an ongoing dialogue with all the stakeholders is one way to insulate the census bureau from that political partisanship." end quote. he went on to add -- quote -- "transparency is a very powerful antidote to attempts for political influence." end quote. madam president, what could be clearer that be than that? here we have a nominee who pledged that he would resign if political influence were brought to bear on his office. i don't know what more you could ask. and this is a commitment given at a public hearing under oath as well as privately to me when we met in my office. let me go it on the second issue

that has been raised. again, an important issue, and i agree with my colleagues on my side of the aisle who have been concerned about whether sampling would be used rather than the actual count mandated by the constitution on this issue of sampling i asked dr. gross: will you advocate for the statistical adjustment or use of sampling for the 2010 census? dr. grove's response, no, senator. that's an unqualified response: no, senator. i then asked him a further question: will you advocate for statistical adjustment of the 2010 census? since, after all, madam president, maybe there's not enough time to adjust the 2010

census to have sampling or a statistical adjustment given how close we are to the 2010 census. so i asked him about the 2020 census. dr. groves' response, i have no plans to do that for 2020. madam president, dr. groves' record of service and leadership and scientific research spans the academic, government, and private sectors, both within the united states and internationally. as the director of the university of michigan survey research center, a very well-known, prestigious research center, as the former director of the joint program in service methodology and the former associate director of statistical design, standards, and methodology at the census

bureau, he is considered to be one of the half dozen most highly reguarded service research experts in the world, madam president. he's extraordinarily well qualified. he is not a political person. he is a scientist, a researcher, a statistician. madam president that's why it's not surprising that dr. groves' nomination has received strong support from a number of organizations, including the american statistical association. i will concede, madam president, i did not know that such an organization existed requir prio this nominee. but they have endorsed him as well as some groups well known to us, such as the national league of cities, and the

population reference bureau. but, madam president, here's what's more telling: six former census directors, from both democratic and republican administrations have also endorsed mr. groves nomination. six from both parties, from both sides of the aisle, from democratic and republican administrations. this is a testament to the respect that dr. groves peers have for his work. dr. groves has the leadership and the professional experience that is needed to lead the bureau through the 2010 census, to plan for the 2020 census, and to direct the bureau's other vital programs. i would be the first here in opposition if i felt he were going to use sampling or if i

felt that he was going to be susceptible to political pressure. there is nothing in the record or in his testimony that suggests that. i therefore urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to let us get on with the critical work that needs to be done at this bureau, which, regrettably, has been so poorly managed in the last few years. so, madam president, i look forward to working with dr. groves and i urge our colleagues to support his nomination. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i hold in my hand a request by senator boxer to ask unanimous consent that tomorrow an army fellow with the office of senator boxer be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of s. 1390, the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: madam president? the presiding officer: -- a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i support bob groves to be the director of the u.s. census bureau. he is not only a well-qualified candidate he may be the best

qualified candidate nominated to this position. dr. groves has been endorsed by many scientific organization, including the american statistical association, the american social logical association. he has been endorsed by six former directors of the u.s. census bureau who are appointed by both plawnd democratic presidents -- by republican and democratic presidents. i would submit that letter of endorsement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: in 2001, dr. groves was elected by his peers to lead the institute for social research at the university of michigan. this is the largest academic-based research institute of its kind in the world. he has educated many of our nation's scientific leaders in the field of survey statistics. we sometimes talk about peer review. well, he's been peer-reviewrksd and he was selected by his peers

to lead that persist stey just institution. dr. grove asks a longtime michigan resident, part of the university of michigan community since he began his master's studies in ann arbor of 1970. he graduated summa cum laude from dartmouth college with a degree in sociology and he earned master's degrees in statistics and a doctorate in sociology from the university of michigan. he is a truly respected expert in survey methodology and statistics. he will bring great leadership and needed leadership to the census bureau as it continues to prepare for and execute the 2010 census. dr. groves deserves the overwhelming support of the u.s. senate. madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presidin the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i want to rei think tate a couple things said.

first of all, our constitution doesn't talk about a lot of things we do to run our government in this country. but one of the things it talks about s. a at some length is thn sussments it says do it every 10 years. we try to do it well. we have a lot more people. we've got a lot more people to count next year than we did 10 years ago. people have concerns about privacy and folks in this country speak a lot of different languages, just like they did when the first census was done. we're trying to use technology. we're not going to use the kind of technology we ought to. we need a census director that understands that and will be in a position that the kind of technology we use, we use it well. and in 2020, we use it effectively. it would be great to a have a census director who was well-schooled, well-educated to dot kind of work that's called on in conducting a census, count

ago large number of people. this fellow's credentials are superb. it would be great if we had somebody that actually worked at a high level in the census and actually demonstrated by his work there the ability to help run a large organization. he's done that, and at the university of michigan he's headed up a very large organization, one of the smartest people in the country that works on these sorts of issues and has done so from everyone we've heard just with great aplomb and great ability. as i said earlier at the hearing i conducted several months ago with some of our colleagues on the homeland security-government affairs committee, we reached out to people who run the census in the last 30-40 years. we've asked some of these folks, tell us who you think would be good. and virtually everyone who's been involved in the census at

high leadership positions said we'd be lucky to get a fellow with dr. grove' grove's experie. we'd be luck dhoi have somebody with this fellow's experience. for me, i know for my clerks the issue of what is the character, integrity of a person of this position -- i think tbas senator collins who asked him the question, if you feel like political influence is being used in the conduct of the 2010 census, would you be willing to literally resign as a form of protest against any kind of political involvement? and he said, not only i would be willing to resign, he said, i would resign and i would use whatever ability i could to bring to light the kind of behavior that led to my resignation. to discredit that behave, make it sure that that's not what i would do. and that literally that behavior caused me to resign as the census director. i think it would be great if we

had somebody here in -- who's interested in this job, willing to do this job, well-callified, willing to meet with anybody that wants to meet with him, whether they're on the committee of jurisdiction, homeland security and government afairks or not, whether a democrat or not, and to my knowledge he has met with all of us who want to spend time with him. and last thing, it's -- one of the things i found so refreshing, this is not a political guy. this is somebody who is a scientist, a statistician, he good at leading large organizations. he gets this stuff. he enjoys this stuff. how lucky we are to have somebody who wanted to take on this challenge for us at this point in our nation's history. for these reasons and others that senator collins and others mentioned, he deserves our support. and i hope in 10 minutes or so we will have the opportunity to vote and will do so and vote for him in very, very large

overwhelming numbers. madam president, how much time does our side have left? the presiding officer: 20 seconds. mr. carper: i reserve that time, if i may. thank you. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: under the previous order the clerk will report the motion toin vehicle cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of robert groves of mitch to be director of the census, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the

nomination of robert m. groves, of michigan, to be director of the census, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

society:vote:

sthoo the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change your vote? seeing none on, this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 15. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back. the question is on confirmation of the nominee. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominee is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dodd: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: i rise to express my opposition to the levin-mccain amendment over the production of the f-22 fighter putting us at odds with our president, and the chairman and ranking member of the senate armed services committee and for those fine public certificate e.p.a.s i have tremendous amount of respect and affection and have worked with them on numerous occasions and look forward to doing so in the future to get beyond this. but i have a duty to stand up for an airplane built by constituents of mine. i make the case, madam president, strictly on a job loss and individual state. that is not a legitimate argument to make to 99 of your colleagues from around the country. if we each made that case for job losses occurring in our districts our states, obviously it would lead to chaos.

we could not have a situation like that. my argument in support of the f-22 is far beyond the potential job loss in my state although that is not insignificant, some 2,000 jobs would be lost, potentially, in cut can you. more importantly than the job loss, as important as that is, is the potential loss of the industrial base that is critical to maintaining the ability to produce the superior engines we have historically have been able to do so in my home state. the work being done by machinists and engineers and others in my state and across the country produce quality work and make a significant difference in saving lives and giving us the superior ability to deal with potential threats that our nation faces. that has been a hallmark of every generation that has come before us not to achieve parity with potential adversaries but to be in a superior position to potential adversaries having learns the painful lessons in

the early part of the last century where we lacked the capacity of parity but superiority loftus in the conflict -- cost us in the conflict of the 1940's. so let me give my concern over the potential on national security. since modern warfare, military strategists have sought the highest ground to gain technical advantage. in the aim of the fighter jet that means commanding the skies. in the modern era air superiority is a cornerstone of american strategy. the f-22 is the reason we can lay claim to this superiority at this critical time. it is a fast plane reaching speeds of 1.5 in 90 seconds and has the ability to engage targets of being detectedded and highly equipped with advanced intelligence, surveillance and recon advance tools and the

raptor is unmatched by any important competitor including the much heralded russian built mig-29 flown by militaries around the world. i point to this particular chart i have which is rather difficult to read even from where the presiding officer is, a map of the world with a series of color-coded dots on this map. let me slain what the dots are and i will explain what we're looking at in existing technologies in the fourth generation of development of aircraft tomorrow and what is being done on a fifth generation by nation-states particularly the russians and the chinese. the red boxes, if you will, or dots on this thing, they operate, rather, they indicate that these countries already operate or have ordered fourth generation fighters and there are a number of countries around

the world in that category. the yel yellow-coded areas are expected to order by 2010, the fourth generation, you get the idea in the middle east and northern african states and the far east. the red dots themselves operate or have ordered advanced surface-to-air missiles. again, this is critical technology that has the capacity to take out your aircraft. and the yellow dots, the round dots, they are offered or considering advance surface air missiles so you get some idea of what's occurring here. this over here, air dominance, is not guaranteed is the point i wanted to make with the language here. the su-27 is a very sophisticated aircraft. it has air-to-air capability, the dog fight type of capability. those planes are operated already by algeria, belarus, china, ethiopia, india,

indonesia, malaysia, mexico, russia, ukraine, venezuela and vietnam. the mig-29 is a more air to ground capability, russian-build aircraft very sophisticated and that operates includes algeria, armenia, azerbaijan, belarus, bulgaria, cuba, hungary, iran, malaysia, north korea, peru, poland, russia, serbia, sudan, syria, ukraine, and yemen. again, widespread globally that air to ground capability and air-to-air capability. today, there is a fifth generation being developed that will be highly competitive with the f-22 and the f-35. that fighter is currently being developed by russia and china. to challenge the f-22 and the f-35 so that gives you a sense of where we are today. these are very sophisticated aircraft operating today.

the surface-to-air missiles are very sophisticated. and in countries today they can take out, in fact, our existing technology in many areas. and of course the fifth generation is what we're talking about being ready for the midpart of this century. our air superiority what gone unnoticed by others in many ways. this is identified on the maps. all the countries in red as i pointed out have an air capability comparable to the mig, all on par with our current aircraft technology. specifically, the f-15 and f-16 fighter, the fourth generation of jets. those are very confident, very good, and on parity -- not superior -- but parity with these aircraft. to give you an idea of what i mean by the generation, comparison, a report came out today, today or yesterday, that indicated in a matchup actually dog fights, between the f-22 and the f-15, i believe it was, the

f-22 in a comparative battle, beat the f-15, 144-1. to give you an idea of how much more superior the f-22 could be in commands of the airways, of the airspace, rather, opposed to what is comparable to the f-15 ode. so the f-22 is a very important piece of technology when it comes to regaining the superior capabilities that are absolutely essential. according to the air force, that's more, this map shows 30 nations are at parity with or exceeding the capabilities of the f-15 and f-16 and that puts our missions and lives of our pilots at risk. on top of that as i pointed out, russia and china are both developing their own 5th generation to counter the f-22. and 15 nations are operating

surface-to-air missile launchers, capable of shooting down the strike eagles that the f-22 would replace. the yellow dots indicate other countries considering the purchase of such weapons and i pointed those out. our current fourth generation fighter jets are vulnerable because they do not have the stealth technology found in the f-22. we witnessed this during operation desert storm when 37 of our nonstealthy aircraft were shot down and 40 were damaged. in an early stealth fighter, the f-117 and f-116 were brought down during the kosovo operations by surface-to-air missiles, risks we should not and don't have to take. these are risks we do not have to force upon our pilots. the are risks that are preventable if we arm ourselves with the next generation. and that's why the f-22 is so critically important. if this amendment being offered to strike and eliminate the f-22

that we cannot guarantees america's continuing air dominance. our allies will not always look like those we faced in afghanistan in 2001. or iraq in 2003. enemies whose air defenses were in tatters. we do not always choose when and where our battles are going to be fought. we must be prepared, madam president, and must retain our competitive edge for the sake of our national security and the lives of our troops. madam president, if the pending amendment is approved our f-22 free will be limited to 187 aircraft. according to military officials, such a figure is simply not enough to dress the current capabilities of our mill's competitors. si have a letter dated june 29 of this year from the general in charge currently of air combat command to the air force. in this letter he reiterated,

and i think my colleagues will understand when you have a current general in charge of air combat and command missions for the air force, it disagrees with the secretary of defense in a public way, you get some idea of the depth of feeling that occurs in a matter like this. -- and i quote -- "at air combat command we held the need for 381f-22's in my opinion, a float of 187f-22's puts execution of our current national security strategy at high risk in the near to midterm. to my knowledge there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 of the f-22's are adequate to support our strategy, air combat command analysis in concert with headquarters air force shows moderate risk force can be obtained with f-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft." the general corley, responsible for

readiness of the united states air force, says we'll incur moderate risk with even 250 aircraft and the command needs 381 aircraft to be fully capability -- capable. yet we insist on giving them only 187. madam president, that is deeply troubling and i think we owe it to our troops to give them what they need to protect, of course, our nation as well. but our security also depends on a robust manufacturing base, and the proposed amendment could be deaf stieght our critical aerospace -- could be devastating to our critical aerospace industrial capabilities. if this amendment we're now talking about passes, the f-22 assembly will halt in 2011 and fighter jet production lines will go cold until the year 20 2014, when the f-35 manufacturing begins in earnest. what does this mean for the aerospace industry and this nation? in my home state of connecticut, we are blessed to have a large contingent of incredibly skilled aerospace workers who keep our country safe and produce, of course, magnificent -- safe,

and, of course, produce magnificent engines. they are highly skilled engineers, technicians. on average in their mid to late 40's in age. they may retire, obviously, they may pack up and relocate, they may leave the trade entirely, but they won't just sit idle for three years and our nation cannot afford to lose them. and that's represented by this period here. the idea that you'd be laying these people off and them to be once again rehired by the time there would be in many cases in their mid-50's i think is unrealistic. and so that industrial base, that synergy that is critically important is going to be lost. the commission on the future of the u.s. aerospace industry recently recommended -- and i quote, madam president -- "that the nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained u.s. aerospace work force." adding, and i go on further to quote, "the breakdown of america's intellectual and industrial capacity is a throat national security -- threat to national security and our

capability to continue as a world leader." the commission also stated that resolving the crisis will require government, industry, labor, and academia to work together to reverse this trend. my colleagues, i'm afraid that this amendment does the exact opposite of what we're being warned to try and stop and that is, according to the aerospace industry's association, the industry faces impending retirements and a shortage of trained technical graduates, a situation already expected to worsen within the decade. some companies addressed this issue by outsourcing work around the globe, and aerospace and defense, however, security requirements dictate that most design work on military systems must be done by u.s. citizens. thus, the need for u.s.-developed technical talent is particularly acute if we want to ensure a world-class aerospace work force ready to lead in a global economy of the 2 1st century. on this chart, this is the f-22

production which ends in 2011, marked by this point here, madam president. this is the -- the f-35 production which begins in 2014 over here, and this gap is hundreds of jobs, as many as 2,000, but it also represents tens of thousands of american jobs across the nation in this particular area. i'm just talking about my own state right here and what happens in connecticut with this gap between the f-22 and the f-35. you can take those numbers -- and i can't speak for other places around the nation -- but you end up with that kind of loss in that work already in an economy that's struggling. but that's not an argument i would make, that we just keep people work on a new defense system here. the more important question is national security. but you ought to understand, even if you decide to once again re-up or ramp up in this time period here, you lose a work force here that's critical, it gets harder and harder and harder to do. in fact, the defense department recognizes this gap --

recognized this gap years ago. in the 2006 quadrennial defense review public hished by the military to -- published by the military to identify the needs and strategies of our armed forces, they stated that the f-22 production should be extended through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the department does not have a gap in fifth-generation stealth capability. that's a direct quote, madam president, from the quadrennial report in 2006. the military identified in 2006, the most recent published report of this type, that our nation would suffer loss in aerospace manufacturing capability if fighter production does not have a seamless transition. yet for some reason, we find ourselves in the very position that the military only three years ago realized we should avoid. in addition to our national security and the readiness of our aerospace production industry, this amendment would have a negative impact, of course, on jobs. our unemployment rate is 9.5%. we continue to face the worst

economic conditions in decades. that's why the administration and this congress have taken unprecedented steps to put americans back to work. it is why the government has stepped into n to save critical manufacturing sectors such as the domestic automobile indust industry. but this amendment suggests that the same government doesn't believe in our tactical aircraft manufacturing sector warrants similar treatment. in my state, where the impact of the recovery act is just beginning to be felt, the success of this amendment would be a devastating blow. and i'm determined to do everything committee to see to it we can avoid it. i would not want to see america's aerospace workers, among the finest in our nation, remain under assault. allow me to introduce two such workers, franklin teeny and rock comarone. their work at the pratt and whitney plant in middletown, connecticut, manufacturers the engine for the f-22. frank and rocco are both engine test mechanics. in this picture, the two of them here are preparing the f-22

engine for testing by attaching instrumentation used to detec detect -- collect, rather, data as the engine goes through a series of computerized tests. the highly advanced nature of this engine requires countless hours of testing and retesting, inspection and reinspection to ensure when it's shipped to the assembly plant, it operates flawlessly. both of these workers understand that a mistake on their part could cost the lives of our american forces. that is why it is so important to that these gentlemen have years of experience to ensure that only the best quality engines are put on these aircraft. these are the same workers that build the f-35 joint strike fighter's engine, but only if the f-22 production is allowed to continue for the next four years. frank, the one in the blue shirt here, madam president, has worked in the middletown plant for 31 years starting on the assembly line, finally rising to his current job on the test line for the plant's most advanced engine, the f-22.

frank is married with two sons aged 17 and 12 whom he helps to send off to college. the proposal -- the prospect of cutting the f-22 production makes him worry every day about his sons' future, not only about whether he'll be able to send them to college but also whether there will be any jobs for the next generation of children in connecticut's aerospace industry. rocco marone, known as the other worker, known by rocky by his coworkers. had worked at pratt and whitney for 34 years. like frank, he's a test mechanic. he trains and works with younger meme iks and imparts his experience on them, both from his time on the assembly line and working in the test cell. it is workers like these two individuals, these two men at the middletown plant in connecticut, a combined 65 years, taking that knowledge of 65 years that they've acquired here, building the finest engines in the world for the past 80 years, the plant has, and it is these seasoned workers who, by training the next generation, will ensure that the

trade secrets of engine building are never lost. but this amendment puts all of that at risk, madam president. as i mentioned, if the f-22 is canceled in 2011, i at the numbs we're now talking about, then these two individual and tens of thousands like them across our country face very difficult od odds. these highly-skilled quality control experts will be left wondering what lies ahead for them, for their families, will they retain their jobs, how many of their colleagues will be signing on to the unemployment rolls and whether or not other opportunities exist for workers with such highly refined with specialized skill sets. and if we lend the f-22 before 2014, we will be wondering something as well. when these gentlemen walk out the door and take decades of invaluable experience and skills with them, will we ever get them back again? madam president, i urge my colleagues to respectfully reject the amendment being offered by the chairman and the ranking member of the armed services committee. again, i have tremendous respect for both of these individuals,

but i think it's important, again not just on a parochial basis, i could not stand here and ask my colleagues merely to vote for this program because of jobs in my state. but i -- i also want them to understand what happens to people. this isn't just numbers we talk about here. there are lives, there are skill sets, those are valuable resources that are also at risk when we cast our votes on whether or not to continue this program and allow for that seamless transition that will maintain the superiority, the effectiveness of our aircraft of the 21st century. chart i showed you earlier -- the chart i showed you earlier here of these nations around the world, others are not sitting idly by. they're developing the surface-to-air missiles, they're developing the first generation of fighters, to challenge, and we find ourselves in a situation today where with might be taking a back seat at a time when i think we can least afford t. this is not inexpensive to do this. senator sacks bi chambliss has provided an -- senator asxby chambliss has

provided an offset in committee for the costs of continuing this program to 2014, and that's an important consideration. and again, my respect for members of the committee who have to wrestle with these issues every single day. but i wanted to share with my colleagues some of this information, particularly what it means in a state like mine that has an 80-year history of producing these terrific engines and workers like the two individuals i've introduced you to this evening, whose talents and abilities we potentially lose as a result of this -- of this decision. so it's one of great import, one of significance to our country, one of significance to our national security, one of significance to the people who provide, of course, this one skill sets that give us these remarkable engines. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and my colleagues are going to be speaking on this issue. a senator: could i ask, madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: could i -- mr. isakson: could i ask unanimous consent i be recognized for five minutes and that senator thune be recognized immediately thereafter. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: thank you very

much, madam president. i want the senator from connecticut for just a second, i rose -- i am rising to affirm everything the senator said. he made an articulate, detailed case for the f-22 in opposition to the amendment, and i commend him on it. and i want to just add three thoughts, three good reasons for the f-22 and not to adopt the amendment. number one, when the united states air force wrote the r.f.p. for the weapons system of the 21st century to replace three existing aging aircraft, the f-22 met and exceeded in every single point of the r.f.p., number one. number two, for those that say the cost is some $2,000 an hour more for maintenance? you know, you have to quantify that. look what you're buying. you're buying stealth technology that exists nobody in the world, nowhere in the world. the ability to deliver munitions and leave without ever having been seen. most recently in alaska, the f-22, in a mock battle,

destroyed 144 aircraft before it lost its first. and lastly and most importantly, while it may not be the plane exactly for afghanistan and iraq today, what about north korea? what about iran? what about what happened to us in the balkans in the late 1990's when president clinton deployed the -- our air strength to put together what was a terrible situation? we must be prepared for whatever will come in the 21st century. and if there's anything we've learned in the 21st century, you cannot underestimate what may come. so i want to commend the senator from connecticut on his articulate statement and affirm everything that he said in support of not adopting the amendment and continuing to purchase the f-22 beyond the 187 that is currently being capped at our being asked to be capped at, and i commend the senator for his remarks. mr. dodd: i would like to thank the senator from georgia. and that number on the 144-1, i suspect maybe our people won't believe that number. that is a real number and, you

know, you rarely -- pilots don't always necessarily comment on these matters, but i'm told by those who've been interviewing and talking, the pilots who fly plane, the f-22, use superlatives to describe the capabilities of the aircraft they've never used before, i'm talking about any other aircraft. i'm talking the ability to reach speeds in 90 second without the thrusters. they're remark. the stemen stealthy quality of,s the maneuverability, the agility of this aircraft that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. we've all been around long enough to predict we never can predict with absolute certainty what's going to happen and we seem to have happened with foreign sales with the su-27 and the mig-29, where those are now widely disseminated worldwide. and they pose a parity with the existing aircraft we have. we need to be able to have that superior quality, and i thank my colleague from georgia.

the presiding officer: you have 2 minutes remaining. mr. isakson: thank you. if the clerk would separate this in the record. i want to pause and tell everybody in the united states senate that on the first day of august of this coming month, in waeupbsboro, georgia, there's going to be a birthday party for a 96-year-old lady by the name of emily cox. she is not just another 96-year-old lady. emily cox was the mother of jackson elliot cox, my best friend in college. when he graduated from college, left to join the united states marine corps, went through o.c.s., went to vietnam and died on behalf of his country. miss emily was saddened obviously by the tragedy, as was her husband, sidney. when alex crumbley, myself and pierre howard went to be at the wake to wait for the body to return, to try to soothe in some way miss emily, it was she that

soothed us for the loss of our tragedy and a best day. since that day miss emily cox has traveled our state on behalf of veterans, on behalf of the united states marine corps, on behalf of our country. she is a living legend in georgia for her sweetness, for her strength, for her love of country and for her sacrifice. and while i will not be able to be in waynesboro, georgia, on august 1 to celebrate her 96th birthday, from the floor of the united states senate i send her my greetings and my thanks. she has been a rock for me, a rock for our community. miss emily, we love you and happy birthday. and i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan.

mr. levin: mr. president, i thank, first of all, my friend from south dakota for yield to go me for just a moment. he by unanimous consent was to be next recognized. this will just take a moment. we've been attempting to work out a unanimous consent agreement so that we could first vote tomorrow. that was not convenient for a number of senators. we then tried to work out a unanimous consent agreement for the first thing on wednesday morning to vote on the levin-mccain amendment. we've so far been unsuccessful in getting that agreement. we will continue to work tomorrow to see if we can't get such an agreement. in the meantime, that's where it stands. again, i thank my friend from south dakota for yielding.

mr. president, i would ask -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask now unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators recognized to speak for not more than ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, this week we work on the defense authorization bill. as a member of the armed services committee, that is something in which i have a keen interest, and many of the discussions you've heard already and we'll hear throughout the course of the week will deal fundamentally with our nation's national security interests, in making sure that we continue to fund our troops at the appropriate level, make sure that in terms of pay and

benefits, we're recruiting and retaining the finest men and women in uniform in the world, that they have the very best of technology to use when it comes to doing their jobs. and you've already heard a discussion about some of those various technologies and platforms and the f-22's, f-35's, i'm very interested in the next-generation bomber and the importance of having long-range strike kaeuplt so that we are able to continue to -- capability so we're able to continue to penetrate the defense systems being developed by our adversaries and potential adversaries around the country. and so this is a great debate to have. it is one that we have annually, and i look forward to engaging in some of the discussions on these very important and critical national security issues. i want to speak this evening, however, mr. president, to some of the things that are going on on the domestic front. i always believe that if you don't get national security right, the rest is conversation, which is why the defense authorization bill is so important. but when we do get past the

defense authorization bill, we've got a couple of big epic battles, i think, that are going to be waged here in the united states senate coming up perhaps this month. if not, i would suggest certainly in the fall. one deals with a bill that passed the house a little over a week ago now, the cap-and-trade legislation. the other deals with the issue of health care reform, which is one-sixth of america's economy. we're talking about an enormous amount of money that is spent in this country every single year on health care, and there is a piece of legislation that's moving through the house. there's discussions here in the senate. markup been going on for several days now in the health, education, labor and pensions committee here in the senate to report out a health care bill, health care reform bill that at some point will come to the floor of the united states senate and be debated. but these are huge, huge issues of consequence for the american people. and i think that the american people need to be engaged. and what struck me about the debate that was held in the

house of representatives a couple of weeks ago which, incidentally, passed by a 219-212 margin. the cap-and-trade legislation in the house of representatives. it was hurried through. it was done very quickly. it was a 1,200-some page bill. there was a 309-page amendment that was offered on the floor. i would submit that very few, if any members of the house of representatives had an opportunity to read the entire bill, let alone the amendment that was offered to it. and so it moved very quickly. and this has dramatic consequence for the american economy. when you start talking about a cap-and-trade bill that would impose essentially what is a tax on carbon that ultimately is directed -- suppose lid is directed at polluters but ultimately is going to be paid by consumers in this country, it's very clear that this is going to drive up the cost of energy in this country, whether that's electricity, whether that's fuels, whether that's natural gas, home heating oil. all those things that the

american people use every single day in their daily lives, they're going to see the cost go up. you know, you can talk about how much, and we have lots of varying estimates about what it would cost. the c.b.o. recently came out with an estimate, and this was highly touted by proponents of the legislation, that it was only going to cost people $175 a year, each household. well, the c.b.o. also said in the year 2020 that the average cost on a per-household basis would be considerably higher than that. that it would be $890 per household in 2020, with a top quintile paying an average of $1,380. after some generous assumptions about the enormous government-run wealth redistribution scheme that would be conducted via auction and the free allowances, the c.b.o. came back to this number of $175 per household on average with a middle quintile facing the highest net cost of $340. however, the figure is only the

budgetary cost per household, not a comprehensive economic analysis. it examines only a year that the c.b.o. assumes is a relatively low cost and after the expensive transition years. as a result, c.b.o.'s estimate really only captures some of the cost of cap-and-trade as the report acknowledges. but even at that, the c.b.o. average estimate gross cost by 2020, $890 additional per household per year in energy costs, and with the top quintile paying an average of $1,780. that study did not take into consideration different regions of the country or different demographic groups, different sectors of the economy, different income brackets. all these things are issues that have not been contemplated fully to date and what some of these impacts would make. and i would suggest that there

are going to be some significant regional disparities because there are going to be certain areas of the country that are going to pay much more in additional power costs than other parts of the country. and i think the transition is going to be particularly difficult for those areas of the country that are employed in industries like coal or living in areas in -- and that produce coal or rely heavily upon coal-fired power for their electricity generation. and the costs are going to be borne much more significantly by those areas of the country. so the regional differences are going to be especially dramatic when it comes to the electricity sector of the economy. and i would suggest in places like my home area of south dakota and upper midwest is going to disproportionately pay way more of this burden than are other parts of the country. and so a lot of these -- a lot of this data, a lot of this information has yet, i think, to make it out into the hands of the american people.

the american people find out what's actually happening here in washington with this cap-and-trade proposal, they get very exorcised about it, as i think most members of congress found out during the course of the 4th of july holidays. they went out, traveled across their respective states, i suspect they heard what i did. and that is that people are very upset about the notion that we are going to see these power costs go up significantly, energy costs go up, and that they're going to be paying the bill. and they haven't, i don't think, determined at this point that there's any benefit that they're going to derive from that. the argument's going to be made by proponents of the legislation that this is going to be a good thing because we're going to see significant reductions in co2 emissions and, therefore, that's good for the global climate. frankly, as we heard last week at the g-8 meeting there are other countries around the world who don't have a real concern about doing anything very quickly and have no intention of following the u.s.'s lead in that regard. and as a consequence, we're not going to see anywhere close to the reductions that have been

promised. and so you have a, what is pretty clearly a minimal environment benefit as a result of a gargantuan cost increase, tax, if you will, on the american economy in the form of higher energy costs. and so i would submit, mr. president, that the cap-and-trade legislation is going to have a profound impact on the economy, and it's something that shouldn't be hurried through. and i hope the senate, if and when this comes to the floor -- and frankly, i hope it doesn't because i don't think that right now this is an issue that ought to be occupying the time of the united states senate, when we're trying to get the economy growing again. we're talking about with this cap-and-trade legislation actually putting a new tax on the american economy at a time when we ought to be trying to get small businesses invested again, reducing the overall tax and regulatory burden that they face. and in trying to create jobs and expand the economy, rather than putting a new crushing mandate, top-down, heavy-handed

bureaucratic mandate cap-and-trade program on top of an economy that is already struggling. and as we saw last week, unemployment rates now topping 9%, 9.5%, perhaps going higher before it's all said and done. what's interesting to me about this is there doesn't seem to be any debate that this is going to raise energy taxes or energy costs. you know, so when people get into this argument, it's not a question of if. it's a question of how much. and there are even some on the house side, representative john dingell for many years was the chairman of the energy and commerce committee in the house of representatives said -- and i quote -- "cap-and-trade is a tax and it's a great big one." representative charlie rangel said "whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it's going to increase the cost to the consumer." end quote. and i could go on and on. secretary geithner, the president himself when he talked about this particular idea, indicated that costs would necessarily skyrocket.

and so there's no question but this is going to increase costs to the american consumer at a time when we can least afford it and at a time when we're trying to get our economy on a pathway to recovery we ought to be lessening the burden on americans, not increasing it. now there is a better way. and i think if you look at some of the alternatives that are out there, to me, it always makes more sense if you can incentivize a certain type of investment as opposed to trying to mandate some new regulatory regime, that's a much better way of doing business. i think if we want to do something legislatively when it comes to dealing with lowering the cost of energy in this country, that we ought to focus on reducing emissions by lowering the cost of renewables, by aggressively investing in research and supporting an increased role for types of power that haven't been used in this country. we are way underutilizing nuclear power. france gets 80% of electricity, of its electricity from nuclear power. united states, we're at about 20%. we could do way better on that,

mr. president. there is no reason why the united states could not be a leader when it comes to clean energy, and one of the things we need to do is build more nuclear plants. that's one of the things that's on our agenda that we would phraoeubg to see as an energy bill. i also think there are lots of things you can do efgt in nonkpwupb-emyth types of economies. i -- noncarbon emitting types of economies. south dakota would be a great place for that. and so i hope we can see more investment in wind. we need to make sure that we're providing the necessary and appropriate incentives and policy incentives for investment in wind energy. solar is something we have obviously a lot of room to grow in. conservation, carbon storage, fusion, all kinds of new technologies that are carbon-free sources of energy.

but the way that you get more of those, i believe, is to incentivize investment in those areas. it seems to me that that would be a much preferrable outcome. and i think frankly one that we could get our, those around the world, our global partners a lot more intnterested in in participating if we said, as has been suggested, that countries around the world devote a portion of their g.d.p. to these types of noncarbon-emitting energy technologies in researching and investing in those so that the burdens are shared equally. i would suggest every country would do a little bit differently. if i put a plan together like that for south dakota, i would make it wind heavy, other parts of the country might make it nuclear heavy. there are clean, green, and renewable sources of energy available in this country. but trying to impose a heavy tax that is going to be paid by the american consumer, ultimately, to me, seems like a wrong-head

aid approach when the economy is really struggling. that sort of segues into, i think, the other big issue, the big epic battle that we will face in the congress, than is what to do to reform our health care system to make costs more affordable to american families and consumers. i don't think that anybody argues that we don't need to reform the health care system. that there aren't things that we could do better, more cost effectively, and i certainly -- i would not for a minute suggest as some have suggested about republicans that republicans here in the senate -- i don't -- don't want to do anything. we all believe we need to do something. we all believe there are things that can be done to help improve and lower costs for people in this country. but it can be done in a way that doesn't turn everything over, the keys over of the health care to the federal government. much of what we're seeing right now in terms of the plans in are moving through the congress, the plans that are -- we're told at least the expectation is the

house of representatives will pass a bill perhaps first that will come -- that will come over here to the senate. what's being debated at the committee level here in the senate, swiss consists of what -- consists of a public plan option, which, in fact, is a government plan. i would characterize it as a government takeover. when the government goes into competition with private sector, it is going to be very difficult, i think, for the private sector to compete. now, there are many obviously already competing plans out there. george will noted that there are 1,300 entities offering health care plans in this country. another one isn't going to change that. but the larger problem you have when the federal government gets into competition with the private business, the government becomes not a competitor but predator. i think that the government will not compete with the private market but destroy the private market. if you look at the independent estimates and the lewin group

which studied this very carefully suggested that six out of 10 americans with private coverage or 118 million americans would lose their current health care coverage and be force willed into a government-run health care plan. in fact, john shields of the lewin group said, if we create this public plan that is priced so much lower than private insurance, that will draw a lot of people. in then you will wake up one morning and say, wow, there's only one payer. essentially what will happen, mr. president, in my view, is you would see the private companies that are offering insurance -- or small businesses offering coverage to their employees will say, i can't compete with the federal government. i'm going to have all of my employers -- all of my employees move over into the government-run program and essentially by default you would see this government takeover of our health care system and the government plan would become the plan in the country and eventually over time i would argue you -- it would evolve

into a single-payer system. so we're talking about one-sixth of the american economy and in -- and certain think will are -- certainly there are shortcomings in our current way of doing things much when we spend 17% or one-sixth of our entire g.d.p. on health care, the assumption is that -- it's not that we're spending -- or not spending enough money on health care beings it's probably that we're not spending it wisely notch we're not spending it smart. i think that we can spend it a lot smarter. we have lots of ideas about how to do that that don't involve putting another trillion dollars or $2 trillion in tax burden on americans in order to pay for this new system or perhaps even worse yet borrowing it from future generations, which is what we've been doing routinely around here for the past several months to fund many initiatives. those are both bad solutions, a trillion dollar tax or upwards maybe of that, depending on which estimate you look at, up to $2 trillion in additional

costs for the plan that's being proposed i think here by democrats in the house and senate, you have to finance it somehow. it's going to be paid for. it will be paid for in the form lifier taxes on the american economy or borrowing from future generations, neither of which is an option we ought to pursue. we ought to look at how can we make the current system, the 17% of our economy or $2.2 trillion that we spend annually on health care, how can we spend it more efficiently and effectively. it how can we emphasize wellness, how can we emphasize prevention? how can we allow small businesses and to get the group purchasing power? how can we create more competition by allowing people to buy across state lines. how do we get the cost of defensive medicine down by reforming our medical malpractice laws so that doctors aren't for fear of being sued or fear of liability over utilizing

and therefore practicing defensive medicine, which has been suggested by the health and human services department, a study that they did back in 2003. if you put it into today's dollars suggests that you could save up to $180 billion a year in health care costs just by doing something about medical malpractice reform. and so these are all things that -- that we're for. i mean we've got lots of ideas about how to improve health care in this country or improve at least the -- the delivery of health care, drive down the cost of health care, but do in a way that doesn't impede upon that important relationship between a physician and a patient and -- and that prevents the government from becoming imposing itself into that situation. the government then making a decision about which procedures will be covered. how much is going to be paid for each procedure? and essentially becoming the -- the desire -- decider when it comes to health care in this country. we think that the decisions made

with respect to people's health care ought to be made by patients, by providers and not having the government dictating and getting in the way of that basic fundamental relationship. now the c.b.o. has -- has said and kennedy-dodd bill, which is the one -- the only one that we know of right now moving its way through the committee process. it is currently being marked up. has said if the government plan as proposed in the kennedy-dodd bill was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans. but how then is the government going to offer any benefit? the government plan is going to be, in my view, redund enter to what is already out there unless it comes in and tries to undercut private insurance which would put private insurance businesses -- businesses out of business and those small businesses that offer their employees health care, push those employees into the

government-run program. mr. president, these are both, as i said before, in terms of size, scope, and scale and magnitude enormous issues in terms of our domestic economy. we shouldn't be hurrying these things through. there's some suggestion that the health care bill, if it comes over from the house might be rushed to the floor of the united states senate, put on the floor under rule 14 and, you know, try to get it passed before the august recess. that's not the way to conduct the business of the united states senate. that's not the way to deal with one-sixth of the american economy. it's not the way, certainly, to deal with something as complex as the american health care system. and to allow the government takeover of that system seems, to me to be a -- something that most americans, if they were aware it was happening would not be for, and i think that the survey numbers bear that out. i think as is true with cap-and-trade, the more the american people are engaged in

this debate, the more objections will they will -- they will have to the government takeover of health care in this country. these are issues that need to be done thoughtfully, carefully, and, frankly, they shouldn't be rushed out of here. we shouldn't talk about passing health care out of the senate before the august break, we shouldn't be talk -- talk about -- doing cap-and-trade. i think that is pushed into the fall. these are both huge, huge impacts on america's economy. get at the very heart of the issue of how we're going to retained create new jobs and expand the economy. these are consequential issues and shouldn't be rushed. so i hope that the senate will take its time and allow for a full debate and that we'll have an opportunity to put some ideas out there, to make health care more affordable to more americans. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: it's my understanding we're now in morning business, is that right? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar 94, s. 1233. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will read the bill. the clerk: calendar 94, s. 1233, a bill to reauthorize and improve the a.b.i.r. and sttr program and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure?

without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the senator's coburn and fine gold have an amendment at the desk. i ask for its consideration, that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the committee report substitute amendment be agreed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. that the bill as amended be read a third time. i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 296 5rbgs the house companion which is at the desk. that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of s. 1233 as amended be inserted in lou there -- in through there of, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that upon passage of h.r. 2965, s. 1233 be returned to the calendar with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask consent that when the senate completity business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, july 14.

that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there be a period of morning business for one hour with the time controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half, and the democrats controlling the second half of further, following morning business, the senate resume calendar 89, s. 1390, the department of defense authorization bill. and then i ask that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus lunches. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you, please be seated. i thank my two colleagues from new york for the introduction and i appreciate it. i know both and have known you for quite some time for good judge, you have also introduced a number of members of your

family. now the floor is yours. >> thank you mr. chairman. i also want to thank senator schumer and gillibrand for their kind introductions. in recent weeks i have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting 89 senators, including all the members of this committee. each of you has been gracious to me and i have so much enjoyed meeting you. our meeting said given me an illuminating chore of the 50 states and invaluable insights into the american people. there are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. i am deeply appreciative for their love and support. i want to make one special note of thanks to my mother. i am here, as many of you have noted, because of our

aspirations and sacrifices for both of my brother and me. i am very grateful to the president and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the united states supreme court. the progression of my life has been uniquely american. my parents left puerto rico during world war ii. i corrupt in modest circumstances in a bronx housing project. my father, the factory worker with the third grade education, passed away when i was nine years old. on her own my mother raised my brother and me. she taught us that the key to success in america is a good education and she set the example, studying the alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse.

we worked hard. i poured myself into my studies at cardinal spellman high school, earning scholarships to princeton university and then gail law school while my brother went on to medical school. our achievements are due to the values that we learned as children and they have continued to guide my life's and diverse. i tried to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many got children and to students of all backgrounds. over the past three decades i have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives. as a big city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as the trial judge and as an appellate judge. my first job at the law school was as an assistant district attorney in new york. there, i saw children avoided

and abused. i felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the need less death of loved ones. i saw and learned that tough job law enforcement has in protecting the public. in my next job, i focused on commercial instead of criminal matters. i litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advise them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks. mica grier as an advocate in did and my career as the judge began when i was appointed by president george h.w. bush to the united states district court of the southern district of new york. as a trial judge i did decide over 450 cases and presided over dozens of trials with perhaps my

most famous case being the major league baseball strike in 1995. after six extraordinary years on the district court, i was appointed by president clinton to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. on that court i have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues. as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us. i have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional statutory and other legal questions. throughout my 17 years on the bench, i have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interest of any one lincoln's, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.

in the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. simple. fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. and it is clear i believe that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and congress's intent and healing faithfully to precedence established by the supreme court and by my circuit court. in each case i have heard, i have applied the law to the facts at hand. the process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties of the litigation are understood and acknowledge. that is why i generally

structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. that is how i seek to strengthen both the rule of law and the impartiality of our judicial system. my personal and professional experiences helped me to listen in and understand what the law always commanding the results in every case. sends president obama announced my nomination in may, i have received letters from people all over this country. many tell the unique story of hope in spite of struggle. each letter has deeply touched me. eat reflects a dream, a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to new york all those years ago.

it is our constitution that makes that impossible. and i now seek the honor of upholding the constitution as a justice on the supreme court. senators, i look forward to the next few days in answering your questions, to having the american people who learn more about me and to being part of a process that reflects the greatness of our constitution and of our nation. thank you all. >> supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor from earlier today. you can see today's confirmation hearing in its entirety tonight at 8:30 eastern right here on sis plan to. before that, also from today's senate judiciary committee hearing portions of the opening statements from chairman patrick leahy and ranking member jeff sessions.

>> a constitution is interesting. we have over 300 million americans and only 101 people get a chance to say who is going to be on the supreme court. first and foremost of course the president, in this case president obama ameyde the nomination and then 100 senators have to stand in place and all 320 million americans in considering the president has done his part. he has made an historic nomination. now the senate has to do its part on behalf of the cent people-- the american people. president obama offered a quote dr. martin luther king's inside the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. each generation of americans has sought that arced towards justice. we have improved upon the foundation of our consultation to the bill of rights, the civil war amendments, the 19th

amendment's expansion of the right to vote to women, the civil-rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965 amendments extension of the right to vote to young people. these actions have brought progress toward more perfect union. i believe this nomination can be another step along that path. judge sotomayor's journey to this hearing room is a truly american story. she was raised by her mother, a nurse in the south bronx. like her mother, sotomayor worked hard. she graduated as velda torian of her class at blessed sacrament at cardinal spellman high school in new york. she was a member of the third class at princeton university in which women were included. she continue to work hard,

including breeding classics that had been unavailable to her when she was younger and arranging to tutoring to improve for writing. she graduated summa laudee, phi beta kappa. she was awarded the m. taylor singer prize for scholastic excellence and service to universities. i mentioned this as an honor that is given for outstanding merit. after selling at princeton she entered yale law school where she was an active member of the law school committed to. upon graduation she had many options. but she chose to serve her community in the new york district attorney's office. i might say parenthetically everyone of us have had the privilege to be a prosecutor knows what kind of a job that is and how hard it is. there she prosecuted murders, robberies, assaults, child pornography. force, president bush manger to the federal bench in 1992 when

she served as the trial judge for six years. president clinton named her to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit where she served for more than ten years. she was confirmed by a bipartisan majority in the senate. judge sotomayor's qualifications are standing. she is said more judicial experience than any nominee to the united states supreme court in nearly 100 years. she is the first nominee in well over a century to be nominated to three different federal judgeships by three different presidents. she is the first nominee in 50 years to be nominated to the supreme court after serving in both a federal trial judge and federal appellate judge. she will be the only current supreme court justice to have served as a trial judge. she is a prosecutor and a lawyer in private practice. she brings a wealth of diversity and experience to the court.

i hope all americans are encouraged by judge sotomayor's achievements and by her nomination to the nation's highest court. her's is a success story which all, all americans can take pride. those who break barriers face the burden of overcoming prejudice and it is untrue on the supreme court for the thurgood marshall graduated first in his law school class and the lead counsel for the naacp, legal defense fund. he sat on the court of appeals for the second circuit. research as the nation's top lawyer and solicitor general of united states. he won a remarkable 29 out of 32 cases before the supreme court but despite all of these qualifications and achievements, when he was before the senate for his confirmation he was asked questions designed to pin their some questions such as are you prejudiced against the white people of the self? i hope that is in a time of our past.

the confirmation of justice louis brandeis, the first jewish-american to be nominated to the high court was struggling with anti-semitism and charged with being erratical bhargava commentary included questions about the jewish-- and hallet operations were complicated by altruism. likewise the first catholic nominee, had to overcome the argument as a catholic he would be dominated by the pope. we are in a different era. we have entrusted all members will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of judge sotomayor will be littered and her record. let no when domain this extraordinary woman, her access or understanding of the constitutional duties she has faithfully performed for the last 17 years. i hope centers will join together as we did when we considered president reagan's

nomination of sandra day o'connor is the first woman to serve on the supreme court. there, every democrat and every republican voted to confirm her. this hearing is an opportunity for americans to see and hear judge sotomayor for themselves and consider her qualifications. it is the most transparent confirmation hearing has ever held. her decisions and confirmations, materials have been posted on line and made publicly available. the record is significantly more complete than that available when we consider president bush's nomination of john roberts and samuel alito just a few years ago. the judge's testimony will be carried live on several television stations and also live via webcast, something that i have set up for the judiciary committee web site. a review for judicial record leads me to conclude she is

abler strain judge with a deep respect for judicial precedent and for the powers of the branches of the government including the law making role of the congress. the conclusion is supported by a number of independent studies that have been made for record and shines through in a comprehensive review of for tough and fair record in criminal cases. she has a deep understanding of the real, the real lives of americans and the duty of law enforcement to help keep americans saved and the responsibility of all of us to respect the freedoms that define america. unfortunately some have sought to twist your words and their record to engage in political attacks. ideological pressure groups began attacking her even before the president made his selection. they then stepped up their attacks by threatening republican senators who do not oppose her. that is not the american way and that should not be the son of

way. interest we do not have to speculate about what kind of a justiciable be because we have seen what kind of a judge she has been. she is a judge in which all americans can have confidence. she has been a judge for all americans. she will be a justice for all americans. they ranking republican on this committee reflected the confirmation process saying, what i found was the charges flying from right and left are unsupported and falls. it is very, very difficult for nominee to pushback so i think we have a high responsibility to face and the criticism we have on a fair and on a statement of the facts and that nominee should not be subjected to distortion of their records. i agree with senator sessions. as we proceed let no one distorts the judge's record. let's be fair to her and the american people by not misrepresenting her views. we are a country bound together

by our magnificent constitution. it guarantees the promises, the promise that our country will be a country based on the rule of law. and her service as a federal judge, sonia sotomayor has kept faith with the promise. shia understands there's not one law for one race or another, there's not one law for one color or another, there's not one law for rich in a different one for the poor. there's only one lot and judge the remember so well esad in my office and you said ultimately and completely a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been. that is the kind of fair and impartial judging the american people expect. that is the respect for the rule of law but that is the kind of judge, judge sotomayor has been. the american people deserve. judge sotomayor has been nominated to replace justice

souter whose retirement his left the court with only eight justices, justice souter serve the nation with distinction for nearly two decades on the supreme court with a commitment to justice and an admiration for the law, an understanding of the impact of the court's decisions of the daily lives of ordinary americans. i believe judge sotomayor will be in the same old that serve as the manner of sandra day o'connor committed to the lot and not to ideology. in the weeks and months leading up to this hearing i have heard the president and senators on both sides of the aisle make reference to the engraving over the entrance of the supreme court. i look at that every time i go up there. it is carved in vermont marble and it says, equal justice under law. judge sotomayor's nomination keeps faith with those words. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank

you for your leadership and i believe you let's set up rules for conducting this hearing consistent with past hearings and i believe it allows us to do our work together and i have enjoyed working with you on this process. i hope this will be viewed as the last hearing this committee has ever had. i joined chairman leahy and judge sotomayor in welcoming you here today and it marks an import milestone in your life. and i know your family is proud and rightly so and it is a pleasure to have them with us today. i expect this hearing and the resulting debate will be characterized by respectful tone. a discussion of serious issues. a thoughtful dialogue and may be some disagreement but we have worked hard to do that and set the tone from the beginning. i have been an active litigator and tried cases as a federal prosecutor and as attorney general of alabama. the constitution and our great heritage of law i care deeply about. they are the foundation of our

liberty and our prosperity and this nomination is critical for two important reasons. first, just as it is on the supreme court have great responsibility, hold enormous power and have a lifetime appointment. just five members can declare the meaning of our constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what people intended. second, this hearing is important because i believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. downspout is the traditional american system so it mired around the world where judges are impartially applying the law to the facts without regard to personal views. this is the compassionate system, because it is the fairs system and the american legal system courts do not make law or set policy because allowing an elected official to make law would strike at the heart of our democracy. here, judges take an oath to

administer justice and partially. that 03, i do solemnly swear that i will administer justice without respect to persons and people rights to the rich and the port and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me under the constitution and laws of the united states, so help me god. these principles give the traditional system its moral authority, which is why americans respect and accept the ruling of courts even when they disagree and our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. the trial is a process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to the truth. dan on the other path allows a brave new world where words have no true meaning and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to say. in this world a judges free to

push his or her own political and social agenda. i reject that view and americans reject that you. we have seen federal judges to force their political and social agenda condonation, dictating that the words under god be removed from the pledge of allegiance and barring stevens from even private, even silent prayer in schools. judges have dismissed the people's right to their property saying the government can take a person's home for the purpose of developing a private shopping center. judges have come contrary to longstanding rules, created terrorist captured on a foreign battlefields to sue the united states government in our own country. judges have cited favor and laws, world opinion and a united nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional. i am afraid our system will only be further corrupted.

i have to say as a result of president obama's views that in tough cases, the critical ingredient for a judge is "the depth and breadth of one's empathy." as well as his words, quote the broader vision of what america should be. like the american people i have watched this process for a number of years and i fear that this empathies standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist results oriented relativistic world where a loss lose their fixed meaning, the unelected judges set policy, americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than simply americans, where the constitutional limits on government in power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies. we have reached a fork in the road i think in their stark differences. i want to be clear. i will not vote for and no

senators will vote for an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality for every person that appears before them. i will not vote for endo center should vote for an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court. in my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying. such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not mutual but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. colligan bateh, call it predjudice arcola of sympathy but whatever it is it is not law. into that is more akin to politics and politics has no place in the courtroom. some will respond, judge

sotomayor, would never say it is acceptable for a judge to display prejudice in a case but i regret to say that some of your statements out line seemed to say that, clearly. let's look it just a few examples. we have seen the video of a duke university panel, where judge sotomayor says, it is the court of appeals where policy is made and i know this is on tape and i should never say that, and should not think that. and, doing a speech 15 years ago, judge sotomayor said, i willingly accept a judge must not deny the difference resulting from experience and heritage but continuously attempt to judge when those opinions, said the these and prejudices are appropriate. in that same speech, she said "my experiences will affect the

facts i choose to seek." having tried a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me. i expect every judge to seek all of the-- so i think it is noteworthy when asked about judge sotomayor's sabin that statewise latino would come to a better conclusion than others, the president obama, white house press secretary robert gibbs and supreme court justice ginsburg declaring to defend those remarks. the aegis zoom the nominee misspoke but i don't think, the nominee did not miss the. she is on record as making the statement at least five times over the course of a decade. i am providing a copy of the full text of those speeches for the record. others will say that despite the statements we should look to a nominees records which they characterize as moderate. people say the same of justice ginsburg who is now considered

to be one of the most activist members of the supreme court in history. some senators ignored justice ginsburg's philosophy and focused on the nominee's judicial opinions, but that is not a good test because those cases were necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal from higher courts. on the supreme court, those checks on judicial power will be removed and the judge's philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom. but, even as the lower court judge, our nominee has made some troubled rollings. i am concerned by the ricci, the new haven fire fighters qasr first by the supreme court where she agreed with the city of new haven's decision to change the promotion roles in the middle of the game. incredibly your opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis. justice sotomayor has said she except that her