policies. hearing this call, our military leaders have produced a plan this year to address wasteful and unnecessary defense spending so that we can ensure that we are providing our armed forces the tools they need to keep america safe and strong while also ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly. we have a major debt in this country. some of it is because of mistakes made in the past in this economy. we have enough blame to go around everywhere. but we have a major debt, we have a deficit and we have troops that need to get the equipment they deserve. what's the answer? put $1.75 billion into some planes that the pentagon says they don't need? i don't think that's the answer, mr. president. it should be noted that the limit on the number of f-22's that the levin-mccain amendment would restore is supported by the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and both the current and the immediate past president of the united states.

i believe that senators levin and mccain should be commended for their dedication to improving our defense posture and budget and for putting their own political interests aside. their own jobs and their own states. earlier this spring i was traveling with senator mccain in vietnam when the proposed reductions, including the f-22's were announced. i discussed with him at length what this would mean, the difficult decisions that members are going to have in their own states. but i also talked to him about what the troops need. and right now the troops and their commanders are telling us that they don't need these planes. and so it is a testament to senator mccain's service to our nation and the work that senator levin has done for years that they are leading the fight to defend the recommendations of our military and civilian leaders, and i am proud to join them. this amendment presents us with an opportunity, mr. president. we can begin making decisions

based on security interests and fiscal responsibility and cut $1.75 billion for additional f-22 aircraft that our military commanders say that they do not need or we continue on a course that cannot be sustained. i urge my colleagues to do what is in this nation's best long-term interest, in the best interest of our troops, and to vote for the levin-mccain amendment. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: stpha*pl. mr. gregg: first, i wish to dashes presiding officer, -- mr. gregg: mr. president, we're all concerned about waste, and i have an amendment which i understand i can't call up because the parliamentary situation is such that the members, that the floor leaders do not wish to have another amendment brought up.

but this sign here which is a type of sign that's proliferating across our nation everywhere reflects waste, and it's totally inexcusable. it is a political advertisement for money that is being spent as a result of the stimulus package. that's all it is. the sign saeuz the project funded by the american recovery and reinvestment act, completion august 2009. that is a political statement, the purpose of which is to promote spending on the stimulus package. now, i didn't vote for the stimulus package. i thought that a program which is going to spend almost 50% of the money after the year 2011 made little sense and wasn't stimulus at all. but i certainly didn't -- wouldn't have expected that as a result of this program we would

be funding these signs all over america to promote this program. these signs aren't cheap, by the way. in new hampshire, we get them less -- in most places they cost about $300 a sign. but in georgia, they cost $1,700 a sign. in pennsylvania, they cost $2,000 a sign. in new jersey, they're costing $3,000 per sign. and literally, there's 20,000 projects going on, most of them paving projects, across this country, paving projects most of which may have occurred anyway. you start multiplying the number of signs that are going up, and each one of these projects in some instances having two or three signs going up, you're talking very significant dollars. you're talking tens of millions of dollars for self-promotion of these programs. ironically, these signs are

actually required before people can get the funds. we had a gentleman in one of our towns in new hampshire, i think it was derrey, who said that before he would be released to do the project in his town, that the town had applied for and had approved, they had to agree to put up this sign. he didn't want to put up the sign. he thought it was a waste of money. but he was required to put up this sign. why are we doing this? the american people are really sort of tired of us wasting dollars, and they're especially tired of us wasting dollars trying to blow our own horn around here. if the administration felt these signs promoting the stimulus package were so valuable, let them spend campaign funds, because that's what they are. they're campaign signs, to put them up. instead we're putting these signs up. what these signs should really say, if we're going to put them up is project funded by the future generations of american

taxpayers. and they add to the debt of our children. that should be added under here -- "added to the debt of our children." because the signs have no value at all. none, other than self-promotion of these projects. maybe some of the projects are legitimate. in fact, i think probably most of them are legitimate. and to the extent they're done within this period of recession, i would support them. the problem i have with the stimulus package was that so much of the money was being spent outside of a period when we know the recession will be over. but even if the projects are legitimate -- which most of them i'm sure are, although some have been questioned, like the crossing path for turtles. that received a fair amount of press. i have to say i didn't really understand why we had to build an underpass for turtles. but i don't live in whatever state that was n. but as a very practical matter, the underpass for turtles had a sign which said the project is being built at the expense of the american taxpayers, promoting the

american recovery and reinvestment act. well, this is foolish. this is foolish. this is the type of thing that drives taxpayers crazy, and it should. i mean, it's so inexcusable. you know, people get outraged by us doing things like this and by the government doing things like this. and they drive by a sign like this. you know, if you've got a chain saw in the back of your truck, you want to cut it down. they put them up in steel, so you probably have to have a blow torch. in any event, they shouldn't be out there, and they certainly shouldn't be out there costing $300 per sign. that money at the minimum -- first, it shouldn't have been spent. if it is going to be spent, it should have been spent on the project itself or other projects which were deserving. certainly there was no reason to spend it to promote the project through these signs. i'll have an amendment which says essentially no more signs. no more waste in taxpayers' dollars on signs that cost

$3,000 promoting projects for the purposes of political aggrandizement. i hope to be able to call it up as we move forward on the defense bill. i recognize it is not immediately a defense issue, but unfortunately this is the only authorizing bill that's floating around the body. these signs are going up like, you know, weeds across the nation. every time they go up, they cost our children a few thousand dollars on the national debt. and so if we're going to stop that type of profligate spending, we have to act now. and, therefore, i am going to call this amendment up when the proper time occurs here on the floor. mr. president, i yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i would hope that any of our colleagues that might have remarks on the pending amendment would come over now or give us some indication that they might want to speak in the morning, because we need to press ahead with this amendment. i in the next few minutes am going to be making inquiry with the other side of the aisle to see if we can't reach a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote tomorrow morning. we tried this yesterday without success and earlier today without success. but we're going to try again because it is important that we resolve this amendment, dispose of this amendment so that we can go on with other amendments to the bill. so i will, i'll be making that inquiry of my good friend from arizona in the next few minutes, and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

qoarl quoruquorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to speak on the national defense authorization bill that's pending before the senate. and it's in reference to be a eald that would be object that bill -- to an eald that would be on that bill, mr. president. mr. president, more than a decade ago on a cold night in wyoming, a young man was assaulted and killed simply for being who he was. the brutality of that murder shocked the nation. but even more shocking was a motive for the crime. matthew shepherd was targeted and killed that night for nothing more than his sexual

orientation. the fact that this vicious attack could occur at all is hard to believe. the fact that it was done out of blind hatred is simply too much to bear. and so we must make sure that matthew shepard's death was not in vain. we must shape a positive legacy from the ashes of his -- of this tragedy -- of this terrible tragedy. i believe that this is the next chapter in the struggle against hatred and in the favor of equal rights. and as we have been called to do throughout our history, i believe it's time to take action once again. mr. president, i rise today in support of the legislation inspired by matthew's tragic story. and i'm proud to be a cosponsor

of the matthew shepard local law enforcement hate crime prevention act. if it becomes law, the matthew shepard act will add sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes under federal law. giving law enforcement officials the tools that they need to bring all violent criminals to justice. many states already have hate crime legislation on the books. i'm proud to say that my home state of illinois is among them. but we need to make sure that violent criminals face the same penalties here in washington as they do in illinois and across the nation. hate crimes are assaults against individuals. but they are really target -- they really target the entire group of people. matthew shepard was not just a young gay man, he was -- he was very, very -- a very, very young

gay man. colleagues, it is time to take a stand. it is time for the united states senate to help end the hatred. to reaffirm our commitment to an america that is as free and as equal as our founders intended for it to be. to make sure that no american lives in fear of because of who they are. as a former attorney general of illinois, i've bb fighting hate crimes for many years. since the very beginning of my career, i have spoken out against injustice and worked hard to end discrimination. so i understand how important the matthew shepard act will be as we seek to bring criminals to justice for their actions. but some have expressed concern about this measure. i've heard from illinois residents who worry that this

may prevent them or their religious leaders from expressing their faith. as a deeply religious american myself, i will oppose any bill that restrict our freedom of speech or our freedom of religion. so let me assure my constituents and my colleagues that the matthew shepard act applies to vinyl -- violent crimes, not religious speech. it will help us end murder and assault, but it will not affect the sermons people will hear every sunday or their ability to preach the things they believe. so, mr. president, a decade has passed since matthew shepard's tragic death. we must not let -- another year go by without the matthew shepard act as law of the land. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important

legislation. and hopefully that we will be able to have hate crime as a crime on the books and the nation as well as in our states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, so far we've been unable to obtain an agreement to have a vote tomorrow morning on the

levin-mccain amendment. i'm hoping that we can achieve such an agreement yet tonight and if not at the clear day of dawn tomorrow morning. but i'm disappointed, obviously, we've not been able to get an agreement to go to a vote on that amendment but that's the fact we'll have to deal with and in the meantime i would ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to a period of morning business with each seasosenator allowed to speak fp to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: i ask my statement be put in the appropriate place in the record. i'm speaking in opposition to the levin-mccain amendment that is pending before the senate.

the presiding officer: wit the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i do rise this afternoon to express my opposition to the levin-mccain amendment that would cut off production of the f-22 fleet and would hurt hard-working families in the aerospace industry across our country. i know many of my colleagues have come to the ploor to echo their opposition to this amendment and i have listened to them speak very convincingly about how it would limit our continued air superiority in the skies across the globe. i've listened to them talk about how allowing our -- it would mean that our air superiority would slip and we would lose our ability to safeguard our nation in the years ahead. they've also noted that prominent military officials have been clear that cutting off production of the f-22 would put our nation's defense at high to moderate risk. now, while i agree with my colleagues on all of these points today, i want to discuss

on the floor this afternoon another negative consequence of this amendment that would harm our security, our economy, and our ability to respond quickly to threats in the future, a consequence that will hit home for so many in states like georgia and connecticut, texas, california, and washington wherever day we are fighting rising unemployment. it's another area in which our country has had clear superiority, but where today, because of actions like this amendment, we are slipping into deep trouble. mr. president, today i want to discuss how this amendment will erode the health and long-term needs of our nation's industrial base. as many here in this body know, this is not the first time i have sounded the alarm about our disappearing industrial base. this effort to prematurely cut production of the f-22 is simply the latest in a series of decisions that fail to take into account the men and women who work every day to provide for

their families by building the eequipment that protects our country. but as i have said all along, protecting our domestic bait base isn't just about one company or one program or one state or one industry. this is about our nation's economic stability. it's about our future military capability, and the ability to retain skilled, family-wage jobs in communities throughout our country. you know, just a few months ago, we passed a long overdue bill in the senate that reforms many of the pentagon's procurement practices, and in that bill i worked with chairman levin and others to sphulsly add an amendment that draws -- to successfully add an amendment that draws the attention of the pentagon leadership to consider the effects of their decision on our industrial base and its abet to meet our national security objectives. i worked to include that provision because i believe it's time to start a serious conversation about the future of the men and women who produce

our tanks, our boats and our planes. the skilled workers our military depends on, it is a workforce that is disappearing before our eyes. mr. president, providing the equipment our war fighters need is a partnership. it is a partnership that requires the pentagon to be actively engaged with the manufacturers that supply the systems and parts that make up our aircraft and defense systems. it's a partnership that requires the pentagon to take into account how our workforce and manufacturing capability will be affected when they cancel vital programs. unfortunately, today military procurement is a one-way street. now, in fact just yesterday the aerospace industry's association issued a major report, and i have it here today. and this report finds that the pentagon has failed to consider industrial efforts when choosing strategies. now, much like my amendment to

the reform bill, this report urges the pentagon to take into account the impact decisions like the one to stop production of the f-22 take on our manufacturing base. this report, and i urge my colleagues to take a look at it if you haven't seen it, notes that our manufacturing base was not taken into account in past quadrennial defense reviews and that when secretary gates unveiled his program cuts in april, he specifically said the defense industry jobs were not a factor in his decisions. well, mr. president, as our country faces two difficult, but not unrelated challenges -- safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and rebuilding our faltering economy -- ignoring the needs of our industrial base shouldn't be an option. whether it's the sig scientistso are designing the next generation of military satellites or the engineers that

are improving our radar systems or the machine ifl machinists we our warplanes, these workers are one of our greatest strategic assets. well, what if they weren't available in what if we made budgetary and policy decisions without taking into account the future needs of our domestic workforce? well, that's not impossible. it's not even unthinkable. it actually is happening today. and we need to be clear about the ramifications of amendments like the one that's been offered here today, because once our plants shut down and once our skilled workers have moved on to other fields and once that basic infrastructure is gone, we are not going to be able to rebuild it overnight. building an f-22 isn't something you learn in school; it takes years of on-the-job experience. ask any -- one of the workers from ft. worth to baltimore who are responsible for the

intricate radar systems or the high-tech engine parts or the complex stealth technology. we have machinists today in this country who've pass ped experience and know-how down the ranks for 50 years. we have engineers who know our mission and who know the needs of our soldiers and airmen and sailorsailors. and we have a reputation for delivering for our military. it took us a long time to build this industrial base now to the point where we have workers who can make fifth-generation air fighter planes. what we have left we have got to work to keep because once our plants shut down, those industries are gone, and we not only lose the jobs but we lose the skills and the potential ability to provide our military with the equipment to defend our nation and project our might worldwide. so, mr. president, today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military across the globe, we cannot forget the

needs of our industrial base. because unless we begin to address this issue now and really think about it, we're not only going to lose some of our best-paying american jobs, we're going to lose the backbone of our military might. at a time when we are looking to create jobs, build the economy, eliminating a $12 billion economic activity and thousands of americans jobs that are tied to the f-22 production doesn't make sense to me. supporting continued f-22 production will help defend against potential threats, it of course will protect family-wage jobs, and importantly, it will preserve our domestic base. so, mr. president, i come this evening to urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment that's been offered and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kaufman: mr. president -- madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware.

mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday -- the presiding officer: senator, the senate is still in a quorum call. mr. kaufman: i request the absence -- i request we rescind the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufmanthe senator from del. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, july 15. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be 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, and the senate resume consideration of calendar number 89, s. 1390, the department of defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

how is c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars. >> private donations can back public support to track consumer funded, i guess. >> private contributions. >> however, c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies and created a c-span as a public service. a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> in london that defense secretary spoke to the house of

commons yesterday about the country's record loss of 15 soldiers in afghanistan so far this month. and british involvement in that war. this debate is about an hour. >> order, questions to the secretary of state and defensive. question number one a place. >> mr. speaker, with permission can i start by paying tribute to the 15 brave men who tragically lost their lives in afghanistan and the last 30 days. have now lost hundred 84 lives in this conflict any show everyone of them is a terrible

loss. this last week has been hit hard wait for those serving in theater but the result is incredible. in the face of these tough times they're determined to get on with their mission ended in the face of heavy resistance as they are making progress. out like to urge colleagues on all side of the house to be unveiling an aris support for them, they deserve no less. mr. speaker, progress is being made by the insurgency remains resilience, the majority people can go about their daily lives but in certain areas of the country in particular in the south and east, of insecurity challenges remain. in the british danish, estonian and american troops are currently engaged in major offensive operations. two secure key it population centers in the run-up to the afghan a presidential elections. >> thank you mr. speaker and i join with the secretary of state in paying tribute to this

service personnel who lost their lives in recent days, they died seven their country and in and those immortal words they gave their today. some of the greatest security threats to our service personnel face in the afghanistan are on the ground. can the secretary explain why he believes that the current level of a provision and support for helicopter coverage is sufficient particularly in the context in recent changes in policy and approach of operations in the theater which put our troops and their lives at greater risk? >> we have as we said repeatedly seen a huge uplifting helicopter frames available to commanders and also helicopter. over the last year 84% increase and there will be more by the end of the year, will have a more than that in theater and will get a -- a note, some of them out into the affair in 2010

a pair but the issue that you're a gentleman raises points up to the problem, the changes in the way in which the operations are being conducted. it leads to more gramm operations and these cannot be conducted from helicopters. we have troops at the moment involved who are clearing compounds who are taking on that the taliban and one of their heartland areas. there has been hand-to-hand fighting that resulted in some of the deaths that we have experienced sadly over the last week verso. this cannot be conducted from inside and highly armored vehicle and it cannot be conducted from a helicopter. >> may i put it to my right honorable friend and tragic though all of these deaths are in a while we must do as much as

we can to minimize casualties, it is irresponsible and dishonest to pretend that if only the government provided this piece of equipment are that piece of equipment all these lives could have been saved and is only serve to to upset an unnecessarily the grieving relatives. >> my right honorable friend is right. we have lost five people in the area conducting a security patrol yet these are vital and there done from time to time and there was a pretty well planned ambush set for our people. you cannot conduct those security patrols in anything other than on foot. we lost a member having justice mantid from the most heavily armored vehicle that we have got in theater, but the troops have to get out in order to engage

with the people and in order to deal with the insurgency and a half to take those risks. they understand that. i think that this be one the public understand that and i would appeal to members of the house to accept that it is our duty to support the equipment needed in order to keep people as safe as we can, but we cannot remove resco from this kind of operation. >> i agree with what the secretary of state has just said, but when the chancellor of the exchequer said over the weekend that the treasury would ensure that the ministry of defence was not short of money, what in practice did he mean an what new actions from the secretary of state to be taking to take him up on his promise?

>> while, he meant for example, that we are in the stain, he has lifted, the treasury has lifted the the ceiling that was announced in december to include another 101 million pounds in order that i get the latest capability into theater to deal with the process. everything that we need for this theater of operation we will present and we will make sure that we get what is needed in order to keep our troops as safe as the camera but at a time when we are involved in the most serious operations in the inner, not only ourselves but the americans as well, people with income is that we've got and the americans. our colleagues have lost more people over the last couple of weeks and we have ourselves despite. >> i am quite struck talking to

ordinary soldiers who have been sun -- on several tours of duty that they were forming the viewed that we are losing the battle of hearts and minds in seen as a force liberating from the taliban being occupied support to an occupying force. does the secretary of agree with me that vital to winning however decide when and is keeping the support of all the afghan people? >> absolutely. i have not personally come across that opinion and i would not deny that there will be afghans who hold that view, but my honorable friend is absolutely right. this operation will not be won by killing taliban. it will be won by winning the people, by protecting the people and by the people except a that we in the afghan government are on their side. that is the absolute priority of

the new commander general christo in the instructions he is giving to forces of all nations in afghanistan. >> mr. speaker, if we are told as we are now helmand province contains taliban come on what basis was it said before on behalf of the government that it was hoped that not a shot would be fired? was this not the beginning of a really serious sweeping of the situation at helmand which is still continuing today in which our armed forces are playing -- paying a heavy blow? >> well, it never was said at that there was hope of their not being a shot fired. what was said and it was said that from this dispatch box and elsewhere and i can remember i sat on that chair along at the time. it was said by the then secretary of state that we would be happy if not a shot would be fired. he was responding to a question,

he was expressing a desire, but he wouldn't have been putting 16 air assault brigades into a war if he thought that there wouldn't be a little bit of trouble in the area. >> i confirm what the defense secretary has just said and i tell my right honorable friend that no doubt inadvertently he has just misled the house. i never at any stage expressed the hope and expectation, promise or pledged that we would leave afghanistan without firing a shot. i did however, incest that we would not be aggressors. we did not see war. we did not go there as part of an invasion. for our party would be happy to go and work with the afghan government and leave without firing a shot to. it was clearly in that sense it was said and i would be extremely obliged to that to be confirmed from the front bench

and the honorable members on the other side to stop the misrepresentation of what was said when we went in. >> that is my memory of what i heard at the time and i have heard of various forms of it ever since i would say to my right honorable friend, but that is where i recall him saying at the time. >> no one denies that to these are difficult and dangerous operations, but surely that doesn't of solace of the responsibility to do everything in our power to minimize casualties. is that the fundamental problem for the government to the fact that there is no comprehensive strategy to deal with the military, political, economic and narcotics issues and until a comprehensive strategy is agree and implemented, we will continue to struggle in afghanistan? >> i would say two things to the right honorable gentleman and i keep hearing that there is no strategy. if people want to disagree with

this strategy and fair enough, but, please, don't deny that there is one. this strategy is about building up afghan capability both in the security area and the governance area as well so that they can get to a point that they are able to defend their own country from the insurgency and that they can provide a the basics for their own people. it will be a long time before they can do that. afghan tax revenues doubled in the last year but they will be dependent upon international donations for some long time yet. there is a strategy of the second thing that i would say to the honorable gentleman is let's not pretend that the existence of a strategy is going to get us out of a situation where our people are having to take on a very ingrained in surgeons aim right in the heartland of when they know how important it is

that they maintain control of those central held and belts and our people are going in there, clearing from the heartland and that is why they're fighting because they know how important it is, how utterly aborning is for them to hang on. so yes sadly we have lost some people. they have lost a lot. >> order. i know that he is doing his best meticulously to respond to the points made. there is a balance and i'm keen to get in as many colleagues as possible. david crosby. >> we are i believe, mr. speaker, in the war in afghanistan, but if we don't work together and political partnership we will certainly lose the argument with the british people for the justification of the conflict. so does he agree with me that any attempt to play politics will start troops are laying down their lives is, indeed,

content? >> i agree with my honorable friend that we are making progress. we are going for the. of these operations that are currently being conducted r&r instigation a. use our offensive operations to clear the taliban from a very important area. it we need. >> our troops at this time. >> the secretaries agree that the objective in afghanistan is ultimately a political and of the military battle is a precondition to achieving that. the years in the taliban has now been contained into a terrorist insurgency and no longer fights as a standing army. how does a the secretary of state believe the international community can now shift from a predominantly military battle into a political battle at because is not the lesson of all other terrorist insurgencies is ultimately they have to have a political solution on side the military one and that is what is needed if we are to heed the

warning suffering a strategic defeat? >> i think the honorable gentleman is right. the military side of things can go as well as it likes but unless we can make progress in these other strands then all will be for naught and there isn't a single member of our armed forces who doesn't understand that right down the chain of command. we have a in a lecture on the 20th of august. is important that that is a credible election but it goes on to improve governance, then it goes on the two continue to provide better with the afghan people, and that it goes on not from a position of witness, but from a position of strength to hold out the hand to those parts of the insurgency. there are prepared to come across and to give up the armed struggle and to involve themselves and politics.

>> it is a very great shame that we are currently engaged in an unseemly media around about airlift in afghanistan and, the defense world will know what that is about. the defense the world would expect my right honorable friend that i hope he agrees that to commit to in future for pressure on a chancellor to maintain funding for defense and to respect the front bench opposite to commend the current shadow chancellor to end at the shameful refusal not to commit to even existing defense spending. >> we need to maintain our support for armed forces in the field. we need to do that to the courts and through the use of our process as well. we need to continue to get more protective vehicles and more helicopters into the field as soon as we are able to. and i give my absolute assurance that i will be eight doing everything can to bring this is

far ford as possible. >> mr. speaker come on behalf of the opposition, can add my condolences to the other families of the serviceman killed in the past week. every single death is an individual tragedy and our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and friends involved. mr. speaker, when the government cut to the helicopter budget in 2004 by 1.4 billion pounds, it was a mistake. >> to the honorable gentleman goes back to a decision that was taken at some time ago. but we have made great strides have to increase helicopter availability and capability with a large degree of success over the last two years in afghanistan. there are now 6 percent more helicopter frames, 84 percent for helicopter hours, and there is yet at the moment to be moved

into a theater and enhancement possible to both links and chen not that would make them a better helicopter more capable of dealing with a very difficult theater. >> i will take that as a yes shall i? mr. speaker, people in this country and is in that security needs for our mission in afghanistan and understand in wars there are casualties and fatalities. we don't understand is why we're not doing her thing we can to reduce the risk to our forces. we do need more and better armored vehicles, we do need better ways i countering ied's but if we cannot move our forces by air they're more vulnerable on the ground and lord does three the foreign chief of defence said, of course, we need more helicopters and if there had been more is likely that u.s. soldiers would have been killed by roadside bombs so why isn't that as lord king point out that in helmand american forces have it eight times as many helicopters for the number of personnel. how on earth did we get into

such an unacceptable position? who is to blame and how are going to get adequate? >> and for the honorable gentleman over a time and i have yet to hear how he things that we can invent a more helicopters into the air. he is saying for the dispatch box that we who want to get as many helicopters into theater and yet i heard him say nothing that indicates that he could do any quicker than we are planning to do. nba i understand on the radio this morning he said and it is true we should look to our allies, we are part of a coalition and so for anybody to suggest that we ought to be down on the fact our american allies are in helmand is nonsense and he cannot do the impossible. we can do everything there is possible in order to enhance the whole of the type of capability in helmand province.

>> mr. speaker, a question to appear in we have a contract with ied's in that term has set up a consortium consisting of themselves of fujitsu and general dynamics u.k., ied's and logic of. beyond that range of subcontractors with defined tasks sometimes for limited periods of time but the selection identity of the sub contractors. >> order. >> and i to say to the secretary of state he doesn't need to address the house of a whole so that everybody can hear. i think he has finished his initial answer. >> the delayed agreement stage three is the relationship will be a united project which are the more than tripled in cost over 7 million pounds and the defense spending, while our soul servants and politicians so obsessed with outsourcing

public-sector i.t. contracts when they logics and economics of extra cost and complexity when precisely the opposite direction? >> i think my honorable friend is actually a factor wrong on number of those plans. the costs haven't increased 300% as he is suggesting. there have been a much more limited increase about 180 million pounds at this 7.1 billion, but i have to say to my honorable friend, first of all, this project is going to save the money in relation to legacy mathis of fulfilling the same road. that is very important and secondly is an absolutely essential part about warfare that we do have effective secure communications linking all aspects of our armed forces at home and abroad in theater. as part of that work capability to which we are committed. >> mr. speaker, a pilot scheme

is in place at the garrison to provide light touch mentoring to early service leaders judged to be vulnerable and designed to help them transition to cope with civilian life. in addition the normal support given when leaving the service the pilots provided additional telephone support guidance and encouragement for six months post service termination early indications are that a number of on this helpful. >> on the subject of training that ph.d. was told last may that 40 percent of soldiers received only a five day training without defaulting in their units, is the right to send them into afghanistan it with such training? >> i assure the right honorable gentleman that everything is done to ensure that our service personnel to receive adequate training both before they leave for theater and actually tearing theater as well. the safety and security of our servicemen is our highest

priority. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the service must also be available for those who don't make it to their initial training. professor kantor it finishes adding about the 230,000 young people who left the service after over 10 years and discovered that those most vulnerable to give way to suicide for young people who had it not finish their initial training or who served only for a very short time. can we be assured that within initial training and within the mentoring service there will be a focus on advising young men especially of the need to seek help, advice and support should they suffer in a mental health problems? >> certainly through our recruitment and training procedures to reduce heat to ensure that all the appropriate advice and support and training is available and this pilot scheme is targeting those whose

personal who leave early who are deemed to be vulnerable. the initial indication proving successful. he needs to get to the end of the pilot scheme in see how that can be rolled forward. >> the estimated cost of operations in the afghanistan for this finance review is 3.5 billion pounds. as recently published the acosta military operations is dependent upon a variable factors which are difficult and we do not therefore an attempt to project costs for the subsequent two years. dui given the chance that our forces would have what ever they needed how does the secretary of state recommend operational

requirements given in the future years his minister will have to be paid back and spent over 635 million on urgent operational requirements. isn't the case of robbing the future to pay for the military today? >> well, we haven't gone over that and therefore there is no need for a repayment and i'll just announced to the house that this immense the 635 million that has been raised by a further 101 million pounds. i think some indication that the transfer is trying to assist. >> thank you mr. speaker, but in assessing the cost doesn't acknowledge that there is really understandable doubt amongst the public not about to being in afghanistan but whether or not the number of troops and the grade equipment to help them do their task? can you share this concern is with the general public?

>> my honorable friend would say that the number of troops and the cost to the afghanistan have gone up considerably after the last three years and all i can say to him is that i get the opportunity that many others at on theater on a regular basis and i see it repeatedly that the it agreement that they have has been improved massively of the last couple of years. >> there are merlon episodes currently being prepared for use in afghanistan. but can he tell us what further steps beyond these are being considered by the department to ensure that the helicopter needs and afghanistan and that in the future? >> we are planning to spend about 6 billion pounds on helicopters over the coming year. and what we need to do is try to

make sure that we spend as wisely as you can to ensure that we have no capability gap particularly when our people are involved in the operations they are today. >> airlift is clearly one of the areas where we need to have constrained. given that the current chairman and president% of the airlift capacity but there is no constraint is he having discussions to spend it to try and lift them? a. >> who try on every occasion to encourage our nato allies to do in the absolute maximum. there is little doubt that we are pulling our way in afghan theater. there is little doubt that the operation is absolutely vital to our safety back in the united kingdom and to nato credibility

and we hope and press all the time for our allies to do whatever they can then order to ensure success. >> 1.1% of personal discharged annually for reasons i would never cause, the king center is for meant to halt research undertaking funding for bunning in both service and veteran community. results of this will be available at the beginning of next year and form of mental health policies and addition of an evaluation of the mental health pilot schemes will help define the population at risk and the levels needed of support of that committee. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the post-traumatic stress disorder is a debilitating and and physical injury and many troops are returning with ptsd. in only 71 percent fall in a recent survey are even aware of the medical assessment programs. what is the government doing to improve on that shocking statistic? >> i'm very grateful for that question. can i suggest that the number of individuals suffering from ptsd are very small, but each one are on the record is a personal tragedy for the individual. can i say that to levels -- one, through the how pilots assuring that they know about those throughout our country and in addition to working with the department of health to look at the veterans tracking system so we can track veterans to the health system, but if she or any other member would like to visit one of the mental health pilots or the immaculate center thomas hospital and be willing to a range of that team and thank you, mr. speaker.

my honorable friend is aware that it takes 13 years before that often report to and present themselves for treatment in the mental health program. what can we do in this country and i know it's not unusual in this country amongst the military to take away the sanity and present itself with some form of mental health treatment. i have heard every person should present themselves and have them checked before they go into civilian life became that my honorable friend raises an important point. unfortunately young men are very terrible and recognizing into how then can i pay tribute to all three service in terms of raising the issue in service about mental health and i think the issue of around tramp which is assistant -- system of self treatment is making sure the mental health is not a stigma and people should be effort ashamed reporting.

i think working with celine the veterans' organizations and indigested the six atoll pilots would concern me make sure that the help is there for veterans on ever mental-health index individuals. >> the u.s. administration has put in place $900 million ptsd program including comprehensive mental health screening for operational military. our government has not. you could be forgiven for supposing that the british, stress and american combat stress a completely different disorders. can the minister say how much we have spent on ptsd? y clinical awareness of it continue to flat line and why there is no mental health screening program for our returning veterans? >> i don't accept there is no mental health screening here for our returning veterans but i think it's important to recognize that kings have undertaken a much research and the americans have as well and one thing that does indicate is the mental health screening three deployment is not

effective. actually perhaps cause more problems than solve a natural population a talk about and that goes right back to the second world war. in terms of ptsd, it is a small number that have presented the end of the numbers represented the u.s.. there are some question marks about the way in which the operational tempo of the united states is different to ours and i know both our u.s. counterparts and certain general working together to the comparative data. just recently teams over from the u.s. to look at the ways in which we are treating mental health and the armed forces and the veterans committee. >> number six, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, the government is committed to the current nuclear deterrent and the development of a replacement system. the progress is being made in completing the action it set out in a the two thus and six white paper, the future of the u.k. nuclear deterrent. >> thank you mr. speaker this of

the damage in the 2006 white paper by tony blair told this house in december 2006 that britain could maintain its minimum strategic deterrent while producing from 200 to one to 160 warheads. less than three years later the current prime minister seems to be offering to reduce this figure below 160 warheads. how can he do this while still maintaining a minimum level of deterrence? >> the prime minister almost made it -- made it very clear that he was committed to maintaining the nuclear deterrent. we need to try to make an appropriate contribution to any small bilateral nuclear proposition that there is made, but we have to have the same time ensure that we have a credible minimum nuclear deterrent and this government in its entirety not only the defense team is committed to doing that.

>> mr. speaker, recognizing the impact, recognizing the meeting that president, have less weight with the president of russia committed to reducing 500 nuclear weapons warheads each, isn't it about time of the public says we're not going to upgrade these? >> no, it is not. if my honorable friend wants to look at the record since we came to power he will see that we have made significant reductions to are deployable nuclear capability. we have made a significant contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons. we will obviously see to be constructive in a proposition going forward, but we will be constructive it within the parameters of maintaining the british nuclear deterrent. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the secretary of state discern that any future nuclear

deterrent which involved reliance on nuclear i'm to christmas aisles as some recommend, would that be compatible with the provisions of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty? >> well, as the honorable gentleman knows we have looked at different methods of maintaining nuclear deterrent during the white paper process and we decided for a very good reasons i think of the invulnerability to stick to the ballistic missile system and based on submarines and that is what we intend to do. >> does of the secretary of state release date is a very good idea to commit ourselves to the expenditure during a lifetime of a new it 76 billion pounds, and head of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and review conference next. in the face of a declaration by president obama and shared by this government of an aspiration

of a nuclear-free world, with a better contribution be two not replace? >> well, my honorable friend's views are well known and have been consistent over years and i am glad to see that they haven't changed, but he will know that i disagree with them, have in the past and still do. >> number eight, mr. speaker. >> wiki procedures on a constant review and are introducing for the improvements at the present time. >> i think the minister for his answer, but the main investment decision on interior, soothsayer and the new naval satellite communications terminals remained in 2001 and on the introduction of smart acquisition and that of those very projects and the ones that have suffered the greatest slippage in 2007 and eight, y? >> well, we have a very

substantial defense program, defense procurement program that the honorable lady knows and they keep it under constant review and one of the improvements which i just alluded which we are introducing is a rather more robust attitude toward failure. and i think the honorable lady will see the results of that before too long. >> per caring and the right of it, equipment for our ships but also provided skilled work for its british workers, not least in my constituency or in newcastle at it assistance. can the minister tell us what prospect there is an announcement early 2010 on the warrior upgraded and be supported to ensure our forces have the most up-to-date equipment as soon as possible? >> we issued just a week ago draft invitations to tender for two very important land vehicle projects. one is this type of vehicle and the other is the warrior upgrade to and i remain hopeful that we may be able to sign contracts

with those two vehicles early next year following the invitation to the tender, the responses which are by october and evaluation of those bids. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker para procurement, of course, is maintaining the best test centers and have gone since 1997. there is no other political party support in the cutting of the jobs in these and tell the those jobs are ceased. this government will not be forgiven in scotland if it does. >> well, there is no question of degrading our testing facilities and the issue is whether or not it can be more efficient to control all those ranges from one single place which modern i.t. makes feasible possibility. and, of course, we will be responsible to look at that. at had a number of representations from scotland in which i great respect and i agreed to look and have agreed to visit the sites myself and to talk to local employees.

we will be making decisions when that is completed. >> mr. speaker, two years ago the current secretary of state said that all 6xa danish merlon helicopters would be operational by 2008. yet it now seems they will not be available until the end of this year at the earliest. given the widespread criticism of the government's failure to provide special helicopters, how does the minister justify it another 12 months in to land a critical program? >> well, i don't accept that we have failed in producing helicopter capability in afghanistan. the secretary, my right honorable friend has sent out some of the figures and 80% increase in the availability of helicopters over the last two and half years, and we have an enormous program of the procurement of new helicopters. the danish maryland, there is the merlons which are coming

back from my racket are being fitted standard for afghanistan. there is the prospect of the eighth helicopters which will be available for operation again by the end of this year. there is the re-engineering of the helicopters, there is a the prospect the wildcat which is currently being manufactured and so i think that is a very good record. so far as to the maryland from denmark are concerned, they are being upgraded for theater into standards as rapidly as possible and i can't responsibly force through this procedure is more rapidly than the experts are able actually to deliver. it's an extremely dangerous thing to do. >> mr. speaker, number nine. >> we currently expect to consider initialed gateway to the issue. >> i'm grateful to the secretary of state with an answer but given that a number of people including the military officers and former defense secretary are

saying that trident is both relevant and unaffordable. when he deferred the initial a process he is talking about and hundreds of millions of pounds of cost that would commit us to until a further debate take place in this which takes into account of the new financial and strategic circumstances? >> initial -- the answer is no. >> not here, mr. allen reed. >> member of lebanon's. >> number 11. >> mr. speaker, the available resources for defense expenditures that during the spawning grounds, the most recent comprehensive spending review said the department's budget for that financial 2008 -- 2011. the expenditure plans after 2010 -- 2011 are not yet agreed. we review the detail of the

allocation of defense budget during regular spending mounts to ensure that we match available resources to defense priorities and commitments. >> i think the secretary of state for that answer and recently found that to the carrier's or to require an extra billion pounds. and the secretary of state, is the government fully committed in all circumstances to replacing for trident and the future carrier -- aircraft carriers and what is its strategy for ensuring over the next 20 years the minister is will be able to provide the resources required to ensure that our troops are fully equipped for other challenges? >> yes, there seems to be a little contradiction between he and his honorable friend sitting right next door to him, but, yes, that is not unusual. and as the honorable des moines points out, we are committed as i have just said it to try and

and also to the carriers there has been an increase in the program cost of the carriers as the honorable gentleman talks about. but we are committed to both projects. >> number 12, mr. speaker. >> effectiveness of our spending on defense procurement is being enhanced all the time. ever since the reforms of smart acquisition at the beginning of the history of this government, they have been i think there and effectiveness has been good by the national standards. as i have already explained we are considering further improvements at the present moment. >> by one estimate has his department made the additional cost to its core budgets to agreement level usage in afghanistan a? >> well, we're looking at this at the present time and we don't have a firm response for that particular question about we are currently undertaking a study of

that. it is a complicated calculation as the honorable gentleman probably x caps. >> mr. speaker, the department's responsibility to are insuring our country is dependent and our service military have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in military tasks to which they are engaged either at home or abroad. >> thanking my right honorable friend that but can i place on record a courtesy that dealt with it replacement program. can i ask at this point that we want to have a clear statement that the systems will have the operator to been for the replacement with a new system and not be properly assessed before any final efficacy for the bids it? >> i think my honorable friend

who is usually interested in this and expressed his interest over some time. we are ready to receive an inroad based bid from a be a systems and we wrote to them on the 15th of june asking them if they plan to make an unsolicited bid and we have and to date received a response. but if they make a bid i can assure my honorable friend that it will be considered objectively, but they don't have forever to do so. we do need to consider the decision by right around the end of the year. >> mr. speaker, the secretary of state said earlier building up in afghanistan is billing to the point or afghans can defend our country and i'm sure we all agree with that. the tactics when i was there in february seem to be of deploying troops by day and then withdraw into defensive positions by nine.

could the secretary of state say whether he thinks the strategy or the tactics are working and they're not meant to make high critical but it really concerns of us concerned about our troops in our country. >> can i say to the honorable gentleman i believe the strategy and tactics are working, but we are facing in a store nearly difficult set of challenges and the point that he highlights of increasing the capacity of the afghan forces is absolutely. currently 90,000 troops on the afghan national army over the next couple years will increase to 134,003 in the meantime we are right to pursue the approach that we are which is a bit by bit, taking back and reclaiming ground from the taliban so that we can spend the authority of the afghan national army and its government. >> it is a dreadful tragedy for the families and the armed forces but it is desperate and opposition leaders exploit such catastrophe.

military families with not one serving in afghanistan. a sincere apology for such a nakedly opportunistic reaction this week and to an awful surge in the british troops in what is an unstable state. >> my honorable friend must accept that we all need to try to make the maximum contribution to maintain the cross party support and operations in afghanistan having enjoyed the over the years and we should not allow any tensions that have been made aware the last few days. i was actually in a speech by just over a week ago now. i was enormously pleased to be able to say to troops in theater that they do enjoy cross party support in this house for what they do out there was all tied to do everything we can to make that a reality. >> thank you mr. speaker derrin

i'm wondering how many troops at the minister believes we need on the ground in afghanistan and are to achieve our objective. does he believe that he knows what is happening in afghanistan or in the office? >> can i think the honorable lady that we have really increased five and a half thousand to 9,000. i think that was the right thing to do, but we're also there as part of a multinational coalition. 42 nations are working together on this challenge and the idea that we alone are responsible for facing up to that challenge shebly is fundamentally wrong. >> thank you mr. speaker. if i can ask the undersecretary of defense the project and the most important thing was a contract. to get that up and running, is

it not that we're looking at the project and is needed in the years to come? >> well, we are looking at the project but i don't want my honorable friend to be under the illusion where we build a war fighting vessels like the carriers or the future service which will come on after the carriers then we have made a strategic decision as early a strategy to make sure that the ships are built in this country subsequently supported in this country. where we are talking about logistic support or tankers that does not apply. we need to get the best value for money so it would be quite wrong to say that those ships are being reserved for the shipyards in the united kingdom. that doesn't mean it would be most welcome to bid for them and, indeed, they would and we're delighted if they win a contract on the basis of best value for money but i'm not make it clear that when we procure

those ships it will be on that basis. >> mr. speaker come i have just returned a from a visit to afghanistan and i have nothing but praise for our troops working in helmand province but the government should hang its head in shame of were sending our troops without enough troops and enough helicopters but can i ask the secretary of state when i shut happens when the fighting stops, when it is declared, but as the plan for reconstruction and development? i asked a series of senior officers and not one of them had any idea what was meant to happen once natural ball stopped buying. i urge the minister to look into this apparent he has a budget of 2.6 billion. >> order. topple the questions need to be brave as to the answers. >> can i say to the honorable gentleman at this morning it was confirmed that no matter of helicopters tragically would have saved the lives lost last week and we ought to conduct this discussion on the basis of

the fax in national undertaking. in terms of nation-building and reconstruction we are committed, we are increasing the capacity of the afghan national army, the place, the courts, the judicial system, that's been the authority of the afghan government and that is the right approach. >> when the bullets stopped flying the hated karzai police will move back in with their graceful recourse of exploiting the population, extortion, robbery, drug use and drug trafficking and worst of all the practice which is the sexual exploitation of young boys. how is this a way to enhance the lives? >> my honorable friend has strong views and has expressed over a timing. and let's not teenine that we have anything other than a purvis situation in afghanistan. we have to strive to improve that, but when one looks as some

of the abuses that were perpetrated under the taliban regime when that they were in power, they were utterly appalling and pretty comprehensive and they still are in those areas for the taliban as way. so my honorable friend that shouldn't temper his reviews with regard to the karzai government. >> the government is obtaining value for money and also helping to stimulate the local economy. can i ask the minister to update me on the progress there and what consideration has been given to the possibility? >> it like any other surplus is to get maximum value of money for that site. in the case he refused to is when i last wrote to him is important to make sure we don't

just get best value for money from the side but also have value in and i'm glad it to make local authorities to see how we can get maximum benefit from exposure to the local communities as well. >> thank you mr. speaker. my honorable friend will be wary aware that this be on public understand very well at the level of cash taken by forces in afghanistan. with the have a less a feel for is what is taken by our allies, the afghans and others ended the casualties that are being taken by the taliban. are there any estimates available? ..

expenditure decisions and may be we may have to postpone or cancel big-ticket capital expenditure items elsewhere? would therefore the government bring forward its expenditure and review on defense and not postpone to the other side of a general election? >> the honorable gentleman, there is -- there is an acute deliver between giving the required priority to the operations we are involved and now, difficult as they are, as the honorable gentleman says -- i am trying to make sure that we

have the ability to respond to the threats we may face in the coming years. that is quite properly the province of strategic defense review. we are all to have him on in 2010 are the liberal democrats and as our week. >> thank you mr. speaker. what my honorable friend define victory in afghanistan? >> the strategy is about assuring that this country is safe and in order for that to happen, we need to have sufficient capacity within the afghan national army within the police and within the government so that the government of afghanistan can secure the situation in their country and for themselves. >> mr. michael. >> -- share my department we seem to be losing purely because of the financial bill. and wouldn't it be better instead of giving holding the

replies as he did today and referring back to 2006, we stopped in an open debate about the alternatives, the strategy, the options as my honorable friend suggested, so we can have a debate and people will then start to understand why we need this. >> i think the debate has already started and he knows there's quite a debate regime within his own party about the future of the nuclear weapon with the french team one view is the treasury team of appearing to have another. the reasoning for a debate on defense of across the peace, which is why the next process for a green paper on defense capability, and i would hope that i will be able to conduct that in a cross party manner and that we will get as many people involved in that process as well

and do it in a non-partisan way. >> with the secretary of state convert that he will not cut in the regiment of the infantry so that we may have enough boats on the ground to do the job? >> there are no plans to cut regiment. >> is not one of the greatest threats the security of afghanistan the incompetence and abject failure of reconstruction projects, which are adding intolerable additional burdens to our security forces? >> can i say to the honorable lady there are health centers that are open, there are schools that have been rebuilt, there are girls today in afghanistan that simply wasn't the case and 2001. yes, we face significant challenges but i think honorable members in this house understand the progress we are making if they denied that.

>> a good money to spend additional pound on aircraft carriers without creating one extra job or additional capability on those carriers. will there be more for the delays in the construction of these carriers? >> the carriers are proceeding well. the first carrier had the first steel captured last week and i have no reason to suppose there will be any delay in that program. we have read profiled that program in order to online as the chairwoman nose to fly off the two new carriers. >> washington. >> can i put it to the secretary of state with the appointment of general my crystal, supreme commander in afghanistan under president obama, the americans and the british are in fact on a new strategy of which is called part of that strategy.

but what we know in just a few short months whether we are able to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary afghan, and if not what we have to rethink again what we are doing in afghanistan? >> general crystal is involved in the initial review of the situation in afghanistan and 60 day review. we will be -- we are completely and absolutely put into that process. we will want to see and be able to respond to the findings that he has. but of course, the election process will follow soon thereafter is of massive and vital importance, and this is a particularly crucial time. the honorable gentleman is absolutely right for the future of afghanistan and therefore for the future of our involvement in that country. supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor began answering questions today from members of

the senate judiciary committee. over the next three hours we are going to show key portions of the hearing including questions on the second amendment, abortion, judicial philosophy and recent discrimination case involving firefighters in new haven connecticut. our coverage begins with committee chairman senator patrick leahy. ranking republican senator jeff sessions and a half hour and democratic senator herb kohl in an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. just so we can understand what's going on, i'm not sure whether we have votes or not today. to the extent we do have votes, to the extent we can keep the hearing going during votes and

have different centers leave between them, we will. if we can't, then i will recess for those votes. i will also have -- i guess we are one minute early here. the way the traffic was today i think some of us are still having trouble getting in here. i talked with senator sessions about this -- excuse me -- and we are going to do is have 30 minute rounds we will go back and forth between -- and between sides and senators will be recognized based on seniority. if they, are there, if not, then we will go -- we will go to the next person. and with that, as i said yesterday when we concluded, and

now the american people finally have heard from judge sotomayor, and i appreciate your opening statement yesterday. you have had weeks of silence. you followed the traditional way of nominees. i think you visited more samet terse the in any nominee i know of, for just about any position. but we get used to the traditional the press is outside questions get asked, you get a nice way of and keep going. but finally you are able to speak and i think your statement yesterday to answer the critics of the naysayers so we are going to start with questions here. i would hope everybody will keep their questions pertaining to

you, and to your background as a judge. you're going to be the first supreme court nominee and more than 50 years who served as a federal trial court judge, the first in 50 years to have served as both federal trial court and a federal appellate court judge. let me ask you the obvious one, what are the qualities a judge should possess? i mean, you have had time on the trial court and appellate court -- what qualities should a judge have and the experience you have, how does that shape your approach to being on the bench? >> senator leahy, yesterday many of the senators emphasized that the values they thought were important for judging and

essential to many of their comments was the fact that a judge had to come to the process of understanding the importance and respect the constitution must receive in the judging process and an understanding that that respect is guided by and should be guided by a full appreciation of the limited jurisdiction of the court in our system of government, but understanding it's important as well. that is the central part of judging. what my experience is on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind.

it's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment of an outcome and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding with the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not approve them, the record as they create, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge. >> let's go into some of the. one of the things i found appealing in your records is that you were a prosecutor, as many of us, both the ranking member and i had the privilege. and you worked in the front

lines in the district of manhattan d.a. office. you're former boss, district attorney robert morgan fall said one of the most important cases you worked on was a prosecution of the man known as the tarzan burglar. he terrorized people, he would swinging ropes into their apartment and robbed them and steel and actually killed three people. you're co-counsel described how you through yourself in the aspect of the investigation, prosecution of the case. you helped secure a conviction, sentenced 62 years to life for the murders, your co-counsel describe you, quote, as a skilled practitioner who not only ruthlessly pursued justice for victims of violent crime but as the root cause of the crime and how to curvet.

it did that experience shape your view as a lawyer but also as a judge? and i mean this was getting into about as the gritty as you could into the whole area of criminal law. >> i became a lawyer in the prosecutor's office. to this day ito wife become, who i became as a lawyer and who i have become as a judge to mr. mr. morgan fall. he gave me the honor and privilege of working in his office that shaped my life. when i say i became a lawyer in his office it's because and law school they teach you on hypothetical sir. they set forth facts for you, they give you a little bit of teaching how the fact is our developed, but not a whole lot

and then they ask you to apply about legal theory and apply legal theory to the facts before you. well, when you work in a prosecutor's office, you understand that the law is not legal theory. it's fact. it is what witnesses say and don't say. it's how to develop your position in the record will come and then it's taking those facts and making arguments based on oh-la-la as it exists. that is what i took with me as a trial judge. it's what i take with me as an appellate judge. it is respect that each case gets decided case by case applying the law has six assists to the facts before you. you asked me a second question about the tarzan murder case. and that the case brought to

life for me in a way that perhaps no other case had done before the tragic consequences of needless death. in that case, mr. maddox was stopped the murder because he used a acrobatic feats to gain entry into apartments. in one case, he took a rope, placed it on a plate on top with a roof, put a paint can at the other end and throw it into a window in a building below and broke the window. he then swung himself into the apartment and on the other side shot a person he found. he did that repeatedly and as a

result he destroyed families. i saw a family that had been in tact with a mother living with three of her children, some grand children. they all worked at various jobs. some were going to school. they stood as they watched one of their, the mother stood as she watched one of her children be struck by a bullet at mr. maddox's fi your and killed him because the bullet struck the middle of his head. that family was destroyed. they scattered to the four winds, and only one brother remains and new york who could testify. that case taught me that prosecutors as all participants in the justice system must be sensitive to the price that crime and poses on our entire

society. at the same time, as a prosecutor in that case i had to consider how to ensure that the presentation of that case would be fully understood by jurors and to do that it was important as prosecutors to present those number of incidents is mr. maddox engaged in in one trial so the full extent of his conduct could be determined by a jury. there had never been a case quite like that where an individual who used different acrobatic feats to gain entry into an apartment was tried with all of his crimes and one indictment. i researched very carefully fill law and found a theory and new york law called the marlo theory than that basically said if you

can show a pattern that established a person's identity or assisted in establishing the person's identity, then you can try different cases. this was moderate conspiracy under law because mr. maddox acted alone so i had to bring a different theory to bring his act together. i presented that to the trial judge. it was a different application of the law but what i did destroy all the principles of the theory, and are giving those principles to the judge the judge permitted the joint trial of all of mr. maddox's activities. in the end, carefully developing the facts in the case, making my record, our record, i should say mr. mose and mine complete that our theory was completed by law.

that harkens back to my earlier answer, which is that is what being a trial judge teaches you. >> so you see it from both ends having a novel theory and now a theory that is well-established in the law will but also as the trial judge will you have seen few days by prosecutors or defense and you have to make your decisions based on those. probably the answer to that is you do; do you not? >> it is important to remember as a judge i don't make law and so the task for me as a judge is not to accept or not accept new theories. it's to decide whether the law as it texas has the principles that apply to new situations. >> let's go into that because

obviously the tarzan case was a unique case and as i said, mr. morgenthal singled that out as an example of the kind of lawyer you are and i find compelling your story about being in the apartment. i have stood in apartments at 3:00 in the morning as they carry out the body of the murder. i understand how you're feeling, but in applying oh-la-la and apply vv the facts, you told me once that ultimately at completely fill law is what controls and i was struck by that when you did and so there has been a great deal of talk about richi case, a ricci v.

destefano. they were trying to discard the result of a paper and pencil test to measure leadership abilities and now the legal issue presented in that case will set a new one. not in your circuit in fact it was a unanimous decades-old supreme court decision as well and in addition in 1991 congress acted to reinforce william stand the law. i might note that every republican member of the committee is still serving in the senate supported that law. so you've got a binding precedent. you and to other judges came to unanimous decision. your decision deferred to the district court ruling allowing voluntary termination that couldn't justify using that paper and pencil test under our civil rights law and you say it

was settled judicial precedent. a majority of the second circuit leader voted not to revisit the panel's unanimous decision therefore they upheld your decision. so you had supreme court precedent, you had your circuit precedent, you were up held within the circuit. subsequently went to the supreme court and out of maturity five justices reversed the decision, reverse their precedent, and many have said that created new interpretation of law. if you had done something other than follow the precedent, some would be attacking you as being an activist. you followed the precedent. so now the attack you as being biased and racist. it is kind of a unique thing.

you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. how do you react to the supreme court's decision in the new haven firefighter case? >> you are correct, senator, that the panel made up of myself and to other judges in the second circuit decided that case on the basis of a very thorough 78 page decision by the district court and on the basis of the established precedent. the issue was not what we've would do or not do because we were following precedent and you were not on circuit court are obligated on a panel to follow established circuits precedent. the issue in ricci is what the city did or could do when it was presented with a challenge to one of its tests for promotion.

this wasn't a quote case, this wasn't an affirmative action case, this was a challenge to a test that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass three of a variety of different groups. the city was faced with the possibility recognized and all that the employees who were desperately impacted -- that's the terminology used in the law and that is a part of the civil rights amendment that you were talking about in 1991, that those employees who could show a disparate impact of disproportionate past three that they could bring the suit and that than the employer had to defend the tests that it gave.

the city after a number of days of hearings and a variety of different witnesses decided that it wouldn't certify of the test and it wouldn't certify it an attempt to determine whether they could develop a test that was of equal value in measuring qualifications but which didn't have a disparate impact. and so the question before the panel was was the decision of the city based on race or based on its understanding of what the law required it to do. given second circuit precedent, bush of the new york state civil

service commission, the panel concluded that the city's decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law. the supreme court in looking and reviewing that case applied a new standard. in fact, it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area of law and explaining to employers and the courts below how to look at this question in the future. >> but when you were deciding -- when you were deciding it, you had precedent from the supreme court and from your circuits. that basically determined -- determined the outcome you had to come up with; is that correct? >> absolutely. >> and today now that the supreme court has changed their decision without you having to read litigate the case it would

lay open obviously different result. and a circuit would be bound by the new decision even though it's only 5-for decision the circuit would be bound by the new decision of supreme court; is that correct? >> absolutely, sir. that is now the statement the supreme court upheld that employers and the court should examine the situation. >> during the course of this nomination there have been unfortunate comments including outrageous charges of racism made a value on radio and television and one person referred to you as being the equivalent of the head of the ku klux klan and another leader in the other party referred to you as being a bigot wan and to the republican senators and democratic senators they haven't repeated dose charges, but you

haven't been able to respond to any of these things. you've had to be quiet. your critics have taken lines out of your speeches and twisted my view to something that you never intended. you said, quote, you would hope a wise latino woman with riches of her experience would reach wise decisions. i remember other justices, the most recent one, justice alito talking about the experience of his immigrants in his family and how that would influence his thinking and help them reach decisions. you also said in your speech, quote, and you love america and value its lessons that things can be achieved if one works hard and then you said judges

must transcend personal sympathies and prejudices to aspire to achieve some greater degree of fairness on the reason of all and one more quote is what you told me that ultimately and completely, the law is what counts orville law is what controls. so tell us, you have heard all of these charges and countercharges and on and on. here is your chance. you tell us what is going on here, the judge. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks. no words i have ever spoken or written have achieved achieved so much attention. [laughter] i gave a of a speech to a variety of different groups. most often groups of women

lawyers or most particularly young latino lawyers and students. as my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you reference, i was trying to inspire them to believe their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and back crounse always do. i don't think there is a quarrel with that in our society. i was also a in a trillion to inspire them to believe that they could be anything they wanted to become just as i had. the context of the words i spoke have created a misunderstanding and i bought -- a misunderstanding and to get everyone assurances i want to state up front unequivocally and without doubt i do not believe

any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment. i do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and why is judge regardless of their background and life experiences. what the words i used i used agreeing with the sentiment for justice sandra day o'connor was attempting to convey. i understood the sentiment to be what i just spoke about which is both men and women are equally capable of being wise and fair and judges. that has to be what she meant because judges disagreed about legal clout comes all the time,

or i shouldn't say all the time but at least in close cases they do. the justices on the supreme court come to different conclusions. it can't mean that one of them is on why is despite the fact some people think that. so, her literal words couldn't have meant what they said. she had to have meant she bluestocking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial. >> and isn't that what you've been on the bench for 17 years -- if you set your goal to be fair and show integrity based on the law? >> i believe my 17 year to record on two reports which show in every case i rendered i first

decided what wall requires under the fact thank you me infil but i do is explained to the litigants weigel law requires a result and whether their position a sympathetic or not, i explain why the result is commanded by law. >> doesn't your oath of office required you to do that? >> that is the fundamental job of a judge. >> let me talk about another decision that's been talked about, district of columbia versus heller and that when the supreme court held the second amendment guarantees to americans a right to keep and bear arms and it is an individual right. i phoned firearms since my early teen years i suspect a large majority do. already enjoy target shooting on a basis in our home in vermont,

so i watched the decision rather carefully and found interesting is it safe to say you accept the supreme court's decision as establishing that the second amendment right is an individual right; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. and the second circuit decision maloney versus cuomo recognizes the decision made in heller the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution against federal law restrictions; is that correct? >> ase. >> and you applied the her decision when you decided maloney? >> completely, sir. i applied supreme court precedent that the supreme court in its own opinion acknowledged answered a different question.

>> in fact let me refer to that because justice scalia's opinion in the hell lowercase expressed it was left unresolved and reserved as a separate question whether the second amendment guarantee applies to the states and the law adopted by the states. earlier this year you were on a case opposing that specific question analyzing in new york state law restrictions on so-called [inaudible] to martial arts device. now the unanimous decision of the court supreme court decision binding on your decision and that supreme court long standing supreme court cases have held the second amendment applies only to the federal government and not to the states and i notice the panel of the seventh circuit including people like george prisoner, one of the best

known very conservative judges cited the same supreme court authorities and agreed with the second circuit decision. we all know that not every constitutional applied to the states by the supreme court will. i know what one of my first case is as a prosecutor was a question whether the fifth amendment guaranteed a grand jury. indictment has been made applicable to the states of the supreme court has not held that applicable to the states. seventh amendment right to jury trial, if amendment prohibition against excessive fines. these haven't been made applicable to the states. and i understand petitions asking, seeking evidence of supreme court would visit the question applied to the second amendment to the states pending. so, i am not going to ask that case while door their hauer your going to rule. but what you have an open mind

as on the supreme court finding the illegal proposition, whether the second amendment rights should be considered fundamental rights and thus applicable to the states? >> like you, i understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many americans. in fact, one of my god children is a member of the nra, and i have friends who haunt. i understand the individual right that the supreme court recognized and heller. as you pointed out, senator, and the alert case they were discussing a narrow issue which is whether an individual right under the second amendment applied to limit the federal

government rights to regulate the position of firearms. the court expressly, justice scalia and a footnote identified that there was supreme court precedent. that has said that that right is not incorporated against the state's. what that term of incorporation means in the law is that that right doesn't apply to the states and its regulation of its relationship with its citizens. in his supreme court parliaments, the right is not fundamental. it's a legal term. it's not talking about the importance of the right in a legal term. it's talking about isn't that incorporated against the states. when maloney came before the second circuit, as you indicated, myself and to other judges read with the supreme court said, saw that it hadn't

come explicitly rejected its precedent on application to the states and followed that president because it is the job of the supreme court to change it. you asked me -- i'm sorry, senator, i didn't mean to cut you off -- you ask whether i have an open mind on that question. absolutely. my decision in maloney and any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the supreme court when it speaks directly on an issue, and i would not prejudge any question that came before me if i was a justice on the supreme court. >> let me just ask -- i just asked senator sessions, he might want to ask one more question, and it goes to the area of prosecution. you have heard of heels and over 800 cases. you a firm 98% of convictions in violent crimes including terrorism cases. 99% of the time at least one

republican appointed panel agreed with you. in the united states versus donald as the lottery connecticut the victims in that case was the young daughter and niece of a prostitute, young children as the young as nine and 11 were forced to engage in sexual acts with the defendant, the mayor was convicted under law passed by congress prohibiting the use of any facility or means of interstate commerce to transmit or contact information about a person 16 for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. you spoke for unanimous panel of the second circuit which includes judge jacobs and judge paul and you upheld the conviction against constitutional challenge that the federal criminal statute in question exceeded congress' power to the commerce clause. i mention that only because i

appreciate your difference to the constitutional authority to prohibit illegal conduct. did you have any difficulty reaching the conclusion you did in the giovanni caisse? >> no sir. >> thank you. i'm glad you reached it. and i appreciate senator sessions forbearance. >> welcome. it's good to have you back, judge, and your family and friends and supporters. and i hope we will have a good day today. i look forward to dialogue with you. i've got to say that i like your statement on the fidelity of call yesterday and some of your comments this morning. and i also have to say had you been saying that with clarity over the last decade or 15 years, we would have a lot fewer problems today because you have evidence, i think it is quite clear, a philosophy of law that i suggest the judges act and

experiences can and even should and naturally will impact their decision, which i think goes against the american ideal and the oath a judge takes to be fair to every party and every day when they put on that rope that is a symbol that they are to put aside their personal biases and prejudices. so i would like to ask you a few things. i would just know it's not just one senate, as my chair suggested, that causes some difficulties. it is a body of thought over a period of years that causes us difficulties. and i would suggest that the quotation he gave wasn't exactly right of the wise and latina comment that you made. you have said i think six different times, quote, i would hope a wise latina woman with richness of her experiences would more often than not reach

a better conclusion. so that is a matter that i fink we will talk about as we go forward. let me recall that yesterday you said it's simple fidelity to the law of the task of a job isn't to make law it is to apply law. i heartily agree with that. however, you previously have said the court of appeals is where policy is made and you said on another occasion law that lawyers practice and judges to clear is into a definitive capital l. wall said many would like to think exist, and of quote. so, i guess i am asking today what do you really believe on those subjects that there is no real mall and the judges do not make the law or that there is no law in the court of appeals

where policy is made. discussed that with us please. >> i believe my record of 17 years demonstrates foley that the law the judges must apply the law and not make the law. whether i have agreed with the party or not found them sympathetic or not in every case i have decided i have don whipple law requires. with respect to judges making policy, i assume, senator, that you were referring to a remark that i made in a duke law student dialogue. that remark in context made it very clear that i wasn't talking about the policy reflected in the law that congress makes. that's the job of congress to decide what the policy should be

for society. in that conversation with the students i was focusing on what court judges to and what circuit court judges do, and i noted that district court judges find the facts and they apply the facts to the individual case. and when they do that, they are holding their finding. it doesn't bind anybody else. appellate judges, however, established precedent. they decide what the law says in a particular situation. that precedent has policy ramifications because it blind small just the litigants in that case, it blinds all litigants in similar cases and cases that may be influenced by that precedent. i think if my speech is heard outside of the minute and a half of that you present and the full

context examine it is very clear that i was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent and never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that congress makes. >> judge, i would just say i don't think it is that clear. i looked at the tape several times and i think a person could reasonably believe it meant more than that. but yesterday you spoke about your approach to rendering opinions and said, quote, i seek to strengthen both the rule will fall and faith in the impartiality of the justice system and i would agree but to have previously said this: i am willing to accept that we have a judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage but attempt as a supreme court suggests

continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. so first i would like to know do you think there is any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision making? >> never their prejudices. i was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal by disease and prejudices' of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case. what i was talking about is the obligation of judges to examine what they are feeling as they are at adjudicating a case and to ensure that isn't influencing the outcome. life experiences have to influence you. we are not robots who listen to evidence and don't have feelings. we have to recognize those feelings and put them aside. that is what my speech was

saying. that's our job. >> the statement was i willingly accept we have to judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience in heritage but continuously to judge when those opinions, some of these and prejudices are appropriate that is exactly opposite of what you're saying; is it not? >> i don't believe so because what i was saying is -- because we have feelings and different experiences we can be led to believe that our experiences are appropriate. we have to be open-minded to accept that they may not be and that we have to judge always that we are not letting those things determine the outcome. but there are situations in which some experiences are important in the process of judging because law asks us to

use those experiences. >> i understand that, but let me just follow up you see in your statement you want to do what you can to increase the faith and impartiality of the system but isn't it true the statement suggested you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision, how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system? >> i think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they are in partial but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving the result or their experiences are driving a result the new law is not. >> i agree. i know of one judge that says he has a feeling about his case and he tells his clerks to watch me. i do not want my by a cs to

influence this decision which i've taken the oath to make sure is in partial. i just am very concerned when you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision making. >> as i have tried to explain what i try to do is to ensure they are not. if i ignore them and believe that i am acting without them without looking at them and testing that i am not, then i could on consciously or otherwise be laid to be doing the exact thing i don't want to do, which is to let something but the law command a result. >> yesterday also said that your decisions have always been made to serve the larger interest of and partial justice.

a good aspiration agree. but in the past you've repeatedly said this, i wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible tall and even most cases and i wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do disservice to both the law and society. are you saying you expect your background and heritage to influence your decision making? >> what i was speaking about in that speech was part and back to what we were just talking about a few minutes ago, which is life experiences do influence on us in good ways. that's why we seek the enrichment of our legal system from life experiences. that can affect what we see or how we feel but that's not what

drives a result. the impartiality is an understanding that the law is what command is the result and so to the extent that we are asking the question because most of my speech was an academic discussion about what should we be thinking about, what should we be considering in this process and accepting that life experiences could make a difference i wasn't encouraging the belief or attempting to encourage the belief that i felt that should drive the result may disconnect judge, i think it is consistent in the comments i quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your background will accept affect the result in cases and that troubles me so that is not in partiality. don't you think that is not consistent with your statement that you believe your role as a

judge is to serve the larger interest of impartial justice? >> no, sir as i indicated my record shows at no point in time have i ever had made it my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of the case. in every case where i have identified a sympathy, i have articulated and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result. i do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudice is to influence the outcome of my case. >> well, you said something similar to that yesterday in each case i applied the law to the facts at hand, but you've repeatedly made this statement, quote, i accept the proposition. i accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench and that my

experiences affect the fact is i choose to see as a judge. first, that is troubling to me as a lawyer. when i present evidence i expect a judge to hear and see all the evidence presented. how is it inappropriate for a judge ever to say they will choose to see some facts and not others? >> a question of choosing to see some facts or another, senator. i didn't intend to suggest that and in the wider context what i believe the point i was making was that our life experiences do permit cross to see some facts and understand them more easily than others. but in the and you are absolutely right that is why we have appellate judges that are more than one judge because each of us from our life experiences will more easily see different perspectives argued by parties.

but judges do consider all of the arguments of litigants'. i have. most of my opinions if not all of them explain to parties by the law requires what it does. >> do you stand by your statement that my experiences affect the facts i choose to see? >> no sir. i don't stand by the understanding of that statement. that i will ignore other facts or other experiences because i haven't had them. i do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. they helped you to understand and listen, but that still law requires a result and it will come and you to the facts relevant to the disposition of the case. >> i will note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years of span, and it's

concerning to me. so i would just say to you i believe in george c. garbala's formulation, and she said in you disagree and this was the context of your speech and you used her statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion and you said she believes that a judge no matter what the gender or background should strive to reach the same conclusion, and she believes that's possible. you can argue that you don't think it's possible and all maybe even most cases. you deal with the famous quote of justice o'connor in which he says a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman, and you push back from that. you say you don't think that is necessarily accurate. and you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis so

how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert in partiality is a major aspiration which may not be possible in all or even most cases with your oath if you've taken twice which requires impartiality? >> my friend is here this afternoon, and we are good friends with approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to the facts. i also as i explained was using a rhetorical force that fell flat. i knew that justice o'connor couldn't have meant if judges reached different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them was and why is. that couldn't have been her meaning because reasonable

judges disagree on the legal conclusions in some cases. so, i was trying to play on her words. my plea fell flat. it was bad. because it left the impression that i believed that life experiences commanded a result in the case, but that isn't what i do as a judge. it's clearly not what i intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young hispanic latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process. >> well, i can see that as a perhaps a layperson's approach to it but as a judge who's taken the strove i'm very troubled that you would repeatedly over a decade or more make statements that consistently any