issues facing the country. i'm sure we will have a number of questions. i will moderate a discussion. we have about 15 minutes. we have people floating in the room with microphones. if you raise your hand, i will recognize you, and you introduce yourself, and i will open the flood. there is a gentleman in the first row right here. again, please identify yourself. . the distinguished former member of the congress of the united states. a good friend of mine from wisconsin. so this question may not be particularly subjective. >> i will try as hard as i can to be neutral. it is so right what you said about arms alone cannot win wars. i think it may be time to reconsider our drug policy in that area of the world. we are alienating a lot of people. it is -- we need to reconsider our drone policy.

we have this other " bad guy" we want to kill. we hit a house and killed 12 other people. we can measure what we kill. we do not measure the increasing circle of and around the nation as a result of that.3 wars and along our borders, they were sending planes over the border to hit some people they want to hit. we will not tolerate it. i think it is really hurting our standing in this country, and i hope we will have a chance to review that over time. thank you. >> thank you. i think that, clearly, the complexity of wars today, clearly in every war there have beee collateral damage, and that is to be lamented. and there are tragedies. whether they're women, children, elderly, there to be lamented. having said that, the complexity of this war is, of course, that

our enemies are almost always colocated with, as you say, and a sense -- innocents. how do we handle that? there have been briefings on the use of drones. it is clearly, and we have had this current controversy from general mcchrystal in terms of the strategy he is pursuing, was pursuing, and that is our strategy which is to decrease to the possible extent possible civilian casualties. because they do alienate, understandably, large portions of the people that we are trying to win over and have on our side. so you need to make a judgment. you need to make a judgment as

to whether or not leaders of al qaeda, the taliban, or what ever terrorist group or faction that may be at issue here, whether taking them out with every measure possible to take them out discreetly, to target them discreetly, is worth the price. it is a difficult judgment that presidents have to make. ultimately, they make that decision. president obama has made it clear that if we are going to succeed, it will be because, in effect, we take away the leadership of al qaeda. i think there is evidence that we have done that. i think there's evidence that we had disrupted their abilities, and the price that we have paid is the price he pointed out. and frankly, some people have paid the ultimate price. say if we cannot take out

simply an individual or individuals that we clearly know without doubt are those that are acting against us, that we their full -- that we therefore will not act i think will place us in a position of not being as effective as we need to be, if we're going to take this challenge on. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i am the south asia director here at csis. i applaud your final point about the importance of a strong economy as part of our national security, but what you did not say really raises two questions. first of all, how do you avoid savaging the development and diplomatic budget, which are normally sitting ducks for any scissors that come around on the

hill? second, you did not use the t- word, taxes. understand that taxes are politically toxic. can you get fiscal discipline without being willing to do something about taxes? >> to your first question, we will adopt a budget enforcement resolution this week, hopefully. it will have a number that is lower than the president's number, but it will not be a discrete number, as the budget is. ppit will be a gross number, so that the appropriations committee will make determinations to where best it can invest the dollars it has available. 302-a is the general big number for discretionary spending. it will be what they will allocate that money to. the president has included much of that money in the security said of the budget, as opposed

to the non-tuppence discretionary part of the budget. he has done -- as opposed to the non-security discretionary part of the budget. the appropriations committee, i believe, in the context of the budget enforcement resolution, will have the discretion to apply sums were their best believed to have a positive effect by the administration, and certainly by the congress. wwth respect to your second point, i do not know whether you had the opportunity to either hear about or read about the statements i made last week. and i talked about revenues. i talked about revenues having to be on the table and that in any kind of quest for fiscal balance in our country, we had

to look at both spending and revenue. i may have neglected it in this speech. i did not mention it. but clearly, what i said last week was that you need to have a balanced approach because you cannot get there from here without one. i have urged the commission itself, which was established by the president and will report some time late november, i hope, and hopefully reach agreement on some proposals. my expectation is that it will include both spending and revenue focuses. >> i have a question about your comment about the fact that the war in afghanistan and other wars are not won only by military means. i wonder how you assess the admiiistration's record on developing what is sometimes referred to as the civilians surge, providing additional assistance to the afghan government to strengthen rule of law i to deliver other kinds of assistance that will give them the capacity to rule their

country more effectively over the long term. how do you assess the progress amidst all the turmoil last week? some of the questions were out there about how well that is going. >> well, i am and hopeful that general petraeus -- just less hopeful that general petraeus it -- that general petraeus will have much more coordination with the civilian sector, as he did in iraq. we need to have a much closer working relationship. obviously, the "rolling stone" interview reflected a schism. that is not helpful. secondly, i believe this administration realizes that aid dollars are essential. i want to say that i am one of those who believes that we very, very severely distracted our focus from afghanistan for the overwhelming majority of the time we have been involved with afghanistan.

a surge early on, and then essentially a focused on iraq. only towards the end of the bush administration, when it was clear that the taliban or reorganizing and reforming, that al qaeda wasn't growing in strength as well -- that al qaeda was growing in strength as well, that the bush and ministration -- the bush administration was confronted with that, and this administration was confronted with an economic collapse. but we also have to focus on these two wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think the administration has made it clear, and i think secretary clinton has made it clear, that civilian -- that is, winning the civilian side of the equation is critically important. i believe that is what counterinsurgency is all about. i think we're in the process, and i think the ambassadors. was clear, that it is part -- i

think that the ambassador's point was clear. going overseas takes away investment from the united states. i think that we will be involved in a vigorous debate about afghanistan generally, but i think part of that to be -- part of that debate will be about the civilian side. complicating that would be what i set about making sure the dollars that are spent overseas are spent in the way we intend them to be. the "washington post" has a story today about corruption. that is not helpful. not only is it not helpful, but it is not warranted to invest money if we're not convinced it will be spent in a way that will be positive. >> thank you. i think we have time for one more question. >> thank you very much.

general counsel for the office of the chief defense counsel in the military commissions. congressmen, i t y for your many. -- i thank you for your comments. i recognize the military issue is hardly a flyspeck in terms of some of the larger issues. but it has symbolic and political value, perhaps especially for the democrats. i am wondering if you can speak to your comments today on the viability of federal court as a venue for prosecuting terrorists? in light of the recent passage in the new nbaa the title cut off of funding for transfer of everyone from the guantanamo to the united states, including individuals subject to prosecution in federal court -- any to recognize that i am really not here, and our office

does not seek a position on the legitimacy of either venue. that is quite genuine, but i think it would be helpful to know where the democrats stand on this and how that particular sausage got made. >> well, that sausage did not get made. it was imposed. i referenced in the course of my speech -- we referred to those amendments as gotcha amendments. it has received it simplistic and superficial engagement in terms of how we reach an and that is necessary, and that is a determination -- how we reach an end that is necessary, and that is a determination of holding those that we hold and what to do about them. i have been down to guantanamo and spend time there a few months ago. i had opined with a number of

people in the white house that there was a possibility, and i do not know that this is politically practical but i will mention it anyway -- my staff is saying to themselves, i wish you would not go there, but i am going to go there. i think there are constitutional problems with allowing a title 3 court to sit at guantanamo. there are obviously some problems with juries. i do not think their problems with the signing a judge. perhaps a number of judges in rotating way. but i think the answer to your question is that this matter has been uued in a political way by republicans, frankly, and others to inflame and instill fear in people. the bush administration did not confront that debate within his party when they pursued the

disposition of cases in the civil courts. and in fact, the civil courts have been very successful in disposing of cases. i mentioned the number 300 there about. at the military tribunals have a place, and i think the administration is trying to work on that place now. i am hopeful that we will have to consider discussion and debate about that. not simply a political gotcha environment where if someone indicates that we should dispose of the case in a venue of the united states -- i mention some conservatives, and you had some very conservatives with whom i disagree very substantially but you talked about the times square bomber having rights to be informed and tried here in this venue.

and there, it was the constitution should not be put aside simply because -- and their comments was wish not to the constitution aside simply because it is a terrorist. we need to be, sent -- we need to see this when we determine summit to be possibly a terrorists. for instance, in terms of the immediate threat exception to thgiving the miranda rule as appropriate. but i am hopeful that we will have a rational reason debate about how to do what we have done or how to respond to what we have done. that is it take people into custody who are not prisoners of war in the classic sense. but they are people that we hold that have not been in adjudicated other than by the

military as having committed an offense. i think we need to figure that out. and i do not mean to imply that everybody that is detained in a foreign land, for an venue, is treated as a criminal defendant. i want to make that clear. i am not saying that. i do not want that misinterpreted by anybody, particularly the media and some of my conservative friends. thank you all very much. >> but you senator. -- thank you center.

>> west virginia senator robert byrd served more than -- watch a 1988 profile of the senator and his book notes interview on the history of the senate on line in the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> now, an event with a treasury department official overseeing executive pay. kenneth feinberg has been in that job for about a year. hosted by american university, this is about an hour. >> let me get started and welcome everybody. i am the director of the summer institute on law and government at the american university washington college of law or the are doing a couple of weeks of exciting and timely programming

on law and government related issues. as part of that program, we have had a number of different lectures and speakers on a variety of subjects. in line with that, it is a great privilege and honor to have ken feinberg with us today. i have known him for longer than 30 years. i was a boston globe reporter in the washington bureau and ken was working for senator edward kennedy and his legislative staff in the 1970's. can is here for a very different reason. his career in the last two decades really this bruce the assumption that lawyers go into law because they cannot do math. in fact, it can has done the opposite and made a career out of working with a rather

important numbers. most visibly, i think the administration of the september 11 claims fund, but he has had numerous other experiences with similar kinds of funds. he was the administrator for the virginia tech fund and even before september 11, have been involved in other funds . he was able to figure route how to administer all of that in a fair handed an even-handed way.

that has led to his two most recent assignments. one prior to a couple weeks ago, he came to be known as the executive pay is our -- czar. he was the secretary for special compensation in which he was looking at the issues related to executive compensation of various institutions being bailed out and whether there was a need to limit that compensation. then, not surprisingly, in light of his record, the president turned to him about a week ago to be the administrator of the bp oil spill claims fund, the money that bp agreed to put up in its meeting with president

obama at the white house. that fund will now be administered by a him to figure out how to rectify the horrible damage that is taking place in the gulf. we are absolutely thrilled to have kenneth shearer -- kenneth here. he just came back yesterday and we look forward to his comments. he will make remarks for a few minutes and then we will open it up to questions. he has a conference call at 1:00 p.m., so we have to get him out of here at about five minutes to 1:00 p.m.. >> i am here because of steve. we go back many years to when he was a beat reporter here in washington for "the globe." i was working on the senate judiciary staff.

steve would walk in and talk to all of us and tells what was right or wrong about what we were doing. -- and tell us what was right or wrong about what we were doing. i am under a lot of pressure today. professor metcalf this year, an old friend, a very wise man who will be checking of what i do right and wrong today as part of my oral exam. i am pleased to see him here. he is a valuable addition to this group. you may wonder how it is possible to bring together, in 20 minutes, and discuss at the same time of my role in agent orange or the 9/11 victim compensation fund. my role as the treasury department's special master for top executive compensation.

my role in designing and administering this new gulf coast claims facility. of what is the common denominator? there is a common denominator. the common denominator is the creativity of the law. the malleability of the law in coming up with creative ways thito solve public interest problems. the lot is as malleable -- of the lot is as malleable and flexible as the policy makers make it. if there is one common denominator, it is that occasionally the conventional

approach to solving legal problems breaks down. there has to be a better way and the better way is a very innovative agent orange class action settlement, a statutory alternative to the conventional tort system, the 9/11 victim compensation fund. a private, alternative mechanism to divert people out of the tort system into a private, self sustaining, charitable distribution fund. a statutory way to try and win in our regis executive salaries -- and try to rein in an

outrageous executive salaries and find out what is appropriate and not appropriate when it comes to regulating private pay. now, a voluntary compact, rather unique, between a public entity, the administration, and the private entity, bp. resulting in the creation of a rather unprecedented, totally independent but private claims facility designed to resolve dp related claims for damage. steve is right, i have been fortunate enough over the past

25 years to be at the cutting edge of designing, implementing, administering these creative alternatives to conventional ways of thinking. the one common denominator is that creativity. what is very interesting is that every one of those creative alternatives has worked. it has resulted in canonizing or eliminating conventional litigation. bp, the verdict is out. but i am confident, that with bp, we will develop an infrastructure, a protocol, rules for the totally voluntary

submission of claims which will resolve the claims and provide damage awards to eligible claimants in lieu of lawsuits in federal and state courts to laugh the gulf. -- throughout the gulf. how do you go about solving these problems? what are some of the basic bedrock principles that govern the solutions? whether it be statutory paid, statutory 9/11, voluntary private compaq's like the memorial fund, judicially imposed plans like agent orange for this rather unique vp public/private partnership. the principles are fairly clear.

one, no-fault'. these facilities will not work if there is going to be a lengthy legal debate over who is at fault. instead, these are no fault regimens. there is nothing unique about that. in 50 states, for 100 years, they have had no fault regiment's called -- no-fault regimens called workers' comp. let's assume blame. let's check knowledge wrong -- let's take knowledge of wrong and move toward compensatory resolution. two, let's assure efficiency,

speed. one of the great considerations for entering any of these programs is the speed at which compensation is delivered or determine. in the pay czar example, we got the 2009 program retroactively. we got all of our compensation decisions in 60 days in 2010. that was in contrast to the link the inefficiency of the legal system. 3, streamline cooperation and proof -- streamline and

collaboration and proof. let's avoid pretrial discovery. instead, consistent with speed, let's resolve claims efficiently on a it summarized and abbreviated record. it is submitted to the facility. four, in these alternatives to the tort system, let's not even+ talk about or consider punitive damages. these are all compensatory damage vehicles. it is designed to right a wrong by distributing money that will make the claimant hold -- whole from his or her compensatory

loss. punishment? no. the trade-off for committing wrong in terms of the willingness to pay is that there will be no piling on with punitive damages or other excessive or additional damage claims. 5, in all of these procedures, every one of them, make sure that you implement procedural due process as part of this process. the best example is the 9/11 victim compensation fund where every single plant to enter the program voluntarily -- every single complainant entered the program voluntarily. they were given a full and fair

opportunity to be heard. so true in all of these other fundss to one degree or another, you were not merely a cog in the claims machine. you have an opportunity for tailored consideration of your own claim. even with the pay czar plans -- claims, before i rendered decisions as to what a corporate, frustration -- what appropriate compensation should be, called all seven banks and they were all invited. they were told to come to the treasury and make their case.

procedural due process, so that everybody knows that they have a vested, fares stake in the outcome. this is enormously -- their stake in the outcome. this is enormously -- a fair stake in the outcome. do not underestimate that importance. that is the common benchmark for all of these programs. there has been a great deal written about all of them, but the interesting feature is how they pose a creative alternative to the conventional tort system or the conventional complex litigation system. those are the common similarities. there is another very important similarity in all of these

alternatives. and that is that in every one of these cases, they involve another common element. that is human emotion. the degree to which the claimant or the target of what i am doing confronts anchor, frustration -- confronts anchor, frustration -- anger,

frustration and is on the part of the individual that requires what i am doing or what my designees are doing to be psychiatrists as well as lawyers and as well as economists and statisticians th and a sociolog. these national problems require you to get inside the head of the people that you're trying to deal with. very difficult. that is how you can, under the rule book of law and government, land all of these problems -- link all of these problems to creative solutions. in the last 10 minutes before to questions, -- before i take

questions, there are two examples of creativity. the federal legislation creating the top executive compensation, and my current work as the a administrator of the gulf coast claims facility or arising out of the bp still on the other hand. what are the problems that arise out of the siding pay? well, let's look at a couple of issues that i thought were rather interesting. i would have thought that the pay czar legislation -- i would have thought that there would have been a tremendous degree of

adverse criticism. mr. feinberg, it is none of the government's business in setting private pay. it is philosophically televised and inconsistent -- philosophically ill advised and inconsistent with our policy. i got none of that. virtually no criticism. why is that? two reasons. first, i only have legal statutory authority over seven companies. of those seven companies, i am only over the top 25 officials of those companies. i am a sideshow. i have very root ltd.

jurisdiction -- i have very limited jurisdiction. train your free-market sites on regulatory reform, why bother with feinberg to a sort of an afterthought in the legal structure of executive pay? there is an important reason besides the limited jurisdiction that i have. that is, after all, i am viewed as a surrogate for the taxpayer. those seven companies only survived because of citizen taxpayer money that was loaned to them. i represent the creditors of these seven companies. the creditors that own the company. since the american people bailed out the seven companies, surely,

the view is, the american people should have a say in what these executives of the seven companies make for living. that argument, i must say, that i am acting on behalf of the creditors of those seven companies and no others, looms large in blunting any philosophic criticism about government involvement in the private marketplace. i do not hear a month from -- at do not hear a lot from the cato institute. i certainly do not see that they mind feinberg influencing pay since the law says that once the corporation repays the taxpayer, they are out. that is not primary objective.

seven companies are now down to four companies. bankamerica, city group and crestar financial are out, leaving the other four. i doubt very much that this will ever be repeated. it is sort of a one off. the other example that raises some interesting issues is the dp gulf coast -- of the bp and gulf coast plant facility. this is very interesting. bp has voluntarily contributed $20 billion to deal with claims arising out of this bill -- of the spill.

they will also replenish the fund beyond 20 billion. the bp claims facility is independent and i am beholden neither to the administration nor bp. by agreement, i can do it on my own and exercise sound discretion in distributing the funds. the challenge with the dp facility is going to be that it is all well and good to set up this wonderful furniture mechanism to litigation -- this wonderful mechanism to litigation. some claims are easy. mr. feinberg, i am a fisherman. i cannot fish. the fishing beds are closed

because of oil. i cannot fish. pay me my economic loss. that is an easy claim. it gets more difficult if you try to pave the loss in one want to cover present and future lost to try to figure out what constitutes a future claim. the oil is still spilling. that is rather problematic. that is a murky crystal ball. that is a relatively simple claim where there are two issues. we are all lawyers here. there are two issues. am i eligible to file a claim. clearly, yes, your fisherman. second, what is the value of my claim? that is more problematic. particularly if the oil has not stopped spilling, so you did not

know if the oil will reach the fishing grounds in the next month or pollute certain other grounds, thereby maximizing the damages. eligibility and calculation of award. those are two calculations. you could be eligible and get nothing. if you are not eligible, you can get nothing the second -- you can get nothing. >> the second issue is eligibility for indirect ripple claims. mr. feinberg, i own kincaid some food -- kincaid a seafood restaurant. we serve this fabulous dish,

louisiana oysters. i cannot get woozy and oysters -- louisiana oysters. people cannot order woosy and oysters. they have stopped coming to my restaurant and my customer volume is down 10%. pay me. what do you do about my claim -- about that plan? -- plclaim. if you pay that claim, the-will pay a restaurant in the inland states -- in the united states. some claims are ineligible. how do you do that? >>actually, congress provided me some guidance in the 9/11 fund. the question was, how do you pay physical injury claims arising

out of the terrorist attacks. the law in 9/11 said that ended minister in these claims, look to state tort law of the residents of the victim. -- residence of the victim. i may say that you have brought a business interruption claim from washington d.c.. how likely is it that the courts of washington d.c., the superior court, or maritime law, or the pollution control law or other applicable law, how is it that that rest from one have a valid claim? i would say virtually nil. somehow, you have to canonize --

you have to look at the rrlationship to the claim and come up with a principal way. if it is not principled, it will not sell. it will not work. there has to be principled way to do that. now, you have to be careful. you cannot have a restaurant in louisiana getting paid and the same restaurant in florida and not getting paid. you have to understand the law and have some sort of common denominator, but that is the way it works. so, in 25 or 26 minutes, i have tried to lay out how the law in government could work together -- how the law and the

government could work together to do justice, provide a much more efficient alternative, and compensates in an actual -- and equitable way. -- in an equitable way. we haveeabout 20 minutes for questions. as the promised me that you would have good questions. >> if you have a question, please come to the microphones. >> i teach a ministry of law. when you describe the process, the requirements of due process, put more flesh on the bones.

what do you actually do in the various contexts of that you are discussing so that people feel they have had their fair opportunity for their case. >> just like in court, the right to come in and be heard. we did that in agent orange and we did that in virginia tech and we did that in 9/11. the opportunity, if you walked in voluntarily, to meet your decision maker and have a vested stake in the process. that testimony is under oath, with a transcript, and it goes a long way in giving the plan and a vested interest in the process. second, the right to appeal the administratively. if you do not like the results of your claim, he can appeal to

another individual or a group to get another bite at the apple. third, the right to have counsel if you want councisel. bring a priest, a rabbi, a brother, whoever you want to represent you. transparency, openness, decisions not rendered in the dead of night, procedural protections. the administrator not as an adversary but a fiduciary. to try, in the confines of the law, to maximize your award. those are some of the time- honored principles. if you take professors -- of the

course in administrative law, there will be a whole section on administrative due process and what is required. we try to follow those prescriptions. >> by a study that you're tarp legislation -- i study the your tarp -- i studies your tar legislation. -- tarp legislation. >> they did not like it. wall street executives came to me and said that i must, under

law, give them a competitive compensation, otherwise they will lose these people and they are irreplaceable. the graveyards are filled with irreplaceable people. that is first. secondly, they told me that if these individuals leave, they will not go across the street to a domestic competitor, they will go to europe or china. everybody is for to go work in china. these were the arguments that they may. we looked at the data -- that they made. we looked at the data. we could not find any independence, so we hired academics. we developed models. you are right, the model that we

used in most cases was cash compensation, based cash salary under $500,000 per year. no guaranteed incentives. the remainder of your compensation would be in stock that could not be transferred until a third after two years, one-third after three years, and one-third after four years. we think that that was the formula that worked pretty well. wall street does not like it. it went along. they had to, under the law. we thought that was the best ay to go, tying individual compensation over the long term.

>> i wondered if you had in the voluntary options in the industry? >> there has been some voluntary adoption. . it is too early to tell. i think there has been some ratification for what we're doing. whether that will continue when the americans memories fade. when it comes to my principles, it is nowhere near as important as the legislation as about to become law.

those much more pervasive reforms will do more than what i am doing. >> i am a professor at the school. you mentioned the difficulty in calculating the present damages and the unknown future. don't you have a similar dimension in clements -- it claimants? how do you account for that? >> you have to sit down and offer that fisherman -- mr. fisherman, you have shown us economic loss models that give you $83,000. we are going to tender a check to you, not only for the

economic loss that you have suffered to date, but what we think is it their projection of what you will suffer in the future and we will give you not $83,000, but $149,000. in return, we want a full release so that you cannot come back later and claimed that $149,000 should have been $249,000. the challenge, and you know this, the challenges to come up with a prediction of economic loss which is relatively fair inc.. the safety valve is that if the claimant fisherman is not convinced about 149,000 or thinks that it is too low, or thinks that it requires him or

her to be too uncertain, do not take it. instead, opt into the litigation system. my goal is to minimize the number of people who think that the litigation system will give them more of an upside. i venture to say that the litigation system is more uncertain than my crystal ball analysis of total economic loss. that is a fundamental question. it will challenge the ability to make the facility work. >> i guess i would just follow- up on that. given that you have a knowledge is an emerging issue, there are wetlands that are damaged and not yet destroyed. how can you make those

calculations? it is a different kind of projection. >> it is. you cannot do this until the oil stocks. i have an oyster bed, and i do not know my damage total yet because the oil has not hit the oyster beds, yet. i know i have lost some business because i cannot get my oysters to market, but once the oil stops, maybe i can get them to market unless the oil reaches the oyster bed. steve is right, you cannot do this type of economic forecasting as long as it is an ongoing problem. what you can do is provide an emergency payments without a release. i completely agree with that.

>> as best as you can estimate at this port, if the oil stopped yesterday or five minutes from now, do you say that $20 billion will be adequate to compensate people? >> i have no idea. i really do not have any idea until we see the nature of the claims. it is one thing for the press and the media to discuss all of these claims. i keep explaining to people in the gulf that if you do not file a plan, there is nothing that i can do. -- file a claim, there is nothing that i can do. do not assume that everybody will file a claim. there are barriers to filing a

claim. it is too complicated, i do not have a claim, it is not the fault of the spill, i do not know, i procrastinate. before i judge that the $20 billion will not be enough, i want to know how many claims -- how many eligible claims, what the calculation of loss is. you can go and get it short from somewhere else or oysters. it does not have to be from the gulf, or that part of the gulf. i do not mean to beat live when i say that i do not know if $20 billion is enough. many in the media say it is not. i do not know.

i will wait and see what the claimsslook like and what the cooperation is. i have been down in louisiana where there are plans were someone will come in and say that they cannot work because their shift is dry dock because they cannot go out and fish. they need money. i ask them to show me their wage forms. this is a cash business. there is nothing illegal about a cash business, but let me see some cooperation -- cooperation coroboration. . .

i got the detergent on my hands or my gloves are whatever, there are 850 physical injury claims that will have to be dealt with. but with the physical injury

claims, corroborate, show assure medical's -- show us your medical, and how sick are you? i am disabled. ok, if you are, where is your social security disability? where's your workers' compensation disability? show me that you are disabled. corroboration is absolutely necessary to make sure that eligible claims get adequate compensation. and that will be a challenge here, no doubt. >> i'm curious about punitive damages and about possible replenishment of the fund. is there any indication from bp as to whether the possibility o3 by whether there is a determination and the award of

punitive damages in the realm of things? i am -- i would imagine that they have an impact on bp's thinking. >> punitive damages in the fund -- will punitive damages in the traditional court system impact bp possibility to replenish the fund? it may very well. i've not heard anything about that. it is very premature. one question about punitive damages, do you have one in a did damage decision or consecutive decisions in different jurisdictions? and that is a different question. all of that is downstream. my answer now is that there have been no discussions along those lines. i doubt that it will be on my

watch. i am not deallng with litigation. i am dealing with facilities. i hear the implication of your question. didn't the potential claimants with whom you deal, you say that this is a fair deal, and they are gambling as to whether there would be more outside this compensation system. that claim may have to take into account the possibility of the punitive damage award outside of this. >> maybe. >> thanks. >> in positioniig york initiative as a one-off, i was pondering if it does make to speak more broadly to this. how was this influencing the debate? >> i don't think the influence it much at all. i am asked all the time, these one of claims facilities, the

wave the future -- are the wave of the future? absolutely not. i think the american legal system works pretty well and the tort system works pretty well. there are relatively rare circumstances, whether the volume of claims, the quality of the claims, the need for swifter justice -- that is where these claims facilities come into play. steve said that this is a niche of mind. yes, it is a niche. they are not exactly commonplace. i remember after the 9/11 fun, the asbestos industry came to me and said, adding seen on 9/11 works, could you set up a similar facility for all the asbestos claims? i said, sure, i can, but i have

two questions. who is going to pay for it? how much is everybody going to get? in the 9/11 fun, the american taxpayer footed the bill. in the bp oil spill, bp is footing the bill. asbestos industry, do you want to set up this type of facility? who is paying for it? the employer, the manufacturers, the insurers? you can't get your act together for 30 years. and how much are you going to pay any no-fault system where speed is essential? the you expect to pay the same as if you are in court after seven years of litigation? there is a trade-off -- more like a workers compensation system. the inability to find deep pockets to fund these alternatives, and the inability of lawyers to agree on what the amount ought to be for eligible claimants --

>> we're leaving the last few minutes of this. the house is coming back in now. you will see that the flags are flying at half mast today. senator robert byrd died this morning at the age of 92. a vote had been postponed until one -- to more because inclement weather affected travel. a compromise on financial regulation is expected on the floor. live coverage of the house is on c-span. rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 28, 2010, at 5:50 p.m., that the senate agreed to senate resolution 56. with best wished i am, signed, sincerely, lorraine c. miller. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek rick nigs? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following

members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. boozman: mr. poe, july 2 for five minutes, mr. jones, july 2 for five minutes, mr. burton, july 2 for five minutes, mr. mack today for five minutes, mr. boozman today for five minutes, ms. ros-lehtinen today and june 30 for five minutes, mr. olson today for five minutes, mr. forbes, june 29 for five minutes. mr. mchenry, june 29 and 30, july 1 and 2 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: u.n. of january 6, 2009, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas, mr. burton from indiana, mr. mack of florida. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. as the ranking member on the subcommittee on water resources, i rise today to thank colonel ed jackson, commander of the little rock district of the u.s. army corps of engineers, for his service, especially his last three years in little rock.

colonee jackson has provided forward thinking and visionary leadership for an organization with a complex mission. this mission includes the planning and management of civil works projects ranging from navigation, flood control and hydroelectric power to recreation, water supply, environmental protection and fish and wildlife mitigation. most importantly during colonel jackson's time at little rock, his team members have provided vital support to our war fighters deployed on the front lines in afghanistan and iraq. colonel jackson has experienced first hand with the dangers confronted by our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, because he commanded the 54th engineer battalion during a year-long deployment in support of operation iraqi freedom.

colonel jackson's time at little rock has included several serious challenges. the district has worked to reduce flood damage and repair public infrastructure affected by serious natural disasters and the affects of age. the district has strengthened its partnership of the tulsa district in the management and improvement of the arkansas river navigation system. a vital transportation corridor of national economic significance. finally, the district is carrying out an aggressive plan to ensure that numerous projects provide jobs and encourage economic development, that they're carried out as quickly as possible in partnership with state and local sponsors. all of this is thanks to the steadfast and reliable leadership of colonel jackson. they also made improvinged communication and engagement with the public a high priority.

reflecting is understanding that we must be helpful and available to citizens. as well as elected leaders including state and local officials. following floods in early 2008, the colonel recognized that the district needed to improve communication and coordination with local first responders and the colonel implemented regularly scheduled meetings to ensure disaster preparedness will be a higher priority moving forward. as colonel jackson leaves the little rock district, he lives -- leaves behind a united civilian leadership team, high morale among the district team members, a legacy focusing on and responding to the concerns of citizens and stakeholders alike. the many successes which his team have accomplished, for that they can be very, very proud. as colonel jackson moves on to

his next assignment, i am confident that he will continue to render honorable and exemplary service to our country and with that i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extends. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today the supreme court affirmed sensible restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. when the supreme court struck down chicago's gun ban earlier today, it reiterated that communities can keep guns away from schools and out of the hands of felons and terrorists. but today the gun show loophole makes a mockery of sensible prohibitions like these. mr. quigley: as the recent pentagon shooting illustrates, terrorists can still easily gain access to firearms. a recent gun show audit conducted -- revealed that 74% of sellers approached by

investigators complete sales to people who appear to be criminals or straw purchasers. this is unacceptable. it is time to close the gun show loophole. today's decision puts to rest the tired argument that any sensible gun control restriction is a slippery slope toward the reskcation of all gun owning rights. there's never been a better time for this congress to reclaim the middle ground, stop giving terrorists unlimited access to unlimited fire power. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. ros-lehtinen from florida. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i rise to address the house for five minutes and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to marine lapse corporal who was killed on march 11 while patrolling in combat operations in helmond province in afghanistan. garrett was the 2008 graduate of a high school? sugarland, texas. he was assigned to the second marine regiment, second marine division, second marine expeditionary force, camp lejeune, north carolina. . he was a hocky player and first considered joining the marines while a junior in high school. he was known for his big personality, his sense of adventure and his tender heart. friends who knew him spoke of

his never-ending positive spirit and ability to make the best of a bad situation. he always put others before himself and did so with the smile on his face and a kind word for those around him. look at that smile. garrett's mother michelle shared with me a powerful story she learned about her son after his death. she was told that when he was a freshman in high school, he took it upon himself to call the mother of a student he knew to tell her that he was worried about her son. he was concerned that her son was headed down a bad path and he wanted her to know. garrett never told his mom that he did that, but it made a difference in the life of another young man. how many times, how many times have each of us had an

opportunity to make a difference? do we always seize that opportunity? garrett gamble not only acted on those opportunities, but touched the lives of everyone around him. this is a post on a facebook page dedicated to arrett that speaks to his character. whether in surarland or any other city, garrett approached life with enthusiasm, he was caring, kind and fun to be around, but he took his job as a u.s. marine very seriously. garrett spent a lot of time, quote, outside the wire, end quote. and yesterday, that's where he laid down his life so that we may live in liberty. thank you, garrett, for the precious gift of freedom. may he rest in peace with our lord and may god's angels surround your family until you are reunited, sincerely, pat.

i would like to read a poem that garrett's family and friends say who garrett was, dedicated to all marines. in a crowd you are bound to spot him. he's standing so very tall. not too much impressive. he's seen and done it all. his hair is short, eyes are smiling. only indication of the hell that he's gone through. he belongs to a say credit brotherhood always faithful to the end, has walked into battle and walked back out again. many people think him foolish for having no regrets after having lived through many times, others would forget. he's the first to go and last to know, but never questions why on whether it's right or wrong, but only do or die.

he walks the path most won't take. he's lost much along the way, but he thinks a lot of freedom, it's a small price to pay. yes, he has chosen to live a life off the beaten track knowing well each time he's called, he might not make it back. so next time you see a devil dog standing proud and true be grateful for all he's given, he's given it for you. just thank god it's your country, he's always fighting for and thank him for all the hell he has seen in that shade of depreen, thank him for having the guts to be a united states marine. mr. speaker, america can't repay the debt we owe garrett gamble, but we can say thank you for his selfless commitment to serve our nation and thank you to his family for raising a strong,

wonderful marine. lance corporal garrett gamble is a true american hero and ordinary american who did extraordinary things with a short life, a grateful nation says thank you, see him per fi and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announce d policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from utah is recognize the as the designee of the minority leader. mr. bishop: i appreciate the opportunity of being here this morning on one of the days when obviously our time management skills are not perhaps the greatest. but it still is nonetheless an opportunity to speak before on this floor before you, mr. speaker, on a couple of issues that are significant. i appreciate also that i will be joined by my good friend from

texas who just spoke so eloquently about one of those who has given his all for all of us and how grateful we are for this family and this particular individual. i think we're going to be hitting several different themes this evening as we talk about the future of this country, especially as it deals with space and here once again i'm very grateful that the gentleman from texas is here, because mr. olson has indeed, been a leader on this particular issue in charting the future of america as far as space policy will be. it is very easy in this environment to try and focus first of all, on jobs. and i think we will. because, indeed, as this particular administration is going to begin their summer of recovery in which they will be touting the kinds of jobs that will be created to try and change the economic future this country is currently in, it seems almost ironic that

administrative policies, especially with nasa, are going to create a vast amount of unemployed individuals, up to 30,000 individuals who have received their pink slips specifically because of policies initiated by this administration and the current leadership in nasa. it's at least ironic, but we will be talking about that. however, we want to go beyond that, because if you're dealing with jobs, that can be a pa rocky kial issue. and we are dealing with the issue of space and importance of space. if this administration and leaders of nasa today seem to be de-emphasizing the role of space in our future, the others are not. the russians, chinese, indian and japanese government have a unique interest in taking our position in the leadership role in space exploration and that's another issue we will be talking about.

i want to make sure that we illustrate how sometimes there are unintended consequences in our action. this administration and once again nasa did not take effect the consequences of their program changes and the consequences directed towards our military preparedness. the component pieces that go into the missiles that will shoot somebody to the moon are the same component pieces that go into missiles that shoot down rockets from our adversaries from iran or north korea. and if you harm the industrial base that creates one program, you harm the industrial base that creates the other program and gives us some pause to think what we're doing on the defense side of this country, which is clearly one of the few roles specifically given to congress in the constitution. i would like to talk about a communication that came out from the administration today as to their future in space and say

some are nicely written down. they are contradictory to the actions that indeed take place. so with that, mr. speaker, i think if the jsm texas is prepared to lead off, i would like to turn over to mr. olson from texas who has for quite a while to be a leader to explore what this administration is doing and maybe make some corrections as is the role and responsibility of congress dealing with space. and then i will be happy to make some remarks after the gentleman from texas is completed. mr. olson: i thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on this incredible important issue. five months ago, five months ago the obama administration proposed the budget for fiscal year 2011. the proposal included drastic

decisions to cancel the constellation program. nasa's follow-onto the shuttle. constellation will provide the means plus go to the moon and beyond. i believe at the time such a dramatic reversal risks the american leadership in human space flight in the future. a lot has transpired. but i still believe cancelling the constellation presents more risks than rewards and creates more challenges than solutions and raises more questions than it provides answers. the fact that nasa and the administration cannot or will not provide comprehensive details related to such a radical policy change should alarm every member of congress. my colleagues and i are concerned about the ability to

maintain the international space station, the impact on the aerospace industrial base and highly skilled work force as my colleague from utah alluded to and crew safety risk of reliance on unidentified commercial crew vehicles. these concerns have not been adequately addressed by the administration. and i have long supported a program that combines constellation with encreasing role in the commercial sector, beginning with cargo flights to the space station and over time, evolving to crew missions. i will continue to do so. i'm not alone in advocating this approach as the report when it was released and said over time within the aerospace community even the report did not advocate cancelling the constellation. i still believe that this is a balance between government and commercial space and it can

exist and within the budget proposed. both of these sock tors experienced tremendous success. notably the orion and falcon launch test just last month. rather than focus to maintain american leadership in space, the administration and nass -- nasa are focused to spend money on anything but space. many of us are astonished by the misplaced plans. nasa proposes spending $1.9 billion to cancel constellation contracts. even now, nasa selective enforcement of a termination liability provision for constellation contracts is prematurely triggering layoffs across the country and has been determined that somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs

could be lost nationwide as a result. and we're not just losing jobs. we're losing american know-how and capabilities and expertise that will be difficult and costly to get back if and when our nation decides that it wants to explore again. our space program does not employ people. it invests in them. and by doing so, we strengthen our nation's security and our economic well-being. as if to add insult to injury, last friday, the administration came forward with a request to transfer $100 million of nasa's already limited resources to the labor and commerce department to fund an interagency task risk to spur regional economic growth and job creation. our nation's best and brightest engineers and technicians don't want or need an interagency task force.

they would rather retain and be put to use with the critical skills building and flying american-built spacecraft. the administration needs to focus on jobs, jobs and jobs but fails to recognize the destructive impact of cancelling constellation and shifting $100 million to the labor and commerce departments. so as we look forward to the next critical six months there are some things we must do. we must get answers from the administration. we in congress must recognize the impact on our work force and infrastructure. we must pass an authorization bill and perhaps most importantly, we must ensure that the final flights of the space shuttle and the space station are done safely and successfully. i'm both humbled and inspired that while men and women in our human space flight programs wants to debate whether jobs will exist, they continue to

excel and drive towards new achievements in pace. their focus, their sacrifice, dedication and that of the men and women who came before them have enabled the united states to be the global leader in human space flight. let us work to keep it that way. i would like to -- if my colleague from utah -- i just want to read to show how important it is to some of the people opposed to the administration's plan. this is a letter that ran in "the "orlando sentinel" on april 15 and i think it's worth reading because our nation's experts and heroes in human space flight this is how they feel about this administration's budget proposal. . dear president obama, america is faced with the ending of the shuttle program and a budget proposal to cancel consolation.

this is wrong for our country for many reasons. we're very concerned about america seeing its hard-earned global leadership in space technology to other -- ceding its hard-earned global leadership in space technology to other countries. we're stubbed that -- stunned that this move would cause as + many as 130,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. we see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math, to our young people. being reduced to mediocrity. nasa's human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the american tradition of exploring the unknown. we strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces nasa out of human space operations for the foreseeable future. for those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the

exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision. our experiences were made possible by the efforts of thousands who were dedicated to the exploration of the last frontier. success in this great national adventure was predicated on well defined programs, an unwavering national commitment and an ambitious challenge. we understand there are risks involved in space flight. but they are calculated risks for worthy goals whose benefits gravely exceed those risks. america's greatness lies in her people. she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. america's challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. nasa must continue the frontiers of human space exploration in

order to develop technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. canceling nasa's human space operations after 50 years of unparalleled achievement makes that objective impossible. one of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better, for the young people or the next. in the area of human space flight, we're about to realize that fear. the nasa budget proposal raises more questions about our future in space than it answers. too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve america's preeminence in space only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. we urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see

them through. this is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price. sincerely, in the hopes of continued american leadership in human space exploration, the following people sign this letter, and it was signed by approximately 37 astronauts who span all of our human space flight programs. from mercury, gemini, apollo, sky lab, apollo shuttle station. this is a powerful argument, my friend, as to what we're doing, what we're doing here is wrong for our country's future. we need to develop the constellation. we need to get beyond low earth or by the and we need -- orbit and we need to explore like americans have been doing ever since our forefathers left their homes to come to this country. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from texas, the points he made and especially the pointed letter that came out and

illustrates how the overwhelming majority, all but one, of our retired astronaut corps feels very strongly that constellation was the right approach for this country to do and that we should continue on with that particular approach. i'd like to go back to a couple of points, i hope i'm not redundant but i think they're significant enough, even if we say them a second time it's important. i hope the gentleman from texas would stay here and try to fill in the blanks where i missed those, if we could. there was quick mention once again as we said on the jobs that we're talking about here. the vice president recently sent out a press release announcing that he was going on his summer tour to tout the summer of recovery. now, amongst the things the bullet points that they put in a that press release was that this administration would be proposing programs to build up to 30,000 miles of new roads, up to 2,000 new water programs, up to 80,000 homes that might be weatherized, 800 jobs here, some there, asking this country to

add a nongermane issue to the military supplemental, to try and protect government worker jobs. and i just find that so ironic, as was mentioned, that at the same time we are doing that, the policies of this administration with regard to nasa's contract jobs would take between 20,000 and 30,000 people who are part of the private sector, who are doing these jobs well, many of them being scientists and engineers, and they're basically giving them the pink slip. at the same time we talk about how we're trying to build jobs in some other way, it simply does not compute that that is the way we're doing. i readily admit some of these jobs that are threatened and have been lost are personal friends and neighbors of mine. one personal friend who was one of those -- i shared the picture with, general bolden, who was head of nasa, 26 years dealing with procurement issues at one of the companies, just in his

mid 50's, was just released simply because this is the policy of this particular administration. and i would love to be able to go to him and say, ray, the reason that your job is terminated was because the government decided to try and save money. the problem is, none of these jobs that are going to be eliminated save the government a dime. in fact, it is true that this administration is asking for a $6 billion increase in nasa budget, even though they're going to be stopping the space manned program and throwing up to 30,000 high-paid jobs, who have proven their worth for years and years, throwing them out. there are some people that said, well, the new programs would create new jobs within nasa, private sector relationship. yet the most they're talking about there is maybe up to 10,000 jobs, to be offset by the 30,000 we're losing. that's a three to one loss in

the process there. for a fraction of that $6 billion of new additional money, above and beyond what we're already spending, to be focused directly on consolation, we could continue this program to a successful conclusion. and once again, jobs i recognize are parochial, i'm part of that situation. but it seems ironic that in an era in which we're talking about jobs and job creation and more jobs and job creation and realizing that we're never going to get out of this economic doldrum that we are in until we actually do have jobs, we as a government are having a policy to try and throw out 30,000 workers who have proven their net, who have proven their worth and are moving this country forward. it just flat out does not make sense. >> if my colleague would yield, it absolutely doesn't make sense. and these aren't just some engineers who have been doing it for a passing amount of time. mr. olson: these are the best in the world as what they do.

-- at what they do. they've been the best for 50 years. having been a naval officer, one thing i can tell new government agencies like nasa, like the military, if you depend on your people to pass down their information to the young people coming up, the new generation, to take that information, take that knowledge and exploit it and develop even better vehicles, better space exploration, we're going to lose that. these people are going to walk out the door and take that expertise with them. if we try we want to rebuild that at some point into the future, we're not going to be able to do that. those people are going to be gone and we're going to have to start over from scratch and teach a new generation of americans to learn the lessons we learned from going to the moon and spending six months in orbit on a the space station, we've ruined those things. and i agree with you on the terms of the budget. this is the second largest cut in the entire budget. the constellation program. i mean, that is the largest cut. so you figure, ok, if we're

going to cut this money out of the budget, we're cutting the funding to the agency. no. as my colleague alluded to, we're giving $6 billion over a five-year period to develop global warming research, to transition to these commercial launch vehicles. and i think our priorities are just wrong here. is it wrong for certainly our work force, but wrong for america. one thing i'd like to mention, too, that's hard to put a dollar value on, the ability of human space flight to inspire youth to get those jobs, to become astronauts, and pursue the american dream. i mean, i can tell you as a kid who grew up about a mile and a half from the johnson space center, who's little league football coach was joe engel, the pilot of the second space shuttle, and just growing up in that environment, how much those men and women inspired us, my schoolmates, to want to be astronauts, to want to be part of that. and that still exists today.

i see it all around my district. the administration doesn't seem to realize all the implications of killing this budget. we're killing 30,000 jobs, the best in the world at what they do. we're going to cede u.s. dominance in human space flight, give up some national security possibly, and we're going to lose the ability to inspire youth. i also must ask, we don't -- add, we don't give nasa enough credit for all the things they develop here on earth. everybody here in this gallery has somehow benefited from nasa and their research up there. if you've got a cell phone, if you've got a satellite g.p.s., if you've got a pacemaker, some sort of medical devites, that comes from nasa. that research comes from nasa and we're going to throw that away with this budget. that's why we're working hard to stp it. i wish the administration would just sit down and talk with us because, mr. president, you have a voice, but you don't have the final word. the united states congress and the united states constitution has the final word word. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from texas, if i can

reclaim the time briefly. from changing from just the concept of jobs and indeed the future of space and especially putting the emphasis on the fact that what are we going to do to inspire people to go in science and mat and becoming the engineers of the people, if you home build one new plane for our military once every 40 years or if we're only doing one new adventure into space once every 30 years, that doesn't inspire somebody. in fact, one of the nasa's new goals is to encourage education into space. and i think as the gentleman from texas clearly cited, kids are not dumb and they're realizing, if you're at a whim firing 30,000 engineers and scientists that doesn't give you encouragement to move into that particular area. one of the issues especially is because constellation is the cutting edge of science. it was granted last year by "time" to magazine as one of the 50 best inventions in fact, it was the number one of the 50

best inventions of last year. and it shows that what we are doing is right. this is the right approach and this is the approach that is being threatened by the apoll -- policies of this administration and the current nasa leadership. space shuttle had a couple of very sad disasters. in the last one, there was a study made on how to avoid that in the future. and they said, the most important thing we can do, i think every astronaut understands this, which is why maybe so many of those signed that letter you read, is two goals, nasa will never be effective if, number one, the safety of our astronaut isn't the most primary and utmost position and, number two, you have a clear understandable and stated goal. what we are trying to accomplish. it is true that during the bush administration we decided to halt the space shuttle program. it had run its course. we have been able to be very successful in going to the space station and back. but there were some issues that

we needed to go beyond, simply spation shuttle. so the effort was made to try and put our best minds together and see where we could go into the few that you are meet those two goals. clear statement of purpose and safety. and the reality of that was constellation. this is the safety concept. this constellation program is designed to be safer than the space shuttle by a factor of 10. it was recognized that if you want to try and stop some of the catastrophes we've had today, you separate the cargo from the passengers. that's what owe ryan does. that process, allows a safety valve for the safety of the passengers, in this case the astronauts, that would be. and in addition we clearly realize that we needed to go with solid rocket propel ant. because it is much safer than liquid propelent. perhaps not as powerful but much more controllable and once again the concept of safety is

important. this is the future if you really care about astronauts. and the second one was the goal is very clear, the design was for a specific goal, the intent was for a specific goal. and i don't want to be disparaging to this administration, but the apparent goal of this administration with space flight is someday maybe perhaps at some time we might land on some asteroid somewhere. that's not a specific goal. that's not even a dream. that's not even a reality that we can deal with. that may be almost cartoonish in approach to deal with it. and unfortunately if we start scaling back, other countries are not. the russians are still involved, the chinese are stepping up their involvement in space exploration, as i said earlier, even the indian government and the japanese government have stated that they have a plan in mind to try and become involved in this concept. what becomes so bizarre is the united states, that won the

space race, is now forfeiting the space future to other countries. we had a plan between the actual startup of constellation, which is both the alias rocket and the orion space capsule and the end of the space shuttle in which the russians would have to do some of the taxi service for us. they would charge us between $30 million and $35 million per ride, that's a large amount of money. but however, our good friends in russia, after they left communism and found capitalism to their liking and they realized what a monopoly gives them the power to do, in the 2010 budget, nasa wants to budget $75 million per astronaut ride from -- for earth up to the space station and back. . now that's the kind of cost that's coming to the taxpayers of the united states but simply

subsidizing the russian space program, instead of building our own program is not what i call smart use of moving us into the future. in fact, we simply have said this summer of recovery should be the summer of the russian recovery, we will be subsidizing their space program t tune of $75 million every time we send an astronaut to keep their jobs going and that just does not make sense. mr. olson: my colleague yield? i want to get back to your point having some sort of focus. i'm a rice university graduate and we had president kennedy come to our school to make the famous speech where he said we're going to take the man to

the moon and return by the end of this decade. that was a clear goal. here's a goal and give you the resources to do it. when i go back to my district, one thing i hear from both the government employees and contractors at nasar what's our goal? what's our target? we are are going to go to mars by 2035 and take five years to develop a design and make development designn for heavy lift vehicles and going to build that five years from now that's not what makes nasa great. you give these people a goal. give them a time frame and give them the resources they need to do it, they will do it every time in our history, they have made some of the greatest technological advance mpts that mankind will ever know. this administration's budget priorities has nothing to do with that. the thing we have gotten into

with the russians now where we are going to depend on them to take our astronauts to and from the space station. you can say what you want about our former communist friends but they have figured out capitalism in a very short time. and we were paying -- just over $20 million per seat last year. that price has gone up up to a little over $50 million. we signed a contract until 2014 and it's doubtful with the administration's budget proposal that weville an american vehicle that can transport. we will have to renegotiate that contract and that will double again. this is a terrible position we have gotten ourselves into. we need the constellation, which is the program of record. been endorsed by a republican congress in 2005 and democrat congress in 2008. we need to develop constellation and stay the course and let our

engineers and our space experts and astronauts do what they do. mr. bishop: i appreciate that comment. and once again, the fact we're throwing different numbers about what it will cost to send americans up there, nasa doesn't know. that's why they are budgeting high. who knows if that is the actual number. russians realize, when they have a monopoly, they can charge what they want to charge. the administration is about to commercialize space. there is no such thing as privatizing or commercializing what we are doing in space. the constellation program is being built by private enterprise. there were contracts let by this government that were done on a competitive bid process and won by private sectors, by the private sector, by commercial

companies, which means when we cut constellation, we aren't cutting a government program, we're cutting 30,000 jobs in the private sector to build a contract that comes from here. what the president and nasa leaders were talking about when they say we are going to commercialize the future of space is not changing the philosophy of what we're doing, all they are doing is taking the contracts and fire those people and then we will give some of that extra nasa money to other companies in the private sector who are going to be iners in the -- winners on the value that this administration places on those particular companies. in fact, the companies that are talking about the so-called commercialization of space already are under contract with nasa. they are already being subsidized by nasa. they are already behind in their programs with nasa. and they are asking for more

federal dollars for nasa. so once again, i hear, well, this is an administration that wants to totally change the way we deal with space and want to try and commercialize everything. that's a cute word, but the reality is, you're simply having some people in the private sector who will lose their jobs so the administration can pick other people in the private sector to have jobs. and not necessarily on a one-to-one ratio. there is no such thing as commercialization of space or these programs. and we are not trying to come up with a free enterprise approach to the future of space. this is the government picking winners and losers amongst people out there in the private sector. 30,000 jobs are not government jobs but private sector jobs. mr. olson: my colleague makes a good point. commercial has a place in our future but they aren't ready to

do what this administration wants them to do. a long, long way to carry cargo to and from the space station. more importantly, astronauts, human beings, that is a much, much greater challenge than carriering cargo. when i talk to experts, they say a decade would be a good number for the commercial operators to have manmade vehicles. and they have a long way to go. and one thing i'm concerned about is safety. as you alluded to earlier, safety is para mount. we have done it at nasa. they have put safety of astronauts as the number one concern. and it is a very, very risky endeavor that they do and we have to make sure that safety is put first and that is one of my concerns. as my colleague alluded to,

economically, it's no different than what we are doing now. it concerns me we are going to have people people who don't understand the safety and because they get cargo to the station they can get crews to the station. wrong. they have to do so much more to carry a crew up and from the space station. you have to have redid you understand dancey to the backup system to make sure that anything happens to that vehicle from the time it pulls off the pad to the station that the crew has the ability to get home safely. and i'm concerned that this president's budget proposal doesn't take into account. mr. bishop: i'm glad we're talking about the fact that these are real people in the job market that we are going to be harming. i'm glad we are talking about the overall purpose of our spation exploration program and what it means. and i'm glad you ticked off a

bunch of areas. the fact that i could my kids shoes on with velcro was a major advantage. we have those examples. i'm glad we are talking about the fact that the constellation is the future and it is the best science that we have and the safest way of going forward and i'm glad we are talking about the fact that this entire idea that we are going to privatize our space program which has caught the focus of our colleagues that aren't deeply involved in the science committee as the gentleman from texas is, to realize that's not what we are talking about here. we are talking about government picking winners and losers to go on with programs that will be subsidized by the taxpayers. and in some respects, perhaps this is the right approach to do it. if i could take us into one other direction for a minute as well and perhaps this comes back

to one of my areas of interest because i'm on the armed services committee and one of the things that this particular administration failed to do when they announced their new program of cancelling constellation for whatever new goal they want to have is they failed to communicate with other members of the administration and with other policies and programs within government to see what the impact it would have in other government areas and once again, i'm specifically talking about our military defense system. as i said in the very beginning, we forget that the people who build rockets and have the component parts to put a man to the moon are the same people who build the component parts and build rockets that shoot down incoming missiles from other countries. if, indeed -- the industrial base that creates these jobs is not something you can turn on and off like a spigot. you can't decide they are going

to have these scientists and tomorrow, turn it off and next day we'll open it up and they'll be there again. what we are doing if we get rid of the constellation program, we are getting rid of our missile defense system at the same time. the house authorization bill has language that tries to quantify what this is, because to be honest as we started our hearings this year on authorization bills both for nasa as well as the defense department, we simply asked the question if constellation is taken out, what impact will it have on the military. and it was clear that the military had never been broached or talked about this or had not anticipated it. however, reports going over a year simply said there would be devastating circumstances and harmful consequences if constellation was stopped for the military side. now, in the language that will be presented in the house

authorization bill, it simply says that the best estimate we have right now is the cost of military defense on everything that deals with the missile, any kind of propulsion system is between 40% to 100% increase to the cost of the dens side of our nation if we stop constellation and fire those 30,000 workers who are part of that industrial base. that simply means that anything that needs a solid rocket motor, icbm, naval missile system, double the cost of what it will take to replace those motors and replace the work and keep the system functioning. any system that has propulsion and i hate to say that, but that's every missile we have, the cost will increase 40% to 100% simply because we are losing the expertise and industrial base, and indeed, those propulsion concepts have a fixed cost to them. so if you have to have propulsion in there, there is a

fixed cost. if you have less of that, the military will be picking up what is now being shared as far as the cost with nasa at the same time. our land-based missile system, kinetic energy system and our laser systems will have a negative impact simply because the industrial base that builds those missiles for our military is the same industrial base that builds missiles, the component parts, the labor, the propulsion systems for nasa. you hurt one, we will hurt the other. and that was a factor that was never considered by the administration or nasa when they came up with their quick decision to try and stop constellation for something else, some other policy in the future. defense of this country is the role of congress. it's a legitimate question. this administration should have asked those questions ahead of time before they announced the policy and should have understood the cost and a plan

to handle that cost. as it was, it snuck up on everybody, and now people are trying to play catchup and the best way is simply go with a winning program, which is constellation, conninue on with the goal that is safe and has a clear, concise goal, message to it. don't lose the jobs. don't lose the industrial base. don't increase the costs for our military and let us move forward in an organized, rational approach rather than this helter skelter idea that takes place at a particular time. mr. olson: one thing i was concerned about as my colleague knows the fact that this administration is making nasa a partisan issue in many ways. i'm not sure who proposed this budget or who put it together, but they did not -- it seems like a small group of individuals at the white house over at o.m.b. who made these decisions to have dramatic impacts for our nation. i don't think they talked to any

of the defense contractors, particularly the ones that develop the missiles for our strategic nuclear did he ter ants. . . i represent dejohnson space center. we asked, did you find out, pete, i found out about it when you did, i read the paper yesterday. that's another point. congress has the oversight. we're the power of the purse. i'm not aware of any outreach from the administration to any member of congress prior that decision being made. i'm a freshman here but i've been involved on the hill for a number of year, particularly in the military and the thing is when you were going to make a change in a program you went and talked to the chairman and ranking member of the committee

and gave them the courtesy of what were you -- of what you were planning to do the thing with the termination liability, the anti-deficiency act we think it's unprecedented, we're doing research to find out if it's ever been done in the past. what it basically does, nasa told the contractors, hold some money in reserve for termination liability, can't spend it on cooperate, you have to hold it. the money they're holding for september 30 is going to be dried you were sometime in the middle of august. the only solution is to lay off those people. again, i don't want to be skeptical but that gets the administration more of what they want. those people go, we have a hard time getting them back, the costs go up. we need to stop this we can't make nasa a partisan issue. it's been a bipartisan issue since the beginning.

every american is proud of space flight and proud of what we've done in orbit and on the moon. constellation is the best, most tried way so far to do it. there's no reason to get off that path. mr. bishop: reclaiming the time briefly here, once again, i appreciate you making those points because they are spot on accurate, congress has made its voice very clear last year when we specifically told nasa, constellation is our program of record and you will not cut funding to nasa -- or to constellation. it is very clear that congress has never changed that position. nor do i -- well, this is speculation, nor do i think we would, given our own choice of what to do. but as the gentleman illustrated, there are things that nasa is doing right now that appear, they appear, clearly to try and force the issue so that by the time congress goes through its process of coming up with a budget and appropriations process and language directing

what the bureaucracies will do, in this case nasa, that this will be a fait accompli. the idea of withholding derivatives was not withholding their contracts, but it had the same effect. reassigning the constellation manager had a specific effect and telling company they was to hold out closing costs which has never been done in nasa before, in fact there is only one time where congress did tell them in some way, shape, or form they needed to close a program but that's when congress told them to close a program down, not when they tried to close it down before congress has a chance to react to it. what that would do is force home to fire people now so the industrial base is gone before anything takes place. that's a strange approach for any kind of executive branch of government to do when the legislative branch has yet to give them any clear direction that that's what we want to do

or have spoken. everything we have said so far is the exact contrary to that. i appreciate that. if i could just put one last thing, then i'll yield to the gentleman from texas. the government put out the national space policy of the united states today. it's an interesting document. it says we should have a robust and competitive commercial space sector which is good. but i promise if you take all the jobs away from those doing constellation, there will not be a robust or competitive space program. they say we should strengthen u.s. leadership in space-related science. we have said over and over again if you cease constellation, you are ceding leadership in space-related science. they say we should retain skilled space professionals. what is happening today is the exact opposite of this effort or this directive. they say we should invigorate, reinvigorate u.s. leadership,

you don't reinvigorate something if you destroy the program, the program of record to move us toward the leadership position. i find this document unusual. i haven't had the chance to read everything in it but certain things come glaring out in the front, in the process of skimming through it, saying what we are doing is not necessarily what our words are. if our words here were indeed what our policy is, i'd be very happy and content. but what i see happening is not what this policy statement says we should be doing. sometimes i wonder if we really do understand what we are doing in space, and we need to recognize the significance of it, the importance of it and the importance it has in other aspects of the government and to our citizens and to the future, to inspiring kids. i yield back. mr. olson: i'm just very scared that this administration is turning nasa into a partisan

political football and it's never been that way. i want to read another quote, this is put together by walt cunningham, one of our first return to flight astronauts after the apollo disaster, he flew in the next apollo mission. he's been adamant, he's been clear about how he feel this is change this radical budget will face our human space flight future. let me read the three paragraphs i think are most important. walt and about 30 other astronauts signed this later -- signed this letter. too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve america's pre-eminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. we urge you to demonstrate the vision and the termination -- and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through.

this is not a time to abandon the promise of space frontier for a lack of will or unwillingtons pay the price. yet that's exactly what this budget proposal does. and i'm very scared that this has become a partisan issue that doesn't serve america well, doesn't serve our future well. as my colleague alluded to, republican congress endorsed the constellation, democrat congress endorsed the constellation you hear people out there say, this is george bush's plan. yes, it was his plan but it's been endorsed by, again, a republican congress and a democrat congress. it's not bush's plan. it's america's plan. and we need to see it through. mr. bishop: if i could just reclaim for one particular second right here, once again, i appreciate you bringing that point out. i think the pushback or outrage in congress has been a bipartisan pushback and outrage. republicans and democrats alike have said the approach the

administration is taking is not necessarily the right approach because indeed, constellation is a safer, better system than space shuttle. it is the new way forward. it shows what is the best and the brightest that this country has to offer. it is something that makes us good and makes us noble. it is the direction we should go to the future. for us to back off now, for some program that is not clear is not understandable, has no discernable goals, it's just not the way a country moves forward. it's the way the a country moves backwards. this country should not be moving backwards. i appreciate the gentleman from texas' leadership on this issue, everything he's been doing in organizing our review, our report, some of our complaints, too, as we try to say what we need to do is that which moves us forward and ennobles us as a people. constellation does that. a mission emphasizing safety for astronauts does that.

what nasa is asking us to do right now does not meet those goals. i yield back for any concluding statements the gentleman has. mr. olson: you're very aware of the very successful launch test we had, i believe it was late april or early may. good chance you can get a "time" magazine from this upcoming year and that's going to be on the cover of that magazine. it was a flawless, flawless test. the rocket got off the pad so quickly at white sands that the cameras that are there to track rocket, they're there to track all rockets, couldn't keep up with it because it was moving so darn fast. that's the program of record. and i'll just conclude by saying what i tell people across the country. the president and administration have a voice in this process but they don't have the final word. the united states congress has the final word. i'm confident that we're going to, at the end of the day,

constellation is still going to be the program of record. i thank my colleague and yield back my time. mr. bishop: thank you. mr. speaker, i appreciate your time and efforts, we neeled back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoifl january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to enter extraneous remark into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: i appreciate the opportunity to anchor this special order hour on wall street reform for think congressional black caucus. currently the congressional black caucus, the c.b.c., is chaired by the honorable barbara lee of the ninth congressional district of california. i now yield to our chair, the

honorable barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank congresswoman fudge for being on the mark in terms of the special order tonight. she's taken the leadership on behalf of the congressional black caucus to bring the message of the congressional black caucus to the country. tonight, congresswoman fudge will be talking about the urgent need to enact regulatory reform of america's financial markets. i know your district is going to benefit from this. often times we forget that regulatory reform has a direct impact on the huge foreclosure crisis that i know your district is facing. thank you for your leadership. let me thank all members who are on that financial services committee for such a major effort to take this important step in protecting americans from another financial crisis. while many provisions in the bill could be much stronger, i

believe that h.r. 4713 is a critical step forward in bringing reasonable regulation and oversight back to an out-of-control financial services sector. i was on the banking committee in much of the deregulation process and could not support it then, and unfortunately, when those of us on the committee saw happening and said would happen has happened. but now, this important legislation will finally make our banks and financial services institutions much more transparent, put consumer rights before corporate profits and allow shareholders more of a say on skyrocketing c.e.o. pay packages. while i would have preferred a stand-alone consumer protection agency, this will create an independent agency that puts consumers first. i'm pleased more emphasis on c.e.o. pay is included. while i might have preferred

some reasonable constraints like my bill that would limited tax deducksability of executive pay, allowing shareholders to have a say on pay is a good step forward. i remain concerned that rules on risky derivatives trading and proprietary tradings by our biggest banks may not be strong enough to prevent continued risk to our markets and taxpayers, i hoped more could be done tone sure that banks paa for their failures. i know we must pass these reforms and pass them now. i hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us to protect shareholders and the open and honest functioning of the markets that are so important to our continued prosperity. i hope we all understand how ridiculous it is to claim the markets can regulate themselves and that we cannagree that the government has a critical role

in ensuring our financial services sector functions fairly, with transparency and allows equal opportunity for all americans. i look forward to working with regulators as they begin to implement these new rules for investors and consumers and i hope we work together to make sure we are never again held hostage to out-of-control greed on wall street and regulators who really were asleep at the switch. thank you again, thank you congresswoman fudge for your leadership. ms. fudge: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to continue to express my support for our chair, she is strong and courageous and keeps us on task and i appreciate her hard work and leadership not only for the congressional black caucus but for our caucus in general. thank you very much, madam chair. . tonight we will focus on the needs for this wall street reform that americans have been waiting for.

americans have faced the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions have lost their jobs, businesses have failed, housing prices have dropped and savings have been wiped out. a year and a half after the banking system nearly imploded, it is still operating under the inadequate rules and regulations. the failure that led to this crisis require bold action. we must restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give americans confidence and the protections they need. we must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and to create jobs. this is why congress is set to vote this week on the wall street reform and consumer protection act. despite vigorous lobbying from the banks, this bill protects

the american people and the financial systems from abuses that nearly caused the entire system to collapse. this bill contains commonsense reforms that hold wall street and big banks accountable. it will end bailouts by ensuring taxpayers are never again on the hook for wall street's risky divisions. it will protect families' retirement funds, college savings, homes and businesses' financial futures from unnecessary risks by c.e.o., lenders and speculators and protect consumers from predatory lending abuses, from the fine print and industry gimmicks and inject transparency and accountability into a financial system that has run amuck. wall street reform is good for our country, because it is a critical step to create jobs and grow the economy.

years without accountability from wall street and the big banks have cost us eight million jobs. having a healthy financial system will help spur lending to businesses which will grow our economy. as we rebuild our economy the new commonsense from this rule will ensure that big banks and wall street can't play games again with our futures. americans want fairness, mr. speaker. they feel openly and honestly with their banks and they want their banks to treat them like the good customers they are. there was a meltdown for eight years, mr. speaker, under the previous administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle looked the other way as wall street exploited loopholes. americans had no clue that

barons were gambling their money away on complex schemes and being rewarded for failure and recklessness. american families and small businesses pay the price. we lost eight million jobs and $17 trillion in retirement savings and americans' net worth in this meltdown. it was the worst financial crisis since the great depression. there are tough choices. this congress and our president, president obama, has made tough choices and taken effective steps to bring our economy back from the brink of disaster. the recovery act has already saved or created up to 2.8 million jobs and much of the tarp has already been repaid, but more must be done. the next step is the wall street reform. it is a critical step to create jobs and grow the economy.

as we rebuild our economy, we must establish commonsense rules to ensure big banks and wall street can't play russian roulette again with our futures. wall street may be bouncing back but we know from experience they aren't going to police themselves. let me talk about what is in this legislation. this bill protects hard-working americans from the worst abuses in the financial industry. i would like to share with you just some of the consumer protections that are included in this bill. there is protection for families and small businesses by ensuring that bank loans, mortgages and credit card terms and disclosures are fair and understandable. transparency in the industry will be overseen by the new consumer financial protection agency.

credit card companies will no longer be able to mislead you with pages and pages of fine print. you will no longer be subject to hidden fees and penalties or the predatory practices of unscrupe pew louis lenders. this bill will make lending agreements easier to understand and protect small borrowers. it ends predatory lending practices that occurred during the subprime lending frenzy that this country experienced. the administration outlaws many of the egregious lending practices that led to the subprime lending boom. it ensures that they make loans that benefit the consumer and establish a simple standard for all home loans. institutions must review proof of income to ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold. this legislation will force

mortgage companies to play by the rules. you'll be empowered with easy to understand forms. and you'll have clear and concise information to make financial decisions that are best for you and your family. financial forms -- firms will no longer be able to engage in behavior that is so risky and irresponsible that it threatens to bring down the entire economy. this bill replaces taxpayer bailouts with new procedures to unwind failing companies that pose the greatest risk. this winddown process will be paid for by the financial industry and not by taxpayers. it produces tough new rules on the riskiest financial practices that gambled with your money and called for -- caused the financial crash like the credit default swaps that devastated

a.i.g. and commonsense regulation of derivatives and other complex financial products offered to consumers. it provides tough enforcement and oversight with more enforcement power and funding for the securities and exchange commission. including the registration of hedge funds and private equity funds. it provides enhanced oversight and transparency for credit rating agencies whose seal of approval gave way to excessively risky practices that led to a financial collapse. it protects investors. it strengthens the s.e.c..s powers so it can better protect investors and regulate the nation's securities markets. reining egregious executive compensation, allowing a say on pay for shareholders, requiring

independent directors on compensation committees and limiting bank executive risky pay, those practices that have jeopardized the safety and soundness of banks. as a member of the c.b.c., one important part of the bill i would like to highlight is the new offices of minority and women inclusion. at federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, the bill establishes an office of minority and women inclusion that will, among other things, address employment and diversity contracting opportunities with the federal government. the offices will coordinate technical assistance to minority-owned and women-owned businesses and seek differsity in the regulatory work force. by actively engaging minorities and women, the nation's

financial system will become stronger. mr. speaker, nearly two years after our nation's financial system stood on the verge of collapse, congress is working hard to protect american consumers and to grow our economy. the wall street reform and consumer protection act will accomplish both goals. this sweeping new legislation will modernize america's financial rules in response to the worst economic crisis since the great depression. once signed into law, these tough new regulations will hold wall street accountable. it will end taxpayer-funded bailouts and protect americans from unscrupulous big banks and credit card companies. wall street reform is a win for the american people. this is about making the system fair and accountable.

the financial crisis that unfolded in 2008 should never have happened. but since it did, this congress has been working hard to develop legislation that will prevent a future crisis. i support the wall street reform and consumer protection act because it includes commonsense reform that holds wall street and the big banks accountable, but most of all, mr. speaker, this bill supports the american people. let's give americans what they deserve, fairness in the financial system. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. fudge: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

>> the house is always live on c-span. off the floor, the supreme court confirmations started today, with questioning set for tomorrow. we spoke to a reporter to learn more. >> eric zimmermann with "the hill newspaper." >> it was a lot of what we expected to hear.

there were not a lot of surprises. we did not see a lot that we were not expecting. it might be different tomorrow. >> elena kagan got the last word in her remarks. anything new there? >> she tried to turn the question of her experience on the other side and suggested it taught her the importance of the branches of the government, to put a check on the judicial branch. she tried to make the exact opposite point from her political experience. >> you mentioned the questions and answers tomorrow. what are the key things we should look for? >> you will see republicans pressed her on issues of abortion and gun rights, which are the most hot-button issues she worked on in the clinton

white house. you will likely see her respond that she was answering the questions that her boss, president clinton, wanted her to answer. democrats will praise her work as a legal scholar and the solicitor general. >> what else can we expect from the hearing this week? >> you have questions and answers going on for a few days. it should be pretty clear how things stand. republicans will try to poke holes at her nomination as much as possible, but there is not hope that there can -- that they can be real for confirmation. the hearings will last the rest of the week and then the

democrats will press for a vote. >> what is the timetable for getting this to the senate and getting a full foot? >> a good question. they want to move before the supreme court's term starts in october. they had a full platter of financial relations. it is up in the air now when this vote will happen. a lot will depend on how smoothly the committee hearings are and how many points the republicans feel like they have scored. >> a look ahead to the rest of the hearings this week in the judiciary committee. eric zimmermann. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> you can follow the coverage of the confirmation hearing tomorrow morning at monocot ern on c-span3.

in 35 minutes, elena kagan's opening statement. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. welcome.

, we have discussed this. and we are going to recognize senators in order of seniority going the usual back and forth. senator sessions and i will each give an opening statement and take turns back and forth. i urge senators to stay in fact we are going to have to stay for the ten minutes to simply keep on schedule. of course ms. kagan, welcome to our committee room. there are somewhat more people here than usual. one of the things that had changed slightly this week is the death of senator byrd. all of us i believe it is safe to say both republicans and democratic senators are saddened by his death. no senator came to care more about the constitution and

defender of our constitutional government than the senator fro% west virginia. in many ways he was the keeper of the senate flame and defender of the constitution's prerogatives. i don't know how many times we saw senator byrd hold up the copy of the constitution. the difference was, he could put it back in his pocket and recite it ververbatim, the whole constitution. i know him as a mentor and a friend. he served for a time on this committee. i was honored to sit near him on the senate floor and engage in many a discussion of the senate rules or about our families, it was a privilege to stand with

him against the constitution. in what the two of us felt was an un-necessary and costly war in iraq. he learned he had much to teach us all. senator biyrd was an extraordinary man who loved his family and drew strength from his faith and took to heart his xhi commitment to defend the constitution. now on the issue before us today, there have been 111 justices on the supreme court of the united states. only three have been women. if she is confirmed, solicitor general kagan will bring the

supreme court to a historical high water mark. elena kagan earned her place at the top of the legal profession. her qualitycatifications are untouchable. as a student she accelled. she was a law clerk to justice marshal. and i appreciate seeing justtce marshal's son in the audience here today. she worked in private prac and taught law to the nation's most respected law schools. she counseled president clinton on a wide variety of issues. sometimes referred to as the 10th justice. i believe we are a better country because of the path that

elena kagan has taken in her career. chief justice marshal wrote, our constitution is intended to endure for ages and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. subsequently, our constitution has withstood the test of time. our founders were to establish the constitution firm enough toto en s onshrine free dem adom and the ru free gdom and the rule of law. it took more than four score years of the civil war to claim the lives of hundreds and

thousands to win then slavement the e the enslavement of african-americans. the country in our democracy we're stronger for it. the job is not complete. it was half way through the hast century that racial discrimination was dealt a blow by the supreme court in the modern landmark case of brown versus the board of education. congress passed the act of 64 and 65. our path to a more perfect union was included also in dluded the rejection of 75 years ago of

conservative judicial activism by the supreme court and our establishing a social safety net for all americans. beginning with outlawing child labor and guaranteeing minimum wage through social security congress ensured that growing old no longer means growing poor. and it no longer means being without medical care. the progress continues today and we are better for it. of the 100 members of the senate, stand here in the shoes of more than 300 million americans as we challenge our duty with respect to this nomination. the supreme court exists for all americans. only one person gets to nominate somebody for the court, only 100 americans get to vote on whether

that person should be on the court or not. it is an awesome responsibility. and i urge the nominee to engage with this committee with the american people in a constitutional conversation about the role of the courts and our constitution. when we discuss the constitution's commerce clause, we are talking about congressional authority to pass laws to ensure protection to protect communities. to encourage clean air and water and provide wealth care to americans to protect equal rights for safe workplaces and to provide a safety net for all seniors. i reject the litmus tests from either othe right or left that

some would apply to supreme court nominees. i expect judges to consider the consequences of their decisions. to use common sense with the law. in my view a supreme court justice needs to exercise judgement and appreciate the proper role of the courts. should consider the consequences of the decisions on the fundamental purposes of the law and the lives of americans. i will urge solicitor general kagan publically what i have urged her privately. to share with us and the american people her judicial philosophy and also to assure us of other independence from either the right of left. i believe the fair minded people will find her philosophy well

within the legal main stream. i welcome questions but urge sen sto to senators on both sides to be fair. no one should presume that this intelligent woman has excelled during every part of her distinguished career lacks independence. it is essential that we understand that as judges, they are not members of any administration. the courts are not part of any political party or interest groups and our judges should not be partisans. that is why the supreme court's intervention in the 2000 presidential eliection in bush versus gore was so jarring and why it shook in many people's

minds the credibility of the court. five conservative justices rejected the court's own precedent, and the bipartisan law enacted by congress. rejected 100 years of legal development in order to open the door for massive corporate spending. the american people live in a real world of great challenges. the supreme court needs to function in that real world within the constraints of our constitution. in my own state of vermont the 14th state of the june yunion d vote to join the union until the bill of rights was ratified. we are cautious in vermont. we understand the importance that the amendments have had in

expanding individual liberties have had over the past 20 years. it should be the kind of independent justice who keep faith with these principles and keep faith with the words that are enscribed over the front doors to the supreme court. "equal justice under law". i'll put the rest of my statement in the record. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to join you in recognizing the special moment of the loss of senator byrd who is such an institution here. he believed they were two great senates, the roman and american he wanted ours to be the greatest ever. and i remember one day he gave a speech on friday morning in which he complained about the text books and the failure to stin distinguish between a republic

and a democracy. he called them touchy feely twaddle but he loved the constitution and loved our country and loved clarity of thought and we will certainly miss him. miss kagan, let me welcome you here today. this nomination is certainly a proud day for you and your family and friends and rightfully so. i enjoyed very much our meeting a few weeks ago and appreciated the chance to talk with you then. mr. chairman, thank you for your work on this nomination. republicans are committeed to conducting this hearing in a respectful manner. serious questions will be asked, miss kagan will be given ample opportunity to respond. she certainly has numerous talents and good qualities but

there are concerns about this nomination. she has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years. it is not just that the nominee has not been a judge. she has barely practiced law and not with the intensity and duration from which i think real legal understanding occurs. miss kagan has never tried a case before the jury. while academia has value there is no substitute i think for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years and what the record does reveal is a more extensive background mixed with law. her college thesetithesis affir activists tendencies of the court but complained that they could have done a better job of

justifies their act varieivism. she took leave from teaching at law school to work for this committee. under then chairman joe biden to help secure the nomination of ruth bader-ginsberg. and now one of the most active members of the supreme court. i know you will join with me in expressing our sympathy to justice ginsberg on the loss of her husband. work i working in the clinton white house, doing as she described it, mostly policy work. policy is quite difference than intense legal work. for example, in the office of legal council or some of the divisions in the department of justice. during her white house years the

nominee was the central figure in the clinton-gore effort to restrict gun rights and as a dramatic 5-4 decision today in the mcdonald case shows the personal right of every american who own a gun hangs by a single vote on the supreme court. miss kagan was also the point person for the clinton administration's effort to bl k block -- abortions. perhaps she was the key person who convinced president obama to cha who convinced president clinton to change his mind on that precedure.clinton to change his mind on that precedure. her actions punished the military and defeened our soldiers as they fought in two

wars over seas. as someone who feels the burden of sending young men and women into harm's way, to ensure military resucruiters were tread fairly, i can't take this issue lightly. dean kagan also joined with three over law school deans to write a letter in opposition to senator graham's legislation for determining who was an enemy combatant for the war on terror. she most recently, the nominee served as solicitor general for little over a year. but her shortenure there has not been without controversy. in her first appellate argument, miss kagan told the court that

the first amendment would allow the federal government of banniban banning pam plephlets -- thomas pain's common sense. to suggest that the government now has the power to spuppress that kind of speech is breath taking. miss kagan approved a filing of a brief to the supreme court asking that it strike down the provisions of the arizona act which limits companies from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. she did this after the 9th circuit had up held the law. this is an important legal issue which the court will resolve during the next term. despite comments to the committee that she would

vigorousry ly defend the don't don't tell policy if challenged in court, the action she has taken as solicitor general to place that law in jeopardy. throughout her career she has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge's preferred social policies. and agendas. she clerked for justice marshall, at least well-known activists and she has called israeli judge who has been described as the most activist judge in the world as her hero. these judges really don't deny their activist ideas, they advocate it. and they openly criticize the idea that a judge is merely that

neutral umpire. this record tells us much about the nominee. in many respects, ms. kagan's career has been consumed more by politics than law. and this does worry many americans. in the wake of one of the largest expansions of government power in history, many americans are worried about washington's disregard for limits on its power. americans know that our exceptional constitution was written to ensure our federal government is one of limited, separated powers and part of a federal state system with individual rights referred to our free people. but we've watched as the president and congress have purchased ownership shares in banks, nationalized car companies, seized control of the student loan industry, taken over large sectors of our nation's health care system, and burdened generations of americans with crippling debt.

so this all sounds a lot like the progressive philosophy which became fashionable among elite intellectuals a century ago and which is now seeing a revival. they saw the constitution as an outdated impediment to their expansive vision to a new social and political order in america. even today president obama advocates a judicial philosophy that calls on judges to base their decisions on empathy and their broader vision of what america should be. he suggests that his nominee shares those views. our legal system does not allow such an approach. americans want a judge that will be a check on government overreach not a rubber stamp. no individual nominated by a president of either party should be confirmed as a judge if he or she does not understand that the

judge's role is to fairly settle disputes of law and not set policy for the nation. broad affirmations of fidelity to law during these hearings will not settle the question. one's record also speaks loudly. it's easy to pledge fidelity to law when you believe you can change its meaning later if you become a judge. ms. kagan has called previous confirmation hearings vapid and hollow. some probably have been. and hazarded that nominees for a lifetime position owe a greater nominees who answer questions here to follow through when they are on the court. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratuations. i think it will be a good couple of days. i hope you somewhat enjoy it. and i think you will. like everyone else, i would like

to acknowledge the passion of senator byrd, who was a worthy ally and a very good opponent when it came to the senate. my association with senator byrd during the gang of 14, i learned a lot about the constitution from him and as all of our colleagues remember, just a few years ago, we had a real -- real conflict in the senate about filibustering judicial nominees and senator byrd and a few other senators who came up with the extraordiiary circumstances test that would say that filibusters should only be used in extraordinary circumstances because elections have consequences and senator byrd was one of the chief authors of the language, defining what an extraordinary circumstance was. i just want to acknowledge in his passing is going to be as will to the senate. and the thing that we all need to remember about senator byrd is that all of us are choosing to judge him by his complete career. and history will judge him by his complete career, not one moment in time and that's probably a good example for all

of us to follow when it comes to each other and to nominees. now, you are the best example i can think of why hearings shold be probative and meaningful. you come with no judicial record, but you're not the first person to come before the committee without having been a judge. but it does, i think, require and you to provide us a little insight as to what kind of judge you would be. very little private practice. one year as solicitor general and a lot of my colleagues on this side have talked about some of the positions you've taken that i think are a bit disturbing, b i'd like to acknowledge some of the things you have done as solicitor general that i thought were very good. you opposed applng beas rights to baghram detainees. you supported the idea that a terror suspect could be charged with material support of terrorism under the statute and that was consistent with the law of wars history. so, there are things you have done as solicitor general that i think will merit praise and i will certainly, from my point of

view, give you a chance to discuss those. as dean of harvard law school, did you two things you can hired some conservatives, which is a good thing and you opposed military recruitment, which i thought was inappropriate but we will have a discussion about what all that really does mean t is a good example of what you bring to this hearing, a little of this and a little of that now what do we know? we know you are very smart. off strong academic background. you got bipartisan support. the letter from miguel estrada is a humbling letter and i'm sure it will be mentioned throughout the hearing, but it says a lot about him. it says a lot about you that he would write that letter. ken starr and ted olson have suggested to the committee that you are a qualified nominee. there's no to doubt in my mind that you are a liberal person. that applies to most of the people on the other side. and i respect them and i respect you. i'm a conservative person. and you would expect a conservative president to nominate a conservative person

o did not work in the clinton administration. so the fact that you've embraced liberal causes and you have grown up in a liberal household is something we need to talk about, but that's just america. it's okay to be liberal, it's okay to be conservative, but when it comes time to be a judge, you got to make sure you understand the limits that position places on any agenda, liberal or conservative. your judicial hero is an interesting guy. you're going to have a lot of explaining to do to me about why you picked judge barack as your hero because when i read his writings, a bit disturbing about his view of what a judge is supposed to do for society as a whole, but i'm sure vul good answers and i will look forward to that discussion. on the war on terror, you could in my view, if confmed, provide the courtith some real-world experience about what this country's facing. about how the law needs to be

travel theed a drafted and crafted in such a way to recognize fighting crime and fighting war. so you, in my view, have a potential teaching opportunity, even though you have never been a judge, because you have represented this country as solicitor general at a time of war. the one thing i can say without certainty is i don't expect your nomination to change the billion of power. aft this hearing's over, i hope american -- the american people will understand that elections do matter. what did i expect from president obama? just about what i'm getting. and there are a lot of people who are surprised. well, you shouldn't have been, if you were listening. so, i look forward to trying to better understand how you will be able to take political activism, association with liberal causes and park it when it becomes time to be a judge. that, to me, is your challenge. i think most people would consider you