7777777777777777777777777777777g

mr. gregg: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. gregg: i want to rise to talk about two issues. i know senator burr wants to continue his discussion on the f.d.a. tobacco bill. there are two issues very significant to the american taxpayer, especially to those of us concerned about how much debt this administration is running up on our children. the first is good news. the -- it looks like a number of banks are going to repay a fair percentage of the tarp money that's been put out by the administration, potentially $65 billion. now, when tarp was originally structured, the understanding was that we would buy assets in banks, or from banks, and that at some point we would get that money back as taxpayers. in fact, you would get it back with interest. and this is what's happening now. the money is coming back as these banks have restored their fiscal strength, and it's actually coming back with interest, about $4.5 billion on top of the money that we put

out, is my understanding as to what would be paid back on the interest side relative to the preferred stock. so that's good news. first the financial system was stabilized during a cataclysmic period in september and october, and the investments which were made in preferred stock with taxpayers' money is now being repaid. the issue becomes, however, what are we going to do with this money that's coming back into the treasury? well, it ought to go to reduce the debt. this administration in recent days has been giving at least lip service to the fact that the budget that they put in place of a $1 trillion deficit over the next ten years on average every year, $1 trillion every year for the next ten years, of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in ten years. they have been giving lip service that they understand this is not a tenable situation.

they have said that the budget they propose is not sustainable because the debt that's being run up on the american public cannot be afforded by our children. it goes from what has historically been 85% of gross domestic product up to 82% of gross domestic product. the interest on the debt alone at the end of this budget will be $800 billion, just in interest payments. that's what the american people have to pay. that will actually exceed any other major item of discretionary spending in the budget. we'll be spending less than that on national defense. more on interest, in other words, than on national defense because of the debt being run up. well, if the administration is serious -- and i'm not sure they are. i think they're basically holding press conferences because they did something else today which implies that. but if they're actually serious about trying to address this debt issue, then they should immediately take the $65 billion

that they're going to get back from the banks that were lent to by the american taxpayers, which is money which we put out as taxpayers and knew we would get back. they should immediately take that money and apply it to reducing the federal debt. it should not be spent on other programs, shouldn't be recycled through the financial system. it should be repaid to taxpayer by refusing the debt of the united states. that is the only reasonable way to approach it and it would be a tremendously strong signal, not only to the american taxpayers, if this administration is serious about doing something on the debt side, but it would be a tremendously strong signal for the world markets that we were willing, as a nation, to take this money and pay down the debt. and, ironically, it would also follow the proposal of the original tarp bill which said that after the financial system was stablized, any moneys coming

in should be used to reduce the deficit and the debt -- the debt of the united states. it certainly shouldn't be used to fund new ventures into the private sector whether they be buying automobile companies or insurance companies or anything else. it should be simply used to reduce the debt. and i hope the administration will do that because that would follow the law, that would be a good sign for the world markets. who are becoming suspicious of our debt as we have seen in a number of instances, for example, the cost of 10-year bills, 30-year bills and also the fact that the chinese leadership in the financial area has expressed concern about purchase of long-term debt in the united states. and it would be a positive sign to americans. that we're going to do something about this debt that we're passing on our to kids. it's unfair to run up $1 trillion a year of deficit, double the debt in five years and triple it in 10 years and send all of those bills to

our kids. these young students who are here today as pages in 10 years will find that the household that they're living in has a new $130,000 mortgage ton. it's called the bill -- ton. it's called the bill of the federal debt. they'll have a new $6,500 interest payment this they will have to make. that is the interest they will have to support on the debt. it is not appropriate that we have to do that to these younger americans and to the next generation much so let's take the $65 billion and use it as it was originally agreed it would be used, which is when it came back into the treasury with interest, which is pretty good, to be used to pay down the debt. why am i suspicious that this administration is giving us lip service on the fiscal issue and the issue of the debt. it is the second thing that happened today that raise that's suspicion, than is the fact that the president today came out and held a big press conference

about how he was for pay-go. i have not heard a democratic candidate for congress, and now the president of the united states, not claim that they're going to exercise fiscal discipline around here by being for pay go it has motherhood implications, that you're going to pay for what you do around here. well, it's total hypocrisy. it is inconsistent with everything has happened -- that's happened from the other side of the aisle. not only do they not support pay-go, they punch holes in what we presently have for our pay-go laws. in the last tw 2 1/2 years this congress and now in the last three months, four months, five months, this presidency have passed democratically controlled have passed 10 bills which have waived or gained the pay-go rules that are already on the

books -- already on the books to the tune of $882 billion. and if you flow the things they wanted to do that they weren't able to pass because we on our side of the aisle said, no, that's too much -- we did it on the rest too. we just got rolled. over $1 trillion of instances where this congress and this president have asked for initiatives that would waive, punch holes in, go around the pay-go rules, which we already have. that's why i called it swiss cheese go, not pay-go. and now we have this disingenuous statement from the administration that suddenly they're for pay go pay-go exist, we just don't enforce it around here. not only are they -- do they claim they're for pay-go, but even in their statement that they're claiming for their pay-go, they claim their own pay-go proposal, saying that their pay-go won't apply to the

a.m.t. fix and it is not going to apply as it should historically should apply to the health care exercise. there should be a pay-go order against the first five years and they waived that against health care reform. so it's a good press event. it will be picked up by the mainstream media as an effort by this administration to try to discipline spending. because, of course, they're not going to ackwledge the fact that it has been gained to such an extraordinary extent that over $882 billion has been spent that should have been subject to pay-go rules. and, so, it really is a touch inconsistent and disingenuous for them to suddenly now find -- find the faith of pay-go when, in fact, they've been ignoring the pay-go rules and gaming the pay-go rules so that they could spend money and, again, what happens there?

run up the debt of the united states. run up the debt on the american people. create a system where our government will not be sustainable or affordable for our children. so if this administration really wants to do something that's meaningful in the area of rediewtsing the debt and controlling spending, take th the $65 billion they're about to get in repayment of tarp money from the various banks and apply it to reduce the debt. that would be real action as versus a press event. mr. president, i yield the floor, and appreciate the courtesy of the senator from no

mr. leahy: madam president, for the sake of my colleagues, i want to talk about the time of the hearing of the sonia sotomayor nomination. i talked with the distinguished ranking member last week on this -- on this schedule and i would

note the concerns he had raised. but i'm announcing today that the senate judiciary committee will hold the confirmation hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court on july 13th. that's a reasonable schedule. it will be the middle of next month. it's in line with past experience. it's going to allow several more weeks for committee members to prepare for the hearing. several more weeks that if i held the hearing this month, and there's no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee. and she deserves the opportunity to go before the public and speak of her record especially if some have mischaracterized her record or misstated her record. the only place she can speak, i

say, madam president, the only place she can speak and speak of her record is in the hearing. but it's also a reasonable schedule that serves the many interests involved. of course, the first and foremost is the american people's stake in a process that is fair and thorough. but not needlessly prolonged. it serves the purpose of the institution of the united states senate who will need sufficient time to prepare for confirmation hearing. and we have a full legislative plat of additional pressing business in the weeks and months ahead. it's of great importance to our constituents and to the nation. and then, of course, it serves the need of the third branch of government which depends on the other branches of government to fill court vacancies in our independent judiciary. in the needs of the president who nominated judge sotomayor. but less we forget serves the needs of the nominee herself,

who is a judge and will only be able to speak publicly about her record when the hearings are weaned. -- convened. this is an extremely important obligation that we as the members of the senate that take on. there are only 101 people who get a direct say in the nomination and confirmation of the united states -- of a juice of the united states supreme court. first and foremost, of course, the president of the united states, and in this case president obama consulted with numerous senators, republicans and democrats alike, prior to making his nomination. and then once the nomination is made, the 100 members of the united states senate have to stand in for 300 million americans in deciding who will

get that lifetime appointment. i voted on every single member of the united states senate currently as well as some in the past. and i know how important an obligation that is. the justice who takes justice suiter's place for the court that convenience on june 5, needs as much time as possible to hire law clerks, set up an office and even a place to live here in washington and take part with the rest of the court in the prepar preppory work. now, i mentioned that, madam president, because i have put together a schedule that tracks the process of the senate -- that the senate followed by bipartisan agreement in considering president bush's nomination of john roberts to the supreme court in 2005. at that time i served as the

ranking minority member of the judiciary committee. i met with our republican chairman, we worked out a schedule providing for chief justice robert's hearing 48 days eaf waafter he was named by pret bush. i might say that that agreement and time was reached even before the committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire. and while justice roberts had not -- then judge roberts had not decided as many opinions as judge sotomayor, he had been in a policy -- a political policy position in republican administrations for years before and there were 75,000 pages of documents. in fact, some arrived almost on the eve of the hearing itself.

and, of course, that nomination was replaced justice o'connor who was recognized as the pivotal vote on the supreme court. now, if something that significant required 48 days and republicans and democrats agreed were sufficient to prepare minor hearing in accordance with our agreement in the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says that we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for judge sotomayor. in selecting the date i'm trying to be fair to all concerned. i want to be fair it the nominee. allow her the earliest opportunity to respond to assassinations made about her character. it is not fair for her critics to call her a racist and to be a

part of the cue cru k -- in 200n president bush made his first nomination to the supreme court, senator mcconnell who is in the majority whip asserted that the senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60 to 70 days. we worked hard to achieve that. the nomination of judge sotomayor should more easily be considered within that time frame. we were still able to complete senate consideration and the senate confirmed john roberts to be the chief justice of the united states 72 days after he was initially designated to be an associated justice, we did this despite the fact that his initial nomination was withdrawn and only shortly before his hearing he was renominated to serve as the chief justice of the united states.

and we did this despite the terrible aftermath of hurricane katrina where everybody, republicans and democrats alike, agreed that we should hold back a week on the hearings so that we could all concentrate the nation's resources on hurricane katrina. and so that required a week's delay. and then 72 days after, if we followed the same schedule 72 days after judge sotomayor was designated to the supreme court, would be august 6th, and we're not even having the week of katrina. now, the hearing's the opportunity for all senators on the judiciary committee, both republicans and democrats, to ask questions, raise concerns, evaluate the nominee. our republican colleagues say they intend to ask her about her judicial philosophy.

now, it doesn't take four months to prepare to ask these questions. in fact, most have already raised the questions. they'll be surely prepared to ask them more than a month from now. and during that month, we have a week's vacation from the senate. now i intend to use that week without the interruption of committee hearings, without the interruption of votes, without the interruption of representative business to prepare for the hearings. i would advise those senators who feel they have to have extra time, forego your vacation, spend your week preparing for the hearing. because this is a historic nomination. this is a historic nomination. and i hope all senators will cooperate. the schedule is i think both fair and adequate. fair to the nominee, but also

adequate to the united states senate to prepare for the hearing and senate consideration. there's no reason to have needless and unreasonable delay. i say this is a historic nomination, madam president, because it should unite, and not divide the american people and the senate. hers is a distinctly american story. whether you're from the south bronx or the south side of chicago or south burlington, vermont, the american dream inspires all of us. her life story is the american dream. and so i might add is the journey of the president who nominated her. she deserves a fair hearing. not trial by attack and assaults about her character. and let us proceed to give her that fair hearing without unness delay. i have -- unnecessary delay.

i have said in the senate oftentimes on the floor of this great body, that we senators should be the conscience of the nation. as we were called upon to do. and there have been occasions when this senate, republicans and democrats alike, united have shown they can be the conscience of the nation. i would say this is one time we should rise above partisanship and be that conscience when i met with judge sotomayor last week, i asked her about her approach to the law. she answered that, of course, one's life experience shapes who you are. but ultimately and completely her words: as a judge you follow the law. there is not one law from -- for one race or another, there is not 1 color for one or another, there is not one law for those who belong to one political

party or the other. there's one law for all americans. she made it very emphatic there's a judge -- as a judge you follow that one law. there is only one law. we all know that. she said ultimately and completely a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been. that is the kind of fair and impartial judging that the american people expect. that is respect for the rule of law. that is the kind of judge she has been. judge sotomayor is extraordinarily well equipped to serve on the nation's highest court. to borrow the phrase that the first lady used last week, not only do i believe that judge sotomayor is prepared it to serve all americans on the supreme court, i believe the country's more than ready to see this accomplished hispanic woman do just that.

this is an historic nomination and it's an occasion for the senate and our great nation to come together. this is a time for us to come together. the process is another step toward the american people regaining confidence in their judiciary. our independent judiciary is considered to be the envy of the world. less abysmal than the other two branches, the judiciary is a vital part of the infrastructure that knits our nation together under the rule of law. every time, every time i've walked up the steps to the supreme court, i look at the words engraved in marble from my native state of vermont over the entrance of the supreme court. those words say "equal justice under law." the nomination of judge sotomayor keeps faith with that

motto. president obama is to be commended for having consulted with senators from both sides of the aisle. i was with him on some of the occasions he did. i've had senators come up to me, republican senators, and tell me they had never been called by a president of their own party, to say nothing about a democratic president, to talk about supreme court nominee. but president obama did call and reach out. but now the senate's duty comes to the fore. now all senators of both parties will work with me to move forward and consider this nomination in a fair republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, senator sessions, senator kyl and i are going to take a few moments here to discuss the pending supreme court nomination and the proceedings leading up to that. i've notified the democratic

floor staff that it might slightliedly the 4:20 vote. i find that not objectionable on the other side. so i would jus inform our colleagues that we're going to proceed here as if in morning business and i ask consent we proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: it will not cause much of a delay, if any, on the 4:20 vote i announce to our colleagues. senator sessions is up and will be the first speaker. signature session mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank senator mcconnell for his leadership in so many ways but particularly his concern that he has shown repeatedly on the united states judiciary. he's a member of the judiciary committee and he takes these issues seriously and i think it's important that we all do so. i have to say i'm disappointed this morning that we learned from media reports -- i did --

that the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator leahy, announced we would begin the hearings july 13 on judge sotomayor. i believe that's too early. i don't believe it's necessary. it's far more important we do this matter right than we do it quick. when the announcement was made president obama said that the time we should look to is october 1 when the new supreme court term starts. and i think that always was an achievable goal something i said i believe we could achieve and do in a right way. so the question is, can we get all this done in this rush-rush fashion? it will be the shortest confirmation time of any recent nominee. it is a time well shorter than that of justice roberts, now chief justice roberts. and we had a need to move that a bit because he