[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3011-S3017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Obama Budget

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, a couple weeks ago the Obama 
administration released an outline of its budget plan for fiscal year 
2010. The budget is a plan that reflects the President's agenda and 
priorities for the fiscal year.
  The document with which most of our colleagues are quite familiar 
with by now is entitled, ``A New Era of Responsibility--Renewing 
America's Promise.'' While this is a nice title for which I commend the 
President, it does not sound like the appropriate name for a work of 
fiction. Because of the impact of the policies outlined in this budget, 
a more fitting title might be, ``How To End America's Global Leadership 
and Prosperity Without Really Trying.'' Even better, it sounds more 
like a 1973 Disney animation entitled ``Robinhood.''
  In this Oscar-nominated movie about a legendary outlaw, I think a 
colloquy between Little John and Robinhood sums it up best. Little John 
said:

       You know somethin', Robin? I was just wonderin', are we 
     good guys or bad guys? You know, I mean our robbing the rich 
     to give to the poor.

  Robinhood responded:

       Rob? Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's a naughty word. We never rob. We 
     just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it.

  Simply stated, this budget declares war on American jobs and on the 
ability of American businesses to save or

[[Page S3012]]

create them. It is bitingly ironic, since on the first page of the 
budget message the President said that the time has come, ``not only to 
save and create new jobs, but also to lay a new foundation for 
growth.''
  The only thing this budget lays the foundation of growth for is more 
Government spending and more taxes.
  Indeed, this budget is so bad, it is hard to know where to begin to 
describe what is wrong with it. But let's start with the tax provisions 
beginning on page 122 of the budget. Right there in black and white are 
the administration's plans to increase taxes on American businesses--
the only entities that can create and save jobs on a permanent basis--
by a minimum of $1.636 trillion over 10 years. I say ``minimum'' 
because the total amount may be much higher, as I will explain a little 
later in my remarks.
  This budget is a masterpiece of contradiction. For example, it 
promises the largest tax increases known to humankind while promising 
tax cuts to 95 percent of working families. In reality, the President 
wants to play Robinhood by redistributing trillions of dollars from 
those who already pay the lion's share of this Nation's income taxes 
and give a significant portion of it, through refundable tax credits, 
to those who now pay no income taxes at all.
  The budget promises millions of jobs to be saved or created but takes 
away the very means for the private sector to perform this job creation 
through increases in capital gains taxes, carried interest, and the top 
individual rates where most business income is taxed.
  The budget is also contradictory to stimulating the economy. On one 
hand, it claims to provide $72 billion in tax cuts for businesses, but 
on the other hand, the budget raises $353 billion in new taxes on 
businesses, not counting the hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--
more in so-called ``climate revenues.''
  The budget decries the role of housing in bringing about our economic 
crisis. It reduces the value of millions of homes by reducing the value 
of the home mortgage interest deduction. The budget talks about 
struggling families but reduces the incentive for taxpayers with the 
means to donate to charity to do so.
  The President claims this budget is free from the trickery and budget 
gimmicks that have characterized those of previous administrations, but 
he then assumes the extension of all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief and 
the AMT patch into the baseline and then eliminates some of the same 
tax relief and counts it as new revenue. I could go on and on about 
other contradictions and ironies in this budget outline, and this is 
likely just a preview. Wait until we get all the details.
  The budget outline indicates tax increases of $990 billion over the 
next 10 years in so-called ``loophole closers'' and ``upper income tax 
provisions dedicated to deficit reduction.'' This is in addition to at 
least $646 billion more in so-called ``climate revenues.''
  In short, President Obama is proposing to raise taxes at a time when 
we are in a recession. The last time we raised taxes during a 
recession, we went into a depression.
  The President claims these tax hikes will not take effect until 2011, 
when he believes the economy will recover. This is in itself a huge 
contradiction. Why is it not a good idea to raise taxes this year, but 
it is OK to do so 2 years hence, when most economists believe we will 
just begin to recover from the most serious downturn since the 1930s? 
Huge new taxes in 2011 may be as dangerous to our long-term recovery as 
putting them in place right now. I find it very interesting that the 
new administration and many of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle recognize tax increases have a negative effect on economic 
growth. So please explain again why they would be a good idea 2 years 
from now. If the President believes the economy will have recovered by 
2011, then why does he keep using the fear of a looming, deep recession 
to push forward his spending projects? Is it because he knows the 
economy will rebound with or without the ``Making Work Pay'' tax credit 
for funding for infrastructure? This budget would make the Making Work 
Pay tax credit permanent. If this credit, which costs the taxpayers 
$116 billion for just 2 years in the stimulus bill and would cost more 
than half a trillion dollars over 10 years in this budget, is a 
stimulus measure, as we were told, why is it included in the 
President's budget beyond 2011, when he predicts the economy to 
recover?
  Let us take a look at the single largest tax increase proposal in the 
history of the world--a huge tax on middle-income people--the so-called 
``climate revenues'' that are listed at $646 billion over 10 years. The 
proponents of this job-killing idea call it a ``cap-and-trade'' 
auction, but it is, in reality, nothing more than a gargantuan new tax 
on American businesses. Moreover, a close look at the footnotes of the 
tables reveals that this $646 billion is not even the extent of this 
new tax on American industry. The footnotes indicate this is just the 
portion of the new tax hike that will be used to pay for the Making 
Work Pay credit permanent and for clean energy initiatives. Additional 
revenues will be used to ``further compensate the public.'' It sounds 
like more income distribution to me.
  In a briefing of staff last week, top administration officials 
admitted these revenues could be two to three times higher than the 
$646 billion listed in the budget. That means this tax could reach as 
high as $1.9 trillion--a $1.9 trillion tax increase. That is insane. So 
what we have in this first part is a brandnew tax increase on the 
industrial output of the United States of America, a tax that has never 
been levied before and which could raise as much as $1.9 trillion over 
10 years, and this budget says it is all right because the proceeds of 
the new tax will go to ``compensate the public.''
  Now, this $1 trillion-plus tax increase will mean businesses will 
have less money to hire new employees or pay salaries of existing 
employees. How are we going to compensate the hundreds of thousands or 
perhaps millions of workers who are employed by these industries when 
they lose their jobs because their companies can no longer compete 
because of this new tax? Will that be part of ``compensating the 
public''?
  The next highest category of tax increases is almost as bad. The 
budget outline indicates it would raise $637 billion over 10 years by 
allowing some of the job-creating tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire 
at the end of 2010. Now, these massive tax increases are touted as 
hitting only the so-called wealthy in our society; those who, in 
another part of the budget--page 14--are referred to as the few ``well 
off and well connected'' on whom the Government ``recklessly'' showered 
tax cuts and handouts over the past 8 years.
  What this gross mischaracterization does not say is, many of these 
same individuals are the ones who have the ability to save or create 
the very jobs we need to turn our economy around.

  What the Obama administration and many Democrats in Congress refuse 
to recognize is the fact that a majority of the income earned by small- 
and medium-sized businesses in America is taxed through the individual 
tax system. In other words, many of these small businesses pay their 
taxes as individuals, and they will thus be subject to these huge tax 
increases.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, over 
half the Nation's private sector workers are employed by small 
businesses. Moreover, 50 percent of the owners of these businesses fall 
into the top two tax brackets which are the ones being targeted for big 
tax increases by the Obama budget. Let me repeat that. Fifty percent of 
the owners of these small businesses fall into the top two tax 
brackets, which are the ones being targeted for the big tax increases 
by the Obama budget.
  The Small Business Administration tells us that 70 percent of all new 
jobs each year are created by small businesses. Why in the world would 
we want to harm the ability of America's job creation engines--small 
businesses--to help us create or save the jobs we so badly need right 
now? Why would we want to harm their ability? This is sheer folly.
  President Obama claims he is providing tax relief to 95 percent of 
Americans. If you look closely, you will see that the budget raises the 
cost of living for lower wage earners. How? The budget raises $31 
billion in taxes from domestic oil and gas companies. At a time when we 
are trying to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, we are

[[Page S3013]]

forcing oil companies to raise the price of gas at the pump. This 
increase in gas prices at the pump will have a greater impact on lower 
income wage earners than on anyone else.
  I think this cartoon illustrated by David Fitzsimmons of the Arizona 
Daily Star, with a few of my edits, says it best: We will create 4 
million jobs out of one side, and we will raise taxes on those who 
create those jobs on the other. That is a little harsh, but it kind of 
makes its point. I don't like to see our President depicted this way, 
but I have to admit it is a pretty good cartoon.
  The budget outline also opens the door to universal health care by 
creating a 10-year, $634 billion ``reserve fund'' to partially pay for 
the vast expansion of the U.S. health care system, an overhaul that 
could cost as much as $1 trillion over 10 years. This expansion is 
financed, in part, by reducing payments to insurers, hospitals, and 
physicians. Already I am being deluged by hospitals and physicians. How 
are they going to survive if they get hammered this way? Now, most 
people don't have much sympathy for hospitals and physicians, but it 
does take money to run those outfits, and to take as much as $1 
trillion over 10 years by reducing payments in part to insurers and 
hospitals is pretty serious. Highlights of these reductions include 
competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage, realigning home health 
payment rates, and by lowering hospital reimbursement rates for certain 
admissions.
  Almost one-third of the health reserve fund would be financed by 
forcing private health plans participating in the Medicare Advantage 
Program to go through a competitive bidding process to determine annual 
payment rates. I wish to remind my colleagues that in the past, 
Medicare managed care plans left rural States due to low payments. Utah 
was one of the States that was severely impacted. I know my State was 
hurt by it.
  Many other States were hurt as well, especially rural States. To 
correct this situation, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
worked with both the Clinton and Bush administrations to address this 
issue in a bipartisan manner by creating statutory language to create 
payment floors for Medicare Advantage Plans. As a result, Medicare 
beneficiaries across the country have access to Medicare Advantage 
Plans, and 90 percent of them seem to be happy with those plans.
  By implementing a competitive bidding process for Medicare Advantage, 
choice for beneficiaries in the Medicare Advantage program will be 
limited.
  It is unclear whether Medicare Advantage programs will continue in 
rural parts of our country--areas such as Utah, where Medicare payments 
are notoriously low. You can go on and on with the many small States 
that are represented by Senators on the Finance Committee--including 
me.
  I served as a key negotiator on the House-Senate conference that 
created the Medicare Advantage program. I cannot support any initiative 
that I believe will limit beneficiaries' choices in coverage under this 
program.
  Another outrage and irresponsible attack on U.S. jobs is contained in 
the proposal the budget calls ``implement international enforcement, 
reform deferral, and other tax reform policies.'' This line item is 
estimated to raise $210 billion over 10 years. This vague description 
can really mean only one thing: The Obama administration plans to tax 
the foreign subsidiaries of all U.S.-owned businesses on their earnings 
whether they send the money back to the United States or keep it 
invested in a foreign country. This is similar to requiring individual 
taxpayers to pay taxes each year if the value of their home or 
investments goes up even if they do not sell them.
  The real danger of this proposal, however, is its impact on U.S. 
companies and their ability to compete in the global marketplace. 
Almost all of our major trading partners tax their home-based 
businesses only on what they earn at home. The rest of the world taxes 
it that way. They don't tax their businesses for moneys earned overseas 
that don't come back. Those moneys are taxed there. The U.S. system is 
practically the only worldwide system in the industrialized world.
  What this means is that an American company that is competing for 
business in some other nation--let's say India--may have competitors 
from France, the UK, and Germany. Because these other nations don't tax 
their companies on profits earned in countries other than the home 
country, they would enjoy a significant competitive advantage over any 
U.S. company, which, under the Obama proposal, would have to pay U.S. 
taxes on any profits earned. The result would simply be that 
multinational businesses would shun the United States and relocate 
elsewhere, as many have already done. A lot of Fortune 500 companies 
have left our country, in part because of tax ideas such as this. They 
don't want to go. U.S. firms will become ripe for international 
takeovers, and we would lose our global leadership, prestige, market 
share, jobs, and the bright future our country has enjoyed for decades.
  In 1960, 18 of the world's largest companies were headquartered in 
the United States. Today, just eight are based in the United States. We 
have the largest corporate tax rates of any major country in the world. 
Can you imagine, if we reduced those rates, as I and other Republicans 
have suggested, from 35 to 25 percent, the jobs that would be 
automatically created? I cannot begin to tell you.
  In 1960, we had 18 of the world's largest companies right here in the 
United States. Today, we only have eight based in the United States, 
partly because of these stupid, idiotic tax changes. If we pass this 
proposal, within a short time, there will be none. I predict that. The 
United States will be the last place on Earth businesses will want to 
locate.
  I will show you this poster: Effect of Taxing U.S.-owned 
Subsidiaries. The United States has the second highest corporate tax 
rate. Again, in 1960, 18 of the world's largest companies were 
headquartered here. Today, only eight of the world's largest companies 
are headquartered in the United States. This is part of the reason.
  The President believes our Tax Code includes incentives for U.S. 
businesses to ship jobs overseas, and this proposal is an attempt to 
end this practice. However, the evidence shows that our tax laws do not 
lead to U.S. job loss but to increases in U.S. employment when 
companies invest overseas.
  We have all heard the accusations, time after time, right here on the 
Senate floor. It goes something like this: U.S. companies close their 
plants here, laying off all of their workers, just to move their 
production to a lower wage paying country, where those same goods are 
made with cheap labor and then shipped right back into the United 
States. Well, these accusations are largely unfounded. In 2006, just 9 
percent of sales of U.S.-controlled corporations were made back to the 
United States. Our companies are not sending production jobs for U.S. 
products overseas. Instead, they are making products overseas for the 
overseas market, and they are doing it for solid business reasons, such 
as transportation savings, not for tax reasons.
  Moreover, the evidence shows that the U.S. plants of companies 
without foreign operations pay lower wages than domestic plants of 
U.S.-owned multinational companies. This means companies that have 
overseas operations pay more to their U.S. workers than those that do 
not invest in other nations.
  Studies by respected economists show that increasing foreign 
investment is associated with greater U.S. investment and higher U.S. 
wages. Overseas investment by U.S. companies is generally a good thing 
for the U.S. economy and for U.S. jobs. Attacking the deferral rule, as 
the Obama budget proposes, would do horrendous damage to our ability to 
compete in an increasingly global economy and will lead to our loss of 
world industrial leadership.
  Just this week, I talked to one of the leading pharmaceutical CEOs in 
America. This leader and his family all came to America. They love this 
country. They don't want to leave. He made it very clear that if this 
type of tax law goes through, he is going to move to a more fair 
country. He will have to in order to compete. He probably will move his 
operations to Switzerland, where they are not treated like this. He 
doesn't want to do that--leave this beloved country--but to compete he 
would have to. All those jobs would go from here to there. I don't know 
who is thinking about this in the Obama administration, but they better 
start thinking about it.

[[Page S3014]]

  I could go on about why this is the worst budget proposal I have seen 
in all of my nearly 33 years in this body. However, I will simply focus 
on one more reason.
  President Obama has said this budget would allow us to reduce the 
Federal deficit by half over the next 4 years. While this is a noble 
goal, unfortunately, it is not one he can claim. Using the only common 
baseline there is, which assumes no change to current law, the deficit 
would decline--if we had no changes in current law--from $1.428 
trillion in 2009 to $156 billion in 2013. That is including the 
expiring tax cuts. To put it in other words, if we do nothing, 
according to CBO, the deficit would decline by 90 percent over the next 
4 years. Let me say that again. If we do nothing, the Federal deficit 
would decline by 90 percent, according to the estimates. President 
Obama proposes to reduce that decline to 50 percent by adding more 
Government spending.
  I wish President Obama would follow his own lofty rhetoric. He says 
he wants to save and create jobs. We all do. But the way to do it is 
not through the job-killing policies found in this budget. He said it 
is time for honest and forthright budgeting. But this document is just 
a means for him to put forth his ultraliberal philosophy while claiming 
to be fiscally responsible. As you can see from this cartoon, the 
President talks the talk, but this budget doesn't walk the walk. Again, 
I know he probably laughs at these things, as I do when they do it to 
me. I don't want to treat the President like that, but it does make the 
point. He talks bipartisanship, he talks fiscal responsibility, but 
everything they are doing can be called irresponsible by good people 
who understand economics.

  Look, I happen to like this President. I happen to want him to 
succeed. I care for the man. He is bright, articulate, and charismatic. 
I think that is apparent by the way the general public treats him. They 
want him to succeed. I do too. He doesn't write this budget himself. I 
don't blame him for this, except it is under his auspices that it is 
being touted. He has bright people around him. It is tough to find 
people brighter than Larry Summers; I think a lot of him. Joe Biden is 
very bright, and he knows a little bit about this. Joe admits that he 
is a self-confessed liberal. They are allowing this to go forward at a 
time when they are going to hurt this country rather than help it. I 
think we have to point some of these things out, and hopefully the 
President will see some of these things and say: Holy cow, I didn't 
realize this was in the budget. It is pretty hard because most people 
don't know what is in the budget. I doubt he has had a chance to read 
it. I want him to succeed, but he is not going to succeed with this 
kind of a budget.
  This country is resilient, and maybe the country will pull out of 
this no matter what he does. I think we are in very trying times. This 
is the greatest country in the world. I don't want to see it diminished 
in any way. I am prepared to do things--people know that around here--
to bring people together on both sides and help this President be 
successful. He has made overtures to me, and I very much respect him 
and I appreciate that. I want to help him.
  I have to tell you that one of the reasons I am giving these remarks 
today is because I am very concerned about this type of a budget. We 
have put up with this kind of stuff in both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. It is time to quit doing it and start facing realities 
in this country. I see as much as a $5 trillion deficit in the near 
future. It is hard to even conceive of that. Yet that is where we are 
headed.
  I want Mr. Geithner to succeed. Everybody knows I stood firmly for 
him in spite of all of the problems. He is a very bright guy, and I 
hope he succeeds. I will do what I can to help him, as a member on the 
Finance Committee and other committees as well.
  They are not going to succeed with this type of budget. If they do, 
it will only be temporary. Our kids are going to pay these costs. They 
are going to pay for this mess. Elaine and I have 23 grandchildren I am 
concerned about, and 3 great-grandchildren. I don't want to stick them 
like this. I hope the President will get into it a little bit more, and 
I hope Larry Summers will get into it a little bit more. I think they 
have been taking advantage of a crisis to pass a huge welfare agenda 
that is going to hurt this country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have been watching the nominations 
from President Obama with quite a bit of concern. When I go back to my 
State of Oklahoma, people say: What would happen to us if we didn't pay 
our taxes? And I thought it couldn't get much worse than that.
  I am here today to make sure everyone focuses attention on a couple 
of nominations that I think are outrageous.
  First is my opposition to the nomination of David Ogden to be the 
U.S. Deputy Attorney General. Last year, Congress passed a significant 
piece of legislation, the Protect Our Children Act, to address a 
growing problem of child pornography and exploitation. Both sides of 
the aisle hailed it as a great success. Democrats and Republicans 
thought that was great; we are going to protect our kids against child 
pornography and exploitation. While I proudly supported that 
legislation, I am shocked President Obama has nominated a candidate to 
serve in the No. 2 position in the Department of Justice who has 
repeatedly represented the pornography industry and its interests.
  As we are witnessing a significant increase in the exploitation of 
children on the Internet, we do not need a Deputy Attorney General who 
will be dedicated to protecting children with that kind of a 
background. David Ogden has represented the pornography industry for a 
long period of time.
  In United States v. American Library Association, Ogden challenged 
the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000. I remember that well. 
We passed it here. He filed a brief with the Supreme Court opposing 
Internet filters that block pornography at public libraries. He 
challenged provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement 
Act of 1988 which seeks to prevent the exploitation of our Nation's 
most vulnerable population; that is, our children. He instead fought 
for the interests of the pornography industry.
  As a grandfather of 12 grandchildren, I am confident that I stand 
with virtually all of the parents and grandparents around this country 
in opposing gross misinterpretations of our Constitution some use to 
justify the exploitation of women and children in the name of free 
speech. That is what was happening. That is David Ogden.
  Some claim Ogden is simply serving his clients. Yet his extensive 
record in representing the pornography industry is pretty shocking, 
especially considering he has been nominated to serve in the Government 
agency that is responsible for prosecuting violations of Federal adult 
and children pornography laws.
  Let's keep in mind, he is in the position of prosecuting the 
offenders of these laws, and yet he has spent his career representing 
the pornography industry.
  Additionally, his failure to affirm the right to life gives me a 
great concern. I don't think that is uncharacteristic of most of the 
nominees of this President. No one is pro-life that I know of, that I 
have seen.
  In the Hartigan case, Ogden coauthored a brief arguing that parental 
notification was an unconstitutional burden for a 14-year-old girl 
seeking to have an abortion. In the case of abortion, parents have the 
right to know.
  Furthermore, as a private attorney, Ogden filed a brief in the case 
of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in opposition to informing women of the 
emotional and psychological risks of abortion. In the brief, he denied 
the potential mental health problems of abortion on women. This is what 
he wrote. The occupier of the chair is a woman. I think it is 
interesting when men are making their interpretation as to what 
feelings women have.
  He wrote this. Again, this is the same person we are talking about, 
David Ogden. He said:

       Abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or 
     emotional problems . . . she is

[[Page S3015]]

     more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, 
     and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose 
     concomitant . . . risks or adverse psychological effects . . 
     .

  What he is saying is it is a relief. This is something he finds not 
offensive at all. He is actually promoting abortions.
  We have to be honest. We need to talk about the mounting evidence of 
harmful physical and emotional effects that abortion has on women.
  For these reasons, I oppose his nomination.
  I also want to address my opposition to the nomination of Elena Kagan 
to serve as Solicitor General. Because of its great importance, quite 
often they talk about the Solicitor General as the tenth Supreme Court 
Justice and, therefore, it requires a most exemplary candidate. She 
served as the dean of Harvard Law School, which is no doubt an 
impressive credential. However, in that role, she demonstrated poor 
judgment on a very important issue to me.
  While serving as the dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan banned the 
military from recruiting on campus. We have to stop and remember what 
happened in this case. In order to protect the rights of people to 
recruit--we are talking about the military now--on campuses to present 
their case--nothing mandatory, just having an option for the young 
students--Jerry Solomon--at that time I was serving in the House of 
Representatives with him--had an amendment that ensured that schools 
could not deny military recruiters access to college campuses. Claiming 
the Solomon amendment was immoral, she filed an amicus brief with the 
Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. FAIR opposing the amendment. The Court 
unanimously ruled against her position and affirmed that the Solomon 
amendment was constitutional.
  It is interesting, for a split division it might be different. This 
is unanimous on a diverse Court.
  I also express my opposition to two other Department of Justice 
nominees--Dawn Johnsen and Thomas Pirelli. Dawn Johnson, who has been 
nominated to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal 
Counsel, has an extensive record of promoting a radical pro-abortion 
agenda. She has gone to great lengths to challenge pro-life provisions, 
including parental consent and notification laws. She has even inserted 
on behalf of the ACLU that ``Our position is that there is no `father' 
and no `child'--just a fetus.''
  As a pro-life Senator who believes each child is the creation of a 
loving God, I believe life is sacred. I cannot in good conscience 
confirm anyone who has served as the legal director for the National 
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. The right to life is 
undeniable, indisputable, and unequivocal. It is a foundational right, 
a moral fiber fundamental to the strength and vitality of this great 
Nation.

  For a similar reason I can't support the nomination of Thomas 
Perrelli to serve as Associate Attorney General. Keep in mind now, we 
are talking about the four top positions in the Justice Department. And 
like other nominees I have discussed today, Mr. Perrelli has failed to 
affirm and protect the dignity of all human life, as an advocate for 
euthanasia, and I think we know the background of that.
  I would only repeat that these are not people with just an opinion, 
they are extremists. We are talking about someone in the No. 2 position 
of the Department of Justice who actually has been involved in 
representing the pornography industry, and this is something that is 
totally unacceptable.
  I think as we look at these nominations, I suggest that those 
individuals who are supporting these look very carefully, because 
people are going to ask you the question: How do you justify putting 
someone who supports pornography, who has worked for it and been paid 
by that industry, in the No. 2 position in the Justice Department?
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to speak in favor of David 
Ogden to be the next Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
  I have listened to my colleague and friend from Oklahoma, and I am 
not going to be able to respond to everything he said about every 
nominee, but I did want to talk today about Mr. Ogden. He is someone 
who I believe should be our next Deputy Attorney General, at a 
Department of Justice that is much in need of a Deputy Attorney 
General, and he is someone who will hit the ground running. He will 
beef up civil rights and antitrust enforcement. He will address white-
collar crime and drug-related violence, as well as help to keep our 
country safe from terrorist attacks.
  We know the to-do list and the demands on the next Deputy Attorney 
General will be great. Part of why it will be so great is something 
that I saw in my own State. We had a gem of a U.S. Attorney General 
Office in Minnesota, and we still do, but there was a period of time 
where I saw its destruction and rot by putting one political appointee 
in charge of that office. It was a huge mistake. The office was in an 
uproar. They got away from their regular mission. Luckily, Attorney 
General Mukasey put in a career prosecutor, Frank McGill, who has put 
the office back on track, and I thank him for that. We have suggested--
recommended--a new name to the Attorney General and the President for 
the next U.S. Attorney in Minnesota. But I tell you that story for a 
reason, and that is justice is important and order is important and 
management is important in our criminal justice system. We went so far 
away from that when Alberto Gonzalez was the Attorney General. That is 
why it is so important to have David Ogden in there to work with Eric 
Holder.
  David Ogden has demonstrated intelligence and judgment, leadership 
and strength of character and, most importantly, a commitment to the 
Department of Justice. He has the experience and the integrity, I say 
to my colleagues, to serve as the next Deputy Attorney General. One of 
the most important roles of a Deputy Attorney General is to make sure 
that the day-to-day operations of the Department run smoothly and to 
provide effective and competent management guided by justice. I know 
David Ogden can do that. His experience both as Chief of Staff and 
counselor to former Attorney General Reno, as well as his experience as 
Assistant Attorney General for the Department's civil division under 
President Clinton proves that David Ogden has experience and the 
integrity to do the job.
  I have heard all these allegations made, including by my colleague. I 
want to tell you some of the people who are supporting David Ogden. His 
nomination is supported by a number of law enforcement and community 
groups, including among others, the Fraternal Order of Police--not 
exactly a radical organization. He is supported by the National 
District Attorneys Association, the Partnership for a Drug Free 
America, and the National Sheriffs' Association.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a strong 
supporter. In fact, they sent a letter saying they gave David Ogden 
their enthusiastic support. In particular, they wrote:

     . . . during Mr. Ogden's tenure as Chief of Staff and Counsel 
     to the Attorney General, we worked closely with the Attorney 
     General in attacking the growing phenomenon of child sexual 
     exploitation and child pornography. As counselor to the 
     Attorney General, Mr. Ogden was intricately involved in 
     helping to shape the way our group responded to child 
     victimization challenges and delivered its services.

  It is seconded by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, which also 
supports David Ogden's nomination. In addition to these law enforcement 
and child protective groups, David Ogden has received broad bipartisan 
support from a number of former Department officials, including Larry 
Thompson, a former Deputy Attorney General under President George W. 
Bush, and George Terwilliger, who served in the same role under 
President George H. W. Bush.
  There are so many things on the Justice Department's plate, and we 
need someone to be up and running. But I want to respond specifically 
to some of the things we have heard today. There was a statement by one 
of Senators that Mr. Ogden opposed a child pornography statute that we 
passed in 1998.

[[Page S3016]]

That is simply not correct, and I hope my colleagues know that. In 
fact, as head of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, he 
led the vigorous defense of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 and 
the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.
  There were also mischaracterizations, for political reasons, of Mr. 
Ogden's record. We have already talked about how he is supported by the 
major police organizations in this country. Well, in addition to that, 
he has a general business practice, and before that he served in 
government. His work at the WilmerHale law firm over the past 8 years, 
for example, hasn't centered on first amendment litigation. He has 
represented corporate clients, from Amtrak to the Fireman's Fund.
  They also said that somehow Mr. Ogden took some position taken by Mr. 
Ogden's clients, who were America's librarians and booksellers. Rather, 
the Senate rejected the Clinton administration's interpretation, and 
Mr. Ogden made clear to the Judiciary Committee that he disagreed with 
that interpretation. In his testimony, he made clear that he is 
comfortable with the ruling of the Court and agreed with the Senate 
resolution.
  You can go on and on about some of these misstatements about Mr. 
Ogden's record, but let us look at what is going on here. As I 
mentioned before, the child protection community supports Mr. Ogden 
based on his strong record of protecting children. Now, I tend to 
believe the people who deal every day with helping families with 
missing children more than I believe some statement that is made in a 
political context. I will be honest with you, I tend to believe the 
Fraternal Order of Police when they give an endorsement more than I 
believe some statement made in a political context.
  Let me tell you this. Why is this so important? Why can we not go 
back and forth and back and forth and have all these political partisan 
attacks? Well, we need a Deputy Attorney General now. We need a Deputy 
Attorney General right now. The Department of Justice has more than 
100,000 employees and a budget exceeding $25 billion. Every single 
Federal law enforcement officer reports to the Deputy Attorney General, 
including the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the Bureau of Prisons, and all 93 
U.S. Attorney's Offices. The Attorney General needs the other members 
of his Justice Department leadership team in place.
  Look what we are dealing with: the Madoff case and billions of 
dollars stolen. We are dealing with childcare cases. We are dealing 
with administering this $800 billion in money and making sure people 
aren't ripped off. We are dealing with murders and street crimes across 
this country. Yet people are trying to stop the Justice Department from 
operating? That can't happen.
  I want to end by saying I was a prosecutor for 8 years, and always my 
guiding principle was that you put the law above politics. That is what 
I am asking my colleagues to do here. We need to get David Ogden in as 
a Deputy Attorney General. Now is the time.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the Senate is the 
nomination of David Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General. I rise to 
speak in support of that nomination.
  The Justice Department and our Nation are fortunate that President 
Obama has put forward this nomination. Mr. Ogden has the experience, 
the talent, and the judgment needed for this critical position.
  The Deputy Attorney General is the No. 2 person at the Justice 
Department. He is the day-to-day manager of the entire agency. This 
includes supervising key national security and law enforcement offices 
such as the FBI and our counterterrorism operations. Mr. Ogden is a 
graduate of Harvard Law School, former law clerk to a Supreme Court 
Justice, which is one of the most prestigious jobs in the legal 
profession. He had three senior positions in the Janet Reno Justice 
Department and served as her Chief of Staff, Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, and also served as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil 
Division, a position for which he received unanimous confirmation by 
this Senate. Mr. Ogden also served as the Deputy General Counsel at the 
Defense Department.
  Given this excellent background, it is not surprising that David 
Ogden gained the support of many prominent conservatives. At least 15 
former officials of the Reagan and both Bush administrations have 
announced their support for his nomination. They include Larry 
Thompson, the first Deputy Attorney General of the most recent Bush 
administration; Peter Keisler, former high-level Justice Department 
official; and Rachel Brand, another high-level Justice Department 
official in the Bush administration. Their words are similar. I will 
not read into the Record each of their statements, but they give the 
highest possible endorsement to David Ogden.
  Due to a scheduling conflict, I could not attend his hearing, but I 
asked him to come by my office so we could have time together and I 
could ask my questions face to face. We talked about a lot of subjects, 
including criminal justice reform, human rights, and the professional 
responsibilities of the Department of Justice lawyers. I was impressed 
by Mr. Ogden's intellect, his management experience, and his commitment 
to restoring the Justice Department's independence and integrity.
  We talked about the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Crime and Drugs, a subcommittee I will chair in the 111th Congress, and 
the issues we are going to face--including the Mexican drug cartels, 
which will be the subject of a hearing in just a few days, racial 
disparities in the criminal justice system in America, and the urgent 
need for prison reform. That is an issue, I might add, that is near and 
dear to the heart of our colleague, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. I am 
going to try to help him move forward in an ambitious effort to create 
a Presidential commission to look into this.
  The Justice Department will play an important role in reclaiming 
America's mantle as the world's leading champion for human rights. Mr. 
Ogden and I discussed the Justice Department's role in implementing 
President Obama's Executive orders in relation to the closure of the 
Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and review of detention and 
interrogation policies. We discussed the investigation by the Justice 
Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, as to the attorneys 
in that Department who authorized the use of abusive interrogation 
techniques such as waterboarding. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode 
Island and I requested this investigation. Mr. Ogden committed to us 
that he would provide Congress with the results of the investigation as 
soon as possible. This is the kind of transparency and responsiveness 
to congressional oversight we expect from the Justice Department and 
something that we have been waiting for.

  We also discussed the Justice Department's role in ensuring that war 
criminals do not find safe haven in the United States. I worked with 
Senator Coburn who is a Republican from Oklahoma, on the other side of 
the aisle. We passed legislation allowing the Justice Department to 
prosecute the perpetrators of genocide and other war crimes in the U.S. 
courts. I believe Mr. Ogden appreciates the importance of enforcing 
these human rights laws.
  At the end of our meeting, I felt confident David Ogden will be an 
excellent Deputy Attorney General.
  I want to make one final point. There is some controversy associated 
with his appointment that I would like to address directly. I am aware 
there has been some criticism that David Ogden represented clients whom 
some consider controversial. He has been criticized in his 
representation of libraries and bookstores who sought first amendment 
free speech protections, and for his representation of a client in an 
abortion rights case.
  I would like to call to the attention of those critics a statement 
that was made by John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee several 
years ago at his confirmation hearing.

[[Page S3017]]

  He was asked about the positions he had advocated on behalf of his 
clients as an attorney. Here is what the Chief Justice told us:

       It's a tradition of the American Bar Association that goes 
     back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not 
     identified with the positions of their clients. The most 
     famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the 
     British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that 
     for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution 
     in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule 
     of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law.

  And he went on to say:

       That principle, that you don't identify the lawyer with the 
     particular views of the client, or the views that the lawyer 
     advances on behalf of a client, is critical to the fair 
     administration of justice.

  You practiced law, Madam President. I have too. Many times you find 
yourself in a position representing a client where you do not 
necessarily agree with their position before the court of law. But you 
are dutybound to bring that position before the court so the rule of 
law can be applied and a fair outcome would result. If we only allowed 
popular causes and popular people representation in this country, I am 
afraid justice would not be served.
  Chief Justice Roberts made that point when he was being asked about 
his representation of legal clients. I would say to many on the other 
side of the aisle who are questioning David Ogden's reputation, they 
owe the same fairness to him that was given to Chief Justice Roberts in 
that hearing.
  I would remind the conservative critics of Mr. Ogden, look carefully 
at that testimony. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  After 8 years of a Justice Department that often put politics over 
principle, we now have a chance to confirm a nominee with strong 
bipartisan support who can help restore the Justice Department to its 
rightful role as guardian of our laws and the protector of our 
liberties.
  David Ogden has the independence, integrity, and experience for the 
job. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his nomination to be 
Deputy Attorney General.