on a point of order or at two o'clock i think it's very unfortunate that the pending build to make much needed improvement in the security of our judges is being threatened by a rehashing of an old and bad idea to split the circuit there are a raft of reasons why the senate should defeat this effort to divide the ninth circuit it would be first it would be a serious blow to judicial independence if the circuit were to be split because of disagreement with its decisions it would also result in an unfair distribution of a ninth circuit case load judges in the new ninth circuit would be much more busy than their counterparts on the twelfth circuit the proposal that is being made by senator ensign's essentially takes california hawaii guam and the marianas and puts it into its own ninth circuit and takes all big continental states that are now part of the nine and creates a twelve circuit that's the proposal that is before the body now this proposal would also destroy the current uniformity of the law in the west would have significant costs the judiciary cannot afford to bear given its already tight budget and it is opposed by the vast majority of the people who knew the circuit b its judges virtually overwhelmingly i think all but three or four of the judges in the ninth circuit oppose it splitting i agree with many of the ninth circuit's decisions i disagree with some of them however the framers of the constitution intended the judiciary to be independent and free from congressional or presidential pressure or reprisals i'm concerned that recent attempts to split the ni designed to isolate and punish judges whose decisions some disagree with they are and if it goes to the constitution that's not me saying that that's the former republican governor of california attempting to coerce or punish judges or rig the system is not an appropriate response to disagreements with the court decisions rather it's essential that we preserve our system of checks and balances and make it clear that politicians will not meddle in the work of judges the configuration of the ninth circuit is not set in stone however any change to the ninth circuit should be guided by concerns of the fish and an administration not idiology after a substantial review of the statistics decisions and reports from those who know the circuit best it's clear that splitting would hinder its mission of providing justice to the people of the west the split proposal before us would unfairly distribute judicial resources to the west this is the key the ninth would keep seventy one percent of the caseload of the current circuit but only fifty eight percent of its permanent judges any split we look at because california is so big it tilts the circuit and of course all the proponents of circuit splits take the judges with them so it leaves a disproportionate share of a heavy caseload in the ninth circuit unless you split california and to split california creates a host of technical legal problems last year the ninth had a caseload of five hundred and seventy cases per judge as opposed to a national average of three hundred and eighty one cases per judge so under the proposed split the  planned the average caseload in the new nine would actually increase to six hundred cases per judge while the new twelfth circuit would have half that three hundred and twenty six cases per judge and there is no effort to give the ninth the new judges that they would need to keep the case load even in equitable division of resources would leave residents of california and hawaii facing greater delays and with court services inferior to their twelve circuit neighbors the uniformity of law in the west is a key advantage of the ninth offering consistency to states that share many common concerns the size of the nine is an asset offering a unified legal approach to issues from immigration to the environment dividing the circuit would make solving these problems even more difficult for example splitting the circuit could result in different interpretations in california and arizona of laws governing immigration different applications of environmental regulations on the california and nevada side of lake tahoe and different intellectual property law in silicon valley and the seattle technology corridor these differences would have real economic costs because these are border states and trade and commerce in the pacific is a huge part of what they do and therefore the legal consistency between them is an asset not a disadvantage in time of tight judicial budget splitting the circuit would add significant and unnecessary expense the split actually would require additional federal funds to duplicate the current staff of the one third and a new or expanded courthouse as and administrative buildings since existing judicial facilities for a twelfth circuit are inadequate the administrative office of the united states court estimated that creating a twelfth circuit would have a start up cost of ninety six million dollars with another sixteen  annual recurring costs that we're going to do anything what we need are more judges on the ninth circuit that's the key to this with budget pressures already forcing our federal courts to cut staff and curtail services this is no time to impose new unnecessary costs on the judiciary my colleague senator barbara boxer joins me in these remarks she is filing a separate statement and those who overwhelmingly know the ninth circuit best overwhelmingly oppose a split split of the ninth circuit's active court of appeals judges eighteen oppose the split to be exact and only three supported the district court and bankruptcy judges of the ninth circuit also oppose the split every state bar association that is weighed in on the split alaska arizona montana nevada oregon in washington oppose breaking up the ninth circuit and more than one hundred different national regional and local organizations have written to urge that the ninth circuit be kept intact splitting the ninth i believe would create more problems right now than it would solve and it won't solve the case load problem of the nine and that's the terrible issue in this so those who propose the split do so to unfair early benefits themselves because they also take the judges from the ninth and they added to the twelve and they would end up having a caseload per judge of one half of what the caseload would be in a new ninth circuit so it's not a fair plan because it doesn't fairly distribute the resources based on case law and i believe there is only one criteria for resources and its caseload the judges must be where the cases are split the ninth circuit and instead let it focus our matter our attention on securing the court and then secondly providing the judges that are necessary to equalize caseload throughout this president i raise a point of order that the pending amendments i like sachin five o five a of the house concurrent resolution ninety five the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year two thousand and four that it two m today a vote occur on senator ensign's motion to waive the point of order considered made by this agreement with the time until two p m equally divided in control between senators feinstein and ensign or their designees that if the motion to waive the budget act is not successful then without further intervening action or debate the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill that if the motion to waive the budget act is successful the provision on third reading and passage be vitiated i add that the preceding be done by unanimous consent is there objection colleagues to sustain the budget point of order because the underlying amendment which would split the court of appeals for the kni circuit is not yet ripe for consideration by this body the issue is a very complicated want us to what will happen with the ninth circuit it is  admittedly too large at the present time but we have a lot of analysis to do is to which states ought to be in which divisions it is an issue which the judiciary committee has wrestled with for some time we took it up in the one hundred ninth congress and as the two confirmations of chief justice roberts and justice alito took a great deal of time as did the patriot act our bankruptcy legislation and class action reform and the confirmation process generally and i know that senator leahy is chairman last to take up this issue as soon as we can do so but we are not ripe for action when we finish the next vote we'll be taking up the final passage on the court security act and i urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation there is no doubt that there is a real threat to judges we have seen violence right into the courtroom we have seen violence against family members of federal judges way of saying the extraordinary situation that you know april of two thousand and five cookies with rat poison were mailed to each of the hundred ninth congress in november november seventh two thousand and five passed unanimously and we need to pass it now but to make some very important changes to provide for the security for  the senator from nevada is expected to make a motion to waive the budget act mr byrd ms cantwell mr carden mr carper mr case mr chambliss mrs clinton mr coburn mr cochran mr coleman ms collins mr conrad mr corker mr corn feinstein this is feinstein i of florida i mr smith i there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or who would wish to change their vote if not on the roll call vote number one thirty five senate three seven eight the vote accountable wrong they say finding a political solution in iraq is wrong and they say redeploying our troops out of a civil war is wrong they said that even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous and many senate republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to beat this issue here on the senate floor the american people want us to debate the war they want us to change course listen to what president on secretary of defense robert gates said in the last few hours and i quote the debate in congress has been helpful in demonstrating to the iraqis that american patience is limited strong feelings expressed in the congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact in terms of communicating to the iraqis that this is not an open ended commitment and of quote the president from my republican colleagues are also attempting to create a false crisis by claiming that democrats are putting the troops in danger by not sending the supplemental bill immediately and today the pentagon acknowledge what democrats have long known that president bush continues to misstate the reality on the ground in iraq to score political points like the nonpartizan congressional research service pentagon now acknowledges that can pay for the iraq war at least through june with the funds  already been provided so not a prison i hope the president my republican colleagues in congress will put these false claims aside so that we can get back to working toward a bipartisan solution not a present yesterday i met with president bush to express the will of the merican people senior military officials and a bipartisan majority of congress that we must change course in iraq i told president bush after five years going on to five years i should say more than thirty three hundred american soldiers lost tens of thousands wounded a third of them gravely wounded and billions and billions of dollars depleted from our treasury that we as a country must change course in iraq conditions in iraq get worse by the day now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war or less secure from the many threats to our national security and we were when the war began as long as we follow the president's path in iraq the war is lost but there is still a chance to change course and we must change course no one madame president wants us to succeed in the middle east more than i do but there must be a change of course our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors they've earned our pride and our praise more importantly they deserve a strategy for the of their sacrifice supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support offers just that it includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our country security it offers a new path a new direction forward we put politics aside i believe we can find a way to make america safer and stronger i so we're waiting for senators to come back to the floor here you may have seen a bit earlier today the senate passing that court security bill by a vote of ninety seven to zero now this hour the senate judiciary committee continues the year of their hearing with attorney general alberto our live coverage right now on c span three you can also follow that online at our web site cspan dot org or on c span radio today i will introduce legislation to reduce air pollution and the threat of global warming by enacting strict standards on the four major pollutants from power plants i would send to the desk the legislation and ask to be introduced with the the bill will be received and appropriately referred thank you madam president biden president i'm pleased senator jolie lieberman of connecticut who chairs a key environmental subcommittee will be the bill's lead co sponsor so it will be known as the alexander lieberman clean their climate change act of two thousand seven it will be an aggressive but practical and achievable set of limits on four keep pollutants i'd like this is a little different sort of clean air and climate change bill and i'd like to talk for a few minutes about exactly what it does a why why we're doing it this way most of us in the senate can be measured by where we come from and i come from the great smoky mountains national park when i go home tomorrow afternoon after we hopefully start the competitiveness legislation debate i'll go to my home about two miles from the great smoky when the cherokees named the great smoky mountains which today have become our most  national park they were talking about smog and so unfortunately today they probably would be there's been a lot of recent progress but air pollution is still a serious health problem causing illnesses from to premature death and making it harder to attract new jobs be specific about that recently over the last twenty years the auto industry has become important tennessee tennessee was in competition recently for toyota plant that nearly came to chad new but went to mississippi in the last twenty five years one third of our manufacturing jobs have become odd jobs and i can remember when there were days and i was governor and the nissan plant decided to come to tennessee in one thousand nine hundred eighty and the first thing i had to do as governor was to help them go down to the air quality board and get a permit to paint five hundred thousand cars and trucks  so a lot of pain produces a lot of emissions into the air and if tennessee hadn't had clean air at that time that nissan plant would have been in georgia so clean air is not just about our health although the more we learn about the effect of  nitrogen pollutants in sulfur pollutants and mercury it's also about our ability to attract to attract jobs and so we want to make sure that when nissan or torry holt or any of the suppliers of any ababil company general motors with saturn plant in tennessee or when they want to look at our state for expansion that they're not limited by our inability to meet clean air standards we also have jobs that come from another direction in  tennessee tourism is big business many people know about yellowstone in the western parks but the most visited national park in america is the great smoky mountains three times as many visitors as any western part nearly ten million visitors a year and they come to see the great smokies not to see smog not to see so they were to enjoy and so when i go into the severe of dolly parton's hometown and ask the chamber of commerce right there next to marry though where i  what's your number one issue to these conservative republicans in severe can you say to me cleaning that's what the chamber of commerce there says clean air so we tennesseans think clean air is important for our health for our because we love to look at our mountains and because of our our jobs i'm the chairman of the tennessee valley authority congressional caucus i sit on the senate's environmental public works committee i especially delighted that senator lieberman who's the co sponsor of this legislation not only is on that committee but he chairs the environment and public works committee one of the major subcommittees it has to do with global warming so what we're hoping is that this legislation which i'll about to describe along the legislation that senator carper of delaware is introducing today or tomorrow will help move along the debate about how we deal with global warming in our country and the legislation that i have presented that the alexander lieberman legislation we seek to preserve our jobs while we clean the air and preserve the planet we have a number of concerns in our country and global warming is only one of those so i would argue that the provisions that we've set out are aggressive but they're practical and they're chivas they said schedules for power plants to reduce emissions for sulf dioxide for nitrogen oxides for mercury and for carbon dioxide doing so will relieve some of the worst air related health environmental problems such as ozone acid rain mercury contamination and global warming i think it's important that one of the france's with the alexander with this alexander lieberman bill is that it proposes carbon caps only on power plants that produce electricity not on the economy as a whole now why would we only do that well here are here the reasons for that number one when we talk about global warming and carbon we're dealing with a huge complex because this country of ours produces about and uses about twenty five percent of all of the energy in the world we have businesses that range from the shoe shop to google to the chemical plants and i think we have to be very careful in washington about coming up with great schemes and great ideas that sound good here but that might not apply to everyone across the country and because everyone across the country has a natural conservatism about the wisdom of those of us who are in washington we could scare them to death with some talk of economy wide global warming so i'm more comfortable talk thinking sector by sector i want our steps to be practical and cost effective i do believe that a market based cap and trade system for the power plants makes a lot of sense power plants are the logical place to start with carbon regulation power plants produce about forty percent of all the carbon in our economy power plants are increasing emissions in that segment at a rate faster than any other large segment in our economy we have selected in our legislation what we call a market based cap and trade system to regulate the amount of carbon that's produced this is not a new idea the market based cap and trade system was actually introduced by a republican administration in which i served in the cabinet the first george bush it was a part of the clean air act amendments in one nine hundred ninety or one nine hundred ninety one it was introduced because we were concerned about the amount of sulfur coming out of power plants and and basically it created a lot of flexibility for those power plants it used the market system and we've now had fifteen years experience with its work very very well it's significantly reduced the amount of software in the air it's done it in a way that most everyone concedes is the lowest possible cost of regulation so a minimal amount of rules from here a maximum amount of  market decisions and individual set decisions by individual utilities so we've had that system in effect since one thousand nine hundred there's been a similar system in effect for nitrogen there have been a similar cap and trade system in europe we have a lot of experience with that and so we have selected to use a similar cap and trade market based system to regulate the carbon coming out of the same smokestacks that the the nitrogen and the mercury come out of we can already major the amount of carbon come so we don't have to guess about that we don't have to invent a new system we do have to be careful about what the standards are what the dates are we want to know what the cost will be to the right payers we want to keep electric rates as low as we possibly possibly can as well as making the energy clean what if we're concerned about global warming and this generation as i think we should be then then power plants are good place to start it's time to finish the job of cleaning the air of sulfur up too much self or too much nitrogen and too much mark and it's time to take the right first step with controlling carbon emissions it's time to acknowledge that climate change is real that human activity is a big part of the problem and that is up now not only am i glad to be working with senator lieberman who will be the lead co sponsor of this legislation he of course is already a leader in this area and has a an econom wide piece of legislation which he introduced with senator mccain in the last session and i'm not about five speak for another united states senator but i think he's taking the position that he'd like to see several good trains moving down the track toward the same station in h that one of the eventually gets there and that we can learn from each other that's the attitude i take with the legislation that's senator carper has described today and that he's introducing today or tomorrow senator carper and i have worked together through two congresses on four pollutant legislation and a lot of happened since we started working for example the administration to its credit through the environmental protection agency has stephan requirements for sulfur and nitrogen i applaud president bush for that there are very good requirements they have also proposed regulation of mercury for the first time in our country's history the e p a for that so a lot is changed since then senator carper and i first started also we've learned a lot of united states senators who don't always have their mouth open learn a lot and we for example  discovered that that one of the most difficult areas in fashioning a market based cap and trade system for software or for nitrogen or for carbon is who pays for it we call that the allowance system to a different conclusion i came to the conclusion that we should use historical emissions and other words that we say to a utility in the united states we're about to impose upon you some requirement for cleaning up more sulfur cleaning up more nitrogen cleaning up mercury for the first time and regulating the emissions of carbon for the first time that that's a significant cost and that capital costs will have to be born in the end by rate payers or the general taxpayer so in my view it seems to me that the fairest way to impose that cost would be through what we call the historical system that's the way we've done with allowances for software for the last fifteen years for nitrogen for the last several years in fact the input or historical allowance system as a fig as a choosing of the way to pay the bill has been the way it's done almost everywhere i believe but there is another way to measure it that's called the output in senator carper selected that there is still a third way to allocate the costs of doing whatever regulation that we do and that's called the option a market based cap and trade system sounds complicated but it's not so complicated it's just basically says to each emitter of one of the police yes you have an allowance of emissions fo r that or of that carbon and as long as you admit that much you're ok if you meant more than that you're going to have to buy allowances to admit that much more from somebody else so it costs you miss less you can sell your allowed and then as the law goes along over the years and in two thousand and nine or ten to two thousand and fifteen the amount of pollutants that can come out drops down your allowances dropped down just as well and so one of the favored proposals mostly by and especially by many environmental groups is an auction of those allowances well i've resisted i'm  i've been careful about the option i've been to a lot of options madam president my day i know they must have been minnesota as well as tennessee i've yet to see one where the purpose of it wasn't have to get the highest possible price well of i'm paying my electric bill down in memphis or eastman chemical lebanese tennessee trying or or out trying to keep my electric costs in line i'm not really interested in my senator coming up to washington and having an option to raise my electric rates to the highest possible price so also there is the temptation that if you auction off these allowances and there are a lot of when we're talking about carbon allowances many many more than what we're talking  about over the last fifteen years they will bring in a lot of money and whatever you bring in a lot of money in one hundred different senators and lots of congressmen know there is a pot of money that come up with a lot of ways to spend that money and where will that money come from well it's gotta come from the man or woman or family paying the electric bill in nashville or not or it's got to come from the taxpayer so i have been conservative about the use of options and senator lieberman and i  this bill say that seventy five percent of the allowance comes from historical emissions and twenty five percent comes from auction so this gets way down in the weeds as we as we say but one of the things that i think may be beneficial from senator carper going ahead with his bill which relies on an output out aloud system that becomes one hundred percent option and we go ahead in the alexander lieberman bill with seventy five percent input and twenty five percent options maybe our colleagues will do as we've been doing over the last few months spend a little more time understanding allowances and and options and we can come to a better conclusion about this i value greatly the my relationship with senator carper and respect his leadership in this area he chairs one of the principal subcommittees on the environment committee upon which i serve and the presiding officer serves and what i hope is that he and i are moving into a new stage of our working relationship on clean air and climate change and and and the result of that will be that all of our ideas will be out in front of our colleagues and that it will move the debate along i would emphasize we agree on a lot more than we disagree on in fact i believe on all of the standards and years for meeting those standards for nitrogen sulfur and mercury we agree we agree that there should be a cap and trade system for mercury because mercury is a neuro toxin and down in east tennessee where i live we don't wa a buying a lot of allowances so they can create a lot more mercury because it doesn't go up in the air blowing in north carolina it goes up in the air and comes right down south of us for the most part we don't want that and  the more we learn about mercury the less the less we want it so we don't have gas in trade for mercury although we do suggest that for for car we've learned a lot madam president has spoken some about carbon let me go back to the clean air part climate changes got to be the issue of the of the moment everybody's talking about it movies about it vice president was here the other day testifying about it but it's not the only issue that faces this is not the it is not the only issue that faces this has to do with air pollution i'm actually more concerned in tennessee these days about mercury than i and about that i am about carbon and that's why this is a four pollutant bill i think we ought to address all of these at once i was  here in this in this body forty years ago a staff assist working for howard baker and i can remember very well when senator baker a republican senator muskie of maine a democrat worked together on the committee which the presiding officer and i on which we now serve and they passed the first clean air legislation first clean water act and the first clean air act clean water act some people have said is is the most important piece of urban urban renewal legislation ever enacted because the rivers of america gotten so dirty nobody want to live on and the rivers of america are where most of our great cities are and so as soon as they clean that people move back to the back to the cities in and around the river but that was one nine hundred seventy in one thousand nine hundred seventy one it's appropriate to think about that now because earth day is coming up this weekend and i can remember earth day which i begin believe was in one thousand seven suddenly the environment which had been an issue that was reserved for only a few people became a national craze it was almost like a hula hoop everybody was interested in the environment and recycling and former senator gaylord nelson was a leader in creating creating earth day and i can remember sitting in a meeting of president nixon and the republican leadership in one nine hundred seventy when i was on the white house staff and present nixon was trying to explain to the republican leaders the importance of the environmental issues it was eight o'clock in the morning and they were listening very well and it was a new subject but gaylord nelson was doing it the kids were doing it people were recycling the republican president was talking to republican leadership and senator baker senator muskie of the congress passed the first clean air and the first clean water act many of us who live a while can remember that things are better today and in many ways when i was a student at vanderbilt in nashville it was so smog in the mornings because of the smoke that that that you couldn't see downtown and your clothes your clothes got dirty during the day and things got gradually better and then ninety and ninety one under when president bush was the first president bush was here we had important clean air act amendments and this first cap and trade system for sulfur came in what also happened was that we learned more about how damaging these pollutants are to our health and as a result the standards which we once thought were high seemed low in knoxville the biggest city near where i grew up near the smoky mountains knoxville for example is the fourteenth most polluted city ozone irritates the lung tissue it increases the risk of dying permanently it increases the swelling of lung tissue it increases the risk of being hospitalized with worsened lung diseases and triggering asthma that at risk in knox county alone are one hundred seventy six thousand children one hundred twelve thousand seniors fifteen thousand children with asthma and fifty thousand adults with as ozone is not emitted it directly from tailpipes and smokes s the wrong grevious come from coal fired power plants and cars they cook in the air when it's sunny and warm software is in many ways our biggest problem as the primary contributor day it causes difficulty in breathing it causes damages to the lung tissue and respiratory disease and even premature death and now we know that mercury is also a problem monitoring by the national park service in the great smoky mountains has found high levels of mercury deposits from air pollution mercury pollution of rivers and streams contaminate the fish we eat and poses a serious threat to children and pregnant women so madam president this bill is a clean air and a climate change bi and i would hope that our committee as we take advantage of this resurgence of interest in the quality of air and our health and what's what statements that we need to make about it just do part of the job i'd like for us to look at the whole picture  what we do is to take the take the standards that the e p a the environmental protection agency has has created for for for for nitrogen and sulphur and put them into law we make them a little stricter but basically we put them into law we take the mercury rules that e t a created and we put it into law we make it even stricter the e p a says get rid of seventy percent of it we say get rid of ninety percent of today's mercury and then for the first time we would put into law the carbon caps on electric power plants which is i said a little earlier produce forty percent of all the carbon that's produced in the united states and is the fastest growing segment of carbon i would hope that that my colleagues will carefully consider this sector by sector approach to climate change carbon caps might be the best way i believe they are for dealing with electric power plant when it comes to fuel there may be another strategy that makes sense and we could deal with that sector in that way for example when we were dealing with sulfur we didn't put cap and trade on sulfur we did on power plants but when we got to the gasoline we just said that you've got to have no sulfur gasoline for big trucks which just now went into effect there's also a large segment of building efficiency if we took the sector of building efficiency the fuel the the fuel segment and the electric power plant if we added that a few stationary sources in america and develop strategies that work aggressive but practical and cost effective for each of those segments we've made up in the eighty five to ninety percent of all the carbon we produce in america i think that makes a lot more that makes a lot more sense to me than trying to devise some one size fits all system that affects every little shop store or farm in america if we can get most of it this way maybe we can learn something so that someday we can get we can get the rest a couple of other things i see my colleague from utah on the floor so i'll bring my remarks to two toward a conclusion i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record at the conclusion of my remarks a section by section description of the alexander lieberman bill and a one page summary of the alexander lieberman clean air climate change act of two thousand seven as well as a short memorandum which we described as as discussion points which i'll conclude my remarks and by going over in just a moment finally i'd like to let me conclude by saying that senator lieberman and i don't have all the answers in this piece of legislation i feel much more comfortable with this legislation today than i did with anything that i helped introduce last year or the year before because i've learned a lot more but i guarantee you that there are several areas in which i would welcome it vice and over the last several weeks i've met i suppose with a dozen two dozen environmental five points that i think are arguable i've come to a tentative conclusion on them that's in the bill but there is another side to the point and i'm i'm looking for for advice for example should we cap only carbon c o two or all greenhouse gases emitted from electricity plants i chose to cap c o two only that's because this is a four polluting and bill of sulfur nitrogen carbon is not primarily a climate change bill another consideration is that it seems that europe's experience is that it's been better to cap just carbon and not all of greenhouse gases but that's a question we can debate what should the size of an auction be in terms of the allowances i discussed that a little earlier senator lieberman and i in this bill and chosen twenty five percent of the total number of allowance senator carper and his bill i believe eventually goes to one hundred percent their arguments on both sides with influence my decision was i wanted to keep the cost down as much as possible and i was afraid then that if we used some different kind of allows you might literally take methane might might produce pay a tennessee farmer to plant a lot of trees both of those things would reduce carbon and the farmer would have some more money in his pocket that's a pretty good ideas the downside of offsets is that the unregulated entirely seems to me they could become a gimmick or a fad or worse and so what we have done in this bill is adopt a a a system of offset it's from a a consortium of  states ranging from maryland to maine that includes senator lieberman's home state of connecticut and use those model rules on offset and so that tends to limit the way offsets may be use d and and i think is a good place to at least again in other words a utility might produce more carbon but it might pay someone else who is reducing carbon by using  sequestering carbon in some other and some other way there's a question about how should a new coal fired electric plants be treated there are probably one hundred sixty new coal plants on the drawing boards some of them hope to escape the the rules that congress is considering about capping the output of carbon i don't think they should and so under this bill this bill would apply to all coal fired power plants including those on the drawing board now it also would give an incentive to the first thirty of those plants to meet a high standard of clean coal technology we don't in this bill want to encourage the use of natural gas as the last thing we want to do we don't want to discourage the use of coal we have a lot of coal it would help make us energy independent we want to encourage the creation of the kind of technology that will permit us to use coal in a clean way that either recaptures carbon and stores it or find some other way to deal with it and finally what should the c o two cap levels be we can debate that and i'm sure that we will but what we pick in this legislation is to say let's freeze at the level of last year starting with two thousand and eleven and go down step by step into two thousand and twenty five to one point five billion metric tons so this mr president is our contravene to to the debate we've learned enough about our health about our ability to attract jobs to know that we need to finish the job of cleaning up the air of nitrogen of sulfur and mercury and we need to plants as described here also say this some people say well let's wait till china does it let's wait until india does it mr president the great danger is that we will not on the leash the technological genius of the united states of america to clean our air and a deal efficiently and inexpensively with the emission of cars because if we don't figure that out india and china are going to build so many dirty coal power plants that it will make any difference what we do because the wind will blow the dirty air around here and we will suffer and the planet will suffer whatever the consequences of our  of global warming and of the other pollutants that come from coal so we have an obligation not just to the world to do this we have to ourselves because one hundred two hundred three hundred four hundred five hundred new coal fired power plants in india and china will obliterate any of the good work we might do here do the same thing i believe that if we take these aggressive but practical cost effective steps we will  leash the great entrepreneurial spirit of our country we will be able to create an inexpensive way to deal with carbon on except on a step by step basis to deal with the other pollutants that india and china will have to follow because they don't have money to build expensive things either the rest of the world will follow and will be better off that i cannot imagine a more interesting and exciting work to be doing this is the kind of subject we should be working together on on a bipartisan basis i thank senator lieberman from john for joining me in co sponsoring this legislation i salute senator carper for his continued leadership i look forward to working with him and i yield the floor thank you madam president thank you senator from utah find that that's just perfectly free space no matter how much you burn it trample on it or urinate on it americans of all political stripes understand that this hijacking of social policy from the faithful's representatives is de plainness guided  number of law professors law students judges and politicians still continue to inject the judicial branch into social controversy there are sincere people on both sides of these controversies and they probably would be better worked out by elected representatives of the people yet in attempting to smooth out the rough edges of democracy activist judges have time and again undermine democracy and increased bitterness in our political debates yesterday's decision and gun zones of the carhartt was a step toward writing that dangerous trend it was a step toward restoring the people's liberties and the vitality of our democracy let me explain in two thousand and three congress passed on the president signed the partial birth abortion ban this was well considered legislation it was broadly supported by the public senators of both parties including my colleague from vermont the chairman of the judiciary committee senator leahy supported the bill and after years of trying it finally became law it a procedure that callously snuffed out human life nonetheless a coalition of the usual proponents of judicial legislating attempted to undo this law fortunately the supreme court disagree and the pelvis legislation it was a reasonable decision and it showed proper deference to the people and their elected representatives deference that one would expect in a democracy the public first became aware of partial birth abortion in one nine hundred ninety two when dr martin procedure it was shocking testimony i am glad that justice kennedy included it in his majority opinion i will not repeat it here it was graphic it was horrific and it will stay with me forever a six month old fetus was treated worse than any animal and disposed of like garbage the american people were rightly appall it very well might be that there is in the seams of our constitution the meaning of every term and principle is not entirely clear but if you're going to be making up constitutional rights without textual warrant the american people understand what many law professors radical i mean progress of activists and judges that not perverts our customers no tradition to argue that a document committed to life liberty and the dignity of the human person would prohibit public condemnation and legal regulation of such barbarity and the court of this was a reasonable and limited decision the court rejected a facial challenge to the law relying on its precedent planned parenthood the court held that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose to burden on a woman's right to abortion this was a reasonable decision one rooted in a deep respect for the role of the people's representatives in congress and what is the response of the hard left hysteria i know many of my colleagues in this body are familiar with the blog daily kos or coasts i guess it is it is the online meeting room for the political left the complaints of its members recently led a number of democratic candidates for president withdraw from a box sponsored presidential debate they were intimately involved in the debate in the house over how best to cut off funding for our troops this is what one of these citizen agitators posted about the decision the five catholics on the court have ruled the explanation for an exclamation point why don't we just outsource the supreme court to the vatican say some money exclamation point explanation for why there was a time when this anti catholic venom had no place in our political discourse unfortunately liberal groups are becoming more and more radical and less and less liberal in their thinking i might add the same is true on the conservative side not on this issue of course this is what nancy keenan of the radical abortion rights lobby natural had the say and anti choice congress and an anti choice president pushed this ban all the way to the supreme choice the radicals criticizing this decision are seriously unmoored from the american people and our legal traditions the radicals who support abortion on demand reject the choices of the american people they reject the informed choice that the people's representatives made about this procedure they are johnny one note abortion now abortion always abortion forever even if it's barbaric the american people deserve better we've been told by the new majority that america is done with partisanship america needs results well we got results with the partial birth abortion ban act this was a bipartisan achievement that brought together republicans and democrats from services and liberals it is unfortunate then to see certain democratic candidates be moaning this decision in the same old terms it is not too surprising to see the new york times editorial page hyperventilating over this decision but we deserve more from our party leaders and presidential candidates i understand their predicament when you have to answer to uncompromising abortion rights groups logic sometimes gets tossed by the wayside or overboard when president clinton was in the white house he abandoned almost every liberal group imaginal imaginable in his quest for triangulation but there was one group that he would never cross and that was that abortion rights lobby and given the knee jerk reactions about this decision from the left wing blogosphere and democratic candidates i have no doubt that this commitment will not change i think it's pretty in light of the legislation that we considered earlier today i was an original cosponsor of the court security bill obviously our judges need to be protected from violent criminals they are public servants and all too often they are threatened with or subjected to physical violence and other accusations this is unacceptable and so i joined with many of my judiciary committee colleagues in supporting this bill but i want to distance myself from some of the remarks made by my democratic colleagues yesterday the suggestion that strong and vigorous criticism of judicial decision making is somehow inappropriate or collaterally responsible for violence against judges is absurd violence against judges is unacceptable but violence against judges is not caused by criticism of judicial activism and it is not caused by overheated rhetoric i find it particularly ironic that on the same day that liberal pundits and interest groups have been moaning a moderate and limited supreme court decision as the catalyst for making women second class citizens democrats took to the floor in a brand serious and vigorous criticism of judges as a responsible in the end i think justice scalia was right in  his case he can parents as long as the court went about doing what lawyers and judges are supposed to do interpret the law nobody gave the supreme court a second thought but when court decided that it should be a super legislature that second guesses the judgments of the american people and their representatives the court invited criticism like legislators you get treated like legislators and as a legislator i have to say sometimes that's pretty their representatives can criticize the court if lincoln did it and f d r did it i think we are on solid ground and we all know they did it but i'm not going to criticize yesterday's decision i would like to close by again applauding it it was not just a victory for the unborn child it was a victory for moderation and the rule of law madam president i suggest you have some for and you can see on your screen what the senate has done today passing that court security measure by a vote of ninety seven to zero program note for you the senate judiciary committee hearing with attorney general alberto gonzales continues our live coverage at this moment on c span three also on c span radio and our web site cspan dot org by the way if you missed some of that would like to see it we will be repairing the hearing on sunday beginning at ten thirty eastern time senator from illinois recognize this consent the curtain call be suspended without objection so ordered then a president we will return tomorrow in session to discuss the competitiveness bill now pending and to have debate only and then consider amendments and hope to vote on early next week and so for our meeting this week in the united states senate we were able to point to the passage of a court security bill which is an important piece of legislation unfortunately it's about the took two days and it should have taken twenty  minutes during the course of two days we had a general debate about budget deficits and a debate which started and ended without a vote on splitting up ninth circuit it was time for some members to bring up issues of importance to them but i would suggest that we have a limited amount to show for our activity this week because of activities on the other side of the aisle twice we were stopped in efforts to call important legislation we wanted to have a of the intelligence agencies in america so that they're prepared to deal in the most effective way fighting terrorism unfortunately there was resistance from the republican side of the aisle were unable to do so the bill had to be pulled from debate on the floor put back on the calendar for another day then we wanted to move to the medicare prescription part d program those of us on the democratic side think it's important to have a debate a debate as to whether medicare can offer less expensive more affordable drugs to seniors and disabled people the pharmaceutical companies don't like this idea that the current system is very profitable for them they have mounted a very expensive campaign to stop any suggestion of medicare prescription part d it would have been a lively debate an important debate followed closely by many seniors and their families but unfortunately once again the republican minority within their rights stopped us from moving to that important debate so for two very substantive issues we were stopped this week from the kind of progress which i think people expect us to make even if we disagree between the parties there should be a spirit of cooperation here at least when it comes to honest debate reasonable period of time and then an up or down vote and then move on but we couldn't reach that point this week sadly the only bill that passed was the court security act as and as important as it is it's a bill which passed very quickly without controversy it took us almost two days so now we have another bipartisan bill before this one which i think is long overdue i want to thank senator alexander from tennessee as well as senator bingaman for being our lead sponsors on this bill i hope the debate tomorrow will lead to a few amendments beginning of next week in the passage of this bill america needs to maintain its competitive edge in so many parts of our economy particularly when it comes to manufacturing in this bill could be very positive madam president president at this point i ask unanimous consent that on friday april twentieth at ten thirty a m the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number seventy seven sixty one american america competes act and that during friday's session there be debate only with no amendments in order to the bill further that on tuesday april twenty fourth during consideration of the seven sixty one senator coburn will be recognized to speak for one hour without objection and present i now ask that the senate then proceed to its consideration without objection the report h r eleven thirty an act to amend the ethics in government act of one nine hundred seventy eight to extend the authority to withhold from public availability a financial te without objection so thank you madam president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until ten a m friday april twentieth but on friday following the prayer in the pledge the journal proceedings be approved toda morning or be deemed expired at the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day that they then be a period of morning business until ten thirty a m with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each that at ten thirty the senate begin consideration best seven sixty one america competes act as provided for under previous order without objection so ordered if there's no further business today i ask unanimous consent the senate stand adjourned under the previous order the senate stand until friday april twentieth at ten a m thank you