sportswriter and author john feinstein joins us from augusta now.e's the author of several golf books, including the upcoming "moment of glory." john, welcome. >> thanks, jim, good to be with you. >> lehrer: does today's event justify all the attention it received today ? >> jim, i'm not sure anything justifies the attention that tiger woods has received in the last couple of months. but certainly the day itself has been spectacular in every possible way. tiger woods is playing very good golf. he's four under par, still finishing his round. a couple of shots behind the leader fred couples right now. tom watson, who's one of the great players of all time, is only one shot out of the lead. but you would think... there are 96 players this this field jim but you would think there was just one player in this field. >> lehrer: what was the affect of tiger woods' absence on golf up until today? >> well, very simply, jim, everything in golf doubles when tiger woods is involved. quite literally. television ratings double. corporate involvement doubles. overa

senator feinstein? >> general, i think your last statement was very important. the degree to which this dialogue has escalated is really very unhealthy. democrats did not do to president bush falling 9/11 what is being done to this president with respect to their decision- making. i really regret it is. i really find it reprehensible. i believe the best interests of the people of this nation are served by the administration, you mr. arkansas attorney general, and the president have the maximum flexibility -- you, mr. attorney general, having maximum flexibility as to which then you in which these defendants should be tried. or some 18 years on this committee for over 17 years and i have never seen anything quite like this. their record is ignored. it doesn't matter that the bush administration 200 terrorist justice and under article 3 courts. it doesn't matter the military commissions which have been fraught with controversy have convicted three, two of whom are out. it doesn't matter that isasi plug guilty. there was a threat. that was a real threat to the city

my committee is aware of the federal support trials and let me simply ago with senator feinstein said so well on the continued strength on your courageous actions in this regard. i d the issue and i would ask that it be placed in the record so i have time to discuss other topics. let me also take a moment to compliment you and the assistant general for christine varney. under your and her leadership the antitrust division of the department has made it clear after many years of neglect and enforcement of antitrust law as a priority for the department and i am especially grateful for the department is focus on agriculture issues and partnership with the usda and i was pleased to hear the department will be holding a workshop in wisconsin. it means a great deal to the producers and others in the state of wisconsin senator kohl asked to about the cops program. as you know, strongly support that pergamon and other federal law enforcement assistance grant programs. i hear repeatedly from the law enforcement of wisconsin just how important a grant programs are particularly during tough econo

let me try to read and write what senator feinstein and feingold have added.n't believe that a system of justice should be driven by fear and anger. and that appears to be a driving force among some political camps in this country. if we're going to be strong as a nation we won't be quivering in fear and reacting irrationally in anger. we're going to stand by the rule of law and semi-principles that have guided us for a long time, and i thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator graham? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general, for coming. this is been a very good discussion about some difficult issues, but one thing i would like to read and write is that president obama said the nation was at war with al qaeda. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> i would just urge you to remain strong in that thought process. because some people don't believe we are at war. some people are just as patriotic as i am, but they believe we should be using the law enforcement model exclusively. and i think that is a formula for disaster,

we had senator kyl and senator feinstein come to geneva last year as observers. there was a sense of bilateral legislative interest in what was going on. this is an important effort. we have not ratified anything like this in a while. we are very anxious to engage the senate and get their advice and consent for ratification. >> in october 2008, secretary gates said, "there's no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either testing or pursuing a modernization program." this report says there will be no new testing. what has changed? why is it ok not to test now? can we maintain it without testing? >> i always agree with the boss. the context here is that for the foreseeable future, there are numerous people in the government that certify every year the stockpile is safe and secure, and there's no requirement for additional testing. we continue to certify that. we do not know what five years from now will bring. there's always the potential. nobody has ever removed from the commander or anyone else in that

my committee is aware of the federal support trials and let me simply ago with senator feinstein said so well on the continued strength on your courageous actions in this regard. i had a statement that discusses the issue and i would ask that it be placed in the record so i have time to discuss other topics. let me also take a moment to compliment you and the assistant general for christine varney. under your and her leadership the antitrust division of the department has made it clear after many years of neglect and enforcement of antitrust law as a priority for the department and i am especially grateful for the department is focus on agriculture issues and partnership with the usda and i was pleased to hear the department will be holding a workshop in wisconsin. it means a great deal to the producers and others in the state of wisconsin senator kohl asked to about the cops program. as you know, strongly support that pergamon and other federal law enforcement assistance grant programs. i hear repeatedly from the law enforcement of wisconsin just how important a grant programs are pa

then chairman senator harkin and i were to cross party lines with senators know, feinstein, 11 and can well to ensure that an electronic trading facilities offering contracts that perform significant price discovery function are properly regulated in transparent way. a earlier this week the cftc used the authority natural gas contracts to increase oversight. with an that's an example of how was written with bipartisan agreements yield of real results. derivatives legislation should have been handled this way. should have come out of the agriculture committee as bipartisan. my staff and chairman lincoln staff spent five months crafting bipartisan derivatives bill that should have been reported from the committee with support from both sides. unfortunately things fell apart just as we were about to circulate agreed upon discussion draft. this discussion draft that would have required clearing of swaps by swaps dealers and others to contribute to systemic risk. it would have provided the sec and cftc with authority to establish capital and margin requirements. would have allowed the c

along with senator feinstein ran out on this committee, we're the only two that are not. and i understand in one instance you are discussing the commerce clause. and in another, you're commenting on the 14th amendment. but it seems to me that the one case in which the american people should have a say in the constitution through the democratic process and in another, they should not. this distinction based on these two episodes would appear based on what you personally think which right is important or is that issue. can you please explain why a court should consider the milk -- the will of the majority as expressed through the legislative process one restricting gun rights, but not upholding the law protecting traditional marriage? >> thank you for the question and i am pleased to address it. if i could clarify,v the passags you read about proposition 8, i actually testified before the california assembly and senate judiciary committees in october implications of proposition 8, in particular the anticipated state constitutional challenge to the process by which that amen

we actually had senator kyl and senator feinstein come to geneva late last year as observers. then the duma brought some people to observe, so there was a sense of bilateral legislative interest in what is going on. and this is important, a new effort, because we have not ratified anything like this in a while. but i think that certainly we're very anxious to engage the senate and get their advice and consent for ratification. >> in a 2008 speech, secretary gates said that there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrence and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either -- without either testing or resorting to testing our stockpile are pursuing a modernization program. so the report says there will be no new testing. what's changed here? why is it ok not to test now? and can we maintain an effective deterrent now without testing? >> i always agree with my boss, but the context here is one that for the foreseeable future there are numerous people in the government that every year certify that the stockpile is in fact saved. and we continue to cer

along with senator feinstein ran out on this committee, we're the only two that are not. and i understand in one instance you are discussing the commerce clause. and in another, you're commenting on the 14th amendment. but it seems to me that the one case in which the american people should have a say in the constitution through the democratic process and in another, they should not. this distinction based on these two episodes would appear based on what you personally think which right is important or is that issue. can you please explain why a court should consider the milk -- the will of the majority as expressed through the legislative processo clarify,v s you read about proposition 8, i actually testified before the california assembly and senate judiciary committees in october implications of proposition 8, in particular the anticipated state constitutional challenge to the process by which that amendment to the state constitution was adopted. the testimony i gave was very clear, senator, that i believe that proposition 8 should be upheld. , not struck down. but --

feinstein: thank you very much. mr. president, earlier today my staff brought to me an tosh to my attention -- to my attention an article that had just come out on reuters, and i read it d felt an outrage. today an investigative story published by reuters details how wellpoint, a medical insurance industry, the nation's largest insurance company, with 33.7 million policyholders, used a special computer program to systematically identify women with breast cancer and target their health policies for termination. in other words, an effort to specifically target women with breast cancer and then drop their health insurance. i'd like to ask every american to read this jaw-dropping story. instead of providing the health care for which these seriously ill women had paid, wellpoint subjected these paying customers to investigations that ended with wellpoint's administrative bureaucrats canceling their insurance policies at their time of greatest need. under attack by both cancer and wellpoint, these women were left ailing, disa

. >> i think senator feinstein said it well the other day.aid she believed the president should nominate somebody that would get a very strong vote, 70-plus votes, bipartisan, that they were approving and confident and professional. that's the kind of nominee i hope that he nominates and that we can support. i would like to be able to support this nominee. but if we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy that judges know best, that they c a constitution, we're going to have a problem because the american people don't want it. >> senator, the constitution says that 51 senators can confirm. it doesn't require 60 senators. i don't believe there's going to be any type of filibuster. there's going to be 100 some odd filibusters. that's a lace zee person's way out. the american people pay us and like to election us yes and no. every time you have a filibuster, that's irresponsible. >> stevens just made the announcement on friday but surely the president had some replacement in mind. surely he does. he didn't know exactly what was going to happe

i think it's important to consider the kind of practical consequences senator feinstein speaks of.if the statute of limitations doctrine has within it. i don't know on top of my head what the doctrine says. upon notice, a person has to know that their rights are being violated. then one would have to inquire how the mob plays out. >> as you know, statute of the limitations law should have known. if the person should have known and still loses on benefits, the courses that is the way it is. is that correct? >> yes. >> one of the things he said in the keeping faith with the constitution was that the constitution requires adaptation of its broad principles to conditions we face today. you said the question is not how the constitution would have been applied at the founding but rather how it should be applied today. i want to focus on the word should. and in light of changing needs, conditions, and understanding of our societies. that is a normative that term -- that is a normative term. what is the legal test for how you decide "should?" >> if i could address the ell ipses. it is how

feinstein: thank you very much. mr. president, on a big bill, i find this very frustrating, where for the second time, the other side has said we won't let you go for a vote on the motion to proceed to a debate until there's an agreement on the bill. how can there be agreement on the bill if there isn't debate and if the majority at least isn't allowed to present its position? and i find on a bill of this size and the complexity of the bill, to refuse to go to a debate on the bill, to be just an amazing thing. and i would hope the other side of the aisle would begin to see that and would relent. i had a chance today to listen to some of the questions being asked in the special committee on investigations of goldman sachs, and if anything should show the need for this bill, it is what is going on in a committee of this body. and yet out here, we cannot even begin the debate on the bill. we cannot hear from the chairman of the committee, we cannot hear from the ranking member, we cannot understand both points of view. we

feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president.i trust it's appropriate to speak on a nominee at this time? the presiding officer: a nomination is pending. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. mr. president, i come to the floor to support the nomination of dr. lael brainard to be the next under secretary of treasury for international affairs. and before i proceed, let me say that i have known lael brainard for some time. we've participated together in a strategy group held by the aspen institute i think for more than a decade now, and i found her there to be very incisive and bright. additionally, in the course of her work at the brookings institution's global economy and development program, she has worked with my husband over a period of some six years now, and so he has gotten to know her well as well. on march 23, 2009, president obama nominated dr. brainard to be the under secretary of the treasury for international affairs. now, this is an especially important position in the executive branch and never more so than during thi

in terms of the rate review, the original senate bill had a provision that senator feinstein was promiseating of a rat authority that would be the interim strategy between the time the bill passed this year and new exchanges were in place. it was not part of the reconciliation measure and, i think, would set up a framework where, absent state review authority, this would be a fallback review authority. so i think that debate is likely to go on and may be an important piece of the puzzle. because right now, unless a state changes the laws and takes on this responsibility there really is no fallback other than highlighting what rating is under way. but there is no rating authority right now with the department of health ap health and human services. and we are encouraging states to do just that. >> i'm really pleased to hear that. as you know i come from connecticut. we have -- we are probably the insurance capital of the country but as my other colleagues have experienced we have lived in their world a long time. it is now time for them to live in our world. thank you, mr. chairman. >> th

i think senator feinstein said it well the other day. she said she believed the president should nominate somebody that would get a very strong vote, 70-plus votes, bipartisan, that they were proven and competent professional. that's the kind of nominee i hope he nominates and that we can support. i would like to be able to support this nominee. but if we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best, that they can amend the constitution by saying it has evolved and effectuate agendas, then we're going to have a big fight about that because american people don't want that. >> senator leahy, isn't it important that the president select someone who unites the country? >> well, i think there is -- right now, as justice stevens himself has said, because of some of the decision of the supreme court they're beginning to lose credibility with the mayor condition people. actually, not for the reasons you may think, i agree with what jeff sessions has said. this is the most activist court in my lifetime. they rewrote the law to s

senator diane feinstein of california accused republicans of playing politics. >> i think that the degree to which this dialogue has escalated is really very unhealthy. democrats did not do to president bush following 9/11 what is being done to this administration with respect to their decision-making. and i really regret it. and i really find it reprehensible. i believe that the best interests of the people of this nation are served by the administration-- you, mr. attorney general, and the president-- having maximum flexibility as to which venue these defendants should be tried. >> lehrer: the decision to send some detainees to american courts had been part of the broader effort to shut down the military prison at guantanamo. republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina agreed today on the need for a new prison somewhere else. but he voiced concern about what happens in the meantime. >> we're basically a nation without a viable jail. this president is probably not going to send new people to guantanamo bay. is that a fairly accurate statement? >> that is certainly something we wo

which is some of the stuff that senator feinstein was talking about. i also want to talk about the quality of lending. there are provisions in this bill to talk about shared risk and risk retention. there are provisions for a mortgage banker to retain 5% of the risk in a loan. that's a well-intended move, but as i said the other day on the floor and as i reminded people in this body, when the savings and loan collapsed, when the r.t.c., the resolution trust was created, when that crisis cost the american people three quarters of a trillion dollars, savings and loans in america didn't have 5% of the risk, they had hundred% -- they had 100% of the risk. they made those loans with deposits they had of their depositors and they were paid back over time. but when we took away their preference on deposits of $10,000 or less against the banking industry and when because they began losing money we allowed them to form service corporations and get into businesses they didn't know anything about, they finally collapsed and imploded with hundred% risk, not just 5

along with senator feinstein ran out on this committee, we're the only two that are not.nd i understand in one instance you are discussing the commerce clause. and in another, you're commenting on the 14th amendment. but it seems to me that the one case in which the american people should have a say in the constitution through the democratic process and in another, they should not. this distinction based on these two episodes would appear based on what you personally think which right is important or is that issue. can you please explain why a court should consider the milk -- the will of the majority as expressed through the legislative processo you read about proposition 8, i actually testified before the california assembly and senate judiciary committees in october implications of proposition 8, in particular the anticipated state constitutional challenge to the process by which that amendment to the state constitution was adopted. the testimony i gave was very clear, senator, that i believe that proposition 8 should be upheld. , not struck down. but -- not struck do

feinstein. >> thank you. i want to pick up on something that mr. black said. i apologize i had to be elsewhere. it was a very important point. reference to the fact that mimic the 94, this congress passed the homeowners equity protection act that was actually largely led to my predecessor as the senior democrat, john lafalce who was not the chairman of the time, chairman gonzalez was the chairman of democrat security, but the bill was passed in 1994 and it was an explicitly ignored by mr. greenspan. and that's really very important because there's been a lot of discussion about what happened when we had the subprime mortgages. and as mr. black also notice, the federal reserve 14 years later used that authority and that's important to note because the authority that mr. patnaik used to regulate subprime mortgages was exactly what mr. greenspan had. it wasn't the authority was deficient. but with mr. bernanke invoked in 2008 was exactly the same statutory that mr. greenspan refused to use. that's important because on this debate from a party to think it's an imp

senator feinstein and i have legislation that would also get a grip on, and not allow, and these huge, unjustified rate increases. by the way, they are not necessarily so anxious to get everyone in. up until now, they have been able to carry pick their customers. recisions, canceling policies when you get sick, that is gone. they have been able to exclude people because of pre-existing conditions. they will not be able to do that anymore. it is not that insurance companies have popped open the champagne. they are going to have to conform to the new rules that are going to make sure that finally almost every american will have access to affordable health care in the country. host: congressman schakowsky is a member of the debt commission, which president obama created. we have today tweet -- do you think a value-added tax is a good idea? guest: and the discussions yesterday, there was not a lot of talk from anybody about a vat. some thought that this commission was a stalking horse for that. the concern i have with that is that it can have aggressive consequences. not me explain what i

barbara boxer had just been elected senator, dianne feinstein has just been elected senator and bill clinton had just been elected president, and i thought it might be a good time to be chairman of the democratic party in california for two years. so i ran against a fellow by the name of steve barr, i won and served until i quit to come back for "crossfire." c-span: did you ever spin during the time you were chairman of the rep -- the democratic party? >> guest: oh -- oh -- oh, you... c-span: and did you ever feel bad about it? did you ever hear yourself saying things, you said, 'oh, that's just so bogus'? >> guest: oh, yeah. yeah. yes to both questions. sure, i -- i would spin and, yes, sometimes i would feel, 'i can't believe i got away with that.' i mean, the classic spin is when you lose an election -- and you hear this all the time. you lose an election, but you spin why you really -- it was as good as winning. you did so well it was as good as winning. and -- and -- and i can remember when we might have a special election and we go down and we really bust our butt and spent a l

the list, but he has very generously permitted senator coburn to go ahead. >> thank you, senator feinstein. and i thank senator carl. we have a hearing going on with the financial breakdown of investigations. * r a was not here for your opening statement, but -- i am sorry i was not here for your opening statement, but i have read it. i must tell you, based on what i've read i am highly concerned. i think you and i have a completely different philosophy when we look at the u.s. constitution. i want to try to understand where you are to give you a fair opportunity to convince me of how wrong i am. yuko wrote an article on congress, the courts, and because -- you co wrote an article on congress, the courts and the constitution and you criticized the supreme court for overturning the guns rights of stating, "even more astounding than the common rights -- common sense legislation was that the house passed with only one dissenting vote and the senate passed its by unanimous consent, is its eagerness to do so in a way that deliberately excludes congress, and by extension, the american people, in

patrick leahy, of course, is the chair, but dianne feinstein will be presiding.or the ninth circuit, obviously in california. so senator feinstein will be chairing this hearing. this is life. enjoy your weekend. thank you for being with us. reminder, all sorts of good stuff going on c-span this weekend and on c-span -- c- span2's "book tv. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

feinstein and i had a piece of legislation that would allow the federal government to have the power to say to companies like wellpoint, and thumaanthem, whod their rates 39%, we would give the government the power to ask the question if that is correct. they could say to insurance companies, we will not allow you to raise those rates that high. 24 states already have the ability to do that, but the federal government does not. i think we can help lower costs, if we say only justifiable rate increases. we are not against profits, but they cannot consumers. -- gouge consumers. host: next phone call. caller: i feel bad for politicians on both sides. you all are being attacked. the american system. don't you believe a public campaign-funding system would be advantageous to it all, as far as the disappearance of the idea of conflict of interest? guest: i could not agree with you more. i think we need to get the special interest money out of campaigns. there are so many things wrong with the system right now. because campaigns have become so expensive, we have to spend so much of our time

president, i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, that a feinstein amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 344, s. res. 409. the presiding offir:he crk will report. the clerk: calendar number 344, s. res. 409, calling on members of the parliament in uganda to reject the proposed antihomosexuality bill and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceetohe measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate p

>> is on the paris senator feinstein quit mumbling. i bet to speak a little louder i'm afraid. well, like i say this proposal calls for the termination of project constellation and the associated and rocket systems, the ares one and the ares five. as a result of ratified our congress could capitulate our position as the world leader in space exploration as well as forego the technological harvest which is historically a company such endeavors. let me be clear, if project constellation is cancelled, our nation will not in the near future be able to travel beyond lower earth orbit. this is ironic considering the president's and as administration administrator bolton statements that they also an objective of our space program is mars. to be fair, the president has spoken of using a heavy system by 2015. yet in a time of really diminish financial resources we cannot afford to throw with a $10 billion our nation has invested in projects consolation and the ares systems and spend billions more to research and develop new have a live technologies. this point is especially germane sinc

saying that i am very proud of and would like to associate myself with the remarks that senator feinstein made and to observe that the inland's of american justice which is something that is admired and revered around the world and its and national asset which we justify they take great pride for the bounce, not to the torch and the pitch fork, and i want to applaud your steadfast defense on the principal of american justice has attorney general. there's been discussion about health care as to what my colleagues know senator lemieux and i were working on a piece of bipartisan legislation to look at productive capabilities and health care fraud and we will end with senter cornyn klobuchar at the beginnings of a good strong piece of long controversial anti-crime bipartisan legislation and i hope that your office, attorney general, will work with us on reviewing that legislation. i think we have been making good progress. i wanted to go back to the question of military commissions. you and i worked in a different hearing you said that one of the values about the courts is the experiential ba

in terms of the rate review the original senate bill had a provision that senator feinstein was promulgatingctually be the interim strategy between the time the bill passed this year and the time the new exchanges were in place. the rate of 40 was not part of the reconciliation measure and i think you would set up a framework where absent state review of 40 there would be a fullback review authorities of the debate is likely to go on and may be an important piece of this puzzle because right now unless a state changes the law and takes on this responsibility there is no fall back other than highlighting what rating is under way but there is no rating authority right now within the department of health and human services and we are encouraging states to do just that >> i'm really pleased to hear that. as you know i come from the state of connecticut. we have probably the insurance capital of the country but over and over again as my other colleagues of experienced insurance companies we've looked into their world for a very long time. it is now not confident to live in our world. thank you mr

working or give input to senator schumer, deals with national security by going beyond what senator feinstein said and makes for an even more robust border enforcement process combined with other informational uses that would ensure that the nation is controlled at its borders in a weight that deals with national security. at the same time, i can never have a national security if i do not know who is here to pursue the american dream vs who is here to maybe do harm to it. by having people come forward as the law becomes a reality and begin able to register with temporary status, i bring people out of the darkness and into the light and create the opportunity to do criminal background checks to make sure they have been law-abiding and they are here to pursue the dream that millions of other immigrants that have come to this country and contributed to the vitality enormously. i will never know who is here to pursue that dream vs who is here to do harm to with if they stay in the shadows. this is the national security of the united states. this is also about the national economy of our country.

dianne feinstein and i have ways the would give the government some great making authority or control over dramatic increases in the private sector. we've seen 30, 40% increases over time. don't need to get a handle on the private sector cost increases? >> we do but we don't know how to do that. we put controls on insurance companies and the amount spent on direct medical intervention on administration and profits but the fundamental problem is downstream. the rising cost of procedures that people are being given and are asking for which relates to technology behavior of individuals and behavior of providers. >> but will we see greater than the cost of medical inflation certainly higher than the cost of the increases when we see those kind of increases shouldn't the -- what is your thought about the federal government on that? >> the question is half profit margins and insurance industries expanded more rapidly of over one or two years but over a decade than profit-margin is in the economy as a whole. i don't know the answer to that but i think the answer is not been great. i'm not he

senator feinstein always says i have to quit mumbling. i've got to speak louder, i'm afraid. this program calls for the end of constellation. our nation could capitulate our position as leader in spagse space exploreation. let me be clear. project constellation is canceled our nation will not be able to travel beyond low-earth orbit. this is ironic considering the president's and senator boldin's recent statements. on the fair, the president has spoken of choosing a heavy-lift system by 2015, yet in a time of greatly diminished financial resources we can't afford to throw away the $10 billion and then spend billions more to research and develop new heavy-lift technologies. the other heavy-lift technologies contemplated may or may not match the capabilities of solid rocket i believe armstrong and sernin said it best. if we follow the administration's plan we will have lost the many years required to rate the equivalent of what will be discarded. this was echoed by the safety advisory panel which in 2009 stated to abandon ares one as a baseline vehicle without temperature illus

with senator feinstein and others, i have been on the floor talking about the need to regulate derivatives and hedge fundle. we have been speck tack -- hedge funds. we have been spectacularly uneffective with that. but now at long, long last with the opportunity to come to the floor and the opportunity to have a wide open debate with lots of amendments, a lot of us believe if we are successful here, and i believe we can be, we'll do something that has great merit for the future and stability of this country's economy. again, i know there's a lot of language about banking and investment banking out there, i used some of it perhaps that is hot language. some of it is well deserved by a lot of people who made a lot of money as they steered this country's economy into the ditch. let it be known that we need a financial system in this country that works in order to finance production. all of us want the same thing. we want fought this country back on track and expand the economy and create jobs once again. that's the purpts of all of this. one -- purpose of all of this. one final point because

dianne feinstein and i have ways the would give the government some great making authority or controlamatic increases in the private sector. we've seen 30, 40% increases over time. don't need to get a handle on the private sector cost increases? >> we do but we don't know how to do that. we put controls on insurance companies and the amount spent on direct medical intervention on administration and profits but the fundamental problem is downstream. the rising cost of procedures that people are being given and are asking for which relates to technology behavior of individuals and behavior of providers. >> but will we see greater than the cost of medical inflation certainly higher than the cost of the increases when we see those kind of increases shouldn't the -- what is your thought about the federal government on that? >> the question is half profit margins and insurance industries expanded more rapidly of over one or two years but over a decade than profit-margin is in the economy as a whole. i don't know the answer to that but i think the answer is not been great. i'm not here for t

senator feinstein. >> general, i think your last sentence was very important and i think that the degree to which this dialogue has escalated is really very unhealthy. democrats did not do to president bush following 9/11 what is being done to this administration with respect to the decision making. i really regret it. and i really find it reprehensible. i believe that the best interests of the people of this nation are served by the administration, you, mr. attorney general, and the president, having maximum flexibility as to which venue these defendants should be tried. i've served now on the intelligence committee for some 18 years, on this committee for over 17 years, and i have never seen anything quite like this. the record is ignored. it doesn't matter that the bush administration brought 200 terrorists to justice under article iii courts. it doesn't matter that the military commissions, which have been fraught with controversy, have are convicted three, two of whom are out. it doesn't matter that zazi pled guilty, that was a real threat, that was a real threat to the city of new

working or give input to senator schumer, deals with national security by going beyond what senator feinsteinsaid and makes for an even more robust border enforcement process combined with other informational uses that would ensure that the nation is controlled at its borders in a weight that deals with national security. at the same time, i can never have a national security if i do not know who is here to pursue the american dream vs who is here to maybe do harm to it. by having people come forward as the law becomes a reality and begin able to register with temporary status, i bring people out of the darkness and into the light and create the opportunity to do criminal background checks to make sure they have been law- abiding and they are here to pursue the dream that millions of other immigrants that have come to this country and contributed to the vitality enormously. i will never know who is here to pursue that dream vs who is here to do harm to with if they stay in the shadows. this is the national security of the united states. this is also about the national economy of our country.

senator feinstein always has quit mumbling. i've got to speak aloud a letter i'm afraid.well, this calls for the associated rocket systems. as a result is ratified by congress, our nation could capitulate our position is to world leaders based exploration as well as forgo the technological harvest which is historically accompanied such endeavors. let me be clear. project constellation is clear. our nation will not in the future be up to travel beyond low earth orbit. this is ironic to bring the presence and mass administration in boulder's recent statement that the ottoman objective of our space program is mars. to be fair, the president has spoken at choosing a heavy lift systems by 2015. get in a time is greatly diminished financial resources, we cannot afford to throw with a $10 billion our nation has invested in project constellation in the area system and then spend billions more to research and develop new heavy lift technologies. this point is especially germane since the other half he lift technologies contemplated may or may not match the capabilities of solid

diane feinstein heading. live coverage on c-span. [no audio] [no audio] >> the hearing will resume. if i indicated, we will begin with the ranking the members. -- with the ranking members. if i might say something procedure is a really to do two rounds for an appellate judge. i want everyone to have an opportunity to ask questions. i suggest to the nominee that we will do just whatever it takes to have the questions asked and answered. i would beg the forbearance of the other four nominees although i suspect you do not mind not being in the hot seat. senator? >> thank you so much. we are in a serious location dealing with serious issues involving the appellate courts of the united states. it is a lifetime appointment. i remain an easy -- uneasy about some of the answers you get and how they square with what you have written before and what impact that has on my understanding of the clarity of your thought and how you approach judgment. there is quite a bit of difference between a theoretical law professor and the practicality of day after day duty as enforcing contracts disputes, an

well, senator feinstein and i and some others got that abolished. i mean, it just makes no sense to me for us to be off building new nuclear weapons. it just doesn't make any sense. but the fact that the bunker buster earth penetrator wasn't built, that doesn't matter. then they came with the r -- r.r.w., reliable replacement weapons, substantial costs of additional funding to build new nuclear weapons called the replacement weapons. here are some statements by some skeptical u.s. senators about this start treaty." well, i can tell you this, i think the senate will find it hard to support this treaty if there is not a robust modernization plan." another senator -- "the discuss of your administration in ensuring the modernization plan is fully funded in the authorization and appropriations process could have a significant impact on the senate." it means you've got to be building additional nuclear weapons, you've got to spend x amount of money here and there in order for us to support the start treaty. another senator says -- "my vote on the start tr

>> senator feinstein always says, with mumbling. i have got to speak a little louder. this calls for the determination of profit consolation. as a result, if ratified, our nation could capitulate our position as the world leader in space exploration as well as forego the technological harvest. if project consolation is canceled, our nation will not be able to travel beyond low orbit. this is ironic, considering the president's recent statements that the ultimate objective of our space program is martha. to be fair, the president that -- is mars. to be fair, the president has talked about a live system by 2015, yet we cannot afford to throw with the $10 billion the country has invested into project consolation and then spend billions more to research new technologies. this point is especially germane because the other have the lift technology is contemplated may or may not match the possibilities of solid rocket motors. i believe neil armstrong and the commander of apollo 13 and the commander of apollo 17 said it does. if we follow the plan, we will have lost the many y