world definitely does not longer exist and its 19th century is clearly behind us. i'm always saying when you're president barack obama cannot deal himself with climate change, cannot settle himself trade agreements with, for example, china, what chances are there for any single european country to achieve this, on its own. and more over, i'm always giving the example of what should be the g8 in 30 years from now, in 2040, something like that. g8 shelby japan, china, india, brazil, russia. six names now, in the last few shelby indonesia and mexico. with one single european country. nevertheless, i think the challenges are huge. it is societies at stakes, our principles, our way of life that

counts in this world of tomorrow. and i think it's certainly necessary that the two big continental blocks, europe and the u.s., are working together. one-seventh of the world population, still 60% of world gdp. also two continents that share the same freedom. but let me return to my initial question. what went really wrong in european union? well, i think that mainly we talk about our problems we have to talk about the eurozone, where we made by establishing this eurozone a number of fundamental mistakes. we created as you know a monetary union, but we not installed at that moment and economic union. of fiscal union, a banking union. and today will know that it is

impossible that the single currency with 17 governments, 17 different bond markets, 70 different economic strategies, that is simply cannot not work and always say, maybe the state can exist without the currency, we all removed examples of that, but there was never a currency and there's no currency in actual world without state. state authority that can guarantee the economic financial and political conditions to sustain currency. nevertheless, european decision-makers certainly do exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. it is impossible to introduce the euro without the necessary means, and do all these necessary means and views should become reality. in a nutshell, they thought that it was possible to have a single

currency, euro, based on especially to specific rules. two basic rules. the first, you know them, no public debt-6%. and secondly, no fiscal deficits higher than 3%. do not get the wrong. these rules are sound. i do not criticize them, that the founding fathers of this eurozone made the mistake not to proceed, in my penny, a public authority at a eurozone level to impose them. a public authority strong enough to prevent member states from breaching the. a public authority with the necessary means and use to sanction them, and to penalize the center. they thought that the center should penalize them so. but it is in my opinion certainly and politics very naïve opinion. so that was not the only mistake naturally we made.

every time the stock markets are going up, so-called spreads down, many in european union believe that the crisis is over. and i think it's sufficient to see the effect of the elections in italy to realize that it is completely wrong. it's enough that the singer election goes badly for the markets to react immediately with a number of consequences across the union. if you follow that 24 -- and 24 hours the spreads for italy went up 100 basis points, 1% more than just before the election. and with contagion to other markets, to portugal, spain and so when. so the crisis around the euro, the euro crisis is not over. this crisis, in my opinion, and my message of today, this crisis

needs a structural solution, an in depth solution in the form. because despite endless meetings since the outbreak of the crisis in december 2009, the european heads of state and government have, in fact, in my opinion not been able to agree to do such structural solutions. and moreover, my opinion, that is because they are, in fact, unable to do so, not made to do so. the european council that is in the middle now of the decision-making inside the european union is, in fact, in my opinion not made to govern europe or to manage the euro area. and moreover, i think the european council does not even represent the interest, the general interest of the european union. it represents mainly the interests of individual member

states. it's a little bit, if i can make this comparison, as if the united states was to be run by the 50 states governors. you imagine that? no obama? no american administration, none at all, not even capitol hill can disappear, not completely, but at least partially. and you have been 50 governors alone come together, five, six times a year, that have to provide the policies for the united states. do we enter iraq? anyway, the 50 state governors around the table, what do we do to make the dollar more sustainable? and all this by unanimity. and you know better than i do i think that unanimity certainly is not the best way to govern a country. and even less a continents, and that was already a lesson understood by your founding fathers over 200 years ago.

unanimity kills any come in my opinion, real capacity to make real change. and besides this ineffective way of government and the lack of real sanctions to ensure fiscal discipline, we have also made them if i can give the complete analysis, third fundamental mistakes when we launched the euro. i call it the other side of the coin. if fiscal discipline is one side of the coin, you need another side, then solidarity. without solidarity, monetary union can simply not exist. in fact the essence of a monetary community, and it's clear that such a form of solidarity can take different forms, can be a monetary fund. it can be, by the way, a partial

mutual station of states or by a common issuance of sovereign dance, you know, the way hamilton did the. more than 200 years ago. or finally, it can also be done by a serious federal budget. soy budget that can finance government policies and can be the basis for that currency. but the main problem in europe is that none of all this exists in europe. besides, to limited rescue funds, and you know them, the european financial stability facility that was temporary risky fund that had been created in 2010, and besides the more permanent european stability mechanism, esm, was the follow up. besides that, there is, in fact, nothing at all. the only thing what we have is a budget of 1%, and let's be honest, the european budget of 1% compared with 24% in the

u.s., never the less, not always agree, but not 1% can make any difference. and moreover, the lack of a real independent revenue inside the union makes the union -- how i should call it -- as a hostage from the member states. and we all know if we want to tackle the problems in the european union, we need bigger budgets with direct income for the union so the union itself besides on what needs to be funded. and so that you can also establish what is normal, what is the evidence in a true democracy, a direct link between its citizens and your public authority in your country. so that they can see what they pay for.

that can be a federal the key, value-added tax as it exists here in u.s. it can be a carbon tax, financial transaction tax. ladies and gentlemen, you need some real direct funding of your federal authority to be credible and to be effective. so in a union that does not work well because of ineffective government. it's not only institutional issue, not only an institutional problem. it is in fact people and economies that suffer most from it. let me give you one example. i'm very convinced about. had the european leaders, for example, decided and decent virtue thousand nine to help greece immediately -- in the center 2009, to help greece immediately, and initiative establish, for example, at the moment in 2000 night and new surveillance mechanism of that budget in exchange for greater financial support, i think we

would not be in the crisis we are today in your. and also i think that many millions of people would not have suffered. but because with giving the impression that we could get out one of the members here, monetary union no longer really exists. and so the fact of an action and the cost of ineffectiveness to do so in the european union is for the moment very high. to hide in my opinion, and see what it does for example, for the moment in italy with population holding for two populist parties. and what happened, one party, the party of berlusconi that created the mess i should say, and the other populist party, that is simply opposed the politics, opposed to the system. or look if you want to another

example to greece were extreme populist, even outside fascist parties emerged for the moment. so my clear message of the day is that we must change drastically the way we govern your. we must, in my opinion as fast as possible introduce what i call the federal way because federalism guarantees that only the respect of differences, it provides also mechanisms for taking decisions by majority, ensuring democracy, ensuring effectiveness and transparency. and then the question is, what does it mean for the european union such a change in a federal system. in my opinion, for building blocks. first of all, the establishment of the true european government, what doesn't exist for the moment, we should be, that

should, in fact, a drastically reformed european commission. secondly, what you need is a true european treasury with treasury minister at its hat, third, et cetera democratic controlled by the european senate, a second chamber representing the states to work naturally together with the european parliament representing the european citizens. and forth, also a common european bond market which would start with what we call european collective redemption. that is, the idea to neutralize debts across the 50% mark to create liquid markets of 3 trillion of euro. and that would be a real game changer that should confidence the market. inshore when a dvd is building blocks and you're an american can you say that's exactly what we did in the 18th century, more or less. you start in 1776 with the

declaration of independence. in 1781 with the articles of confederation still based on unanimity, and then in 1787, a big change, the convention of philadelphia in which the articles of the confederation were fundamentally changed in a real federation with article seven stipulating that an approval by nine of the 30 states was sufficient to approve the constitution and bring it into force. and then 1790, the hamilton moment. we are all still waiting on the hamilton moment in the european union. the first half of the treasury will introduce treasury certificates, offer a huge battle with thomas jefferson here but also futile for thomas jefferson because washington had been created in that deal at that moment. and then it's only later in 1792 with the coinage act of the

single currency was established your country and. and only in 1913 that the federal reserve system emerged. so the historic development in the u.s. is quite clear. we are more intelligent than europe. we do exactly the opposite. we start with th the single currency and then we say oh shit, we have a problem. we don't have an economic union, a fiscal union, the banking union is not there. we have no sanctions. there is the difference with what's happened here. so ladies and gentlemen, i think that we need to fast as possible to make this new federal system in europe. and also for our american counterparts, because not only unified europe based on the example of our american counterparts can be a long-term and reliable partner for the u.s. it's in fact a choice.

a choice between efforts of 27 small states, or a single solid partner. and i think that in a globalized world of tomorrow, the edges of the united states is to work with a single solid partner at the other side of the atlantic ocean, and not 27 different member states. and i think also that this cooperation can ensure that our values and principles become the benchmark across the world. and that's the reason why, and that's my conclusion. i'm very strongly support the free trade agreement between the u.s. and eu. it's clearly i think in the interest of both. it would lead to an increase of 100 billion euros in the gdp of the european union to approximately the same figure, 90 billion in the u.s. it should lead also to increase

of exports of both continents. the forecasts are six and a% of increase for both. so i think, and that's my answer to adequate of all interests first of all for a debt reform of the european union and as fast as possible, this trade agreement and cooperation between the two blocs. and to end, ladies and gentlemen, i want to end with a quote of what you do otherwise in washington, then with a quote of george washington because he was not only her first president, but he was also a european visionary. he wrote in a letter 200 years ago in a letter to his european friends, of lafayette, the following sentence. it's interesting to repeat it for you. i am a citizen -- i am quoting him. i am a citizen of the greatest

republic of mankind. i see the human race united like a huge family. we have made selling of liberty which will little by little spring across the whole world. and one day, one day on the model of the united states of america, a united states of europe will come into being. united states of europe will legislate for all its nationalities. well, you can say that he was well ahead of his time. george wasn't even by today's standards, certainly when i'm comparing him with the actual prime minister of britain, mr. cameron, he is well way ahead. [laughter] but george washington was convinced that no matter what, europeans will come together. will form this united states of europe. and let's be honest. this was thinking outside the box. you can say that, certainly in the 18th century. and few would have thought there

is a chance for that to happen, but there are also people, the people who so impact view the united states as a source of inspiration. in all difficult moments, united states of america has opted for more cooperation, more federalism. and having done so, not only it survived, but it flourished better than ever before. let's take a lesson from the. the same as necessary for europe, serving in the globalized world of tomorrow. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> prime minister, thank you for a very lucid and candid remarks. and on behalf of the inhabitants

in washington, d.c., than thank, too, for a couple in for a couple and suggesting there are any lessons for europe to learn from americans. we think we are setting world records in this functionality here. [laughter] it's impressive to hear that anyone thinks that anything positive to offer. you stated emphatically and very clearly the requirements for successful monetary union, a common government, a common treasury, fiscal policy, banking policy. none of those were in place, as you say, when the euro was launched. in that case, was it not reckless and irresponsible to launch the euro? this is like, is an outcome is this not like saying, i want to go to see and i know i'm going to need water, food, fuel and maps? i have no water, food, fuel and that's am going to see anyway? >> i agree with you, but you

have to understand why it has been established. the euro was not economic project, not a financial project. it was a political project. a pure political project off the fall of the soviet union. a deal was made between france and germany. between mitterrand and coal. he said okay, remember that even under western leaders, western european leaders, the idea was to create t two democratic germanys at that moment. i think that mitterrand played a long time without id. i think it is a stupid idea, but at the time that was in the air. and, finally, mitterrand understand that it was impossible to go against this trend of unification of germany. and he asked for that, and the

price was okay, i shall ask for common currency, and then to establish really germany and the middle of that monetary union. so that never again, never again germany can break away of the system. that is the reason why we created this. that euro, why we introduced the year. it had been prepared in an appropriate way. no problem with it. it was a success in most other countries. but the problems emerged immediately in the sense that if you don't have an economic civil union and only a number of rules, this is not sufficient. it may be sufficient in a time of economic growth in the beginning 2000, 2007. there was five, six, seven years no problem, low interest rates in european, european union. everybody benefiting. then comes the financial crisis.

financial crisis that emerged, and that created not only -- a problem in a number of countries. it is the main reason of this increasing debt since 2007 in the european union, like it was also the case in a certain way in u.s. and so at that moment what you see is that, if you don't have your economic union, you don't have your fiscal union. the only thing what you have is a number of rules, rules that have not been applied by the two big countries. in 2003, 2004. the first two members of the eurozone were going to fly the fiscal deficit rule of 3% on france and germany and they say yeah but, there are exceptions circumstances. i mean, monetary issues, and so we cannot apply them. and that created in fact the

sentiment, not only inside but also to the market that this was not real built on sound policies, a sound economic and fiscal union. and then you naturally in december 2009 what happened, it's not his of to explain because greece was always very bad for years and years. what happened was that the rating agencies downgraded greek bonds to bbb+ here which will be very good today, but at that moment bbb+ was a real problem. and at the same time the european central bank announced a strategy which meant that she should not longer accept bbb+ as collateral. everybody had it in their portfolio. a number of balance that could no longer be used as collateral so that the crisis in fact was borne. >> the euro may not have been economic project budget have economic consequences.

from the inception. and those consequences have been catastrophic. the worst economic disaster to strike the european continent since the great depression. millions of people out of work. millions of people losing assets. and those consequences showed up immediately. as you say, those low interest rates created a tremendous incentive for people in the southern part of the continent to borrow. and it created an incentive for people in northern europe to export. from the beginning, france saw its share of world trade collapse. from the beginning, germany saw its share of world trade rise, mostly to the extent of france. now we see a continent with unemployment rates of great depression levels across the bottom half. it's a calamity. it's a catastrophe. people are turning on their political leaders, and those political leaders are saying,

what did we do? why are you blaming us? is there not, should we not begin with kind of a moment of accountability and responsibility, the euro was a terrible mistake? and at this point we have only bad options, and the people who created this mistake need to be held to account? >> first of all, our people, thinking like that about euro, as a false on the euro, if it's in greece or in or in italy or in portugal, has a convincing 70-75% for the euro. [inaudible] you are saying if they lose tomorrow they go, we go back to the old policies of our predecessors. we know what it was. but every two years, the valuation of the local currency. of the leader.

to regain competitiveness because of a lack of reform in the pushpit and who is paying the bill? the normal citizen. who is for changing power? that is happening every tuesday that is the reason because it's a contradiction. they have all these difficulties with what is -- at the same time if you ask and what do you want, you want to continue with single currency? so the problem is not the euro. the problem is lack of reform in a number of countries, and mainly the south but not only in the south. take france for example, of the european union. and what is helping out is that euros can create a pressure to all these countries to reform. and to do what is necessary. and not to do what they did in the past because it's no longer possible. they have no longer their local

currency to evaluate and we can competitiveness your was the euro a good initiative? certainly it was politically certainly a wise decision. it was not well prepared as we discussed already. but a number of countries have an enormous advantage. countries like belgium, my country, or the netherlands, germany, but also a number of other countries. all monetary were abolished. i i can't give you a figure for a country, my country but the netherlands. benevolence, who cares why? because there was an election. six, seven months ago which a political party said we want to get rid of this euro. we want to get out of the eurozone. he lost one-third of his election. why? because the dutch are not stupid. we know something that figures and so the some people say even too much. and they were analysis showing

that from all financial institutions, showing that if the dutch would go outside the euro system, there should be an economic downturn three times bigger as lehman, the effect on the dutch economy. why? because its export oriented country. >> you created those. europe is built some slack the doomsday machine from "dr. strangelove." a giant explosive mass under the continent that will kill you all if you get rid of it quickly. but is killing you all slowly. i mean, it's true. a used to be in italy people would lose two or three or five or 6% of their purchasing power every year. that the unemployed lose 100% of the purchasing power -- >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. senators will continue debating the nomination of caitlin halligan.

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. eternal spirit, our provider and protector, you are king of our lives.

we're grateful that each day when we pray to you, you are our provider and protector. you are king of our lives. lord, we're grateful that each day when we pray to you, you listen to our prayers. a thousand years mean nothing to you. they are merely a day gone by or a few hours in the night. inspire our senators this day to use wisely the fragile time they have. as you help them to do your wi will, may they celebrate the movements of your powerful providence. show them your mighty power in

these challenging times. we pray in your strong 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, march 6, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m. cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the nomination of caitlin halligan to be a united states circuit judge. at 10:30, there will be a vote on that nomination. mr. president, we all know the weather's inclement. it's getting worse. i just saw coming in here. and i've talked to senator mcconnell today. we are going to vote on the judge at 10:30. we have the brennan nomination that we're going to finish this week. i've explained to the republican leader that if they are -- want to filibuster that -- and i understand that's what they want to do -- we can set up a 60-vote threshold for a filibuster and then we could go ahead and have a vote on that today, allowing people to make proper travel arrangements. it's strictly up to the minority. we're ready to -- to make that arrangement if they so agree because of the weather.

mr. president, each day the world watches in horror as what's going on in syria. 70,000 people have been killed. the president, basra al assad, has carried out this campaign of wanton violence against his own people. these atrocities have gone on for far, far too long. 70,000 dead syrians. it's time that this awful dictator, tyrant step down and allows his people to pursue a peaceful transition to democracy which they crave. assad grows increasingly desperate as the rebels gain ground even though they have a full arsenal. the president should understand the world is watching his every action and will not tolerate his unforgivable slaughter of

innocent citizens, including the potential future use of chemical weapons. president obama has made clear, and i support him 100%, the use of such weapons, chemical weapons, would constitute a red line for the united states and for the international community. rather than ton kill his own people, assad should end the bloodshed and relinquish power to syria's citizens. mr. president, as america closely observes unfolding events in syria and deals with varied threats around the world, it's crucial that president obama has a seasoned national security team in place. it's o often said there's no substitute for experience, so it's natural that a 25-year c.i.a. veteran, john brennan, was reported out of the senate intelligence committee by a wide margin on a bipartisan vote. mr. brennan is a highly qualified nominee and should be

confirmed immediately. as deputy national security advisor since 2009, john brennan has been president obama's chief homeland security and counterterrorism advisor. he's been at the forefront of every major national security decision made during the obama administration. he's responsible for the white house response to pandemics, cyber threats, natural disasters and terrorism attacks. he's played an instrumental role in finding osama bin laden, killing bin laden, and, in effect, decimating al qaeda. when his distinguished intelligence career began more than 30 years ago when he joined the c.i.a. as a career trainee straight out of school. mr. brennan worked his way up through the agency to serve in senior management roles at the c.i.a., including as deputy executive director under george tenet. years spent working on covert and analytic mission and as chief of station in saudi arabia gave him a comprehensive understanding of the c.i.a.'s

capabilities and inner workings. his knowledge of the middle east will be essential as we continue to work to defeat al qaeda and other terrorist threatsmen thre- threats. mr. brennan has distinguished himself outside of government. he spent four years in the private sector as president and c.e.o. of the analysis corporation. his extensive intelligence background and executive experience uniquely qualify him to lead the central intelligence agency. just as the c.i.a. faces challenges abroad, it also faces significant decisions about its future. john brennan must guide the c.i.a. through a series of considerations dealing with relationship with our military, how the agency should respond to conclusion of recent senate intelligence report on interrogation techniques and practices, and, finally, the agency's response to demands for transparency. these considerations must not be made lightly and john brennan will give them the attention they deserve in his role as

director. mr. president, the senate much also approach its duty to advise and consent swift. unfortunately the confirmation process has focused too much this year and the last two grosses partisan political considerations and not enough on the quality of the nominees. i'm really disappointed that i'm forced to file cloture on john brennan's nomination today. what does that accomplish? if someone doesn't like him, come here and give a big speech, wave your arms, scream and shout and vote against him. but why hold up the entire senate over a meaningless vote? my republican colleagues have already obstructed several critical nominations this year. i hope the pattern of obstruction behavior will not persist. i do hope for the country obstruction of the last two congresses will vanish. i feel very certain that in mr. brennan's case, concerns for

national security will outweigh the desire to grandstand for the weakened tea party. mr. president, would you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. 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 judiciarthejudiciary, caitlin jn of new york to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. reid: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the assistant majority. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the issue before us is caitlin halligan for the d.c. circuit

court, and i spoke yesterday in support of her nomination. it is unfortunate that she is going to be forced to face a filibuster; in other words, that the republicans are going to insist on a 60-vote margin for her approval. that's unfortunate because we have tried in the beginning of this senate session to avoid this kind of filibuster confrontation. in the last cephal years we have had over -- in the last several years we've had over 400 filibusters, a record-breaking number of filibusters in the senate. and what at that means is that the ordinary business of the senate has been stopped 400 times when those who were trying to bring up a nomination or an amendment faced a filibuster, which required literally stretching the vote out over days and sometimes even over a week. that is unnecessary. it really is frustrating as well. there are a lot of things we need to do, and a lot of issues we need to face.

i'm not afraid of taking on controversial votes on the floor. i think that was part of the job assignment of coming here. i've quoted many times my late friend, colleague in the house, mike synar of oklahoma, who used to get right in the face of his colleagues at the democratic caucus when they'd complain about controversial votes on the floor, and he said, if you don't want to fight fires, don't be a firefighter. and if you don't want to vote on controversial issues, don't run for congress. and i agree with that. as painful as some of these votes having for me and others, we should never use that as an excuse for not tackling the important issues of our time. but this has become routine now, routine filibusters trying to stop the senate time and time again. what's particularly insidious about this strategy on this nominee, she's an extraordinarily well-qualified person. "unanimously well-qualified" -- that's the rating she received

from the american bar association. she stands out as not only an excellent candidate for the d.c. circuit but one of the best we've ever had for any judicial position. she is being stopped by the republicans. what is their argument? she was the solicitor general for the state of new york. solicitor general is the hired attorney for a client known as the state of new york. so many times she was sent into court to argue a position that had been taken by the state or by the governor, and she did her job as their counsel to argue their position as convincingly as possible. that's what lawyers do every day in courtrooms all across america. back in the day when i practiced law, i didn't measure every client who came through the door to say, now, do i agree with every position my client is taking? of course not. the belief is that in our system of justice, both sides deserve a voice in the courtroom, and both sides, doing their best, give justice an opportunity. well, that's what caitlin halligan did as the solicitor

general for the state of new york. now, listen to this. one of the arguments being made against her was she argued a position as solicitor general that favored using article 3 courts for the prosecution of terrorists. article 3 courts are the ordinary criminal courts of the land under our constitution. she argued that position. many republicans take an opposite position that anyone accused of terrorism should be tried in a military tribunal, not an ordinary criminal court. they've held that position, they argue that position, they get red in the face saying that's the only way to take care of terrorists. the relate city that since 9/11, president bush, as well as president obama, have had a choice between prosecuting terrorists in article 3 courts, the criminal courts, or in military try bineals. in over 100 cases, they have successfully, both presidents, chosen to prosecute accused

terrorists in the article 3 courts successfully -- successfully -- and in only three cases -- i believe it's three -- have they used military try boone african-americans the article 3 criminal courts have work well. prosecutions have been successful. this argument that if you have to read the miranda rights, we'll never be able to prosecute them. they'll lawyer up in a hurry. doesn't quite work that way. we found the opposite to be true. when many of these folks with connections to terrorism are taken through the ordinary criminal process, they end up being more cooperative than through a military tribunal. a president and attorney general have to make that decision. so here's caitlin halligan who takes a position favoring the use of article 3 courts, which overwhelmingly president bush and president obama decided to do, and now the republicans say, well, that just disqualifies her, that disqualifies her from

deservinserving on the d.c. cirt court. to argue because she was the attorney arguing in a case that that is her point of view in and i refer my colleagues to the testimony of justice roberts when he was up before the senate judiciary committee. he was asked point-blank, well, you've represented some pretty unsavory clients, some people we might disagree with. does this reflect your point of view? he reminded us what jurisprudence is about in this country that you'll have attorneys doing the combest for their client -- doing the best for their clients whether they happen to agree or not. now, every attorney is bound to stand by the truth when it comes to testimony. you can never, ever allow a client to misstate the truth knowingly in a courtroom. that's hard and fast. but when it comes to a point of view, for goodness sakes, good attorneys argue the best case they can for the people they represent, as caitlin halligan

did, as justice robert reminded us is so central to the system of america's government. when the boston massacre occur, john adams, the attorney in boston, stood up and said, i'll defend the british soldiers. he was defending the british soldiers who had killed americans. he did it. that was his responsibility as an attorney. he went on to be elected president. so this argument against caitlin halligan from this point of view is as empty as any argument i've ever heard on the floor of the senate, and the republicans insist on filibustering again her nomination over such a weak read of an argument. it really is embarrassing. it is troubling. and it calls into question whether the agreement earlier this year on rules changes in the senate, a bipartisan effort to try to get this chamber back on track to solving problems on a bipartisan basis, really did the job. we had the first filibuster in

the history of a secretary of defense nominee -- the first. chuck hagel was held up for ten days because of a republican filibuster, first time that's ever owe kurd. and now we follow it with this filibuster of this d.c. circuit nominee? i don't think we've achieved much in our rules aform. i don't think our spirit of bipartisanship has shown much in terms of results. i hate to suggest this, imu if thi--but if this is an indicatif where we're headed, we need to revisitor the rules again. we need to go back to them again. i'm sorry to say it because i was hopeful that a bipartisan aprofess to dealing with these issues would work. it is the best thing for this chamber, for the people serving here and for the history of this institution. but if this caitlin halligan is an indication of things to come, we've got to revisit the rules. if we are now going to filibuster based on such weak arguments, then i think we need to revisit the rules. mr. president, they say in

politics, when i was growing up, one of the great prigs politici worked for, said for every political position you take, there is a reason -- a good reason. on their side, caitlin halligan argued in court for positions they don't agree w i think that's an empty acould you station. what's the real reason? there is a real reason why they are opposing caitlin halligan tie and again. it is because the d.c. circuit court is one of the most important courts in america. some argument, as important as the u.s. supreme court. because the d.c. circuit court time and again considers the rules and regulations and laws which are promulgated in washington. it is the first court of review, and if that bench on the d.c. circuit is tipped one way or the other too conservative or too liberal, it shows. right now it's been tipped toward the conservative side. the republicans engineered a deal when we were years ago

imrielembroiled in controversy r this issue of filibustering judicial nominees. they engineered and brokered a deal to make several appointments to the d.c. circuit that tipped the balance toward the conservative side. now, out of the 11 positions in the d.c. circuit, only seven are filled. we're trying to fill the eighth, and they're worried that if caitlin halligan comes in and she isn't as conservative as they wish, it may get closer to balance. isn't that what we want? a more balanced court? it's what we should want. it's the real reason why the republicans oppose her nomination. i'm sorry for her that she has to be a victim of this political strategy. it really doesn't have much to do with her personally. and i hope that a few republicans that are necessary will step up and give us a chance to vote on her nomination. otherwise we're back into the doldrums again in terms of the senate imbued in controversy and

stuck in filibusters. mr. president, since no one is else is seeking the floor at this moment, i would first like to make a unanimous consent that time consumed during quorums be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i would like to ask that the statement i am about to make be placed in a separate port of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: sean attended the art institute of pittsburgh own. the grant saw an advertisement for the school and thought the program he enrolled in would give him the skills he needed to succeed in the workforce after he left the marines. after enrolling at the art institute in pittsburgh, the grant became concerned about the quality of the school. he started doing his own research about the school, the program, and how many of the graduates actually got a job. when he realized was the program wasn't going to provide him with the skills that were promised. in fact, the jobs that his promise would have prepared him to do didn't even require a college degree. grant decided the program at the

art institute of pittsburgh was not worth his time or the government's money, since he was on a g.i. bill. so he decided to transfer to a community college. the problem? none of his credits from the art institute of pittsburgh would transfer to any school. not even to a community college. although he received g.i. bill benefits, those benefits didn't cover the cost -- all the costs of the inflated tuition of this art institute of pittsburgh. after one year in the program, one year, grant had borrowed $32,000 over and above his g.i. bill of rights benefits. so now grant is in debt with worthless credits from the art institute of pittsburgh. he still is going to have to struggle to pay off $32,000 in doabt a for-profit school that was a worthless experience. he says one-quarter of his

paycheck goes to his loans. he can't save for anything and all of his money goes back to student loans. he would save for retirement if he could. he was lucky in some ways. many of his peers take on $70,000 and $80,000 in student loans at for-profit colleges only to find out that the indication at these for-profit is virtually worthless. students also discover their credits won't transfer. if i go to your for-profit school, will any other school recognize nigh credits? in this case, the art institute of pittsburgh would have had to answer "no" and that might have given grant some pause. these students like grant are stuck with mortgage-sized debts, end up with no home to show for it and worthless college credits. grant shaver's credit credits wt transfer combos his school had a different accreditation than the community college he ad tends. it is a little-known fact that these for-profit schools don't

reveal. the credits won't transfer anywhere because the cool isn't real a credited. our current accreditation system favors schools, not students. that's upside down. schools pay creditors to credit them creating a cozy relationship that doesn't foster any accountability. once a school is accredited, the government dollars flow in. but that is not the guarantee of academic equality that most students believe it is. the university of feig feign was recently told by its accrediting agency that the school would be put on notice. the regional accreditor announced that it had some real problems with the way the university of phoenix is running its business and treating its students. more accreditors should take a closer look at the schools they accredit and the standards they use. how many more people have to go through the experience of grant

shaver? essentially, this former marine wasted his g.i. bill benefits and got into more debt than he can real slicksly manage and has nothing to show for it from a for-profit school. we need to look at the current system of accreditation, consider how for-profit schools are aggressively recruiting our military as well as using up the d.o.d. tuition assistance benefits and veterans' g.i. bill benefits for low-income students. we need to commit to reforming our current system to protect our students and not to protect those who are in charge of the for-frost schools. we need to direct taxpayers' dollars to affordable, meaningful education that will literally help our men and women in uniform and students across america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: today the senate will vote on cloture on

the nomination of caitlin halligan to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. i will again oppose invoking cloture on the nomination, and i'd like to explain why. in short, ms. halligan's record of advocacy and her activist view of the judiciary led me to conclude that she would bring activism right on to the court. as i've said many times before, the role of a judge in our system is to determine what the law says, not what they or anybody else wants it to be. this is not ms. halligan's view of the courts. she views them as a means to -- quote -- "enable enviable social progress and mobility." end quote. "to enable enviable social progress and mobility." with the judges, not the american people, using their office toss determine what progress is enviable. that's the view of ms. halligan.

and when she was in a position of authority, she put that activist view into practice time and time again. on the subject of second amendment rights, miss halligan as solicitor general of new york advanced the dubious legal theory that those who make firearms should be liable for the criminal acts of third parties who misuse them. imposing potentially massive tort liability against the makers of a lawful product just because of the criminal acts of someone else didn't seem much liken sriable social progress to randall cass i did with carr arms which sells firearms to the new york city police department. here's what he said. "i can't see how carr arms can be responsible for criminal misuse of its product," he said. "i don't see how you can do that. one lawsuit would put us out of business." now, fortunately the state court in new york followed the law and

rejected miss halligan's entreaty that it make up new law in order to achieve the sawld social progress she en-- so-called social progress she envisioned. the court observed that it had never recognized the novel claim pursued by miss halligan, nor had other courts, for that matter. moreover, the state court called what she wanted to do to manufacturers of a legal product legally inappropriate and said the power she wanted the courts to assert was the responsibility of the legislature and the executive branches. so out of bounds were the types of frivolous lawsuits pursued by miss halligan that congress did something rare. it actually passed tort reform to stop them. and it passed by a wide bipartisan majority. in her zeal for these frivolous lawsuits, miss halligan then chose to criticize the congress for having the temerity to

exercise its policy-making responsibility to protect a lawful industry. but she didn't just criticize the congress for trying to stop the frivolous lawsuits she was pursuing, she chose to exaggerate the scope of the bill, claiming it would stop state legislatures by cutting off at the pass any -- any -- attempt to find solutions that might reduce gun crime. this assertion was false. it's strains cedu li ty that half of the democratic conference that would vote for not only tort reform but that block legislation that would block anything at all relating to gun crime. but her mischaracterization of the legislation underscores her zeal for frivolous lawsuits she was pursuing. true to the adage, "frequently wrong but never in doubt," miss halligan was undeterred. having had both her state court and the congress repudiate her

novel legal theories, miss halligan then filed an amicus brief in the second circuit court of appeals in another frivolous case against firearms manufacturers. this time she came -- she claimed the new law that congress passed was unconstitutional. not surprisingly, she lost that case too. now, miss halligan's stubborn pursuit of frivolous claims against gun manufacturers is a textbook example of judicial activism, using the courts to achieve a political agenda no matter what the law says. no matter what the law says. but her pursuit of losing legal theories in the service of her own personal views doesn't stop there. on enemy combatants, miss halligan signed a report as a bar association member that acertificated that the authorization for use of military force did not authorize long-term detention of enemy combatants.

in 2005, the u.s. supreme court ruled in hamdi v. rumsfeld that the president did, in fact -- did, in fact -- have this authority. yet despite this precedent, miss halligan chose to file an amicus brief years later arguing that the president did not possess this legal authority that the supreme court had already upheld. on immigration, miss halligan chose to file an amicus brief in the supreme court arguing that the national labor relations board should have the legal authority to grant back pay to illegal aliens. federal law, however, prohibits illegal aliens from working in the united states in the first place. fortunately the court sided with the law and disagreed with miss halligan on that novel legal theory as well. the point here is that even in cases where the law is clear or the courts have already spoken, including the supreme court, miss 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 the gun manufacturers, by both. in other words, miss halligan has time and again sought to push her views over and above those of the courts or those of the people as reflected in the law. miss halligan's record strongly suggests that she wouldn't view a seat on the u.s. appeals court as an opportunity to adjudicate evenhandedly 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 or cause she happened to believe in. i have nothing against the nominee personally. i just believe, as i think most other americans do, that we should be putting people on the bench who are committed to an evenhanded interpretation of the law so everyone who walks into the courtroom knows he or she

will have a fair shake. in my view, miss halligan is not such a nominee, so i'll be voting against cloture on this nomination and i would urge my colleagues to do the same. our decision to do so is not unprecedented. far from it. many of our democratic colleagues who are expressing shock and utter amazement that we deny cloture on miss halligan's nomination for a second time felt absolutely no compunction about repeatedly denying cloture on miguel estrada's nomination to the very same court. they denied cloture on his nomination, in fact, seven times even though, unlike miss halligan's record, mr. estrada's background did not evidence a penchant for judicial activism. we have gun this progress by making progress on -- congress by making progress on filling judicial vacancies. i'm happy to resume working with the majority on doing so, but because of her record of activism, giving miss halligan a lifetime appointment to the d.c.

circuit is a bridge too far. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: well, thank you, mr. president. and i rise in full support of caitlin halligan and must strongly disagree with my friend from kentucky, the leader. the bottom line is very simple, she's a well-qualified nominee. we know that. and the leader acts as if miss halligan were acting on her own. he cannot cite a single instance where the things he's talked about, whether you agree or disagree, he cannot cite a single instance where miss halligan was not acting as an attorney representing the views of someone else. the same thing john roberts did. the sam thing sam alito did. and when those things -- the same thing sam alito did. and when those things were brought up, our colleagues on the other side justifiably said, you can't attribute views to themselves when they are

representing somebody as an attorney. we all know the obligation of an attorney is to represent his or her client, whether you agree or disagree with those views. when you work as solicitor general, you represent the state of new york. the state of new york's views on guns were clear. miss halligan ably represented those views. but nothing she has said about guns that was cited by my good friend, the republican leader, were her own views. similarly on the terrorism cases, she was representing an office that was prosecuting. these were not her views. so the comparison to miguel estrada is like night and day. miguel estrada had his own very, very clear views on the law and he stated them in speeches and in articles and in other things.

that's not so with miss halligan. in fact, i challenge the other side to give me one instance where they disagree with something that miss halligan stated as her own views as opposed to representing someone as a lawyer should. what's really going on here? what's going on is our colleagues want to keep the second most important court in the land, the d.c. circuit, vacant because right now there are four vacancies and the majority of those on the court have been appointees of republican presidents and, in fact, are very, very conservative. that's what's going on here. let's call it for what it is. this has nothing to do with miss halligan. this has to do with taking -- keeping a court that they care about from having someone who

doesn't have those same very conservative views. she's a moderate, halligan. that bothers people on the other side and it bothers the hard right who use the d.c. circuit in their court cases to try and constrict government. and i would say this to my good colleagues. we have come to an agreement on district court judges and on other nominees. we've come to a general agreement that there ought to be more comity. the leader, my friend from tennessee, and so many others have said we should do that. the filibustering of cate halligan is not, i will admit, against the letter of our agreement because it simply applies to district court judges, but it sure is against the spirit. and all of those on our side who said we should change the rules because things like this filibuster of miss halligan

would occur, are being vindicated even though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not want that type of option to objec be on te table. and i would say this to my colleagues, because i believe, and i think most of us believe this is nothing about mrs. halligan but it's about keeping the d.c. circuit vacant and not allowing our president to rightfully fill those nominees. we're going to bring nominee after nominee after nominee up to fill that d.c. circuit. are you going to continue to filibuster every nominee and find some trivial excuse to filibuster him or her? because that's what's going to happen. and the obstructionist views that some on the other side have held and implemented, which have served them so poorly in the election of 2012 and in the

polls and in what the american people want, which is us to come together, will be exposed. so i would urge my colleagues to forego this charade. don't vote for halligan if you don't like her but don't filibuster her because we're going to come back time after time after time with nominees to this circuit who are qualified, who are moderate, and who have fine, fine personal ethics. are you going to block each one of them? because that's the challenge you will face. i would urge my colleagues, i would plead with them, based on the new comity we are seeking, desperately seeking, in this chamber, to avoid this filibuster, to allow caitlin halligan to have an up-or-down vote because she's extremely worthy of the position for which she was nominated.

and it is only ideology, only a view that this important circuit should not be filled with nominees who our president -- a democratic president nominates that is motivating, in my judgment, this action. mr. president, i think my time has expired, and i would ask that the -- a quorum be called. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

brass grass mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i ask for 15 minutes to speak on this nomination that's before the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i rise in opposition to the nomination of

caitlin halligan. i'd like to explain to my colleagues why we should not change our prior position regarding the nomination. it was previously rejected and should be rejected again. while i recognize the majority leader's right to bring up this nomination, i question why we should be spending time on such a politically charged and divisive nomination. i wish the senate instead would focus on the critical fiscal, national security, and domestic policy issues that we face. the senate determined more than a year ago now that this nomination should not be confirmed. rather than accepting the senate's decision, the president has sent the name here again. it's time for the president and the senate majority to accept the fact that this nomination is not going to be confirmed by the senate, and so we need to move

on to really important things. it's well understood and accepted that nominations to the d.c. circuit deserve special scrutiny, and they get special scrutiny. the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit hears cases affecting all americans. it is frequently the last stop for cases involving federal statutes and regulations. many view this court as second in importance only to the supreme court. and, as we all know, jubltion who sit on the d.c. circuit are frequently considered for the supreme court. so there's a lot at stake with nominations to this court. this is a court where we can least afford to confirm an activist judge. my concerns are many. there are concerns regarding this nominee's judicial philosophy, this nominee's approach to interpreting the constitution, her stated view that courts seek -- quote -- "to

solve problems and not just to adjudicate them." end of quote. it indicates a willingness to abuse the role of a judge should she be confirmed. she has advocated for -- quote, unquote -- "evolving standard of the constitution," which braces a living constitution. in adopting the living constitution theory of interpretation, judges routinely substitute their own personal views in place of what the constitution demands. i want to share with my colleagues why i have concluded that ms. halligan would approach judging with an activist bent. a few examples beginning with the second amendment: in 2003, congress was debating the protection of lawful commerce and arms act, and as most of us call it, the gun liability bill. at that time gun manufacturers

were facing lawsuits based on meritless legal theories. this frivolous litigation was specifically designed to drive gun manufacturers out of business. as it turns out, while many of us, both republican and democrat, were fighting here in congress to stop these lawsuits, ms. halligan was preserving -- pursuing this precise type of litigation in new york state. mr. leahy: mr. president, would the senator yield? mr. grassley: yes. mr. leahy: i realize we're not going in the normal order, where the manager of the nomination would go first. i simply ask shall did and because we have a hearing going on with the attorney general -- i'd ask unanimous consent that when the distinguished senator finishes his speech, whatever length it is, that i be then -- and all time will have then have

been used up and there not being any time reserved for the manager of this lecialtion i as- of this legislation, i ask that i have two minutes tend of his speech to continue. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: for the benefit of my distinguished chairman, i didn't realize yesterday that he spoke on this, and i should have been over here yesterday speaking object it as well. and so that's why i asked for the extra time. in new york v. stern, ms. halligan advanced a novel legal theory that gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers contributed to a -- quote, unquote -- "public nuisance of i will lyle guns in the state." therefore, she argued, gun manufacturers should be liable for criminal conduct of third parties. some of my colleagues have argued that we should not consider this aspect of ms. halligan's record because at the time she was working as solicitor general in new york.

but no one forced ms. halligan to approve and sign this brief. no one compelled her to advance a completely frivolous legal theory. i believe a close examination of this record indicates she was more than just an advocate. she was using the full weight of her office to advance and promote a political agenda masked by legal doctrine that is well outside the legal mainstream. in the case i just mentioned, which was the first of two cases ms. halligan was involved in concerning gun manufacturers, the new york state court found her argument to be meritless and rejected her argument. the court went on -- went so far as to say that it had -- quote -- "never recognized that the common law public nuisance clause of action" that ms. halligan advanced and that it would be "legally inappropriate to permit the lawsuit to pursue." moreover, far from accepting

ms. halligan's invitation to legislate from the beth, the court properly concluded that -- quote -- "the legislative and executive branches are better suited to addressing the problems concerning the already heaviliry regulated commercial activity at issue." end of quote. so i remind my colleagues that ms. halligan was pursuing this legal theory at the same time we were debating a gun liability bill here in congress. there's no question that the dubious legal theory she was advancing in her -- in that court reflected her own personal views, not just the position she was advocating on behalf of a client. in a speech she delivered on the subject may 2003, she said she opposed the legislation being considered by congress because -- quote -- "if enacted, this legislation would nullify lawsuits brought by nearly 30 cities and county, 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 any -- at the pass any attempt sphwaits to find solutions through our legal system or their own legislatures that would reduce gun crime and promote greater responsibility among gun dealers." end of quote. later in the same speech, ms. halligan expressed her view of the law and the legal system fl she said, "courts are the special friend of liberty. time and time again we have seen how the dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility." end of quote. so that statement is troubling especially as it relates to the nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers. those lawsuits are prime examples of how advocates of the extreme left try to use the courts to effect social policy changes that they're unable a chief through the ballot box. that's why i believe those lawsuits represent not only bad

policy but, more broadly, an activist approach to the law. as i said, the state appellate court rejected her legal theory and congress subsequently passed legislation by a wide bipartisan margin to stop those lawsuits, but ms. halligan still forged ahead. in 2006, notwithstanding fact that the congress had passed tort reform in this area, she attempted once again to revive the ability of states to pursue gun manufacturers only this time she advanced her claims in federal court arguing that the legislation congress passed was unconstitutional. now, fortunately the federal appellate court rejected her legal theory as well. miss halligan's record of taking very liberal and legally untenable positions is not limited to her legal brief in gun cases. another example -- sheidler v. national organization of women. she was an advocate and

activist. in that case, she argued for an expansive definition of extortion under the hobbes act. her support -- under the hob hobbs, her claim t pro-life groups engaged in extortion was rejected by eight justices of the supreme court, including justice ginsburg, as we know one of the more liberal justices on the court. there are a number of other aspects of her record that are problematic. miss halligan's view on the war on terror and the detention of enemy combatants are especially troubling because in this d.c. circuit, that's where many of those issues are heard. in 2004, miss halligan was a member of the new york city bar association that published a report entitled -- quote -- "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. miss halligan is list thed as oe of the authors of that report, and when it came time to testify, miss halligan tried to distance herself from the report. she testified that she did not become aware of the report until 2010. in a follow-up letter after her hearing was held, halligan did concede that -- quote -- "it is quite possible that a draft of the report was sent to me" but that 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 she -- that at least four other members of that bar association committee abstained from the final report and miss halligan did not.

i would also point out that several years later, she coauthored an amicus brief before the supreme court in the 2000 case of al marie v. spigung. miss halligan's brief is that -- in to case took a position similar to the 2004 report with respect to military detentions of terrorists. in that case, she argued that the authorization for the use of military force did not authorize the seizure and indefinite military detention of a lawful permanent resident alien who conspired with al qaeda to execute terror attack on the united states. the fact that miss halligan coauthored this report pro bono suggests to me that she supported the conclusions reached in the 2004 report and again this issue's particularly troublesome because that's the -- the d.c. circuit is where these are -- are heard.

these are aspects of her record that bother me. as new york's solicitor general, miss halligan was responsible for recommending to attorney general spitzer that the state intervene in several high-profile supreme court decisions. she filed amicus briefs that consistently took activist positions on controversial issues as abortion, affirmative action, immigration and federalism. these are just some of my concerns regarding the nominee's judicial philosophy and interpreting the constitution. these are neither trivial nor inconsequential grounds on which to oppose this nomination. and based on that record, i simply do not believe that she will be able to put aside her long record of liberal advocacy and be fair and impartial. supporters argue that out of a sense of fairness, we should confirm miss halligan. they note that her nomination has been pending for two years. so i would remind my colleagues

that while this seat has been vacant for her over seven years, it has not been without a nominee for all that time. following the elevation of then-circuit judge john roberts 2005, president bush nominated an eminently qualified individual to this seat, peter keisler. mr. keisler was wided lauded as consensus bipartisan nominee. his distinguished record of public service included serving as acting attorney general. despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications, mr mr. keisler waited 918 days for a committee to vote on his nomination. and it never came. there were no clamor from the other side as we needed to fill this vacancy like there is no. there was no demand that mr. keisler be afforded an up-or-down vote. so it seems to me that too often with my colleagues on the other side, fairness is a one-way street. when the democrats refused to

consider mr. keisler's nomination or even give him a committee vote, the other side justified their actions based upon the d.c. circuit caseload. so i would make a few comments about that caseload. the caseload that existed when mr. keisler's nomination was subject to a pocket filibuster. before doing so, i would emphasize that miss halligan's record on a host of controversial issues, the case for rejecting her nomination would remain regardless of the number of vacancies or the court's workload. however, since some of my colleagues are declaring a judicial emergency on the d.c. circuit, this is the record. contrary to assertions, we have recently heard -- assertions we have recently heard regarding the court's workload, since 2005, the caseload has actually continued to decline. the number of appeals filed is down over 13%.

the total number of appeals pending is down 10%. and filings per panel are down almost 6%. compared to other court -- courts of appeals, the d.c. circuit caseload measured by number of appeals pending per panel is 54% less than the national average. filings per judge are also significantly lower than for other courts. the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. grassley: i'll put the rest of my statement in the record. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. a senator: i ask unanimous consent for an additional two minutes of debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, and i understand the senator from new york will follow my comments. i have three unanimous consent questions for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and spread in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, you know, i hear debates back and

forth and i wonder what the american people think. here we have this highly qualified woman who's not going to be -- and people don't want her to have a vote. you wonder why the american people have such a low opinion of their congress. we have an opportunity to act as the so-called gang or seven or eight, or whatever it was, during the bush administration said we should and act in a bipartisan manner and end a filibuster against an outstanding nominee to the d.c. circuit. no one can seriously question her legal ability, her judgment, her character, her integrity, her ethics, or her temperament. those who seek to misrepresent her as a partisan or ideological crusader are wrong and unfair.

some have mischaracterized her record and distorted views on executive authority in terrori terrorism. senators intend to make this a basis for filibustering this outstanding nominee understand what she testified under oath. the bottom line, it my report does not represent my work and does not reflect my views. the filibuster -- to filibuster her nomination because of a report she did not write, has not endorsed and has, in fact, rejected would be a great injustice to this outstanding woman. it might be a victory for some lobbies -- lobbyists, but it is a bad mark for what we are seeing in -- i ask for consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: -- what we're seeing in -- in her record. new york city police commissioner ray kelly wrote in strong support of caitlin halligan and again this week. i ask that his march 5 letter be included in the record at the conclusion of my statement.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: he talked about her work on antiterrorism case, how she's helped bring terrorists to justice. after all, she was literally blocks away from the twin towers on september 11. you know, it only takes a handful of sensible republicans to do the right thing. this is not a time to victimize her for some sort of political payback or to -- to help out narrow special interests. end this filibuster. let -- let us have a vote. vote for or vote against her. but do what republican senators who signed that 2005 memorandum of understanding said. if they follow what they said back then, they'll vote to -- to end this. i'd put the rest of my statement in the record, madam president, but don't tell the american

people that this extraordinarily well qualified woman cannot have a vote up or down. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? so many good things about caitlin halligan have already been said. she's a woman of great intellect, has a history of laudable achievements and a record of outstanding public service and she deserves the full support of the senate today. caitlin has an exceptional career as an attorney and i'm confident that that she will make an excellent judge. she's currently the general counsel at the new york city district attorney's office, an office that investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal cases annual in manhattan. she served as our solicitor general. she was awarded best united states supreme court brief while she served there. she has overwhelming support from law enforcement, from the new york association of police chiefs, from the state sheriff's association, the national district attorney's association, the new york women in law enforcement, along with

community leaders, women's bar association, the national conference of women's bar associations, and the united states women's chamber of commerce. the bottom line is she is a well-qualified judge who would do great service for the united states. even new york city police commissioner ray kelly said, "caitlin has the three important qualities for him: intelligence, judicial temperament and personal integrity." she has a strong record. and for the debate we've heard here on national security, you know, caitlin lives in the heart of new york city. she saw the twin towers fall. in the years that followed, she worked pro bono counsel to the board of directors of the lower manhattan development corporation that oversees the rebuilding of lower manhattan, helping our city grow stronger every single day. lastly, today women make up roughly 30% of the federal bench. and for the first time in history, that holds true in trial courts, courts of appeals and the highest court in the land, the supreme court. it's true that we've come a long

way, but we still have a long way to go on this journey for full equality. i think she is a superbly qualified nominee and i urge my colleagues to vote in support of her. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of caitlin joan halligan of new york to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of caitlin joan halligan of new york to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any other senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 51 and the nays are 1. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn have not voted in the affirmative. the motion is not agreed to.

from reid: madam president? -- mr. reid reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the nomination of halligan. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. reid: madam president, we are now going to move to the brennan matter, we believe. the republican leader and i are trying to work something out. i've had numerous contacts from everybody about the problems with the weather. and what we're going to try to do is get an agreement to move forward on brennan and finish it today. i don't know if we can do that but that's what we're trying to do. so in the meantime, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous

consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that -- to speak as if in morning business and to speak for up to ten minutes and that senator inhofe, the senior senator from oklahoma, be given 20 minutes after i speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to recognize the lasting contributions of 80 courageous americans -- the presiding officer: order, please. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to recognize the lasting contributions for 80 courageous americans who participated in the doolittle raid, our nation's first offensive action against -- on japan's soil during the second world war. i'm glad to have senator boozman as the lead republican in an effort to make sure that these men have the recognition they deserve. together we introduced senate bill 381, which will rewards the

surviving airmen, known as the doolittle raiders, with the congressional gold medal. senator boozman's collaboration reiterates the bipartisan support that -- for our veterans, that endiewrs i endurs body. joining are senators murray and testing, baucus and nelson, senator cantwell and senator schatz. during the last session, senator murray also cosponsored last year a resolution we're especially grateful for her leadership. our colleague, senator lautenberg, the sole world war ii veteran serving in the senate, is also a cosponsor. some 16 million americans served this country during world war ii. these survivors have earned the respect of a grateful nation. now is the time for us to act to honor them. on april 18, 1942, 80 american airmen volunteered for an unknown assignment. their sons and their fathers and brothers accepted what they only knew to be -- and i quote -- "an

extremely hazardous mission." they were lid by lieutenant colonel james doolittle, a one-time flight ininstructor at wright field in dayton, 0 he owe. he also studied at mccook field in ohio. the doolittle raid was the first time the army air corps and the navy collaborated in a mission. these pilots flew 16 u.s. army air corps b-25 mitchell boxers from the deck of the u.s.s. hornet into combat, a feat that had never before been attempted. on the morning of the raid, the u.s.s. hornet was discovered by japanese picket ships. fearing that the mission might be compromised, the raiders launched 170 miles earlier than planned. the earlier launch meant that these men now had to travel over 650 miles to their intended targets, leaving them with the possibility of running out of enough fuel to land beyond the japanese lines in occupied china. accepting this choice meant the

raiders would almost certainly have to crash-land or bail out either above japanese-occupied china or over the home islands of japan. any survivors would be subjected to imprisonment or torture or death. after reaching their targets, 15 of the bombers continued to china while the 16th, whose plane was dangerously low on fielfuel, headed to russia. the distance traveled was about 2200 nautical miles making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a bavment-25 during the war. of the 80 raiders who launched, one died of disease, four survived and returned home after the war. of the original 80, four are still with us, residents of montana, texas, tennessee, and washington state. there was a fifth, major tom griffin of cincinnati, ohio, on the evening of february 26 --

just a week ago -- the presiding officer: take your confer conversations out oe chamber. the senate will be in order. mr. brown: thank you. just last week on evening of february 26, the daylight i introduced this legislation, major griffin of cincinnati passed away surrounded by family and friends. his family lost a loved one, our nation lost a hero. we'll be celebrating the anniversary of this raid this coming april in fort walton beach, florida. now is the time to award them the congressional medal. their service proid proved invaluable to the morale of our country on that day more than 70 years ago. the in the eventual defeat of japan in the second world war. i humblably ask that my colleagues join us in this bill in honoring the doolittle rairsd. thank you, madam president. i yield to senator inhofe.

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, since being elected, president obama has been talk about the virtues of our nation's potential to achieve domestic energy independence. now, at the state of the union message just a few days ago he said -- and this is a quote. he said, "after years of talking about it we are finally poised to control our own energy futu future." madam president, this is something i've been saying now for years. we already have control of the energy future. the problem is, we have an administration that has not allowed us to exploit our owning capabilities in terms of developing the natural resources that we have. in fact we are the only country

in the world that doesn't develop its own resources -- its own resources. the president's budget -- he's proposed to kill certain tax provisions that specifically hurt -- are there, he says, for the oil and gas industry. this is not the case. i'd like to mention this, because nobody ever talks about the fact that -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. inhofe: he has specific provisions in his own budget. intangible drilling costs -- thethey're old i.d.c.'s. a provision that simply a. louse producers to reduce from our revenue the cost of drilling. revenue -- you pay taxes on net revenue. well, that's net of the expenses that it takes you to develop the revenue. every business is allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses and i.d.c.'s are exactly that for the oil and gas industry. in other words, the cost of drilling should be deducted, because a lot of times they

drill and don't produce anything, and so this is something that everyone else has and we should be having also in the oil industry. if he gets rid of this, the tax increase would be $13.9 billion over the ten-year period that we've been talking about. this is interesting. because that is not a tax that'll be paid by them. it would go into the increased cost of energy. now, we stopped that. we stopped that provision from being abouting a reality. but it was in the president's budget. the second is called percentage depletion. percentage depletion is sumly a way that the tax code has allowed oil and gas producers to aaccount for the reduction in the value of their reserves. let's say they are fortunate and they produce oil and that's going to be income that will go to them. but as that is depleted, then that is the value -- the value of that has been depleted also

so the percentage depletion has been on the books as long as we've had the industry. if he were successful in doing that on percentage depletion, then that would be about $11.5 billion tax increase on the energy that we use in this country. the last thing i'll mention -- there are two more, but i will mention section 199. section 199 is the manufacturers' tax deduction. it allows all manufacturers, including farmers, film makers, and the rest of them to make a small deduction in their taxes because they create products here in america. but the president has always proposed to cancel this out. the but only for the oil and gas industry. not for everybody else. if you are success until in -- if he were success until doing this, it would increase the croft of cost of living by $11.of billion over that ten-year period. the president's proposal to increase these taxes would prevent the industry from reaching its true potential.

this is when we talk about what we have out thereto that we could do and how we could get the -- get it done today real quorum callly. a recent c.r.s. -- congressional review study -- reported that the united states has the largest combined resources of oil, natural gas, and coal of any country in the world. we have more than saudi arabia, china, canada combined. yet we are the only narks as i said -- in the world -- that doesn't allow ourselves to exploit our own resources. fortunately, oil and gas activities have increased over the past years. but as much as the president may want to claim credit for this, he has no standing to do so because, as i mentioned, the tax provisions that he's proposed in his budget have been very negative toward oil and gas. last year we hit a 15-year high in oil production, producing an average of 6.4 million barrels a

day, which was 800,000 barrels per day more than in 2011. this increase is staggering, it's the result of amazing advancements in oil and gas production technologies. things like horizontal drill,, hydraulic fracturing. these are things that have helped us do this. to get the oil and gas out of tight formations, nearly all of this increase has occurred on state and private land. c.r.s. confirm add year ag yeart about 96% -- i've said this twice already that we're the only country that doesn't produce its own resources -- essentially all of the increase in oil and gas production since 200 took place on nonfederal lands. that meanings that beyond the reach of the president's hands. in other words, he can't stop the private land production, but he can the public land.

now, adding to that, it was just released yesterday -- that's why i wanted to make this point today -- yesterday that the oil production on all federal lands including on-shore and off-shore declined last year, the second year in a row, falling from 632 million barrels in 2011 to right at 600 million barrels in 2012. so the 800,000 barrels per day increase we saw last year took place solely on private lands, none of it on public land. we had a reduction. in this boom time that we're having right now, that on which the president has control oh, the federal lands, we've actually had a reduction. this makes essential given what we know about oil and gas permitting on federal lands. it can still take 300 days to get a permit to drill. so this is something that you can't talk about too much because they would always say, well, in a certain case you need to do it faster.

it is a matter of, in my state of oklahoma, you can get it done in hours. in north dakota, you can get permitting done in an average of about 10 days. but, no, it's 300 days on federal lands. i have a friend named harold ham. harold ham arguably is the most successful independent producer in america today. he's from enid, oklahoma. he disco most of his production in north dakota right now. and i saw just a minute ago the senator from north dakota, and he can be very proud of the fact that in north dakota harold ham has one huge problem. that is, he can't find people to work. they have full employment up there. this is what the potential is for this entire country. put the chart up there. you'll show you. this chart shows all the potential and i call the attention to the chair of this northeastern part of the united states -- pennsylvania and new york. that didn't used to be the case where they have all that potential there.

they do now. so it's spread evenly throughout the country of all the great, new discoveries that are out there. anyway, one of the arguments that the president has had when i have said over and over again for the last four years that we need to open up our public lands for drilling and if we are able to do this, really good things would happen in terms of the market and the price of gas at the puns, and yet the president has always said, if we do that if we allow the drilling for gas and oil on public lands, it would be ten years before you'd feel that at the pump. ten years sms so i called up harold ham. harold ma'am is th ham could bed the most knowledgeable person in this area. and i said, now, i'm going to be on a national tv show -- i should tell you what it is, but i won't, tonight. this was about six months african-american the president of the united states is saying it will take ten years before that market will reach the

pumps. i would like to ask you a question, harold ham. when you answer, i am going to use your name live on national tv tonight to make sure you're accurate. if you were set up in new mexico and you had a rig set up and you are able to lift the restriction we have on public lands, how long would it take that oil and gas to hit the market? and he said, without hesitate ago, 70 days. i said, be sure you're right now. he said, yes. he outline what had would happen each day for that first barrel to actually reach the pumps and have an effect. well, anyway, no one has argued with that yet because it's pretty well documented. so by the time you have one federal drilling permit completed, harold ham would have four separate wells up and running providing more jobs and cheaper gasoline for all men's. -- for all americans. fortunately, the president did not control the permitting process on state and private lands. because of this, the industry has had the opportunity town

lock tremendous natural gas resources. not five years ago many believe that the united states faced a significant shortage of natural gas. well head prices were at the time traderring as high as $11 for 1,000 cubic feet. $11 for 1,000 cubic feet. investors were racing to build facilities. we were going to import -- as you know, in natural gas you have to liquefy it to have some bulk before you're able to trade it internationally. well, anyway, the they were racing to try to bet this done so that we'd be able to import from foreign countries our foreign supplies. the shale gas revolution has changed all of this. now our expected natural gas reserves are well over 2 quadrillion cubic feet, enough gas to supply our domestic needs for 90 years. that's right here in this

country. many industry observers believe this estimate is discounted to the nation's true potential. this dramatic shift in natural gas markets has pushed prices down to below $4 a,000 cubic feet putting the united states in a unique position to bolster both wealth creation and our foreign policy miter be -- might beginning natural gas imports. so we would be going from importing liquefied natural as if to exporting natural gas. right now there are currently 15 permits to export l.n.g. pending before the secretary chu, the department of energy, the natural gas act requires the department to issue such a permit upon application unless it will not be consistent with the public -- with the public's interest. well,  what could be inconsistent with this with the public interest? this is something that would be cheaper gas for us, give us

total independence in a matter of weeks. congress, when it wrote the natural gas act, understood that the export of american products is good for the nation. it supports domestic industry, it creates jobs, it transfers wealth from overseas back to the united states. it's all good for us. a recent report commissioned by d.o.e. to assist in -- it in making its determination agreed with this. they state, and i'm reading now from the d.o.e. report, they said -- quote -- "across the scenarios examined by the study, the u.s. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of natural gas exports increases." so that's the opportunity that's out there. some in this body have raised concerns about allowing natural -- liquefied natural gas exports to move forward. they are concerned mainly that production would not be able to keep up with the rising consumption and exports, and the

following effects will be harmful to domestic industries. i can appreciate where these members are coming from, but i want to point out something that many may be over looking. the energy information agency, that's the e.i.a., released an annual outlook for u.s. energy markets, and the most recent one which came out just a few weeks ago, they estimated that between now and 2040, production of natural gas would increase by 40%, which will more than offset the expected 20% increase in consumption. so our consumption is going to increase, so people say how can we ever become independent? because our production will increase at twice the consumption level. now, today the natural gas is trading near an all-time low, and because of this, many producers have completely abandoned new natural gas production products.

in 2008, when natural gas was trading at nearly $11 per 1,000 cubic feet, there were over 1,600 active drilling rigs. today that figure is down to 428. we have gone from 1,600 rigs down to 400. that's a 73% reduction. the rigs are still out there. they're still set up. they're just not operating. so overnight you could have them operating again. the industry is not moving forward with projects because it does not have the demand and certainty that it needs to do so. without demand certainty, it is impossible to accurately forecast whether domestic investments required to develop a project can be recouped. this stalls both job and wealth creation, keeping our unemployment rates and deficits higher than they should be. but today the natural gas market is in a demand-limited scenario, and it will remain there for the foreseeable future.

supply is so abundant and readily available that as soon as more demand comes online, producers are able to tap the reserves and meet the market's needs. the consulting firm deloitte agrees. in its liquefied natural gas report, it stated that -- and i'm quoting now -- "producers can develop more reserves in anticipation of demand growth." they added that future l.n.g. exports will have natural disruption toss natural gas because they will, and i'm quoting again, this is the deloitte firm -- "they will likely be backed by long-term supply contracts as well as long-term contracts with buyers. there will be ample notice in time in advance for the exports to make supplies available." this should be of great encouragement to domestic energy consumers. in fact, the nira consulting itr

of natural gas liquids and not the dry liquids used in -- to make l.n.g. i can appreciate the fact that many people are worried about the cost of energy going up in this country. i am, too. but those who are concerned that exports will be the cause of this have misplaced concerns. rather, they should be focusing their attention on the cumulative effect of adverse government policies negatively

affected by -- affecting energy sources. government regulations; largely those out of the e.p.a., are perhaps the greatest threat to this nation's achieving domestic energy independence. i'll repeat, you know, the if i.g. that we use. we've gone down from 1600 rigs that were opting down to 428 rigs. when considering the potential benefits of l.n.g. 130er9 sports, we can't dismiss the impact trade has had. agriculture is a prime example. the federal government works diligently to open and maintain international market access for u.s. agricultural producers. this is -- was highlighted very recently by the announcement that japan would ease its restrictions -- restrictions on beef exports -- meaningful to my state and the state of others in this chamber right now. but they have announced that japan would ease its restricti restrictions on u.s. beef

imports. this has been a major goal of the current and previous administrations for years. and japan's decision was hailed by administration and many members of the congress on both sides of the aisle. everyone knows it's a great deal because when you sell products abroad, you both generate wealth at home and expand the size of the market. thereby increasing opportunities for expansion. the federal government should adopt the same perspective with l.n.g. exports. l.n.g. exports will create jobs across the country and bring more wealth to our nation from abroad and grow our economy. all at the same time. meanwhile, we'll be providing needed fuel for our allies like japan, korea, nato, and thailand who consequently will be able to reduce their reliance on the middle east. so it's something that's good for everybody. it's good for our country, our economy. and all you have to do is look, if you want to see that, up to

north dakota, as i mentioned, a great independent producer, harold ham, from oklahoma, is up there right now and his biggest problem is they're full -- they don't have unemployment. they're fully employed. we have kind of the same situation in my state 6 oklahoma. we've expanded our production where we're not feeling the grief that you hear from others on the floor. i -- i would encourage us to keep this market, to get those other 1,600 wells working. this is something that can certainly happen. i want to mention one other thing. i just notice my time is expiring, but i want to mention something that came out of the state of the union message. hopefully i will have a chance to do this later on today. when the president was talking about his greenhouse gas thing that he has been talking about for a long time, he made several comments. i think this was talked about

more in the state of the union message than anything else that he talked about. he said yes, it's true that no single be event makes a trend but the fact is that the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. that is just flat wrong. even nasa's james hansen who officially has been the leader of the other side of this issue is one that said he admits that the global temperature standstill is real, mean global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. now, later on, i'm going to go over one by one the statements that he's made. i would only suggest this. now, this is something that you need to keep in mind. in 1895, we went into this hysteria, at that time because there was a code, we were all going to freeze to death, another ice age was coming, we were all going to die. then again in 1920, the same thing came except it was another problem that they were saying, another heat spell. well, that obviously wasn't true at that time, but everyone was

hysterical. in 1945, we had another change. these 20-year cycles keep coming and going. you can set your watch by them. except this time in 1945, it was another cold spell that lasted until 1975. well, the interesting thing about this is in 1945, that was the year that had the largest release of co2 of any time in the history of this country, and that precipitated not a warming trend but another cold trend. the warming trend, of course, came in 1975. anyway, these are cycles. god is still up there. we're going to have these cycles taking place. and later on today, hopefully, i want to take each statement that the president made and show that those statements just weren't right. one thing that is true, one thing that no one disagrees with, and that is that the cost of having some type of a cap-and-trade system that the president wants would be between $200 billion and $400 billion a

year, and by admission of the director of the e.p.a., lisa jackson, the past director, when i asked the question, i said if we were to incur all these taxes, would this have something we do in the united states affect the release of co2 worldwide, and she said no because the problem isn't here. the problem's in china. the problem's in india and other places. so again, for those who really believe that co2 is causing global warming or other climate disasters, keep in mind even the e.p.a. director appointed by president obama agrees that that would not reduce any co2 worldwide. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the senator from kentucky, senator paul, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'm not sure where the obama administration is getting all of

its talking points on the sequester, but the president might want to consider hiring a fact checker. even before the sequester took effect, education secretary arne duncan declared that schoolteachers were getting pink slips. a few days later, he had to walk those comments back. he said he was referring to a single school in west virginia. but when "the washington post" contacted the superintendent of that school, he said that not one teacher, not one teacher has gotten a pink slip because of the sequester. then president obama suggested that all of the people who keep the capitol clean would be suffering a pay cut, but that wasn't true either, according to capitol superintendent carlos elias. we have been repeatedly told that the sequester would trigger drastic layoffs of federal workers, yet on monday alone,

the federal government posted literally hundreds of job advertisements. finally, just yesterday when asked to provide evidence for the claim that 70,000 children would be denied access to head start because of the sequester, the white house had no details. while the president has been out there playing chicken little, members of the congress have been waiting for the white house to send over its budget. the law requires the president to transmit a budget by february 4, and we have been now advised his budget won't be forthcoming until march 25. ironically, that will actually be after the house and the senate have taken up our own budget, and we will have no input from the president on his proposal. a few weeks ago, i said that a second term offers the president a second chance, and i still remain hopeful that president obama will eventually be

persuaded to adopt a serious approach for long-term deficit reduction and long-term economic growth. one of the great tragedies in america today is the fact our economy is growing so slowly that unemployment rates remain unacceptably high, roughly around 8%, and that's only after many people have simply given up looking for work. now more than 20 million people either are out of work or they are working part time when they would prefer to work full time, but that's not going to happen until we get the economy growing again, and that's not going to happen until we get our hands around our long-term deficit and economic growth. i realize that the president's president's -- that the president wants to take the -- the democrats want to take the house of representatives back in 2014. the president probably remembers the halycon days of 2010 when

his party controlled the white house, the senate and the house. that got us obamacare, a trillion-dollar surplus and a whole lot more debt and the dodd-frank law which was targeted at wall street but which hit main street, including a lot of our community bankers. there is a time for campaigning and there is a time for governing, but the 2012 election occurred 17 weeks ago, and the 2014 election won't occur for another 20 months. now is the time for governing, not for delivering more partisan stump speeches. and in order to govern, the senate needs to pass a budget, something this chamber hasn't done for more than 1,400 days. over that same period, our gross national debt has grown by $5.5 trillion, and we have experienced the weakest economic

recovery since the great depression. since the official end of the recession in june of 2009, the median household income in america has fallen by more than $2,400. meanwhile, since the president took office, the cost of family health insurance has increased by $2,300. so not only has household income for most americans, the median household income, that is, dropped by $2,400. they're seeing an additional burden of $2,300 because of obamacare. the bottom line is, the american people are tired of the chicken little stories and they're tired of the fearmongering. they look at what's happening in washington -- i know my constituents in texas do -- and they almost want to turn their eyes in another direction to avert their gaze because they understand that washington is not serving their interests. if the american people -- if president obama wants real change, it's time for him to get behind real tax reform and real

reform of social security and medicare, something his own bipartisan fiscal commission, simpson-bowles, recommended. after all, the american people didn't send us here to kick and scream over a 2.4% budget cut. they sent us here to make some hard decisions that are necessary to ensure long-term fiscal health and long-term economic prosperity. and it's time for the president, as the leader of our country and the leader of the free world, to take that message to heart. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today to begin to filibuster john brennan's nomination for the c.i.a. i will speak until i can no longer speak. i will speak as long as it tak takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no

american should be killed by a drone on american soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense

without being indicted. this is a precious american tradition and something we should not give up on easily. they say louis carroll is fiction. alice never fell down a rabbit hole and the white queen's caustic judgments are not really a threat to your security. or has america the beautiful become alice's wonderland? no, no, said the queen. sentence first; verdict afterwards. stuff and nonsense, alice said widely -- loudly. the idea of having the sentence first? hold your tongue, said the queen, turning purple. i won't, said alice. release the drones, said the queen, as she shouted at the top of her voice. louis carroll is fiction, right? when i asked the president, can you kill an american on american

soil, it should have been an easy answer. it's an easy question. it should have been a resounding and unequivocal, "no." the president's response? he hasn't killed anyone yet. we're supposed to be comforted by that. the president says, i haven't killed anyone yet. he goes on to say, and i have no intention of killing americans. but i might. is that enough? are we satisfied by that? are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill americans? but he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. now, some would say he would never do this. many people give the president

the -- you know, they give him consideration, they say he's a good man. i'm not arguing he's not. what i'm arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don't rule government. madison said that the restraint on government was because government will not always be run by angels. this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the president is a democrat or a republican. were this a republican president, i'd be here saying exactly the same thing. no one person, no one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. it goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country. this isn't even new to our country. there's 800 years of english law that we found our tradition

upon. we founded it upon the magna carta from 1215. we founded it upon morgan from morgan and 725 a.d. we founded upon the greeks and romans who had juries. it is not enough to charge someone to say that they are guilty. now, some might come to this floor and they might say, "well, what if we're being attacked on 9/11? what if there are planes flying at the twin towers?" obviously, we repel them. we repel any attack on our country. if there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our capitol, we use lethal force. you don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. you don't get due process if you're overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. but that's not what we're talking about. the "wall street journal" reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are

signature attacks. they don't even know the name of the person. a line or a caravan is going from a place where we think there are bad people to a place where we think they might commit harm and we kill the caravan, not the person. is that the standard that we will now use in america? will we use a standard for cifg americans to be that we thought -- killing americans to be that we thought you were bad, we thought you were coming from a meeting of bad people and you were in a line of traffic and so, therefore, you were fine for the killing? that is the standard we're using overseas. is that the standard we're going to use here? i will speak today until the president responds and says no, we won't kill americans in caf cafes; no, we won't kill you at home in your bed at night; no, we won't drop bombs on restaurants. is that so hard? it's amazing that the president will not respond. i've been asking this question for a month.

it's like pulling teeth to get the president to respond to anything. and i get no answer. the president says he hasn't done it yet and i'm to be comforted, you are to be comforted in your home, you are to be comforted in your restaurant, you are to be comforted on-line communicating in your e-mail that the president hasn't killed an american yet on the homeland. he says he hasn't done it yet. he says he has no intention to do so. kayak said that nothing distinguishes arbitrary government from a government that is run by the -- the -- the whims of the people than the rule of law. the law's an amazingly important thing, an amazingly important protection. and for us to give up on it so easily really doesn't speak well of what our founding fathers fought for, what generation

after generation of american soldiers have fought for, what soldiers are fighting for today when they go overseas to fight wars for us. it doesn't speak well of what we're doing here to protect the freedom at home when our soldiers are abroad fighting for us, that we say that our freedom's not precious enough for one person to come down and say, enough's enough, mr. president. come clean, come forward and say you will not kill americans on american soil. the oath of office of the president says that he will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. he raises his hand, his right hand, puts his left hand on the bible, and he says, "i will." the president doesn't say, "i intend to if it's convenient." "i intent to, unless circumstances dictate otherwise."

the president says, "i will defend the constitution, i will protect the constitution." there isn't room for equivocation here, mr. president. this is something that is so important, so fundamental to our country that he needs to come forward. when brennan, whose nomination i am opposing today, was asked directly, "is there any limit to your killing? is there any geographic limitation to your drone strike program?" brennan responded and said, no, there is no limitation. due process upon whom you will kill, does that mean you will do it in america? so the senator from oregon asked him that question directly in committee. and this so-called champion of transparency, this so-called advocate of some kind of process responded to the senator from oregon by saying, "i plan to

optimize secrecy and optimize transparency." gobbledygook. you were asked, whethe will youl americans on american soil? answer the question. our laws forbid the c.i.a. from doing that. it should have been an easy question. the 1947 national security act says the c.i.a. doesn't operate in our country. we have the f.b.i. we have rules. we have separated powers to protect your rights. that's what government was organized to do. that's what the constitution was put in place to do. to protect your rights. so when asked, he says, no answer. he says, "i will evade your answer." and by letting him come forward, we let him get away with it. so i have hounded and hounded and hounded, and finally yesterday i get a response from mr. brennan, who wishes to be the c.i.a. chief, and he finally says, i will obey the law.

well, hooray. good for him. it took a month to get him to admit that he will obey the law. but it's not so simple. you see, the drone strike program is under the department of defense, so when the c.i.a. says they're not going to kill you in america, they're not saying the defense department won't. so eric holder sent a response, the attorney general, and his response says, "haven't killed anyone yet. i don't intend to kill anyone but i might." and he pulls out examples that really aren't under consideration. there is the use of lethal force that can always be repelled. if our country is attacked, the president has the right to defend and protect the country. nobody questions that. nobody questions if planes are flying towards the twin towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is

attacking us, whether they can be repelled. they don't get their day in court. but if you are sitting in a cafeteria in deerborn, if you happen ton an arab american who has a relative in the middle east and you communicate with them by e-mail and somebody says, oh, your relative is someone we suspect of being associated with terrorism, is that enough to kill you? for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to arrest and come to the truth by having a jury and a presentation of the facts on both sides of the issue? see, the real problem here, one of the things we did a long time ago is we separated the police power from the judicial power. this was an incredibly important first step. we also prevented the military from acting in our country because we didn't want to have a police state.