@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @@@@ s @@@@

pa >> the state d.o.t. of what i call the state and substance of the effort. the actual letter to actually be given to the department of transportation. that took time to work out with a number of states as well as the substance, to the extent the state is able to fulfill that requirement. i think this is something the state and the ngo needs to keep an eye. we'll not know how long it will turn out.

>> the number was 16 states. >> yes. >> and they're all obviously experiencing the same kind of -- >> different levels depend of budget situation but everyone is worried about it, yes. >> it seems -- it always seems to me whether it's at the federal government, the state government, or local governments, transportation infrastructure is the easiest to cut and when we cut it, it takes so long for what we're facing right now with the chairman with a bill that the states are crying out for. we need that funding out there. again, i was concerned and it appears it is. the next is directed at mr. costa and mr. salt. a lot of this money, very small amounts of this money -- has gone out and there's huge pots of money that doesn't seem to be moving that quickly on. in a situation that we face we

should have looked to minnesota and the i-35 bridge and how much are we doing at the gsa? and i don't think we're doing much and i don't know if we're doing anything at the design-build at the corps of engineers and it seems to me with this stimulus money this is the time to employ that strategy so can you talk about how much design-build you've put out there? my understanding it saves maybe 20 to 30% to the time that it takes when you go through the normal process. so either of you want to take that first -- what are we doing on design-build? >> traditionally gsa has not used design-build extensively with you with recovery acts -- the majority of projects will be design-build projects. >> what kind of -- >> i was searching through -- >> it would seem to me -- this is a situation where we need to

employ this strategy so i would be real curious what you're doing at gsa. >> we started getting the money -- most of our projects -- we had more projects ready to go than we had dollars, so we -- the -- and so part have what you're seeing -- what we're seeing right now is i believe it on the o & m as soon as those projects are ready, we're sending those out and it's happening. on the construction side there are again the -- i think there are other factors that cause an effective schedule for a construction project, but in our criteria, i think the corps does design-build. it is an effective technique. in the case of the stimulus, we

were focusing on projects that had designs completed or were completely complete so we had go ahead and go ahead to that. i don't know the direct answer to your question. i don't know how many design-builds were built into our recovery act program. >> my understanding the corps has not used the design-build that frequently and i would like to see what you're doing on design-build because as we come out of the economic downturn, i believe that's something that the corps ought to be looking at 'cause i've talked to many folks in pennsylvania that say that's something they haven't seen the corps use so -- first of all, if you could report back to me about what you're doing on that, both of you, and as we go down the road, look to that design-build technique. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the gentleman raised a very important issue here and gsa, i noted in their details of the testimony, are moving to a design-build approach on a number of these larger projects, i believe it, the corps of engineers generally has not used this practice because of the nature of the corps work. they are the design people, and they have an engineering staff that puts the projects together, lays out the details on how they are to be undertaken in se building a lock or doing a lock pool construction or harbor maintenance projects. and then they put it out to bid. we'll have to explore that in a

future hearing to the extent which design-build might work. who raise a very important issue, a very interesting one. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been visiting a lot of projects throughout my district that is using our funds and i'm sure my colleagues are doing likewise. and it's a good way to find out what's happening on the ground so to speak. and i'm going to describe a situation which i'm sure other states face. this has to do with the army corps having selected in my district two harbor drudging projects for our use. and shortly thereafter, an hour was passed before we passed the act and so when congress passed the omnibus appropriations act, i'm told of the honolulu district of the army corps said

appropriated funds must be used for. therefore, we'll be having to turn back the funds for these projects. and we already have a lot of new-start projects ready to go -- ready to go to the construction phase. i hope there's something we can do to make sure that these funds that are coming to the various states actually are able to be used for that purpose. and if that means that we need to amend the law so that new starts can access these funds, i think we need to do that. and mr. salt, if you have some other suggestion or way that we can make sure this happens, i'd be happy to here it, although that's part of my question. >> if the gentlewoman would yield. i did raise this issue earlier. we did not have a limitation on a type of products that the corps couldn't contribute and we contributed or portion, our

transportation infrastructure committee portion but when it got in the appropriation process in the hands of the white house and to the senate, they put this limitation, and it's part of the law. and it means we would have to change the law and i think it's a mistake. >> it's really manifesting itself in a real way on the ground. in addition, on these two particular harbor projects. sand has been drudged and they could be used and replenished to fix eroded areas but i've been told that sand cannot be used for these purposes because sand-cleaning is not considered construction even though the sand is the result of have to go to a$ci landfill. is this a limitation that we've put into the use of our funds?

congresswoman, i don't think this is a recovery act issue. you know, as i've gone around, i too have been concerned that we don't -- we don't seem to think very completely about how we best use dredge material, particularly, how we use it -- i mean, if it's contaminated, obviously, we have to deal with that in a safe and appropriate way. but if it's available to put it on a beach, our proprotoctocols doing that are disincentives in doing the smartest answer for our people and for the nation. i don't have an answer for that other than it's an issue that

we're trying to work through not just with the recovery act but with the benefit use of dredge material in general. and i know the committee has given us authority with respect to to that, and i think we're trying to look hard at that because i agree with your point, that if we're not careful, you can strain yourself into answers that don't make a lot of sense. so in that sense, i agree. and i don't think it's a recovery act issue. i think it's more of a general policy issue that we're working on. >> so if it's -- and what is the time frame because this dredging activity is happening right now. and there's all these piles and piles of sand that we could use in a beneficial way. so could you just, you know, move rapidly and can my office talk with you so that we can resolve this in a sensible way?

>> yes, ma'am, i'll -- we'll get -- >> and apparently this is a situation that affects other jurisdictions. >> yes. >> since i have a little bit more time, i commend you, mr. salt, for the fact that you are sending a lot of your contracts are with small businesses, and i hope that the other testifiers are doing the same thing, especially, gsa, with regard to the contracts you're letting -- that you're focusing on small businesses and encouraging the use of smaller contractors. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll look forward to your response. i think your comment is correct, mr. salt, that this is a broader issue than recovery act funds and it's a question of basic underlying policy and that's a matter that would be properly disposed of in our next water resources development act. mr. bozeman? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first of all, i'd like to thank mr. russ ashley from fema. i understand he'll be leaving government service this fall. and i want to take this opportunity to thank him for his service. mr. ashley took over the department of homeland security grants department at a time when it was having a fair number of problems. at the time the grant dollars and guidance were coming out late and the states and first responders were pretty unhappy about that. mr. ashley made a concerted effort to improve its programs and release grant funding more quickly. again, i just appreciate you for your hard work and for your service. and i and i know the rest of the committee wishes you the best of luck in your future endeavors so thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. mr. salt, the person recovery and reinvestment act provides more than $2 billion for operation and maintenance to the army corps of engineers.

the intention which was to adequately operate and maintain our water resources and provide jobs, however, in the tables that we were provided will go to surveys and tide gauges, can you tell how these stimulate the economy and provide jobs. >> well, i would say that all of the work -- none of the work -- all of the work that we're talking about in the recovery act is provided through contracts or contract instruments to the private sector to get the work done. so in that sense, those kinds of operations and maintenance activities are work for people, not government employees, but for people -- private sector folks who do that work.

i would say by far the majority of the dollars that we're spending are going to the kinds of things you'd expect, the larger kinds of things, dredging and maintenance of our facilities and those sorts of things, and so i would say there are items, as you describe, but all of our work is -- none of our work is done in-house in that sense. >> thank you. i guess, you know, again, water resources, the entire committee -- i think all of our efforts are really trying to see how we can really get people to work. kind of a related thing, the congress has not received an army corps of engineers report in three years. our stimulus funds are being completed the chief reports. how many chief reports can congress expect by 2009 and how many by 2010? >> i can't -- i can't speak for

the administration on that. i'll take my goal would be to have many. you know, when i ask that question and we have those conversations, the comfortable answer is less than 10. the aggressive answer is up to 25 or so. >> okay. >> and in that delta are projects that many will fall out because they aren't ready, but it is a priority -- i think it is a priority of the administration to engage in conversations with the committee to not sit on our hands and let -- force the committee to do

all the lifting but rather to come forward with some ideas about how we would proceed and then to have -- and to have a good effort between the executive branch and the congress about not only a new set of projects with the chief support but with the series of policy initiatives like the chairman was speaking about before like dredge materials and things like that. i think there are a number of areas that we're discussing about now and it would be pretty -- >> no, i understand. >> it's an important priority for us. >> what i would like to do is yield the remaining few seconds that i have to mr. schuster. he has a follow-up question. >> just a question and the chairman made a point about the corps doing -- set up to do much of the design. and i'm not sure so the question is, i thought the corps was giving up -- or putting some of that design responsibility out

there to the private sector. what percentage -- i still think you do quite a bit of design and i'm not sure. >> a lot. yeah, i'm told more than half of our design work is put out to the private sector. as the chairman pointed out, a number of the things the corps does, there's not a big market for, you know, big concrete structures. >> right. >> so there are things the private sector isn't tuned to do that that kind of work but there's a lot of work the corps does -- >> so about 50% of what you do in house? >> at least 50%. >> i see i've exceeded mr. bozeman's point. >> thank you for your response, mr. salt. ms. richardson? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. when i look at the intentions of the american recovery and reinvestment act, if we look at

the objectives which are -- right now i'm looking at mr. ashley's testimony on page 4, the recovery act was signed into law in february 17, 2009, and its objectives were straightforward. to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery and to assist the most impacted areas by the recession. so my question is, mr. ashley, of the 6,000 applications that were submitted, how many meet those top two objectives? is and are they in economically distressed areas. >> thank you very much for that question. when we went and did our outreach with all of these different organizations to include the fire services as well as the national association towns and townships, conference of mayors, nga and all others, we did take their inputs into what did they mean by economically distressed? so one of the large factories inside of the program is we're determining in the 6,000

applications that are currently review is, how many more firefighters is it going to put out a fire faster and provide safety and then also balancing that with a heavily weighted factor of -- is it coming from an economically depressed area. actually, we want to do two things at the same time. one stimulate the economy with the jobs that are anticipated to be created under this program. but we also want the dollars to be going towards a place where it's going to provide an added capability to the fire service as well. >> well, mr. ashley, with all due respect, i represent california's 37th congressional district. >> okay. >> in that district is the city of compton which prior to this whole collapse had an unemployment rate of 19% and now it exceeds 22%. so it's my intention and the only reason why i voted for this bill is that you would maintain the first two objectives of the stimulus. and so i'd like to go back for you that although you have the goal that you have -- and i

agree with it and i think it's important but your top two objectives of what we authorized for this bill is to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery and to assist those most impacted by the recession. so again i'm going to ask you the question, do you know of those 6,000 applications which ones meet these two criterias? >> to some degree i would imagine all 6,000 do. >> okay. can you supply to this committee a map of the 6,000 applications and where they, in fact, do follow this particular area and that they're in economically distressed areas? >> defined economically dressed? >> i think -- >> excuse me, the act defines economically distressed as described by the economic development administration in the u.s. department of commence. it's spelled out in the act. it was my language. >> okay. we can provide that data as

provided by the individual applicants that put the applications in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so what i would like to ask mr. chairman as we can hear from the testimony that although we took great pains in this committee to ensure that it was clear, the actual implementation into the communities is not necessarily consistent. so you would agree maybe we could send a letter to the various agencies that are using these funds to reiterate what the objectives are of the act that we passed and to make sure if they're not clear, which it seems like today i don't think mr. ashley is clear, of what that definition is so we can ensure that the money is being spent appropriately. further, mr. chairman, what i'd like to suggest maybe that we request -- this is an excellent tool, and i'm using it in my district and i'm sure other members are as well that it might be helpful to expound upon it a little further and to include information of what were the existing or saved jobs that

we achieved through these -- through all of these projects? >> that information -- if the just ahead will yield, will be available in our september report, end of august report. >> perfect. and since we have time to plan the numbers, i would be looking for are what were the existing and saved jobs that were preserved and a new jobs, which has a category. and how many are benefiting small businesses, minority-owned and women businesses? and i know you're always on it so i look forward to september of us having this information. and you were kind, mr. chairman, and i would like to say for the record when we talked about supporting this bill, you committed to the fact that, yes, these were our objectives and you would work on our committee to achieve it. so thank you, sir. >> we're following that up and we sent noise to all the agencies and to the state departments of transportation, transit agents -- that level of

detail is expected in the end of august, mid-september report on which we'll have a further hearing. mr. carney, you've been very patient. you're one of the first ones here, unfortunately, one of the last to have at it with our panel. >> the travails of being a sophomore but thank you for the recognition. i'd like to continue, mr. ashley, along this vein with fire grants. there's 6,000 or so applications. what are you doing to make sure that there's going to be sort of regional equity when you're distributing these funds? >> as you're aware, there's no authorization language. this is a brand-new program start. what we set out for in the guidance was a goal to -- but not a strict adherence to the existing afg allocations, which is pretty straightforward in

looking at rural, volunteer, urban and such as a goal. until we go through the complete review of the applications, looking at economic need and looking at, you know -- does a community need a new fire station, right, we won't know how that regional distribution will look. >> i see. well, there's an aspect of this -- of the money for the fire grants that is somewhat troubling to me. it's not that i disagree with its intent but there seems to be a waiting toward sort of a response to terror. >> no, sir. there's no categorical inclusion nor criteria that ties to any nexus of terrorism. >> would the gentleman yield? that is not correct. everybody volunteer fire department is required to submit

in this application for funding a showing of connection to homeland security and terrorism. and i raised that issue with the previous administration and with the secretary napolitano. that is unnecessary and an obstacle and an impediment. it's wrong. and i'm glad you raised that point. >> well, i appreciate it because as we sit here at this moment, i've been on my blackberry with my staff. several counties in my district are now under flood warnings, and it is the local fire that responds to these floods. and they are disadvantaged if they have to find some terror nexus here in terms of getting the funds. now, that's quite a concern to me and to the 14 counties and the rural areas that i represent. you know, and these are the local community volunteer responders that we're trying to help here. and they will be pulling on their boots and have pulled on their boots and are monitoring the creeks and sandbagging it

right now and they're doing it with, frankly, antiquated equipment and if they are disadvantaged because they can't find a terror nexus in this particular job, i think we need to rethink this whole thing. >> if i might, sir, there is no selection criteria under any of these grants that require any of the categories -- when you go through the 12 categories of what they're applying for that ties it to terrorism. >> well, the administration's fy2010 budget seems to go the other way on that. we need to get to the bottom of this. i also had a question for mr. salt and mr. costa. when we talk about projects, mr. salt, this is probably for you, do we look at life cycle costs of a project? when the corps wants to do something? >> as a project is formulated and brought to this committee for authorization, the analysis

is a life cycle analysis of a project. >> do we consider alternative sorts of construction materials, maybe composite materials versus steel or iron or any other kind of materials in terms of what it costs over the life cycle of a project? >> i think you should expect us to do that. i can't report to you how well we're doing those sorts things, but, yes, i would -- i would expect you to -- i would want to say, yes, that is part of our response. >> very good. well, if that's not the case, truly, perhaps, mr. chairman, we can look at drafting some legislation to that effect. but thank you very much, mr. costa. >> congressman, yes, we do include life cycle process, including our projects and materials. it's a pretty core part of how we look at doing our business.

>> okay. and do you look at it, mr. salt? >> just as a follow-on to my answer. as part of our regular process, there is a value engineering step. we're outside the experts to take a look at our designs and to make the kinds of cost saving recommendations that you're talking about as appropriate. >> okay. mr. costa? >> i was just handed a card. >> no, it's good. >> the committee -- you all extended a life cycle which is good which is helpful looking at new energy management kinds of techniques -- >> and building materials and things of that nature? >> yeah. >> excellent. my time has expired. you've been very patient with me, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> another minute. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks also, mr. chairman,

for your attention and this committee's attention to oversight, transparency and accountability 'cause i think it's really important, especially, for taxpayers and for job seekers. i would note that just yesterday my state of maryland came in sort of number one in its transparency and accountability for telling the public and telling the story on our state website about the expenditure and allocation of recovery act funds, where they're going in very good detail. it was actually number one rated among all the states by an independent nonprofit group, good jobs first. but i think it highlights what our obligation is here on this committee. to look in great detail how these funds have been expended. i have a lot of questions but i'm going to address these two to mr. hooks about the clean

water state revolving funds. i looked down the list -- and although in your testimony you cite 45 programs across the country that have, i guess, for which funds have been obligated, i counted in our transportation and infrastructure committee chart that only 24 states out of all of the states and territories have actually obligated funds and when you look at the charts, you know, across obligations, contracts put out to bid, jobs created, there are a lot of zeros there. and so i'm really concerned about whether we're meeting our goals and deadlines and what's happening to those resources because this is about creating jobs. and i just don't see that except in really a handful of states. and i'm concerned about that. also, i wonder if you could describe for us ways that we can

track state revolving fund implementation progress, and then i wonder if you could also describe for me what actually is happening and what projects are going on regarding the green water -- the green infrastructure 20% allocation. i'd love to see a state-by-state analysis of those specific projects 'cause i think it would actually help this committee. >> great. you know, i think there has been some confusion in terms of the use of the term "obligation." while we have obligated our resources to 45 -- 45 states, the states also obligate monies to borrowers and i think there might be a little bit of a disconnect in terms of the numbers. and we'd be happy -- we'd be happy to try to work with you to try to reach -- >> so you've actually obligated funds for 45 states? >> correct. we made those resources

available to 45 states. there are six states that are still in the balance. >> and so where are the contracts then? >> the states are now going through their bidding process as well. some states have already started. there is a little bit of a lag in terms of outlays which i mentioned earlier. but between the -- identifying the states and putting them out to bid that has taken some time. based on what we're seeing now, bear in mind, the reporting requirements from the states, at least to the federal government, doesn't begin until october. we have been launching a pilot at epa to start to go out and try to receive some of the state-specific, recipient-specific data to try to identify, you know, really what is happening on the ground. and so that in terms of our tracking -- we'll have much more data, much more comprehensive data coming in october. >> so are you saying to me,

though, that when we look at the number -- the amounts of obligations and the number of contracts put out to bid, that's incomplete. >> would the gentlewoman yield. >> this is the problem. this is budget-speak. obligation is a budget term of art. all it does is make a step. it doesn't accomplish anything which is why i insisted in our submission to the recovery act program, when we were crafting it in the committee, that the funds be under contract within 90 days at the behest of states, at the urging of the senate whose needs buckled under the issue and the big think pieces at the white house and omb they

submitted this budget-speak term. obligate, yeah, we're going to put this money out to this project. that's all. you know, for the highway projects, the states have signed off saying we obligate the money for this project. that doesn't put a single contract -- it doesn't put a single program under contract. >> yes, this is exactly my question because when i look at the number of contracts that are out to bid, they're just state after state, zero after zero the number of jobs that are created and sustained. zero after zero and if we're out there telling the mainstream american people that we're putting ought this money out for their grandchildren, surely, we got to be creating jobs. i think if that data is out there, it would really behoove the administration to let us all know that.

because it looks as though somebody is just holding onto the money and it's not really going to these projects. i look at my state of maryland, for example, and what i see is that the fund has $19 million. there's obligated 7.721 billion. and there are zero projects which work has begun, zero. zero total job hours, zero, zero, zero. and that's state after state. and i just think -- i mean, i'm very supportive of this state clean water revolving fund but we've got to create jobs with these funds. this is really intense infrastructure. we know that it's needed infrastructure. and i just think, you know, at

some point or other, the american public is going to start asking where the jobs and we deserve to have an answer for them. >> i agree with you, which in part which is why i talked earlier about, you know, kind of the three phases that i view this work in. before, trying to make the monies available and then i thought we would move in the management and oversight of what the state was doing. now, however, you're right. you're absolutely right. we're actually concentrating our efforts to try to assist the states and in breaking down any sort of barriers that they might have whether that's buy america provisions or getting their bids out. we're making our contracting resources available. we're making our contracting vehicles available in one state's instance so we're trying to do whatever we can to assist the states and facilitating getting the word started. >> you said that there will be report-backs from the states in october because we haven't hit

that deadline yet, and all of a sudden we're going to see a glut of projects because, you know, there are very few and hopefully, you know, with our jobless numbers and stuff, that means that people will have jobs in the fall? >> we anticipate these numbers starting to ramp up significantly over the next couple of months. they've gone up 85% just over the last four weeks. and i suspect again that the numbers actually in the fall will be dramatically different. >> well, hopefully we're not then getting into a winter season in which then we can't do these jobs in states that have climate issues. and so we thought -- i guess we thought in this committee -- and i'm greatly exceeding my time, that given the springtime frame and the deadlines for contracts going out, that we would actually be able to get no those states that have seasonal and climate issues and it feels like we're bumping right up against that yet again.

and so there's the prospect that in some of these states really work is not going to be able to happen until next spring, which that's a lot of time for somebody that's out of a job. >> the legislation does specify that all the srf work under the clean water and drinking water -- that they'd all be under contract or construction within one year, february 17th, 2010. and based on what my staff is telling me based on the personal visits that we're making, all of the states will meet that goal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> just before i go to the senator, i want to underscore of budget-speak term. the budget-speak term obligation. if our language had prevailed, there would have been no escape hatch. states and the executive branch agencies would have had -- would have had to have projects under

contract within 90 days or losses the money to someone who could lose them. and your point is well-taken. and it was commented, well, you're right on. well, that's the way most of the members of the committee feel. we committed these funds with the anticipation they'd put people to work. but when the omb got into it, when the white house staff got into this thing, when the senate stuck their nose into it and subpoenaed oh, well, we have to give them a little leeway, that they can obligate the funds and have 120 days to do that, that obligation is a very different term than having a project under contract. it was an escape hatch. >> well, i do have to compliment the gentlelady from maryland. her questioning and commentary was so refreshing. and and, you know, we're going to go home in a few hours

whether it's up the road or in florida and you have to face people who haven't had jobs for months and you're going to go back and say, well, we've got $11 billion unobligated here. we've got billions here. and all they want is the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and that solves all the way other problems. it really does. you were magnificent, mrs. edwards. mr. chairman, i want to make sure that was in the record. >> good. thank you. >> the final thing -- and this is just a point, particularly, the agency folks that are trying to get the money out, we will never get projects cheaper than you can right now. there's a fire sale going on to do every kind of project in this country. people want business. they want -- contractors want work and contracts. and in my district -- i met with

my district transportation secretary who covers my area of florida, he said the prices they're getting in are 25 and 30% cheaper than what they had budgeted which is a fire sale to do these projects. so getting this money out now is so important. and i'm just asking y'all to find ways -- to support miss norton here. st. elizabeth, i have a project that i'm interested doing. and right to the north of union station, we will never find real estate bargains, opportunities to renew leases and opportunities to save the taxpayers billions of dollars and get more for less. now, we could screw around and let this go on to next year. you already see the signs of some recovery in spite of what

government's done but maybe we could wait longer and pay more. hopefully, y'all take it away the message particularly again the agencies. i appreciate gao's honest assessment here today, too. so i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. that's very, very important. now i committed to ms. norton that she could pursue her line of inquiry. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman, 'cause i did not yet ask mr. ashley a question. i do want to associate myself with the remarks of ms. edwards and the ranking member, although, i promised the ranking member we will not buy a building in noma. if that's what he's really talking about, and he's still

working on it. the fire sale is exactly correct. in

light of the billion dollars. >> because we made progress payments, that's exactly right. >> even so if there's a billion dollars and somebody is being paid to do work you'd expect more than $34 million to show up at this time. if you want to explain that to staff, we'll be glad to hear it. but that is an important point. i wanted to ask mr. ashley something that has been on the mind of this committee especially the chairman and on the mind of me with respect to my work on the homeland security committee. i'm not sure it applies to stimulus funds although it's related to mr. carney's question and that is the award of fire grants in relation apparently to terrorist programs.

now, the fire grants offer basic fire-fighting capability because for all hazards. you don't go to a hazard they haven't called out your firefighters as well. we had to go after the last administration persistently for attempting using the president's budget to focus fire grants on terrorism. the congress in a bipartisan fashion consistently rejected this attempt by the prior administration. i was very disappointed to see that in the 2010 budget of the new administration what appear to be, unless you can show me this is not the case -- a continued attempt to focus fire grants on preparedness by words such as in the event of a terrorist attack as opposed to all hazards, which, of course,

deals with terrorist attacks as well as with what we in this country face 99.9% of the time, which are hazards unrelated to terrorism. can you explain why the administration's budget describes and apparently attempts to continue to focus fire grants as a program on preparing fire departments for terrorism notwithstanding the very clear language of the law and congressional intent as repeated several times over during the last administration. let me just ask you straight out, does the fire grant program today, whether for the stimulus package or for fire grants generally require or give any preference to fire departments that show a nexus to terrorism

in their applications? >> none, whatsoever. >> so you say that is completely gone? why did the administration's 2010 budget request attempt in some language to focus on terrorism then? >> i wasn't party to those specific discussions on the request as far as, you know, tying the 2010 budget to -- whether it's terrorism or risk-based allocations of that nature. so i wasn't -- i was not part of those discussions. >> i wish you would carry back then to fema -- the subcommittee's very substantial interest in making sure that all hazards are covered. firefighters go out for all hazards and we intend to enforce that. we have the backing of the entire congress of that. we don't want to repeat that with this congress. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thought it was my obligation to get that question on the record. >> i appreciate you raising

that. i also appreciate the questions raised by mr. carney on this particular issue. i raised it and i've been incensed about this matter because in 2008, there was a fire caused by a very camper of the superior national forest, in northeastern minnesota in cook county, right, oh, just a mile away from the gun flint trails so it was in the wilderness. these campers left a fire going and left their camp sight. -- campsite.

wind came and the frames went into the nearby brush and the volunteer fire department rushed to the site with their pumper 'cause they knew it was defective. and the pumper truck could not operate, could not draw water from the lake. could not attack the fire. maybe they would not have been able to contain the whole thing but i think they would have significantly impeded its progress so that it could have been contained to just a few acres. instead of 76 acres burned, half in the u.s., half in the canada. when i went up for a town meeting with all the residents, 134 structures burned to the ground. fortunately, there was no fatalities or injuries. and part of the reason for that was that fema's preparedness

program -- the mitigation programmed supplied funding for homeowners and residentses to install sprinkler systems to draw water from lakes and underground aquifers and those homes and facilities that had availed themselves of the funding put the systems -- the sprinkler systems into work and they saved those structures but others burned to the ground. i asked why. why didn't you have an adequate pumper truck? and they said because we were turned down two years ago and again, this year. because we did not show a connection between our pumper truck and homeland security. that is about the remotest place in the world -- or in america,

except in gnome, alaska. i called your predecessor over there and raised literal hell with him twice. they turned it down twice because there was no connection to terrorism. well, we'll address that. we'll get to this. there were a number of small projects, small -- $2500, $25,000, pumper truck runs a little bit more than that. that were turned down because they didn't have -- didn't show a nexus to affect terrorism. our terror in the northland is blizzards, fire, high winds that blew down 26 million trees. that's our terror. it happens every year. wer- never had one of these terrorist attacks in the northland.

so i asked two of the fire departments now -- these are the documents they have to file and i just spent the last few minutes going through there. there is no current showing -- and i'm happy to see that -- no showing requested of a nexus to terrorism. well, whoever did it thank you for that. whether it was paulson on his departure or the new team, they at least addressed that issue. but i don't want to see that appear again in a firefighter grant application. can you assure me that won't happen? >> well, between now and august 30th i can. >> oh, you're leaving? >> yes, sir. >> good luck. well, you just get these people trained up and then they leave, huh? >> i stayed past january 20th. >> well, thank you for that.

let's see i had some other -- the corps, you have 800 projects. you have outlace of 43 million. when do you expect those outlays, that is actual payments to contractor to ramp up from that number, mr. salt? . >> sir, i really like your chart. i think your chart really makes the point. in our case, over 90% of our obligations are to contracts, to private sector contractors. and as your chart points out, you award the contract. they then hire, they then order materials -- the money -- the stimulus starts to happen. after that, they send the request for progress payments or bills or whatever and the outlays always lag and so there will always be a lag between the -- even in the issues -- the

other issue this chart raises which is the -- when the states are involved it goes up. even when you get down to the actual contract, the points you were making earlier, there's another lag behind that that's there. it is -- i think there are two important things. number one, the point you made. when the award the contract, the work starts. people start getting hired. all those things start to happen. and secondly, people in the community start to see good things happening. the projects that weren't funded, weren't able to be funded in the budget, the other point that you made that these are for thingshat otherwise wouldn't get done, that they start to see that happening and i think that starts to create the sense that this is happening. and although the outlays are important, we get to -- we got to pay, i would say that the real important part is up at the other end of that.

>> the awarding of contracts is critically important here. and each of you has -- each of your agencies have submitted that information and i invite you to supplement your current testimony in the coming months with updates as we requested on our committee website, contracts not only awarded -- bids awarded and projects under contract and work underway, supplement this information. the highway program, the federal government did all of its work. d.o.t. did its job, federal highway did its job and notified the states and the next is up to the states and if there's some red tape, we want to know about it. they had plenty of time to tell us from december until february

from actually september of '08 when we passed -- the house passed the first stimulus bill. it died in the senate. but they had plenty of time to say well, we might -- we might have this problem. we might have that paperwork problem. they never did. not a single one of them came into us, yes, we can. we can do this. and so mr. mica and i are going to send a letter to these states who are lagging behind. what's the problem? what's the red tape? what's the obstacles? we're going to find out. meanwhile, you tell us -- your through the first phase, the contract is awarded, update that information by the third week of august or the end of the third week of august. do you agree with that?

>> in terms of -- excuse me -- >> that's not the right question. would you comment on what i just said. >> yes. i can comment. we are seeing with regard to the lagging concept, the obligations and moving to the outlays, we are seeing a pretty significant uptick they have had time to put these out for contract and i expect to see a real difference as we go forward over the next couple of months in that area. but there are still a number of projects that have not been obligated and so there will still be -- this will play out over several years, especially, the more complicated projects as we mentioned that we'll need to have a longer bid time and will take longer to construct. >> i know there were some hang-wringing by the economists who said, well, as constructed and with these time constraints, the federal highway

administration, the state d.o.t.s are only going to do those projects that are quick-hitters. that's what we expected. the longer-term projects are going to be covered in our upcoming bill. six years. >> and mr. oberstar, that is what we're seeing. that is why you see such a high percentage of repaving, rehabilitation because these are the projects that could be bid quickly and done during this construction season. >> that's what we want to see. do you have any closing comments? >> no. it's just that it was informing. >> i appreciate that and i appreciate each contribution that you have made and are for the record, our next hearing will occur about the third week of september and we will make a more -- further in depth review. thank you again for your participation. mr. ashley, i wish you well in whatever your next pursuit is.

miss siggerud, keep your eye on them. the committee's adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

.. what eastern on c-span3, a security hearing on how emergency management agency's sponsor the needs of children

before and after disasters. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> some government grants? >> donations? >> advertising for products. >> public money. >> taxes? >> how is c-span funded? >> aircraft cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> today, the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor for supreme court justice, watch live on c-span2 and c-span.org. this fall, tour the home of america's highest court, the supreme court. the u.s. senate will vote this week on the supreme court nomination of judge sonia sotomayor. debate is scheduled to begin today. the judiciary committee debate on her nomination last several hours last week.

>> we have a quorum. i want to thank all members of the committee for their cooperation. two weeks ago during our hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court, not perfect, no hearing is, the hearing provided us a chance to ask questions and raise concerns. gave the nominee an opportunity to respond to relentless critics, having had -- having had to remain silent for two months prior to the hearing. her chance to have a public voice. allowed the american people, most importantly, to see and hear judge sonia sotomayor for themselves. it is interesting that during those four days, almost 2,000 people attended the hearing in person, in this room.

millions more saw it or heard it, read about it, newspapers, blog, television, cable, in the judiciary committee we have a webtesting. i believe president obama was right when he told the american people that judge sonia sotomayor would bring knowledge and experience acquired over the course of a career, but wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey. the journey defined by hard work. few intelligence, enduring faith in america, all things are possible. so i think judge sonia sotomayor and her family for participating in the hearing with such intelligence and grace, and, i might say, impatience. now comes the moment when this committee faces the choice of whether to recommend the nomination favorably to the senate. each of us as senators has a

responsibility to vote yes or no. i look forward to a bipartisan vote. judge sonia sotomayor is well qualified. she has the highest rating in the american buyers association. one need look no further than her experience, her ability, temperament or judgment. the president nominated a person with more federal judiciary experience than anyone nominated to the u.s. supreme court in nearly 100 years. he nominated somebody with federal trial judge experience, the only member of the supreme court with federal trial judge experience, and tremendous experience, the most active prosecutor's office in this country. as her testimony for the committee reenforce, she is a

restrained judge who applies a lot to the facts. ironically, the few decisions for which she has been criticized are cases in which she did not reach out to change the law or defile judicial precedent. in other words, cases in which she refused to be an activist judge and make law from the bench. in her 17 years on the bench, there's not one example, loan a pattern, of her ruling based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. she has been true to her own, she paid and partially performed his duties as set forth by the constitution. as a prosecutor and as a judge she has the minister justice without favoring one group of persons over another. she testified directly saying i have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade.

citing a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions, throughout my 17 years on the bench i have witnessed the consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of anyone litigant, but always to serve the interests, the larger interests of impartial justice. i agree with her. during my time in the senate i have often spoken on judicial nominees, i ask myself whether the nominee should be fair and impartial. as one who has tried an awful lot of cases i look at a judge and i say, whether any american could expect fair consideration. of this judge, regardless of race, whether they're rich or poor, a person or a corporation, dependent for the government, republican or democrat or

independent. when i come into a courtroom by can look at a judge and say this judge will make up his or her mind based on the law, not on who the litigants are. having reviewed record i know that judge sonia sotomayor has been that kind of judge. that kind of justice in the supreme court, it is with enthusiasm and hope that i am going to vote in favor of this historic nomination. and recognize the first item with senator sessions and we will go back and forth based on seniority. >> you conduct a fair hearing. i don't know if that is on or off not, you conduct a fair hearing, our people, seven on our side against 12 on your

side, had a duty and responsibility to ask the questions that are pertinent to this nomination, i believe they've done so effectively and fairly and fairly. i really appreciate the grace judge sonia sotomayor showed, she was patient, as you said, and she took care to participate in the process. in a way that i think reflected well on her personally. how would you say, mr. chairman, as i explained yesterday, based on her record as a judge, i am not able to support this nomination. any court in the united states that is not deeply committed to the ideal of american justice, they should set aside their personal opinions. in speech after speech, judge

sonia sotomayor said fourth a judicial philosophy that conflicts the great american tradition of blind justice and fidelity to the law as written, words and speeches are not being taken out of context as some have suggested, she has repeatedly said, among other things, that judges must judge when, quote, opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. she accepts that who she is will, quote, affect of fact i choose to see as a judge. it is her belief that, quote, a wise latino woman with the richness of her experiences with more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. and that there is, quote, no new trial in judging, just a, quote, series of perspectives. those are phrases and words that

have meaning. i will agree, her testimony was not consistent with those repeated phrases and statements, but i have to say her testimony to meet did not have the clarity and compelling nature is that would overcome those speeches. for example, on the question, she testified when i first asked her that she was agreeing with justice o'connor, but in fact, his statement when judge o'connor said a wiesel woman and wise old man should reach the same conclusion, which is the ideal american justice, quote, i am not sure i agree with that statement and went on to explain why she didn't and what her reservations were. we were urged to look at the judicial record that she has

established and i have done that. most cases before the courts of appeals are fact based, do not raise serious constitutional issues of the kind that the supreme court deals with on a regular basis. judge sonia sotomayor decided three cases in recent months, in particular that the u.s. supreme court hears on a regular basis, the decisions are extremely short, oddly short, frankly, and lack careful analysis. each reach, i think, an erroneous conclusion, ignored the plain words of the constitution. in richie vs. stananano, killed by 13 firefighters, what they passed for promotion had been thrown out by the city, not

because it was an unfair test, this city did not like the racial results. her opinion violated the constitutional command, i believe, that no one should be denied the equal protection of a l they dismissed the case by summer reporter without adopting a lower court opinion. no explanation whatsoever. the effect was to deal with that in a way that would not require the opinion to be published or circulated among the other judges on the circuit. the circuit rule states that when some reporters are appropriate only where, quote, a

decision is unanimous and each judge on the panel believes no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion. it was only after another judge on the circuit requested that the case be reheard, the panel issued it for curium opinion, and only a few sentences adopting a lower court's opinion. i didn't feel good about that. a big case, a huge case of great importance that the supreme court would not have taken, they were trying to dispose of it by summary order. judge sonia sotomayor's treatment of the medical importance second amendment issues that came before her work equally troubling. again, i think she got the text of the constitution wrong and did so in a cursory way that seemed designed to hide the significance of the case and her ruling, even after the watershed

decision by the supreme court in heller, she held that it was saddled law, the second amendment could not apply to the states, the right to keep and bear arms is not, quote, if fundamental right. when asked about the maloney case, the precedent on which she relied considered the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. the supreme court has not looked at that clause in over a hundred years. instead look at the due process clause under the bill of rights. the law has changed how we do incorporation since the 1800'ss. for her to fail to acknowledge that and to fail to acknowledge the very clear suggestion in the hell , in that famous footnote, that this matter

now open for consideration. the second amendment applies to the states based on the supreme court opinion, that was a big error. i would note that if her decision was not overruled by the supreme court, which she aspires to sit, then any city in any state in america could completely deny the rights provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms. they could deny the right of people in their cities, their states to keep and bear arms. 1/3 case handled and a similar cursory manner, the maloney case, less than 2 pages, the important property rights case. three years ago the supreme

court and kilo decided three years after kilo, after the supreme court decided the key , judge sonia sotomayor's court issued an opinion in which a private property found his current property on which he planned to build a cvs pharmacy taken by condemnation with the city so that another private developer could build a walgreen's pharmacy on it. the developer, who was pursuing a redevelopment supported by the city, told the landowner he could keep the land and build that cvs as long as he forked over $800,000 to him in half ownership of his business. at two page opinion, short, without much decision, she rejected those claims. the constitution says private property can only be taken for public use. that was not followed in that case. each of these three cases are

before us, deserve to be treated with great of fullness and care, yet in each instance her decisions were unacceptably short and their only consistency was that the results favored a liberal, pro government ideology against the individuals, asserting their constitutional rights. so, mr. chairman, i appreciate you, i know people will disagree on this and disagree honestly, but after all is said and done, my evaluation of the testimony at the hearing, and the study of the cases i have mentioned, i have concluded that this nomination not be confirmed and will cast a no vote. >> senator kohl. >> i want to congratulate chairman leahy and senator sessions on sonia sotomayor's

confirmation hearings, the proceedings are fair to all members and most importantly to the nominee. today i am pleased to cast my vote for judge sonia sotomayor. an individual whose life story and inspiration to millions of a mayor for the half, child of immigrants, she has risen by dint of exemplary academic accomplishment and hardware, now to the cause of confirmation to our nation's highest court. judge sonia sotomayor is much more than only the story of accomplishment, she has shown herself to be a judge truly worthy of elevation to the supreme court, both on the bench and before this committee, judge sonia sotomayor has proved that she has the necessary character, competence and integrity to serve on the supreme court. judge sonia sotomayor's distinguished, 17 year judicial record demonstrates her commitment to fair and impartial application of the law, and respect for the values that make up our constitution.

at her hearing, judge sonia sotomayor assured us that she will listen with an open mind to all sides of an argument and she will be mindful of the very real impact her decisions will have on each and every american. she pledged fidelity to the constitution and to the court's precedent, as well as the responsibility to cautiously review precedent when justice requires. as we conclude our committee's action on judge sonia sotomayor's nomination we need to reflect upon a role confirmation hearings play in the senate's duty to advise and consent. while i have no reservations about my support for judge sonia sotomayor, i share the concerns expressed by many americans, legal commentators and others about our committee's ability to have candid and substantive conversations with nominees about the issues americans care about. we all know that the confirmation process is crucial,

it is the public's only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for life in the highest court in the land but for many years we have seen a familiar pattern for nominees, democrat and republican alike, who have learned that the path of least resistance is to limit their responses and cautiously cloak them in generalities. understandably, nominees don't want to risk their confirmation by saying anything that might provoke potential opponents, and we cannot ask nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come be for them. but it is reasonable for us to ask them to speak more openly about past supreme court decisions and how they would decide cases that are close calls. when reasoning, they would use, what factors they would consider, the concerns are raised, to not reflect any personal criticism about judge sonia sotomayor. i think she responded to our questions with great intellect

and sincerity and she has rightly earned bipartisan praise. however, going forward, mr. chairman, i hope that together our committee can explore ways to achieve the greater candor that the confirmation process demands and that the american people deserve. for example, we could convene a bipartisan group of committee members, members of the bar, constitutional scholars, and perhaps members of the media who have experience following the court and our hearings and help us determine what specific questions we can and should expect, substantive answers about. we can do this, the committee's unique opportunity to engage nominees in great legal questions facing our nation, will more effectively for phil -- fulfill the senate's constitutional duty. i commend president obama for nominating judge sonia sotomayor, a woman of great ability who has demonstrated an enduring commitment to public

service and to the law, looking forward to her tenure on the court. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator kohl. senator hatch? >> i want to commend you and ranking member, senator sessions for conducting a fair hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was pleased with judge sonia sotomayor said the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for the president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of puerto ricans heritage on the supreme court says a lot about our country. i like judge sonia sotomayor and reflector service to the community, and her nation. i expect her to be confirmed, i know her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sonia sotomayor's

speeches, articles and cases and participated in all three round of questions during the hearing. i genuinely wrestle with this decision. i did not use political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justice john roberts, he voted no even though admitting the nominee was qualified, humble, decent and had the temperament to be a good judge. he voted against chief justice roberts because he thought the nominee's personal values, perspectives and empathy would lead him to results that senator obama would not like. i cannot accept that standard. the proper did did -- judicial role in our system of government focuses on the process of interpreting and applying law that leads to results, not on results themselves. in the judicial process, judges must self consciously and deliberately set aside personal views, sympathies and prejudices so that the law, not the judge, determines the results. i have a statement which explained in more detail the

decision reached in this case and i ask that it be placed on the record. >> will be placed in the record and the record will be open, and the member who wishes to extend more than they say. >> the more exacting scrutiny appropriate for supreme court nominations, prestigees and articles. some of the most important cases she gave short shrift to constitutional rights and used inappropriate legal standards. in the end, the record regarding the approach to judging, and resolve controversies and conflict with fundamental principles about the judiciary in which i deeply believe. as a result, i regret i cannot

support appointment to the supreme court and my extended statement will go into this. >> thank you, senator feinstein. >> thank you for conducting these hearings in the way in which they were held, it is very much appreciated. mr. chairman, it is interesting to me, those who will not vote for this judge, for me, i look at her very differently. i see her as a most impressive person on a number of levels. in terms of personal history, it is truly impressive, it is everything that our country is all about. secondly, in terms of qualifications, there are more qualifications for this job than virtually any of the prior three nominees as a member of this

committee. 29-1/2 years, prosecuted, private practitioner, appointed to the federal court by a republican president, secondly by a democratic president and the analysis of her record by the congressional research service says a very interesting thing, the most consistent characteristic of her approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the precedent. i think this woman has done a splendid job, she has shown a dedication to the law. this has been tested and tested. she has shown before us judicial temperament, this has been probed and capped at, i find no example of infidelity to the law. i would like to place in the record a six circuit court

decision on a case like matter where the sixth circuit, found exactly as she did. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i found no example of her not following precedent. for me, as a woman, to see this woman overcome the barriers she has overcome, to have the education that she has had, to do with it what she has done and to do the kind of dedication and personality to this table, was truly impressive. i believe she has been an impressive judge, she has been an impressive lawyer and she will be an impressive member of the highest court. i will vote for her. >> senator grassley?

>> after much deliberation. i want judge sonia sotomayor to be justice, the senate must confirm to the supreme court, individuals who possess superior intellect. more importantly, the senate has a tremendous responsibility to confirm individuals who truly understand their proper role of justice as envisioned in the constitution. the capacity to faithfully interpret the law and constitutional without personal bias or prejudice. our system of checks and balances demanded judge platt not take on a roll of policymakers because our great american tradition of checks and balances envisions political and

social battles be fought in the legislature, not theenvisions p battles be fought in the legislature, not the judicial branch of government. judges much check their biass at the door the court house. judges and just ass must wear blindfolds when interpreting the constitution and administer justice. i have been a member of the senate judiciary committee since 1981. unfortunately i believe judge sonia sotomayor performance at her judiciary committee confirmation hearing left me with more questions than answers. is imperative that the nominee persuade us that he or she will be able to set aside one's own feelings so he or she can

dispassionately administer equal justice. yet i am not convinced that judge sonia sotomayor has the ability to wear the judicial blindfolds and resist having personal biases and personal preferences dictate her judicial method on the supreme court. president obama clearly believes judge sonia sotomayor measures up to his embassy standard which encourages judges to make use of personal politics, feelings and preferences. this radical standard stands in stark opposition to what most of us understand to be the role of the judiciary, to her credit, at the hearing, judge sonia sotomayor repudiated president obama's and but the standard, but judge sonia sotomayor's record, both in and out of the court room, revealed to me a judicial philosophy that bestows a pivotal role to personal preference and believes in her

judicial method. in speeches she gave and articles she wrote over the years, judge sonia sotomayor doubted that a judge could ever be truly impartial. she argued that it would be, quote, a disservice both to the law and society for judges to disregard personal views shaped by one's, quote, differences as women or men of color. she proclaimed that the court of appeals is where, quote, policy is made. she said that a, quote, y latino with more often than not reach a better conclusi white male. justice o'connor said wise old woman or wise old man would reach the same conclusion, she

said judges should look to foreign law so they could get, quote, creative juices flowing. at her confirmation hearing, judge sonia sotomayor attempted to explain these statements away. however, i had problems harmonizing her answers with the statements that she repeated over and over again throughout the years. the statements made at the hearing and those made in speeches and law review articles outside the hearing are, in my mind, polar opposites of each other. they are not compatible and cannot be reconciled. i also question the reliability of statements made at a formal hearing where the nominee is clearly prepared to answer questions as compared to statements that were made over the years in any and guarded manner without any restrictions and without a set goal in mind, that being confirmation to the

judicial branch. in addition, judge sonia sotomayor's record on the bench raises serious concerns, hard questions, hard cases say the most about a judge. and we all know the supreme court takes on only hard cases. those are the cases that raise the most concern with this nominee, and what she will do if she is confirmed. first, record before the supreme court is not a particularly impressive one. she was reversed eight out of ten times, was criticized another one of those ten cases, the suit--the supreme court disagreed with her nine of ten times, some of her cases raise questions about whether she will adequately protect the second amendment's right to bear arms, and the fifth amendment property rights. statements she made at the hearing raise concerns that she will inappropriately create or expand rights under the constitution. some of her cases raise

questions about whether she will impose her personal policy decisions instead of those of the legislative branch or executive branch. at her confirmation hearing, judge sonia sotomayor was questioned at length about her understanding of rights under the constitution, including the second, and fifth amendments, the right to privacy, the rationale for decisions in ricci v. destefano, maloney, and other cases. she was also asked about how she views precedent and how she applies it in cases before her. unfortunately, i wasn't satisfied with judge sonia sotomayor f. responses about her case is a general understanding of rights under the constitution. moreover, i wasn't assured of judge sonia sotomayor would disregard her strong personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing with the important constitutional issues.

for example, i was not persuaded by judge sonia sotomayor's claim that she followed precedent in ricci v. destefano, nor her explanation as to why she could dismiss such a significant case with absolutely no legal analysis. i was concerned with judge sonia sotomayor's explanation of her decision in maloney, holding that the second amendment is not fundamental, and her refusal at the hearing to a firm that americans have a right of self-defense. if maloney is upheld by the supreme court, the second amendment will not apply against state and local governments, thus permitting potentially and restrictive limitations on this important constitutional right. i was troubled with judge sonia sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision in didden dramatically and

inappropriate spanned the ability of local and federal governments to seize private property, and she mischaracterizes the supreme court's holding in kelo. judge sonia sotomayor's discussion of landmark supreme court cases and her own decision on the second circuit did not convince me that she understands the rights given to americans under the constitution, or will refrain from those rights in personal preferences, nor was i persuaded that the judge will not allow those preferences to spare her judicial methods and outcomes. at a confirmation hearing two decades ago, judge david souter had his confirmation hearing. this is something i brought up with her. that worries me because courts should never fill voids left by

congress. judge david souter's decision on the supreme court, i believe, demonstrates that he does believe courts do indeed fill vacuums in the law, and in the only case of voting for a supreme court judge either by a republican or democrat, i regretted my vote to confirm him ever since. so i have asked several supreme court nominees about courts filling vacuums at their hearings. judge sonia sotomayor's lukewarm answer left me with the same kid in my stomach that i have had that justice david souter's rulings, that i hoped to have cured with his retirement. it reinforces my concerns with her hearing testimony cases. in conclusion, all judges must have a healthy respect, judicial restraint. auld judges must about the the words of the constitution and legal precedent.

supreme court judges, special opposition with respect to her decision making process. justices on the supreme court had fewer constraints in their judging than judging on the district appellate court. it is critical, they will resist the temptation to mold the constitution to personal beliefs. as one witness testified at the hearing, the judicial restraint of the supreme court, justice is self restraint. she is a remarkable woman, she is a talented individual, woman of substance and personality, a trailblazer. there is no doubt of her intelligence, integrity, were distinguished legal background. we are proud of those accomplishments. however, i don't believe the judges possessed a critical ingredient of supreme court

justices, i am not convinced that judge sonia sotomayor will be able to set aside her personal biases and prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner based upon the constitution. i am not convinced that judge sonia sotomayor will protect important constitutional rights, nor am i convinced that she will refrain from creating new rights under the constitution. i am not convinced that judge sonia sotomayor understands the proper role of a judge in our system of checks and balances. only time will tell whether she will sit on the supreme court. is it the judge that proclaims the court of appeals is where policy is made? is it the nominee who pledge fidelity to the law? is it the judge to disagree with justice o'connor's statement that a wise woman or wise man will ultimately reach the same decision? or is it the nominee who rejected president obama's

empathy standard? only time will tell and i hope that i am wrong on this vote, but based upon what i saw judge david souter do and where she is coming from, i think i am right by voting no. >> mr. chairman, i will be brief but i want to say a few words about judge sonia sotomayor and the hearing process we have just been through. i want to commend you and your staff for a remarkable well-run proceeding. anyone who saw the four days of hearings would agree the process was scrupulously fair, everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they wanted to ask, they had the time they needed for follow-up questions and follows to those follow-ups, no stone was left unturned even if the answer is the judge gave were not always what the questioner hoped to hear. the public does not see the work that is done behind-the-scenes to get us to that point, not just the setup of the room and all the conflicts, preparations going to the smooth running of the hearing itself but the

enormous effort to make all of the background information that came available online immediately, all of judge sonia sotomayor's speeches and articles, 100 letters and reports from people who know her, organizations that wish to expect their views on her nomination as well as the materials received from the organization in response to the committee have request. mr. chairman, you set a new standard for transparency and public access to supreme court nomination proceedings, and i truly want to commend you for that, thank you for all you and your staff have done. it has been tremendous work. the scrutiny to be applied to the president's nominee to the supreme court is the highest of any nomination. the supreme court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its presidents. anyone who sits on that court must not have a preset agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disappears and must recognize the awesome power and

responsibility of the court to do justice when other branches of government to infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of our citizens and that is the same standard i apply to the nominations of the chief justice, roberts, and chief justice alito. we saw the days of hearings on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor, a thoughtful and careful judgment, a person committed to her craft and to the law, someone whose remarkable life story and varied experience will add diversity and prospective which the court sorely in need. not only will judge sonia sotomayor become the first latino justice and the third woman to serve on the court, she will be the only justice who has served as a trial court judge and she will have more judicial experience at the outset of her service than any other qualities. no doubt she is highly qualified and i think we saw during those four days of hearings that she has an admirable judicial

temperament and demeanor that serve her well in court. record and testimony satisfies me she understands the important role of the court in protecting civil liberties even in a time of war. she sat on a second circuit panel that struck down portions of the national security matters, so dramatically expanded by the patriot act. when i asked how september 11th change term view of the law she gave the following answer. the constitution is a timeless document, was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our country. it has protected us as a nation and inspired our survival. that doesn't change. later, when we discuss the kor m korumato case, she said we must never fear, this will allow her to judge from the legislative branch. appreciate it the difference to the judiciary must give to the

legislature that seeks to solve problems facing the american people. i don't see in her record or public statements a burning desire to overturn precedents or to remake constitutional law in the image of her personal preference. i suddenly don't see any bias of any kind. i'm impressed with her record and statements during the hearing on judicial ethics. she seems to understand the extraordinary power she will wield as a justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest. all that being said, i want to express a note of dissatisfaction. not with you or with my colleagues or with judge sonia sotomayor but with the nomination process that fails to educate the senate or the public about the views of potential justices on the supreme court. in this regard i associate myself with remarks of my senior senator from wisconsin, senator kohl. i said i do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the supreme court has done in recent years is the person for whom the american

public most needs the year. it makes no sense to me that the current justices can hear future cases, notwithstanding the fact we know their views on a legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion in a previous case or raise a similar issue. but nominees for the court can refuse to tell us what they think about that previous case under the theory that doing so would compromise their independence for their ability to keep an open mind in a future case. i remain unconvinced that the dogs that all nominees now use, i can't answer that question because the issue my come before me on the court, is justified. these hearings have become little more than theater where senators tried to ask clever questions, nominees try to come of with clever ways to respond without answering. this problem did not start with these hearings or this nominee but perhaps it is inevitable. chances the senate rejected a nominee who adopt the strategy are very remote based on the recent history of nominations. nonetheless, i do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent. i cannot sell learned anything

about judge sonia sotomayor that i would have liked to have learned. what i learned about her makes me believe she will serve with distinction on the court and i should vote in favor of her confirmation. >> thank you very much. thank you for the personal comments. senator kyl, the deputy republican, told me his duties require him to be elsewhere, but he has a statement he was placed in the record. senator sessions is his proxy to vote when the time comes. >> i would like to add my compliments to you and senator sessions for conducting the hearings with whatever shortcomings they may have been terms of finding out about a nominee. i think you did good job given us the chance to ask, and senator sessions did a good job. i come to this differently, you can tell it in my vote. i am going to vote for the

nominee. i cannot disassociate myself, being a second term senator from what almost happened three or four years ago. i really enjoy politics. it has been a great honor to represent the people of south carolina and be able to have a say about things that matter in the country in a political forum. i enjoy traveling around the country trying to help senator john mccain. i failed in that endeavor. people who don't feel good about this or that, i didn't feel good about the collection. but we lost. i feel good about the country. i feel really good about the american people. quite frankly, i feel good about judge sonia sotomayor. what i am trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we became -- we came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times. the courts have been all over the place like the american

people have been all over the place. sometimes they have let our ideals down, some of their decisions, but more than not, the courts were ahead of the public or politicians on some very important concepts as to who we are. the filibuster's going on a few years ago were historic in nature and if carried out and keep repeating themselves, will, over time, drive good men and women away from wanting to become judges. we ask for the scrutiny that we have as politicians, we run against each other, all the things we say about each other, we have a chance to respond. but to be a judge is different. the theory senator sessions espouses is true. the law should be a quiet place where even the most unpopular

can have a shot. no way could you win in the elections but you might win in court because there's something a little bit bigger going on in that courtroom and 50 plus one. so this quiet place we call the law really concerns me that we are about to change it and make it an extension of politics in another form. that is why i am happy with this hearing. there were no filibusters. to my colleagues who voted no, i understand. i completely understand. to my colleagues who voted for justice roberts, i am better understanding what you went through. feingold, kohl, leahy, you voted for a man you would not have chosen and deciding to vote for a woman that i would not have chosen. as the hearings went on, it got easier, not harder, me.

because all of us seem to have abandoned the senator obama test which would be good for the judiciary and the country. i can no more understand her heart then she can understand mine. this empathy idea makes us all -- i feel uncomfortable doing that. i really do. i base my vote on qualifications, and i came away after the hearing believing that she was well qualified. that the american bar association gave her the highest rating anyone could receive, that meant a lot to me in audio and roberts and means a lot to me now. she is competent, not as qualified. it is not just me saying that, it is what everyone who worked with her has said, she is good character. when she went back to what we used to do around here, i found she was extremely well qualified, 17 years on the bench, 12 years as circuit court

of appeals judge, certainly within the mainstream. as my good friend, senator grassley can be no worse than david souter from my point of view. there will not be a major shift in the balance of power here. but what she will do as a judge, i think, will be based on what she thinks is right, that is not me saying that are hoping that, that is based on a 12 year record where i haven't seen this activism that we all dread and should reject. there is another story here. the speeches, the speeches did bug me not because i disagreed with what she was saying, she was a judge at the time she was giving a speeches, she embraced some concepts that were really unnerving. but you know what? how many of my speeches would unnerve people on the other side? probably almost all of them.

the speeches had to be put in context of her judicial record. and i do not want to set a standard here, mr. chairman, where people aspiring to be a judge will never have a thought, never take on an unpopular cause. the client she represented, i wouldn't have represented that side, i would have been on the other side, but that is okay. i hope our democratic colleagues will remember that if they this is a conservative republican gets in the white house, it is okay to advocate a position that is different than we would advocate ourselves, because lawyers are required for a good country. you want to reward good lawyers when you find them, whether you agree with them or not. so i took the speeches and her advocacy role and put it up against her record and i leave believing she is well qualified, a good character, and her record over a long period of time is within the mainstream. the last thing i would like to talk about is not a reason to

vote for or against her, but is something to acknowledge. we are 200 something years old as a nation. this is the first latino woman in the history of the united states to be selected for the supreme court. that is a big deal. i would not have chosen her but i understand why president obama did. i gladly give her my vote because i think she meet the qualification test that was used in scalia and ginsburg, and she will inspire young women, particularly latino women, to seek a career in the law, that will be a good thing. and i believe she will. i wish her well. america has changed for the

better with her selection. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator graham. senator schumer. >> thank you for the judicious way you have conducted these hearings. and that want to say to senator sessions, i thought her -- his questions were short but fair. i want to thank senator graham, moving an important speech that he just gave in favor of her nomination. mr. chairman, i am sorry to be coming and going, we have a democratic meeting of the finance committee to try to tie things down so i apologize to my colleague for that. mr. chairman, i am proud to cast my vote today in favor of the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. this is a historic day for

america. americans are familiar with the inspiring story that brought judge sonia sotomayor from a bronx housing project through a prestigious legal education and to a nomination to the highest courts in the land. it is a great american story. it will inspire americans everywhere, americans of all races and creeds and colors, to reach further and aim higher. for that, the country is already better off. judge sonia sotomayor is a gifted jurist and dedicated public servant, not just an inspiring story. she is a judge with a 17 year record on the bench, more than 380 opinions on the appellate court alone. and get the words she was asked about most often during the hearings were these three, quote, wise latino woman. to take a 17 year judicial career and some it up in three words, is unfair. it is unfair to judge sonia

sotomayor, it is unfair to the supreme court, it is unfair to the american people. my colleagues did ask about a handful of cases, the newhaven fire fighters case, the second amendment case, they were unable to prove anything other than what we knew before the hearings, she follows precedent. in her courtroom, rule of law comes first. kurt opinions speak much more clearly and loudly than snippets of speeches. spes were to inspire and motivate, opinions are to instruct and guide. as chief justice marshall said, quote, to say what the law is. when we have so many opinions to review, it is troubling that colleagues seem to be looking for reasons outside of her record to try to posit that she is outside of the mainstream.

even with such a large strobe of opinions to examine, hearings do matter. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were entitled to ask their questions. i was pleased to see that even the most difficult questions were asked and answered respectfully but judge sonia sotomayor's answers only as that -- emphasize what was clear from her record on the bench. shea comes to the bench without arrogance and without an agenda. i have three test for evaluating nominees, excellence, bottom it -- moderation and diversity. judge sonia sotomayor passes all three with flying colors. no one can seriously doubt her legal excellence and i don't think anyone here does. on moderation, i have a hard time understanding how anyone can conclude that she is anything but moderate. in cases ranging from business to criminal law to emigration, she is squarely within the mainstream.

her 17 years on the bench, she has not produced even a stray thought that could be viewed as a way outside the mainstream. finally, the diversity she will bring to the bench is not just cosmetic, it arises not only from her race and gender but from her working-class upbringing and her unique experiences just as it did for other supreme court nominees such as justices alito and, as he spoke movingly about their background. if you cannot support a moderate pick like judge sonia sotomayor it suggests that we will never support anyone, nominated to the supreme court by president obama. she is thoughtful, she is distinguished, she is moderate. elections due matter. to think that the president would nominate someone who mirrors the beliefs of an extreme conservative, and that is the only person who some of

my colleagues could vote for, is perplexing. so, mr. chairman, the message from judge sonia sotomayor's record comes through loud and clear, a message of supreme intelligence and moderation. there is no reason to look further than that, that is why, among other reasons, i am so proud to vote for her today. >> thank you very much senator schumer, and introducing her to the committee. senator cornyn. >> of and to thank my colleagues, and ranking member for the manner in which these hearings were conducted. judge sonia sotomayor herself acknowledged that she could not have received a fair treatment before the committee. ..