a little bit more in taxes so that we don't add to our deficit with this payroll tax cut. there were times in the past as the president noted yesterday when the republicans actually argued you never have to pay for a payroll cut -- pardon me, a cut or payroll tax cut. now they have taken a different position. it has to be paid for. we pay for it with a surtax on millionaires. unfortunately, some republicans oppose that. senator kyl said yesterday on the floor in a statement relative to an exchange we had

had that it's hard to say that the rich are not paying taxes. madam president, i'm not arguing that point. they are paying taxes. frankly, under our system of government with a progressive tax system, those who are well off, members of congress, the united states senate, those with high salaries, should pay more than those who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. the people we are talking about, the top 1% page earners in america have an -- wage earners in america have an average annual income in 2013 of $1.4 million a year, $1.4 million a year. by my calculation, that is a paycheck of $28,000 a week. to say that those people can't afford to pay a little more in taxes is hard for most families to understand. it's hard for me to understand. the bush tax cuts incidentally which the republicans support have been very generous to these people. those in the top 1% making more

than $1.4 million a year are going to see a tax cut in the year 2013 of $68,000, a tax cut, at a time when we have federal deficits and needs in our country to get beyond this recession. these people in the top 1% control almost 25% of the income in america. 1% of the population. more than 25% of the income. that's up from 12% just 25 years ago. they control 40% of all the wealth in the united states. they are comfortable. in 1986, they only controlled 33%. in fact, we can see in the last 25 years, the wealthy in america have become even more comfortable, and to ask them to make even a small sacrifice for the good of this nation is not unreasonable. senator mcconnell came to the floor and suggested that what we're dealing with on the floor here is political showmanship. well, last week, we went beyond

showmanship and we actually called a vote. we had a proposal, senator casey's proposal, to reinstitute this payroll tax cut, pay for it, as i mentioned, with a surtax on the wealthiest people in america. at the end of the day, out of 53 democratic senators, 50 voted yes and one republican senator joined us. we had 51 votes in favor. it took 60 votes to pass, so it didn't prevail. then senator mcconnell had his chance. he brought to the floor the republican alternative. they would extend the payroll tax cut by eliminating jobs, over 200,000 jobs in the federal government, at a time when frankly we need more workers in veterans' hospitals and we need more people working on medical research at the national institute of health and we need more involved in law enforcement to keep america safe. but senator mcconnell said the way to pay for any tax cut for working families is to eliminate federal jobs. they called it for a vote, madam president. as you and i both know, there

are 47 republican senators on the floor. so how did the vote turn out when the republicans called their proposal to extend the payroll tax cut? if i'm not mistaken, only 20 republican senators voted for that proposal. in fact, senator mcconnell was the only member of the senate republican leadership who voted for the proposal. so you have to ask when it comes to the competition of ideas, who won that exchange? the answer is no one won, because at the end of the day, we did not extend the payroll tax cut. back home in chicago this last week, i had a press conference with a lady, single mom, three kids, struggling with three jobs with an annual income, combined income of less than $25,000 a year. i can't imagine how she gets by. but she said that $50 more a month -- and that's what the payroll tax cut means to her -- would be significant. $50. that's how close so many people live to the edge.

it's time for us in the closing days of this session before christmas to reach a bipartisan agreement, to make sure the payroll tax cut is extended, to make sure that the unemployment benefits that are needed so desperately by so many people out of work are there to help them and their families. the only way we can achieve that is in a bipartisan agreement. we now know that the notion of just cutting away the federal jobs has been rejected soundly, even by the republican side of the aisle. let us come to a reasonable conclusion of how to pay for this in a manner that doesn't add to unemployment but adds more jobs to the american economy, something which most americans agree should be our highest priority. madam president, i yield the floor 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 iowa. mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: soon we will be taking up the nomination of caitlin halligan to the d.c. district court. i oppose the nomination, so this is why the nomination

should not be confirmed. nominations to the d.c. circuit deserve special scrutiny. the court of appeals d.c. court hears cases affecting all americans. this court frequently is the last stop for cases involving federal statutes and regulations. many view this court as second in importance only to our supreme court. as we all know, judges who sit on the d.c. circuit are frequently considered for the supreme court. so there's a lot at stake with any nominee appointed to the circuit court, d.c. circuit. ms. halligan has an activist record. there are a additional concerns regarding her judicial philosophy and her approach to interpreting the constitution. the second amendment, for instance, in 2003 ms. halligan gave a speech where she

discussed her role in suing gun manufacturers for criminal acts committed with handguns. at the time, congress was debating the protection of lawful commerce in arms act or as most of us called it at the time, the gun liability bill. those lawsuits of course were paced on meritless legal theories and -- theories and were specifically designed to drive drug -- gun manufacturers out of business. as it turns out, while many of us were fighting here in congress to stop these nuisance lawsuits, ms. halligan was pursuing this precise type of litigation based on the same bogus legal theories on behalf of the state of new york. in new york versus storm, ms. halligan argued that gun manufacturers contributed to a public nuisance of illegal handguns in the state.

therefore, she argued that gun manufacturers should be liable for criminal conduct of third parties. the new york appellate court, however, explicitly rejected that theory. the court explained that it had -- quote -- "never recognized the common law public nuisance cause of action" -- end of quote -- that ms. halligan had advanced. moreover, the court correctly concluded that -- quote -- "the legislative and executive branches are better suited to address the societal problems concerning the already heavily regulated commercial activity at issue." while we were debating the gun liability bill then, ms. halligan delivered a speech where she expressed her strong opposition to that legislation. she opposed it because it would stop the type of lawsuits that she was pursuing. she said -- quote -- "if

enacted, this legislation would nullify lawsuits brought by nearly 30 cities and counties including one filed by my office as well as scores of lawsuits brought by individual victims or groups harmed by gun violence. such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by states to find solutions through the legal system or their own legislatures that might reduce gun crime or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers" -- end of the quote of ms. halligan. later in that same speech she addressed her view of law and legal system. she said -- quote -- "courts are the special friend of liberty. time and again, we have seen how the dine dynamics of our ruf law enables enviable social

progress and mobility" -- end of quote. now, this statement is very troubling especially as it relates to the nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers. those lawsuits are prime -- a prime example of how act vis for the far left try to use the courts to effect social policy changes that they are somehow unable or unwilling to fight to achieve through the ballot box. that is why i believe those lawsuits represent not only bad policy but more broadly, an activist approach to the law. i'm also concerned about ms. halligan's view on the war on terror and the detention of enemy combatants. this is especially troubling because ms. halligan is a nominee for the d.c. court where we know a lot of these issues are often heard.

in 2004, ms. halligan was a member of the new york city bar association that published a report entitled "the indefinite detention of enemy combatants and national security in the context of the war on terror." that report argued there were constitutional concerns with the detention of terrorists in military custody. it also argued vigorously against trying enemy combatants in military tribunals. instead, it argued in favor of trying terrorists in civilian article 3 courts. now, as i said, ms. halligan is listed as one of the authors of that report. but when it came to testify at her hearing, ms. halligan tried to distance herself from that report. she testified that she did not become aware of the report until 2010, in a followup letter

after her hearing ms. halligan did concede that -- quote -- "it is quite possible that a draft or report was sent to me" -- end of quote -- but she could not recall reading the report. i recognize that memories fade over time, but as i assess her testimony, i think it is noteworthy that at least four other members of the committee abstained from the final report. ms. halligan did not. i would also point out that she co-authored an amicus brief before the supreme court in the 2009 case of almari. ms. halligan's brief in that case took a position similar to the 2004 report with respect to military detention of terrorists. in that case she argued that the authorization for use of military force law did not authorize the seizure and

indefinite military detention of a lawful permit resident alien who conspired with al qaeda to execute terror attacks on our country. the fact that ms. halligan co-authored this brief pro bono suggests to me she supported the conclusions reached by the 2004 report and again this issue is particularly troublesome for a nominee to the d.c. circuit where, as i've already said, many of these questions are heard. there are a number of other aspects of the record concerning me -- concerns me. most, for instance, she authored an informal opinion on behalf of attorney general spitzer regarding new york's domestic relations law. that opinion evoked a theory of an evolving constitution. as new york's solicitor general, ms. halligan was

responsible for recommending to the attorney general that the state intervene in several high-profile supreme court cases. she filed amicus briefs that consistently took activist positions on controversial issues such as abortion, affirmative action, immigration and federalism. i'll give you some instances. in shidler versus national organization for women, she supported now's claim that pro-life group's claim had engaged in extortion. in a twin affirmative action case, she argued that the use of race in college and law school admissions was not only appropriate but also constitutional. in hoffman plastics compound versus nlrb she argued that the nlrb should have the ability to

grant back pay to illegal aliens even though federal law prohibited ill yell aliens from working in the united states. ms. halligan representatived new york in massachusetts versus e.p.a. where a number of states argued that clean air act authorized and required the e.p.a. to regulate automobile emissions and other greenhouse gases associated with climate change. these are just some of the many concerns regarding the nominee's judicial philosophy and her approach to constitutional interpretation. based on her record, i do not believe she will be able to put aside her long record of liberal advocacy and be a fair and impartial jurist. yesterday before the votes on the judicial nomination that we confirmed, i made a few remarks regarding the history of this seat. so i would briefly review again the approach that i've been

arguing for more than a decade and had the support of other senators that there are too many seats and it's an underworked circuit. it may come as a surprise to some, but this seat has been vacant for over six years. it became vacant in september, 2005 when john roberts was elevated to the chief justice of our supreme court. but it has not been without a nominee for all that time. in june of 2006, president bush nominated an eminently qualified individual for this seat, piecer kiesler. he was widely lauded as a consensus, bipartisan nominee. >> record included such as acting attorney general, despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications mr. kiesler waited 918 days for a committee vote that never

came. but mr. kiesler was not the only one of president bush's nominees to the d.c. circuit to receive a heightened level of scrutiny. in fact, when president bush was president, his nominee to the d.c. circuit did not simply receive heightened scrutiny but were subjected to every conceivable form of obstruction. those of us who were here remember those debates very well estrada, roberts, griffith, cavanaugh, chrysler and brown. all of these had difficult and lengthy processes. these included delays, multiple filibusters, boycotting markups so we would not have a quorum to vote on the confirmation, including even invoking the two-hour rule during committee markups, and other forms of

obstruction. i have not suggested that we repeat all the tactics used by the other side employed during a republican administration. i do not believe, however, it is important -- i do believe, however, that it is important to remind my colleagues of the precedence the other side established for phenomenon neat -- nominees for this circuit. there's one other relevant fact by like to briefly discuss in connection with this vote and that is the work load of the d.c. circuit, gets back to what i've referred to, it's an underworked circuit. when peter kiesler was nominated to the same seat, my friend on the other side objected to holding a hearing base upon concerns of the workload of the d.c. circuit. here's something we tend to agree on that's gone by the wayside now that we have a nominee from this president of the other party for this same seat. during mr. kiesler's hearing,

one of my democrat colleagues summarized the threshold concerns. he said -- quote -- "here are the questions that just loom out there. why are we proceeding so fast here? two, is there a genuine need to fill this seat? three, has the workload of the d.c. circuit not gone down? four, should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of filling that seat? does it not make sense be given the passion with which arguments were made only a few years ago to examine these issues before we proceed. so we have five very important questions that are applicable today from a member from the other side of the aisle. but i have not heard these same concerns expressed by my friends on the other side with respect to miss halligan's nomination, but that does not mean that these issues have gone away. statistics from the

administrative office of the u.s. court show that caseloads on the d.c. circuit have depriested markedly over the last several years. this decrease is evident in both the total number of appeals filed and the total number of appeals pending. specifically, the total number of appeals filed decreased by over 14% between 2005 when there were 1,379 appeals filed and the year 2010 when only 1,178 appeals were filed. the workload decline is also demonstrated in the per-panel and per-judge statistics. filings per panel and filings per judge show a decline of nearly 7% during this period. pending appeals per panel dropped over 9%. when you examine the caseload

statistics in relationship to other circuit courts, the d.c. circuit ranks last in nearly every category. for instance, the d.c. circuit has the fewest total appeals filed per panel and only half as many appeals filed per panel as the tenth circuit, which has the second fewest in the country. they have the fewest number of appeals terminated per judge, and again they have roughly half as many termses per judge as the second least busy circuit, again, the tenth circuit. they have the fewest signed written decisions per active judge with 57. by way of comparison, the second circuit has five times as many with 270 per active judge, and the tenth circuit has roughly four times as many with 240 per

judge. they have the fewest total appeals terminated per panel with 347. by way of comparison, the 11th circuit had over four times as many total appeals terminated in 2010, and that number is 1,574. the ninth circuit had nearly four times as many, and that number is 1,394. and the second and fifth circuits each had 1,329. given these statistics, we should be having a discussion on reducing the staffing for this court, not filling a vacancy. this seat is not a judicial emergency, and with our massive debt and deficit, i don't understand why we would be spending our time and resources, particularly on a highly controversial nomination.

given the concerns i have about miss halligan's record on the second amendment, the war on terror and other issues, my concerns regarding her activist judicial philosophy and the court's low workload, i oppose this nomination. i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i would note in closing a number of organizations expressing their opposition to this nomination. the american conservative union, national rifle association, gun owners of america, citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms, committee for justice, concerned women of america, the american center for law and justice, heritage action, liberty council, family research council, eagle forum, and there are others. i yield the floor.

>> madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i understand morning business will now close. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, caitlin halligan of new york to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be time for debate until noon equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: thank you, madam president. i have heard some of the people who oppose miss halligan were also some of the same people who opposed an effort in the -- successful effort in the congress to actually protect police officers a few years ago, so i -- i put that in -- i put

that in context, and it's probably why so many law enforcement groups support miss halligan, because she stood up for law enforcement, unlike some of the groups we have heard about who oppose her who sought to make the life of police officers more dangerous. be that as it may, we stand at a crossroads today. voting to end the partisan filibuster of this judicial nomination is as important as it was when the senate did so in connection with the nomination of judge mcconnell to the united states district court of rhode island earlier this year. if we allow the partisan filibuster to go forward, then we will be setting a new standard that no nominee can meet if they wish to be confirmed to the d.c. circuit.

when i hear republican senators who just a few years ago argued that filibusters against judicial nominees were unconstitutional and said that they would never support such a filibuster, and those who care about the judiciary and the senate need to step forward and do the right thing, you can't say that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional when you have a republican president, but suddenly we have to have filibusters when it's a democratic president. even on the standards that have driven the approval rating of the congress to all-time low for hypocrisy, this goes even beyond that standard. we have to end the filibuster now, proceed to vote on this extraordinary well-qualified woman. miss halligan nominated for one of the three vacancies on the

important d.c. circuit is a highly regarded appellate advocate. she has the kind of impeccable credentials in both public service and private practice that has been looked for by -- in the past by both democratic and republican presidents and makes her unquestionably qualified to serve on the d.c. circuit. her nomination reminds me of that of john roberts when he was confirmed by every single democrat and every single republican in the d.c. circuit in 2003. now, i certainly do not agree with every position he had taken or argument he had made as a high-level lawyer in several very conservative republican administrations, but i supported his nomination to the d.c. circuit as i did to the supreme court because of his legal excellence and ability. madam president, it is

frustrating to have senators tell me privately that they know miss halligan is just as qualified as john roberts was, but gosh, there is this lobby and that lobby and the other lobby, and they are against her. lobbies come and go. the courts are supposed to be the epitome of justice in this country. now, i trusted john roberts' testimony to fairly apply the law if confirmed. if that standard which we used for him is applied to her, then there is no question this filibuster will end and caitlin halligan will be confirmed. by any traditional standard, caitlin halligan is a superbly qualified nominee, and she should easily be confirmed by the senate, to use the same

standards that have always been used. yet the senate republican leadership's filibuster of this nomination threatens to set a new standard that could not be met by anyone, that wouldn't have been met by john roberts, is not going to be met by miss halligan if this is the new standard, and i think that's wrong, i think it's unjustified, i think it's dangerous. but it will take a handful of sensible senate republicans willing to buck their leadership and some single-issue lobbies. they have done it before, they should again now. those who care about the judiciary but even as important, madam president, those who care about the senate need to come forward and end this filibuster. yesterday, i put into the record some of the many letters of support we have received from miss halligan's nomination, from those from across the political spectrum. these are letters -- these letters are a testament both to her exceptional qualification to serve and to the fact that she

should be a consensus nomination, not a source of controversy and contention. they attest to the fact that she is not a closed minded ideologue, the kind of nominee who has demonstrated not only legal talent but also a dedication of the rule of law throughout her career. we should encourage nominees with the qualities of miss halligan to engage in public service. we should welcome people like her on the federal bench, not denigrate them, concocted controversies and a blatant misreading of miss halligan record as an advocate is no reason to obstruct this outstanding nomination. and i also demonstrated yesterday any so-called caseload concern is no justification for filibustering this nomination. this was not a concern we heard from republicans when they voted to confirm president bush's nominees to fill not only the ninth seat but also the tenth

seat and the 11th seat on this court just a couple years ago. so they shouldn't use caseload as an excuse to filibuster president obama's nomination to fill the ninth seat when the d.c. circuit's caseload has increased and especially with a lesser caseload, they felt the ninth and the tenth and the 11th seat should be filled. there is only two differences today. one, the caseload has increased, not decreased. and, oh, yes, it's a democratic president, not a republican president. by any objective measure, the work of the d.c. circuit has grown, the multiple vacancies should be filled, not preserved and extended for partisan purposes. the extraordinary circumstance that exists here is the more than one quarter vacancy level on this court with only eight active judges. given caitlin halligan's impeccable credentials and the

widespread support there is for her, there should be the kind of consensus nomination supported by senators of both parties who seek to ensure the federal bench attracts the best and the brightest. certainly by any standard utilized in 2005 to end filibusters that vote on president bush's controversial nominees, this filibuster should be ended, the senate should vote on the nomination. those senators who claim to subscribe to the standard that prohibits filibusters of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances should keep their word, should keep their word, madam president, and not support this filibuster. there are no extraordinary circumstances that justify the filibuster. caitlin halligan has no character problem, no ethics problem and no justification for this filibuster. caitlin halligan is a superbly qualified nominee whose personal

integrity and temperament and abilities have been attested to by many league lawyers, both -- by many leading lawyers, both those who have been on her side of cases and those who oppose her side on cases, they all attest to her integrity, temperament and abilities. the signers of that 2005 memorandum of understanding, the senate demonstrated what they thought that agreement entailed, and they proceeded to invoke cloture on a number of controversial nominations. the senate invoked cloture on the nomination of janice rogers brown and thomas griffith to the d.c. circuit, the circuit to which caitlin halligan is also nominated. so i urge republican and democratic senators to come together and end this misguided filibuster of caitlin halligan's nomination to the d.c. circuit. they should vote cloture on her nomination. there is no basis under any appropriate standard for

blocking her nomination with an up-or-down vote. to the contrary, caitlin halligan's impeccable credentials and record is an accomplish -- as an accomplished advocate make her nomination worthy of bipartisan support. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum and would ask that the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: i'd ask that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i have requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. when they are approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy had: i mr. leahy: i see the distinguished senator from new york on the floor and i have a feeling she will have a statement of support for this superb nominee and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i'm very proud to support the nomination of caitlin halligan to the court of appeals for the district of columbia. caitlin halligan has distinguished herself for her

commitment to reasoned intellect and pro found respect for the law. unfortunately, it appears my colleagues are determined to criticize her regardless of the facts or her record. the major concern seems to be the workload demands for the d.c. circuit. this is not a reason to oppose this candy's nomination. -- candidate's nomination. in 2008 the senate voted to reduce the number of seats on the d.c. circuit from 12 to 11 increasing the caseload for each of the judges. currently there are only eight active judges on the d.c. circuit leaving the bench more than 27% vacant. that means the u.s. circuit court currently has three vacancies, three vacancies on a court handling more than 1,200 cases. three vacancies on a court that handles some of the most complicated decisions, including terrorism cases.

today we have the opportunity to fill one of these vacancies on the d.c. circuit, often called the most important -- second most court in the united states. the workload has been consistent while the number of cases per judge has increased by 33%. if ms. halligan is confirmed it will reduce the caseload from the current level of 161 pending cases to approximately 143 per judge, still substantially higher than in the previous administration. the d.c. circuit court of appeals reviews complicated decisions and rule making of many federal agencies and in recent years has handled some of the most important terrorism and detention cases since the horrific attacks on september 11. these cases are complex, requiring additional time to allow for the consideration they demand. many of my colleagues have raised concerns with positions

ms. halligan advocated while solicitor general of the new york. she filed briefs at the direction of the attorney general. she was not promoting her own personal views. many focused on new york state's rights to govern in traditional state law areas. caitlin halligan is a woman of superb intellect, a history of laudable achievement, and a record of outstanding public service. not only does she deserve an up-or-down vote but on the merits she deserves the full support of the senate. i ask my colleagues to allow for an up-or-down vote on caitlin halligan's nomination. let's debate ms. halligan on her merits. she deserves nothing less. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i rise to speak today in opposition to the nomination

of caitlin halligan to be a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is arguably the most important federal appellate court in our federal judicial system. with primary responsibility to review administrative decisions made by countless federal departments and agencies. it is also -- has also served in many instances as a steppingstone for judges who were later appointed to the u.s. supreme court. as a result, the senate has historically very closely scrutinized nominees to the d.c. circuit and when evaluating particular nominees have carefully considered the need for additional judges on that court. in july, 2006, president bush nominated eminently qualified lawyer, peter keisler, to fill a seat on the d.c. circuit. mr. keisler is among the very finest attorneys in the country.

because of his nonideological approach to the law, mr. keisler enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout the legal profession. despite these unassailable legal qualifications, democratic senators blocked his nomination. he did not receive any floor consideration whatsoever. not even a cloture vote. and his nomination languished in the judiciary committee. at the time, a number of democratic senators sent a letter to the judiciary committee chairman arguing that a nominee to the d.c. circuit -- quote -- "should under no circumstances be considered, much less confirmed, before we first address the very need for that judgeship." the judgeship he would occupy. these senators specifically argued that the d.c. circuit's comparatively modest case load in 2006 simply did not justify the confirmation of an additional judge to that court. five years have now passed, and

ms. halligan has been nominated to that very same seat on the d.c. circuit. but the court's caseload remains just as minimal as it did then. according to the administrative office of u.s. courts, the d.c. circuit caseload per judge is approximately one fourth that of most other federal courts of appeals. in each of the past two years the d.c. circuit has canceled regularly scheduled argument dates due to lack of pending cases. for several years the court has experienced the decline in workload in terms of total filings, actions per active judge and pend peelings. almost every metric indicates the same direction. indeed since 2006 when democrats blocked mr. keisler's nomination, the total number of appeals filed in the d.c. circuit has decreased -- decreased -- by 12%. according to the democrats' own standards and particularly when

there are judicial emergencies in other courts across the country, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the d.c. circuit. and it is most certainly not the time for us to consider confirming a controversial nominee with a record of extreme views of the law and the constitution. many of my colleagues have discussed these views so i will limit myself this morning to just one example. in 2003 while serving as solicitor general of new york, ms. halligan approved and signed a legal brief arguing that handgun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers should be held liable for criminal actions that individuals commit with those guns. three years later in 2006, ms. halligan filed a brief alleging that handgun manufacturers were guilty of creating a public nuisance, that they themselves were guilty of creating a public nuisance. such an activist approach is bewildering and flatly

inconsistent with an understanding of the second amendment and the rights under the second amendment that american citizen enjoy. in conclusion, as measured by the democrats' own standards and their prior actions, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the d.c. circuit. and it is certainly not the time to consider such a controversial nominee for that important court. for these reasons i cannot support ms. halligan's nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose her confirmation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. lee: madam chair, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. kirk: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: reserving the right to object, mr. chairman. i believe we have a set number of minutes left to discuss the nominee caitlin halligan, which is the subject here. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. schumer: how much time does the majority have left? the presiding officer: 13 -- i'm sorry. eight minutes. mr. schumer: okay. i would ask that the final eight

minutes before we vote be reserved for that, and the senator from illinois be allowed to speak as if morning business until we get to -- for five minutes. mr. kirk: five minutes is good for me. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. the senator from illinois. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. mr. kirk: thank you. i want to speak as if in morning business to talk about the big issue pending before the senate, which is the potential legislation by republicans or democrats to cut contributions to social security. i'm very worried because in the legislation that we considered last week, we had proposals to cut contribution toss social security by $250 billion, and this was legislation proposed by democratic leaders and then a separate piece of legislation by republican leaders, and i think that legislation was a mistake on both sides. now, we have precious few bipartisan institutions or contacts in this senate.

senator manchin and i, one democrat, one republican senator, both freshmen, we meet every thursday for lunch, and at our thursday lunch last week, senator manchin initially said well, i'm having difficulty, i don't think i'm going to be able to vote for the democratic bill to cut social security contributions, and i said well, i join you in that because i'm not going to be able to vote for the republican bill that cuts social security contributions. and so the two of us both voted pro-social security and against the legislation before us. i'm very worried that we are forgetting the lessons that are currently playing out in europe on this subject. the collapse of european socialism, as margaret thatcher says, eventually socialists run out of other people's money. the collapse of european socialism underscores a lesson that you cannot run a retirement security system without contributions. that we know already that the social security system is

running slightly in the red. contributions into the system are going to run $10 billion behind the cost of honoring benefits to seniors, but under this legislation, we would underfund social security by $250 billion. we would increase the tide of red ink to social security by 20 times. and i think that's a mistake. aarp tells us that social security is not a welfare program. it is a retirement security program paid by contributions of workers, and we should run this program with the contribution of workers. and remember, if we make this decision to cut contribution toss social security, we replace those contributions with government bonds, but the government bonds that we would ask seniors to trust no longer have a aaa credit rating from

standard and poor's. it's basically asking seniors to trust us. now, when you look at the details of the democratic bill and the republican bill, you see another disturbing trend. the democratic and republican bills both depend on revenue streams that take many years to repay what is lost to social security. under the republican bill, there are promised cuts which could be reversed by a future administration or congress, and it takes until 2018 to repay the senior citizens what has been lost in social security contributions under the trust fund. under the democratic bill, there was a political tax on millionaires, and it takes until 2021 to repay seniors. and so the message that senator manchin and i had, as one democrat and one republican, is how about not charging seniors? how about not causing a tide of red ink to social security?

how about making sure that we maintain contributions to that program. seniors have enough to worry about right now. they should not worry about the future solvency of social security. one analyst described how under the legislation it requires, temporary borrowing of additional $240 billion for the federal budget and i'm worried that that kind of borrowing could trigger an earlier loss of the debt limit of the united states. so we could trigger the battle that we all expect for next january to actually happen ominously for the president, prior to the election if this legislation would pass. common sense should prevail here. we should run a retirement security system with adequate contributions to maintain benefits. that we should agree on a bipartisan basis that social security is one of the most successful federal programs ever designed, that we should say to

seniors among all the other worries you have, you should not worry about congress underfunding the trust fund of social security, that we should say to seniors we are not replacing solid contributions coming in from workers with bonds that no longer have a triple a credit rating for standard & poor's. i would urge members of aarp to reach out to your leaders and say we want to urge you to forcefully advocate for maintaining adequate contributions to social security. that we don't think promises of a millionaire's -- millionaires' tax that repays the debts until 2021 or spending cuts that repay the debts until 2018 are something we can fully trust. so i would urge members of this body to maintain adequate contributions to social security, to defeat both the republican and democratic bills here, to learn the lesson of europe that we need to maintain a retirement security system with adequate contributions and

that we should not sink the social security trust fund in a wave of red ink on gimmick legislation which already would impinge the credit of the united states to a degree that should not be impinged any further. with that, mr. president, i yield back and thank my senior colleague from new york. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that i be given the remainder of the time if no one is here from the minority to speak against this nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, mr. president, i rise this morning in support of the president's first and only nominee to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. caitlin j. halligan is a nominee whom any president of any party

would be proud of. i know from speaking to her and getting to know her over the last year and it has been over a year since she has -- since she was nominated, that she has earned this honor. she has earned it through dint of hard work and native intelligence, and importantly, halligan has dedicated most of her professional life to government service. i challenge, i challenge anyone in this chamber to think hard about what we are looking for in a judge for the second most important court in the land. if you do, you must conclude that cate halligan deserves an up-or-down vote. does the president have to nominate a political conservative to clear the hurdle? halligan is clearly a moderate, far more moderate than many on my side would choose if they were nominating on their own without an advise and consent

process. does the president have to nominate a lawyer who practiced law in the shadows, never addressing an important issue to the nation in her entire career? because the only arguments against caitlin halligan are gotcha arguments that don't -- that simply take snippets of what she did in past law practice, representing clients, not her own views, and say gotcha. mr. president, in 2000 -- in 2005, 14 of my colleagues formed what was called the gang of 14 in order to reduce filibusters and overcome the push to change senate rules to get rid of the filibuster, this bipartisan group agreed to not to filibuster any nominees who did not present extraordinary circumstances. now, extraordinary circumstances were not defined, but my colleague senator

graham, a leader in that gang of 14 to his credit, senator graham said on the floor at the time, completely reasonably it meant no ideological attacks. senator graham said, and i quote, mr. president, senator graham said "ideological attacks are not an extraordinary circumstance. to me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, so allegations about the qualifications of a person, not an ideological bent." caitlin halligan does not have a character problem or an ethics problem. no one has alleged she does. it's that simple. so, mr. president, if this body cannot invoke cloture on her nomination today, the gang of 14 agreement, it would seem to me, would be violated. the approach taken by senate republicans will have lasting consequences beyond this one nomination. it seems to me that a vote

against this nominee is a vote that declares the gang of 14 agreement null and void. now, i was not a party to that agreement, but it would be impossible to deny that it has guided this body's consideration of judges since 2005 under both democratic and republican presidents. if republicans are going to suddenly junk that six-year armistice, it could risk throwing the senate into chaos on judicial nominees. senate republicans seem to want to declare open season for filibusters of judges again. at least at the court of appeals level. admittedly and gladly things as of late have gotten much better at the district court level, but the defeat of caitlin halligan would throw into chaos nominations at the circuit court for a long, long timing to

come. any attempt to paint her as so far out of the mainstream that she presents an extraordinary circumstance is twisting her record far beyond recognition. any attempt to do so would make any nominee by a democratic or a republican president susceptible to that unfair charge. now i have always said that ideology matters but i've also said that candidates only need to be mainstream, not too far left, not too far right. i don't like nominees at the exreems, left or right because they tend to bed ideologues, who want to make law, not follow and interpret law. halligan fits the definition of a mainstream phenomenon i nation precisely to a tee. she has spent her career in political and nonpolitical positions. she has worked as a lawyer's lawyer and expressed view views

on public issues. she has written virtually nothing but at her hearing she did answer questions. she acknowledged that executive power extends to indefinite detention of enemy combatants during time of war. something that might be disputed among mainstream members of this body, particularly if they were citizens picked up on american soil. we just had that debate. that she would act with fealty to text and original intent in interpreting laws in the constitution. that she believes the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, thereby vindicating the heller case. that the eighth amendment protects the constitutionality. death penalty. now, some of my colleagues have provide to paint halligan because she has filed briefs on behalf of clients and they say that that somehow indicates she would be an activist judge. first i'd like to point out

she's not the first nominee to come before the senate and state that the views in the briefs that she writes of her clients are not of her own. guess who did it regularly and repeatedly? now chief justice roberts. did democrats filibuster justice roberts because did he that? did we say the views he wrote on behalf of clients had to be attributed to his own views? of course not. second, i'd like to rebut some of the things i've heard on the floor this morning about particular cases. first, while she did represent the state of new york against gun manufacturers, those cases were made moot by congressional law. in her hearing, halligan recognized this and said unequivocally that she supports the individual right to bear arms. second, it is simply wrong to suggest that caitlin halligan is somehow outside the mainstream on immigration because she filed a brief advocating that businesses should not be rewarded for hiring illegal immigrants by getting out of the

requirement that back pay should be awarded when the workers are exploited. again, this was a brief filed on behalf of a client, not representing her own view. third, in the case of alomari, there is no enacts she did things on behalf of a client that was well within the main extreme. president bush abandoned the case and then charged almary in case. no different than the argument halligan was making. mr. president, why are we arguing about whether she deserves an up-or-down vote? because frankly as with the supreme court, this is part of the far right's attempt to pull the d.c. circuit further and further away from the mainstream. many conservatives tend to decry "liberal judicial activism" but

what they want is judicial activism of the right. they don't want lawyers to be down the middle and interpret law. they want to change the way the whole government has operated for decades through the one unelected body, the article 3 body, the judiciary. a truly moderate judicial philosophy shows respect for congress, for executive agencies that interpret the law, and for well-settled understandings that the american people commonly hold about democracy. there is not a single question that halligan adheres to these principles. she has extensive government experience, she understands the demands and roles of the other branches. she has been a responsible and rigorous advocate for all of her clients, including the people of new york. i have no doubt that as a judge she will be responsible and rigorous advocate for the rule of law. anyone who has listened to her answer an hour of questions in the committee and read her responses to the 150 questions

that were submitted for the record, cannot doubt but that she is an even and modest in -- in her approach -- an even and modest temperament and philosophy in her approach to legal questions. let me just cite one example. when she was asked by senator grassley, her issue of deference to the legislative branch here's how she responded -- quote -- "i think the job of the judge is to examine the constitutionality of a statute when a constitutional challenge is presented but i think that authority has to be exercised very sparingly and very carefully. time and time again, she answered similarly with clear and unambiguous answers. some of my colleagues have accused halligan of lacking candor in her answers. well, mr. president i have sat through a local of hearings for nominees to federal courts of appeals.

i know evasion when i see it. halligan was not evasive. some of the same people who say she lacked candor still defend miguel estrada who didn't answer a single question because it might come before him as a judge. she answered questions thoughtfully, forthrightly, explained the context of any past statements that might seem to have contradicted her current views. this morning some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pointed to two things that she did not write to try to indicate she has activity vis views. first, she gave a speech in 2003 on behalf of her boss, elliott spits perks that she did not -- spitzer, that she did not write himself. she did not make write it and she clarified at the time that it did not reflect her personal views. second, she was a member of a committee that issued a report on executive power in enemy combatants. she explained in the committee she hadn't seen the report and

did not agree with either its content or its tone. in her hearing she clearly stated her views on executive power. this should have cleared up any doubt about her ability to recognize and respect the current state of law. finally, i want to say a word about the red herring argument that has been raised today that the workload of the d.c. circuit is too low to confirm halligan. i've expressed this concern, too, in fact in 2008 we voted to take away one of the seats of the d.c. circuit. it now has 11 judges rather than 12 but i as well as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have in the past reserved our concern for nominees of the 11th seat and what was then the 12th seat. halligan has been nominated for the ninth seat. there are only eight members on that court which now has a roster of 11.