private property rights and the right to just compensation and the assurance that private property will not be taken for anything by the government other than for public use, and then, of course, there is the troubling new haven fire troubling new haven firefighter case and it's not that the judge made of disparate impact liability. it's also the manner in which almost dismiss skwlifly the judge refused to give what i believe a fair consideration of the firefighters claims in a way that i would hope every federal judge would. second of judge sotomayor's public statements about judging include very radical ideas on the role of a judge in our society. some have said we can't consider those. but to consider only her judicial record and not consider

other statements she has made about how judges should perform some office i think is an incomplete picture. she has said there is no neutrality in the law. she has said that legal uncertainty is a good thing. she said that foreign law can get the, quote, creative juices flowing, closed quote, as judges interpret the united states constitution. and that ethnicity and gender can and even should have an impact on a judge's decision-making. now, i would concede those are hard to square with her statement that her sole discretion is fidelity to the law. but that i think demonstrates the conundrum that many of us are left. this committee gave judge sotomayor the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind some of her most controversial

decisions as well as some of her public statements about judging and to allow her to put that into an appropriate context. but i don't believe she cleared up the confusion over what kind of justice she would be. because i have no confidence which judge sonia sotomayor we will see on the supreme court i will vote against the nomination. the stakes are simply too high to vote to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from the bench. i know many senators take the position that judge sotomayor will not address legal questions from a liberal activist perspective. and i hope they're right. i also hope that her testimony before this committee represents a teaching moment, a moment that defines our consensus on what the proper role of a judge should be. in the past we've seemed to have

heated disagreements about judicial philosophy and judicial activism. we've debated original understanding versus an evolving constitution. yet, i think a remarkable thing happened in the course of judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. we've seemed to have agreed that judges should interpret the law, not make the law. we seem to agree that judges should rely upon the original intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution, not on foreign law or international law. we seem to agree that judges should apply the law faithfully and not move the law one way or the other based on their own policy preferences and he i wouldn't we agree judges should be impartial and not pick winners or losers based on some subjective empathy standard or whatever is in the judge's heart. mr. chairman, i think we've come remarkably close to embracing the hamiltonian federalist where

he called the judiciary the least dangerous broadcast having the force nor will merely judgment. if that is, in fact, the case, then i think we will have accomplished much in the course of this confirmation process. i for one would find that consensus confirming. we've found the mainstream and made clear radical views on judging have no place on the federal bench. and we've set expectations, i believe, for future nominees. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cornyn and senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. a few weeks ago my colleague and friend senator al franken came to my office the day after he was sworn in. we talked about his new role in the united states senate and some of the challenges he'd already faced and he talked about the first three votes that he cast as united states senator.

i tried to remember the first three votes i cast as united states senator. i couldn't. after you've served in the house and senate for a period of time, you come to realize that you have to be reminded on some of these votes. but there are some votes that you will remember for a lifetime. one of them is a vote on whether our nation should go to war. that is a type of vote that you'll always remember. it's one of the most important decision we make and so is this decision because we're asked to judge whether a man or a woman should be appointed for life to serve on the united states supreme court. the court that defines our personal rights to privacy, decides the restrictions that can be placed on the most personal aspects of our lives and our freedom. the supreme court decides the rights of workers, consumers, immigrants, and discrimination victims. the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws to protect our civil rights and our environment.

they decide what checks will govern the executive branch in war and in peace. because these issues are so important, we obviously need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, the proper judicial temperament and a commitment to impartial justice. in the 220-year history of the united states, 110 supreme court justices have served under our constitution. 106 of them have been white males. we have had two women justices and two african-americans. that's why this is such a historic moment because president obama's nomination of sonia sotomayor is indeed ground-breaking. in life and in our nation, if you want to be the first, you have to be the best. sonia sotomayor's resume i think meets that standard. when you take a look at her life, her splendid life story, you may not be able to see it as

someone of us have seen it from this side of the table, we set there during the course of this hearing as judge sotomayor told her life story, and i spent more time watching her mother than watching her. her mom, who nodded as judge sotomayor told that story. growing up in public housing, losing her father when she was 9 years old, of struggling to succeed against adversity and illness, of reaching the pinnacle of success and academic success at princeton and the same at yale law school and serving as a prosecutor and going on to be selected by president george herbert walker bush in serving in the federal judiciary and promoted by president bill clinton, a rare occurrence that someone receives bipartisan support for their judicial service, which she had. and each time as those facts are recounted, i watched her mother nodding, recalling what her daughter had achieved.

what a great story it is for america. and what a great story it is that president obama would give us a chance to consider judge sotomayor to serve as the first hispanic woman on the united states supreme court. for many who oppose judge sotomayor, her life achievements and her judicial record are just not good enough. after pouring over 3,000 court decisions and hundreds of her speeches, judge sotomayor's critics focus their opposition primarily, not exclusively, but primarily on one case, the rich ricci and one sentence from one speech. i hope someone was keeping track how many times those three words, wise latina woman, were quoted during the course of this hearing. senator after senator asked her what did you really, really, really mean with those three words? over and over and over again. we are senators who live in a world of decisions and votes

everyday. and we understand when our decisions and votes are questioned and challenged often in a an unfair fashion. if we vote in a way that's controversial we ask that people be fair and judge us on our life's work, not on a single vote. it's a standard we ask for ourselves but obviously for some it's not a standard they would give judge sotomayor. when it comes to her decisions. we also live in a world of senators of revised and extended remarks, jokes that flop and verbal gaffes. many want to condemn sonia sotomayor for her wise latina remark, that she conceded was a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. but i listened carefully to what she had to say, and i noted at the end of the day, that she had received the highest possible rating from the american bar association, which interviewed 500 judges and practitioners in

order to assess her integrity, competence, and temperament. the highest possible rating. in my state of illinois, the conservative chicago tribune said this of her testimony. in four days of testimony, under often intense questioning, judge sotomayor handled herself with grace and patience. she displayed a thorough knowledge of case law and appreciation of her critics' concern. the result was to re-enforce a strong case that she will make a good supreme court justice and deserves senate approval. a lot has been said about the issue of empathy. and this question of the wise latina woman. i pointed out when i asked judge sotomayor that the wise latina speech contains a line that her critics didn't often quote. and that line judge sotomayor noted in the same speech that it was nine white male justices on the supreme court who

unanimously handed down brown versus board of education and other cases of sex and discrimination. judge sotomayor made it clear at her hearing that she believes no single race or gender has a monopoly on good judgment. for some of my colleagues, sonia sotomayor's statements under oath are not good enough. i would hope that senators would be wise enough themselves to look at judge sotomayor's long record on the bench and not on one line in one speech taken out of context. now, let's be honest. a great deal of this debate is about diversity. why do we seek diversity when it comes to points to the federal bench? first, we are a diverse nation. second, we want every american to believe they have an equal opportunity to succeed and lead. but we also want every american, black, white, and brown, male and female to know that our system of government is fair.

we want all americans to look at our congress and our courts and feel they are leaders who can identify with the diversity of life experience in this great didefer nation -- diverse nation. does everybody believes there's a objective answer that comes before the supreme court? the precedent is so clear and the law is so clear. well, if they do, try to explain why one-third of the rulings by the court in this past term were decided by a 5-4 vote. does anyone believe that the recent strip search case would have come out the same way if justice ginsburg the only woman on the court at this moment hadn't helped her eight male colleagues understand what it's like for a 13-year-old girl to be treated in such a humiliating fashion? does anyone really believe that women judges haven't helped their male colleagues understand the realities of sex discrimination and sex harassment in the workplace?

study after study have shown men and women on the bench sometimes rule differently in discrimination cases. this doesn't mean their rulings are based on personal bias. it simply acknowledges that americans see the world through a prism of varied experiences and perspectives. our supreme court justices should possess an equally rich and wide field of vision as they interpret the facts in the law. criticizing judge sotomayor for recognizing this reality is unfair. mr. chairman, something has happened since we concluded the hearings, which is unusual. a major lobby group in washington, d.c., the national rifle association, has for the first time notified their members and colleagues that this is going to be on the score card. the gun lobby of the national rifle association has come out in opposition to judge sotomayor. i believe it's the first time that they've ever taken a position. on a supreme court justice. i listened to her testimony on the maloney case. most of the criticism of her on this issue has focused on that

case. but in that case she came to the exact same conclusion as the three-judge panel of the seventh circuit based in my home state of illinois which featured two of our most conservative icons on the federal bench, frank easterbrook and frank posner. they concluded the supreme court not appellate courts can overrule century-old presidents on the second amendment of the right to bare arms. i know senate allies do not like that ruling. they want judge sotomayor to do what the ninth circuit and overrule precedent. but judge sotomayor did what she should do and followed the law. the sotomayor nomination is the third supreme court nomination i voted in 12 1/2 years i served on the senate because the stakes are so high, i believe supreme court nominees carry the burden of proof when they come before the senate. they must prove they are worthy

of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. judge sotomayor has met and exceeded this burden. america will be well served when judge sotomayor becomes justice sotomayor, and i enthusiastically support her nomination. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator coburn? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to figure out how to couch my words since i've just been condemned because i'm -- the basis of my vote might not be on something that senator durbin would think would be appropriate, i would mention that the ninth circuit ruled the opposite of your circuit, senator durbin, on the second amendment. and i'd also note for the record that the very person on our side that questioned judge sotomayor on her wise latina comment was the very member that's going to be voting for her. he had more questions of her than anyone on our side on that

regard so i think it's somewhat unfair to characterize us with a broad brush. i'm proud that president obama has nominated such a distinguished woman. i identify with senator kohl and senator feingold the great disturbance that we have that we can't get real answers in these hearings. i believe what we say as judges truly does come from our heart. most of her speeches were before teaching moments through either students or legal societies or others. and i believe she believed in what she was saying. and i also believe she has great credit that she -- a lot of times she's not allowed her personal beliefs to influence her judgments. but the dissidence that i came away with is what you believe, you ought to stand up for and

defend and then defend your record to say i can still be a great judge but on the two questions, the two questions when she was asked, one, about foreign law and her outside very critical, very negative statements about justices conceal and thomas and then to walk away from that saying that she didn't say that is just flat not accurate. and then also to finally come to a point recognizing the supreme court justice's job is not to think about the what the rest of the world thinks about us. their job is to interpret the constitution. and to use the statutes and our constitution and the facts. i think she is one impressive individual. and i thoroughly enjoyed her. i like her a lot. but that's not good enough for

me. and it doesn't have anything to do with other than whether or not i believe with confidence -- with confidence that she has an understanding of the second amendment. the fifth amendment, the fourteenth amendment and the fourth amendment and although i will have a complete written statement for the record, she is going to be on the court for life. stare decisis doesn't count. they get to change it and we know the major shifts in this country that have taken about when they have done so so i go back to what senator kohl said when we started out. we need to change the rules for the hearings. we need to let judges really know -- let us know what they think but also sell us on the fact that they, in fact, are impartial dividers of the truth regardless of what they think. that's the characteristic of a

great judge is that their personal thoughts don't enter. that they take the facts, all of the facts, and decide what the ruling will be on the basis of that and that only. to have something other than that on the supreme court, which i agree from both sides of the aisle has happened, hurts us in the long run. so align myself with the comments with senators feingold and kohl in hoping that future hearings -- although i think it was a remarkable hearing. the chairman did a great job. and i think the american people got to see a great deal of this very fine woman. i regret that i cannot vote for her. and i can't vote for her not because she's a latina woman and i can't vote for her because she has said all those things. i can't vote for her because she wouldn't defend what she said and stand up and say, i really believe this but i can still be a great judge anyway. because i will never let that interfere with my judgment.

and that's what i was looking for and it wasn't there. and with that, i yield. >> senator cardin? >> well, mr. chairman, first, let me observe -- this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court justice and i want to thank you, mr. chairman, chairman leahy, from the manner in which he conducted this hearing. i want to thank senator sessions with the fairness that he worked with our chairman so that each one of us would have the opportunity to ask as many questions as we want. to get all the information. i might point out that i've been told by staff there were 17 questions asked on a wise latina. you not only compliment judge sotomayor for her patience but i want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for their patience in allowing each of us to pursue the information that

we thought was relevant in evaluating judge sotomayor's qualifications to serve on the supreme court. of the united states. i believe judge sotomayor's background and her professional accomplishments will add strength, balance, and leadership to the supreme court. her personal story that we've heard about being part of an immigrant family from puerto rico, the fact that she received a scholarship to be able to attend college is an inspirational story. about success in our country. we know of her professional background as a prosecutor, a trial judge and an appellate judge, having more judicial experience than any nominee for supreme court in 100 years. her command of legal precedent and her ability to challenge attorneys in their legal arguments will bode well to reach the right decisions in the supreme court of the united states. her leadership ability in

forging consensus among the judges in the second circuit will be a talent that i think will be very helpful in the supreme court of the united states. she is mainstream in her judicial decisions and opinions. with a correct sense of the role of a judge to decide a case based on sound, legal precedent and the facts of the case giving due deference to the congress of the united states. she has a record of understanding the constitution and the bill of rights. as a timeless document able to protect individual rights against the abuses of power, applying these protections to contemporary challenges. she follows precedent to advance individual rights. you get confidence that she will reach the right decisions for the right reasons, not only based upon her response to our questions, and she answered

every one of our questions, but in reviewing her decisions and her opinions. that's where i think we should spend most of our attention. so let me just mention a few. i have confidence that she will follow the protections that congress has passed in protecting our environment. the river keeper case gives me that confidence. i have confidence that she understands the importance of freedom of speech in the decision that she reached in baptist versus giulani. i have confidence that she will pursue freedom of religion, the ford versus mcguinness case where she fought for religious freedom for a minority whose religious practice is not as well-known by the majority in our population. she protected the civil rights of americans in equal opportunity and racial justice.

we had the ghant case and the boykin case protecting the rights of housing matters. we know that there is predatory practices against minorities in our community. i have confidence that she understands those concerns. i was particularly impressed by her commitment on voting rights in response to my question acknowledging that this is a fundamental right she showed in the hayden case a deference for following congress and protecting voting rights. that's going to be particularly important as we look at the voting rights act. and she has shown an understanding of privacy rights. here we don't have court cases that we can look at but her response to our questions and her background give me confidence that she will respect legal precedence and respect privacy in the 21st century. as i said in the beginning, mr. chairman, this is my first opportunity to participate in

the confirmation process of a supreme court nominee. three years ago i told the people of maryland how i would judge judicial nominations. by their experience, their temperament and their understanding for the constitution of the united states. for all these reasons, i will vote for the confirmation of judge sotomayor to be justice sotomayor. >> thank you very much, senator cardin. i appreciate that. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your wise and fair leadership of these confirmation proceedings. i also thank the ranking member for his fairness and courtesy of these proceedings. i will be proud to vote in support for judge sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. i appreciate as i know the chairman and others do her background as a prosecutor. and i believe her noncontroversial 17-year record as a federal judge makes clear that she's dedicated to the rule

of law, has a proper judicial temperament and gives every party before her a fair hearing. i also believe the unequivocal pledge that judge sotomayor gave me. that she will respect the role of congress as representatives of the american people, that she will decide cases based on the law and the facts, that she will not pre-judge any case but listen to every party that comes before her, and that she will respect precedent and limit herself to the issues that the court must decide. in short, that she will use the broad discretion of a supreme court justice wisely. she promised that, and i take her at her word. mr. chairman, i think we are witness here to an effort to define justice in america in alignment with a particular point of view. my colleagues are entitled to their point of view. they're entitled to their point

of view about guns, they're entitled to their point of view about property rights. they're entitled to their point of view about other issues. what i resist is any effort to define that point of view as a judicial norm against which any other point of view is to be seen as an aberration. as biases and prejudices to use one quotation. in this case, i further believe that their definition of justice in america, their definition, is just plain wrong, both in history and as justice. in particular, i do not wish to force as the new judicial norm the sort of judges who to paraphrase a recent article on the supreme court, in every major case vote for the corporation against the individual, for the government against the criminal defendant, and for the executive branch against the legislature.

i do not wish judges without empathy who will ignore the long and proud history of the courtroom as the last stand for many beleaguered americans where they can get fearless justice even when all of the forces of politics, of proper opinion, and of corporate power may be a raid against them. with judges willing to provide that fearless justice even if it completely upsets the status quo. i would add that i find no fault in judges who won't, as the price of entry to the court, commit to expanding our newly minted individual right to own guns. a right that no supreme court for 220 years had previously noticed and it was created in a 5-4 decision by a divided court. so i will with pride support

justice sotomayor's nomination. it is an honor to serve on this committee and to vote for such a talented and exceptional person. we all realize that judge sotomayor will be a historic justice, but i think we can also expect that most important, she will be an excellent justice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you very much, senator whitehouse. i appreciate the comments and senator kauffman -- no, senator klobuchar. i apologize, former prosecutor before she came here as was senator whitehouse. please go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i wanted to thank you and the ranking member for holding such a civil and dignified hearing. i had a few people say that it got boring at times and maybe that is a tribute that it was a civil and dignified hearing. like many of my colleagues i have been so impressed by judge sotomayor. like senator durbin, i most remember her mother sitting

behind her, that mother who when the father died at age 9, judge sotomayor was raised by that mother who had hardly any money and nurse, saved all her money to buy their family encyclopedia britannicas. and when you watch that family and her brother it reminded you that judge sotomayor knows the law and she knows the constitution but she also knows america. one experience of hers in particular resonates with me and that is immediately after graduating from law school, that she became a prosecutor. and i believe that that experience and my discussions with her will forever shape how she views the law. as a prosecutor after you've interacted victims of crime and the crime that does to individual families and to communities, you know that the law is not just an abstract subject. it's not just a book in your basement. you see how the law has a real impact on the lives of real people.

judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor tells me she meets one of my criteria for a supreme court justice. i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that the laws have on the criminal justice system on real lives. we learned about judge sotomayor long record as a judge. she came in as a nominee with more federal trial judge and federal experience in 100 years. i believe many of my colleagues are entitled to oppose judge sotomayor's nomination if they wish but i do get concerned when people return again and again and again to a quote in some speeches. and i was so pleased that senator graham, my colleague from south carolina, put those speeches in some context. you have to look at her whole experience. you have to look at her 17 years as a judge. you have to look at the fairness

that she brings to this job. in the words of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. and in this case, the facts are her judicial record. the nominee was repeatedly questioned about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judging. she was questioned for hours and days. this doesn't support this kind of bias. judge sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81% of the time. her decisions are supported by precedent when she served on panels with republican-appointed judges, she agreed with them 95% of the time. i appreciated senator durbin's discussion of the maloney case. i agree with the heller case but the heller case specifically left open the question that judge sotomayor was confronted with in the maloney case and, in fact, the decision that she and her colleagues came to was the

same decision that that three-judge panel on the seventh circuit come to when judge easterbrook and judge posner who were professors at the university of chicago where i went and house speaker not rabid liberals and i wonder if they would use that same case against them as was used against judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judges and sentenced white collar criminals -- and in drug case 85.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least six months from judge sotomayor compared with only 79% in her colleagues' cases. the nominee was questioned repeatedly about issues ranging from the death penalty to use of foreign law. even though she rejected a

defendant's challenge to the death penalty in the one death penalty case she considered as a district court judge and even though she has never cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the united states constitution, again, the facts are in her judicial record. she received a unanimous positive rating from the aba. why? because she is a thoroughly judge who basis her decisions on the facts. she was supported by prosecutors across the country and by police across the country. why? because they looked at her record and they trusted her decision-making. i think just about everything in a nominee's professional record is a fair game to consider and that's why i believe this was a civil and dignified hearing. but that said, when people focus on a few items in a few speeches, you have to wonder, do a few statements that someone made in an entire career trump 17 years of modest, reasoned, carefully, judicial decision-making.

there's one other point that i wanted to address that hasn't been addressed and that's because it irritated me and that was the issues that were raised about the stories and comments mostly anonymous that questioned judge sotomayor's judicial temperament. according to one news story about this topic, judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and curt with lawyers who were not prepared to answer them. asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. as a lawyer, you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can. when justice ginsburg was asked about these anonymous comments regarding judge sotomayor's temperament recently, she rhetorically asked, has anybody watched scalia or breyer on the bench? we're in a country where we can

confirm gruff, to the point female judges as we've confirmed gruff to the point male judges. in short, mr. chairman, i am proud to support judge sotomayor's nomination and i believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law and she knows the constitution but she knows america, too. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator klobuchar. and next senator kauffman. >> mr. chairman, i would like to begin by others commending you and the ranking member on running an excellent hearing, a fair hearing. everyone had a chance to speak. everyone had a chance to ask questions and it was just very, very well run. >> thank you. >> judge sotomayor is an outstanding nominee. she has a superior intellect, superb judgment and unquestioned integrity. she would be a terrific choice at any time. but given our current economic crisis and the likely role of the court in reviewing

legislative responses to that crisis, i submit that she's the ideal nominee at this time. one thing we've learned over the last two years is that we must reform our financial markets. judge sotomayor's extensive experience as a commercial litigator, business lawyer, judging business cases and a passion for the law that she has demonstrated throughout her career suggest that she will be a leader on the court on business and regulatory issues at a time when such leadership is essential. as i said, she will be an excellent nominee and especially at this time. mr. chairman, i'd also like to have my statement of july 24th i made on the floor entered in the record of this meeting. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> next is senator specter, who's former chairman of this committee and one of the most knowledgeable lawyers in the senate. senator specter. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i will vote to confirm judge sotomayor. she brought to the confirmation proceedings an extraordinary record, none better on the 11 i participated in or none better than any i've reviewed. it's pretty tough to be assuma cum laude in princeton and even tougher to become a member of the yale law review. then an outstanding prosecutor and the dean of prosecutor and dean morganthal testified how good she was. an extraordinary record professionally in private practice. a distinguished record on the bench. and those qualifications add up

to about an a plus. the criticisms made of her on the wise latina woman i thought were not only ill-founded but i appreciated the comment. when you consider that women were not given the right to vote until 1920 and when you consider -- may the record show a smile from senator feinstein, when you consider -- when you consider that there's still a tremendous glass ceiling, when you consider lily ledbetter, you could go on and on and on about the appropriateness in of a woman standing up for women. if a woman didn't stand up for women, i wouldn't think much of her. and senator durbin had a poetic

sequence of questions about women's insights that are different from men's insights. and believe me, as a senator who came here with one woman senator, senator cakkabaum, today it's 17 women and a much better place. and there was a book, nine women and growing and now at 17 it will grow even more, to the benefit of this institution. and when she refers to being a lati latina, that's a ethnic pride. i think it's a healthy thing to have a little ethnic pride. so i not only found -- i didn't find fault with a wise latina woman, i thought it was commendable. and then the business of empathy. there is no doubt about the

history of the constitution in our country responding to empathy. the life of the law experienced, logic, cardoza, palco shifting values, plessy versus ferguson, 1896, separate but equal, brown versus board of education -- shifting values all the time and that's what makes this country so great. one grave concern -- or the one regret i have about judge sotomayor's testimony was her extreme caution, just extreme caution. i don't know if it was her decision or if it were -- that attitude was promoted by her

advisors, but there's no doubt well publicized in the white house there are so-called murder boards where the nominees are prepared and that's fine. they ought to be prepared. but the hearings did not produce a whole lot about what judge sotomayor's philosophy is or her ideology to pick a couple of words or her approach. if you see me dab at my eyes, i'm not sad. it's chemotherapy, and i've made the kleenex industry wealthy but i'm glad to say i'm fit as a fiddle. i'm ready for election. i'm not infirm in any way. just a little consequence of chemotherapy. but i make that comment because people wonder about it.

there has grown up a myth about judge bork's confirmation hearing. and the myth is that he was p k borked, except i know it's not true. judge bork answered a great many questions because of his writings and because of his background. he believed in original intent. and he did not believe that the equal protection clause applied beyond, as he put it, race and ethnicity. it did not apply to women. did not apply to the disabled. did not apply to a litany of supreme court decisions, which have expanded equal protection to the benefit of this country. he did not believe in due process of law. he did not believe that it was

appropriate to incorporate the ten amendments or a you been in of the ten amendments to apply to the states because of the right of the due process clause. when i asked him how he would have desegregated the district of columbia schools in the context where equal protection applied only to states, brown versus board of education, there was a companion case bowling versus sharp of the d.c. schools and they did decide the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporated equal protection which then made it apply to d.c. when i asked him how he would desegregate the d.c. schools, do you know what his answer was? i want a recess. and he came back and he talked about the freedom of association.

so judge bork wrote about hess versus indiana, an obscenity case and he fought support of free speech. judge bork didn't know his own record. i would hope we could construct some rules after justice scalia answered virtual -- after justice scalia answered no questions, the senator and i considered having a resolution of the senate to set a standard. well, you can't set a standard for senators on questions. and you can't set a standard for nominees. they answer questions and they take their chances. if a nominee were to be rejected for not answering questions, it might set a tone, but that's not going to happen. when i asked judge sotomayor if

she agreed with chief justice roberts, if the supreme court could take more cases, it seemed to me that was as soft a softball that you could find. after i cited the statistics, the supreme court decided 151 cases in 1886. a century later in 1985, 161 written opinions. and in the 2007 term, 67 written opinions. it's time we televise the supreme court so the american people can see what they don't do. what they don't do on deciding circuit splits, but i won't elaborate upon that point now because i've done that in the past. on roe vs. wade, there were a lot of people in america looking for a little assurance on roe vs. wade. well, i'm pretty confident how judge sotomayor will decide the issue of a woman's right to choose. but not because of anything she

testified to. and you don't have to make it a super precedent but you could say when the court had 38 occasions to reverse roe and hadn't done so, that's a weighty factor. and saying it's a weighty factor is well within the range of the generalizations of stare decisis. and i could enumerate quite a number of other questions i asked her and asking a nominee questions is hard. we all have a very limited amount of time. i didn't like the interrupting her a little. there's been some commentary on that. a couple of people have said it was not inappropriate since she wasn't answering the questions. a lot of the questions were being asked to ask the questions. i think these nomination proceedings are really very good for the country.

very important to educate the country and remind the supreme court that when they have standards like proportionate and -- what's the other half of proportionate and whatever -- they can't remember what proportionate and congruent, thank you, team. did you say so, senator sessions? i didn't hear you. >> you taught me that phrase. >> and when you have -- when you have chief justice roberts saying that he's not going to disagree with congress on finding the facts and then you have the voting rights case and all indications say he does, those are matters to be pointed out. just one other comment about the firefighters case. judge sotomayor's opponents thought they had her on that. but the critical question was, did the firefighters think she did anything but act in good faith and both said they did not.

so while there are concerns about the way she's answered the questions, we've got a lot to judge her on aside from her testimony. the 17 years on the bench tell us enough to know that she is well qualified for the job. and it is my hope and i expressed it to her and got no response again that she would run a hot advocacy role in the conference room like she's reputed to have run a hot court. and that her litigator background would lead her to a challenge. other justices in the conference room, because there's no question about all of the platitudes we say about interpreting the constitution and statutes, the supreme court makes a lot of laws. they make a lot of laws.

and we have to trust their values they're within the mainstream and within the bounds of what this country has to be for and what it stands for in the future. i vote aye. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. and senator franken. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to join my colleagues in thanking you and the ranking member in the way you've conducted this hearing. i'm going to speak more about this on the senate floor so i'll keep my remarks brief. the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor comes at a critical moment for the supreme court. the current supreme court has consistently struck down and questioned long-standing critical protections for americans. and i'm talking about individual rights, individual protections, individual liberties. i think some of my colleagues

said this best. as senator feinstein mentioned, this supreme court ended a 30-year precedent stating that any measure regulating a woman's right to choose must always protect the health of the woman. as senator cardin and senator specter said, this supreme court came close to overturning critical portions of the voting rights act. the court did this despite the expressed powers that congress was granted under the fifteenth amendment to enact this law and despite the fact that this body has reauthorized these measures four times, most recently just a few years ago by a vote of 98-0, as senator kohl and others mentioned the supreme court reversed the 100-ban on price

fixing this shifts the burden to small businesses to show price fixing hurts them. today, thanks to this ruling a small business owner can't just show that price fixing has occurred, he or she has to prove through a complex economic analysis that it will hurt competition. this is the same supreme court that said that older workers don't have the same rights in the workplace as minorities or women. they made it harder to sue for age discrimination in the workplace. it is now harder, if not practically impossible, for an older worker to sue an employer who fired him or her because her pension was about to increase dramatically in value. this is the same supreme court that stands poised to overturn another 100-year principle in place since the tillman act in 1907 that corporations should

not be spending money in our election campaigns. not in donations, not in ads, not in anything. the court upheld this principle in 2003. when it upheld mccain-feingold. and yet the supreme court has decided to reconsider the constitutionality of a provision it upheld just six years ago. this is judicial activism. this is a court that is willing to reverse itself to limit the rights of individual americans. this is a court that is more than willing to overturn congress to achieve its own agenda of what is right. and in this context in these times, a vote for judge sotomayor is a vote against judicial activism. it's true as a lawyer judge sotomayor was an advocate for the latino community. she was a dedicated advocate.

but as my friend and colleague, senator graham noted on the floor of the senate, judge sotomayor's record, her record, is not that of a judicial activist or that of an advocate for any individual or any interest group. over 17 years and in 3,000 cases, judge sotomayor has proven herself to be an objective, impartial jurist, a fair judge. a fair judge. in her life, judge sotomayor has overcome a lot, more than most people who have accomplished as much as she has. but her record alone, her record alone, is reason enough to vote for her. i am proud to be her supporter. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will put in the record many

letters of endorsement for judge sotomayor we received from law enforcement groups, current and former democratic and republican officials, civil rights groups, americans of all backgrounds including 32 letters received since the -- since the hearing. and ask consent that they be put in the record and without objection they will be. i do want to note -- one, i appreciate the comments made by senators of both sides of the aisle complimenting senator sessions and myself for holding this hearing. senator sessions and i had a lot of discussions prior to the hearing. as i told him i was going to make sure everybody had -- could ask whatever questions they want. give as much time as they want. whether repetitious or not and i think we did that. what we're going to do is we're going to have a roll call vote on this in just a moment. then after that, i please ask

everybody to stay for a couple minutes. there will be a motion to take up the four other nominees en banc but the clerk will call the roll on the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be a justice of the u.s. supreme court. of the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be justice of the u.s. s [roll call] >> [roll call] [roll call]

>> the votes are 13 ayes, 6 nays. >> the no, ma'am nay has been approved bit committee. the name will be sent to the full senate for its action. i ask unanimous consent that thomas mcclellan, christopher sha-roeder and christopher mitchell those four nominees be considered en banc. those four nominees be signified by aye. i would note we have one, two, three, four, six, seven, eight nine, ten -- fifteen senators in the room. >> mr. chairman, i think there's some concerns about some of the nominees, but i think our members are committed to letting it go forward. so thank you. >> i appreciate that. please stand in recess. forward.

>> i appreciate that. >> please stand in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ñññ >> and the senate judiciary committee from last week approving the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor for the supreme court. senate leadership hopes to start debate on her nomination today.

in the full senate. they're expected to gavel in momentarily to start with -- resume worth on the $125 billion agriculture spending bill for fiscal year 2010. votes and amendments scheduled for 10:30 eastern and they'll break for lunches for 12:30 or so. back at 2:15. now local coverage of the senate on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

eternal god, we're grateful for your mercies renewed every morning and for your faithfulness every night. as the dew refreshes the earth morning by morning, let your spirit restore the faith and energy of our lawmakers. give them the discernment to understand the challenges of our times and the wisdom to devise ways to meet them. lord, keep them open and alert to your providential leading, as you guide them to a destination that will bring glory to your name.

may the collective talents of our senators be mobilized in the awesome task of building a better nation and world. make their hands ready to lift burdens and their hearts eager to respond in service to humanity. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., august 4, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland w. burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, we'll resume consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill with the time until 10:30 equally divided and controlled between the two managers or their designees. at 10:30 the senate will proceed to a series of two roll call votes in relation to the pending mccain amendments. following the votes, the senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow the caucus luncheons.

the time will be expanded a little bit today because the democrats are going to the white house for their caucus today rather than here in the mansfield room. as a reminder to all senators, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments is 10:15 this morning. we have every belief we can complete the agriculture appropriations bill today. i hope so. because as soon as we finish that, we're going to move to the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. mr. president, h.r. 3435 is at the desk. it's my understanding it's due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3435, an act making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the consumer assistance to recycle and save program.

mr. reid: i would ask now that any further proceedings in this matter not proceed. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, a long ten weeks ago, president obama made history when he nominated the nation's first hispanic to be a justice to the united states supreme court, and only the third woman. this week the senate will make history when we confirm her. judge sonia sotomayor is an american of tremendous qualifications, both her academic record and her career experience are second to none. she graduated summa cum laude from princeton university and went on to do as well at yale, where she was a member of the law review. she served as a prosecuting attorney. she was a lawyer in private practice.

she was on the trial bench and an appellate judge. after she's confirmed, she'll be the only justice in the current supreme court with experience as a trial judge, an experience that i believe will be valuable to her colleagues. one of the objections people have had about the makeup of the court is that people come with basically no experience in the courtroom other than these appellate lawyers -- i'm sorry -- appellate lawyers and appellate judges who sit in these back rooms and listen to arguments once in a while, and not in the -- in a courtroom listening to cases being presented, sustaining and overruling objections and listening to arguments to the jury. they simply have not had that experience. she has. she's developed a 17-year record as a moderate, mainstream judge. when the judge testified before the senate judiciary committee

for four grueling days, she respectfully, thoroughly answered questions on both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans. this week the senate will debate her nomination. it will be a fair debate. it will be a full debate. i appreciate the statements from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said they will vote to confirm her to the supreme court. many senators have very thoughtfully said that they regret how politicized the process of confirming judges has become in recent years. mr. president, in an unsung hero in the battle for the judiciary is lamar alexander, the senator from tennessee. lamar alexander has been governor of the state of tennessee. he was in the cabinet as secretary of education. and during the very difficult nuclear option, when there was a knock-down, drag-out fight that i felt would have ruled on the

basic makeup of the senate and what the senate stood for, quietly it was him in the background who came up with the idea of the gang of 14. basically he said to me and others, why don't we have an equal number of democrats and republicans sit down and try to work this out. he, not in the limelight, stepped back and the process that he suggested went forward. he's decided to vote for sonia sotomayor. now, most of his colleagues are not going to do that. i'm sure if you ask lamar alexander why he decided to do that, of course her qualifications are fine. but i think one reason he wants to do it, he believes in having temperate suggestions on both sides of the aisle to make a better senate here. so, i am very fond of lamar alexander. i appreciate his ability to bring sides together. i appreciate his standing up in

this instance for this judge. pwauts process of confirming judges -- because the process of confirming judges has become in recent years very policized. whose fault is it? it's probably both sides, mr. president. it's something that just got out of hand, and hopefully we can bring it back to where it has been in the past. i've tried during the time that i've been the majority leader to allow full and firm debate. there have been limited instances out of necessity where we haven't had full opportunities to amend pieces of legislation. that's the way it used to be when i came here, and that's the way i hope it is going to be in the future. in light of the battle we've had in the past over this so-called nuclear option, i appreciate the sentiments of a number of senators. lindsey graham is an example.

lindsey graham has had editorials all over the country written on his behalf. in nevada, columns have been written in major newspapers in nevada complimenting the senator from south carolina for the statements he made regarding this judicial problem that we have now. i'm disappointed that not more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are likely to vote for this outstanding nominee, particularly in light of her record and qualifications. but maybe in the future things will get better. i am, however, grateful for the respect my colleagues have shown her throughout this process, even those who have said they're not going to vote for her. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge sotomayor as soon as we can, so that she can continue her commendable service to our country.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate will soon begin debate on the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme court. before that debate begins, i'd like to make a few observations. first, i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the judiciary committee, along with their respective staffs, for conducting what can only be described as a dignified and respectful hearing. i know it was gratifying to them as it was to me to hear judge sotomayor say that every single senator who had promised to give her the opportunity to explain her views had kept that promise. it was equally gratifying to hear senators durbin and schumer describe the hearings as respectful and fair. as i've often said, our goal in the senate should be to just --

to be -- our goal in the senate should be to disagree without being disagreeable. i think we hit the mark during the hearings on judge sotomayor, and the judiciary committee should be commended for it. as we begin final consideration, our goal should be the same. those who support the nomination will make their case. those who oppose will make theirs. and then we'll vote. fulfilling our constitutional responsibility with the seriousness and deliberation the american people expect. over several weeks i've outlined my concerns about the nominee in some detail. once the hearing was over, i said that those concerns had only multiplied. but the primary reason i will not support this nomination, as i have already said, is because i cannot support the so-called empathy standard upon which

judge sotomayor was selected and to which she herself has subscribed in her writings and rulings. as i've said, the empathy standard is a very fine quality, and i have no doubt that senator obama, now president obama, had very good intentions when he made the case for his so-called empathy standard as the senator, a candidate, and now as president. but when it comes to judging -- when it comes to judging, empathy is only good if you're lucky enough to be the person or group that the judge in question has empathy for. in those cases, it's the judge, not the law, which determines the outcome. and that's a dangerous road to go down if you believe, as i do, in a nation not of men but of laws. judge sotomayor has impressed all of us with her life story, but if empathy is the new standard, then the burden is on

nominees like her who are chosen on that basis to demonstrate a firm commitment to equal justice under the law. on the contrary, judge sotomayor has openly doubted the ability of judges to adhere to this core principle, and she's even doubted the wisdom of them doing so. in her writings and in her speeches, judge sotomayor has repeatedly stated that there is no objectivity or neutrality in judging. let me say that again. judge sotomayor has repeatedly stated that there is no objectivity or neutrality in judging. she has said her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. her experiences will affect the facts she chooses to see as a judge. she has argued that in deciding cases, judges should bring their sympathies and prejudices to bear. she has dismissed judicial

impartiality as an aspiration that cannot be met even in most cases. she has questioned whether a judge trying to be as fair as possible in applying the law does a disservice both to the law and to society. these statements suggest not just a sense that impartiality is not possible, but it's not even worth the effort. nothing could be more important in evaluating a judicial nominee than where they stand on the question of equal justice. as i've said americans expect one thing when they walk into a courtroom, whether it's traffic court or the supreme court, and that's equal treatment under the law. americans have accepted serious idealogical differences in supreme court nominees over the years. but one thing they will never, ever tolerate is a belief that some groups are more deserving of a fair shake than others.

nothing could be more offensive to the american sensibility than that. judge sotomayor is certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background. but a judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice even handily as the judicial oath requires. this is the most fundamental test. it's a test that judge sotomayor does not pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2997, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 105, h.r. 299, an act making appropriations for agriculture,

rural development, food and drug administration, and related agency programs for the fiscal year ending 2010 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the managers and senators from arizona, mr. mccain or their designees. mr. mccain: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum equally divided on both sides. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, may i ask what is the proceedings

under the unanimous consent agreement? the presiding officer: the time until 10:30 is equally divided. mr. mccain: and following that, there would be a vote on two amendments, is that correct? the presiding officer: that is correct, senator. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the second vote be vitiated -- roll call vote be vitiated and replaced by a voice vote. the presiding officer: is there objection to vitiating the roll call vote? without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, this vote will be on amendment number 1912. the amendment eliminates, as recommended by the president of the united states, the usda watershed and flood prevention operations program also known as the small water shed program. this program is the perfect

example of how reckless earmarking can devastate a well-intentioned government program. like the previous four presidents' budgets have proposed to terminate this account. four previous presidents because, and i quote -- i quote- "congress earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years. meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness. according to the congressional research service, the small watershed program was 97% earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the u.s. department of agriculture's ability to evaluate and prioritize projects. a 2003 office of management and budget study that showed this program has a lower economic return than any other federal

flood prevention programs, including those in the army corps of engineers and the federal emergency management agency. the onslaught of earmarks over the years have most certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects totaling $1.2 billion. as it was originally intended, this small watershed program may be a worthwhile program, but by inundating it by so-called congressionally designated projects, the program is challenged to operate point to where four -- not one, not two, not three, but four previous presidents have recommended termination. nevertheless, the appropriations committee hasn't given up on republican leaderrering irepubl.

i urge my colleagues to support the president's recommendation. again, i would like to quote from the president's recommendation from the president of the united states and i quote -- "the administration proposes to terminate the watershed and flood-prevention operations program. the congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness. so it goes on and on. every analysis is that it has a lower economic return than any other program. four presidents have sought to eliminate it. it really is -- we'll probablily lose this vote, mr. president. but if there's ever a graphic

example that once a program is established and once you fund it, it acquires a constituency, a powerful special interest and then that funding continues on and on and on. we are proving -- and we will continue to prove as we go through the appropriations bill, that there is no program -- there is no program that once in being is going to be eliminated by this body. that the appropriators continue to defy not only the president of the united states, but logic and good sense as we amass deficits of monumental proportions which are mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's futures. we captain even stop a program that the president wants terminated that has no value, that the office of management an budget and -- and budget and any objective observer will say deserves termination and it is

only $20.3 million. but the appropriators will join. they will jawbone others, and we will lose this vote the same way we lost a vote yesterday, again, that had been recommended for termination by the president of the united states. i didn't come up with this, mr. president. it wasn't my idea to terminate it. although i certainly do think so. it was the president of the united states' idea. it is every objective observer. so what are we going to prove with the next vote? not only that we won't eliminate this program, but we send the message -- we send the message to the country that there's no program -- even though the president of the united states wants it terminated, even though it has a clear record of total inefficiency, we'll continue to maintain it. sooner or later there's going to be more tea party, there's going to be more protests and the american people are going to rise up and say stop it. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: mr. president, this program provides for cooperation between the federal government, state government agencies and local organizations to prevent erosion, floodwater and sediment damages and further the conservation and proper utilization of land in authorized watersheds. this program helps communities prepare detailed watershed work plans for flood prevention projects in cooperation with conservation districts and other conservation organizations. annual natural resources benefits include 90 million-tons of soil saved from erosion, 37,000 miles of stream and stream corridors enhanced or protected. more than 1 point million acre feet of water conserved. nearly 280,000 acres of wetlands created, enhanced or restored. and over nine million acres of upland wildlife created,

enhanced or restored. this is a very important program, mr. president. and i urge senators to oppose this amendment. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: mr. president, i have a lot of sympathy for the comments made by the senator from arizona. and i think he's got some accurate points that he's making. my colleague from wisconsin is making the points as well about the program overall. my point in rising is to say that the system is very difficult to change and to get things pulled out and that's why you've got to change the system. and what i put forward for years is a proposal that we would take a brac-type process, a military-type base closing process and have it looked at and make a recommendation to the congress and then one vote on the entire package. that's a way we found to eliminate military bases. because every time a program like this gets started, or other ones, there are people around

this body who say, this works for my district even though it doesn't work for somebody else. this is a high-priority project even if it isn't for somebody else. that system is such thatt it's built to spend and it's not built to cull where you can cull things out and say this one doesn't look good, this 1 does in -- one does in trying to get it through a body of 100 people. we're trying to get an ag bill through that we haven't had time to get through in three years. we haven't had floor time for an agriculture bill. i think that the senator from arizona has excellent points. i think that we need to pass this sort of brac process for the rest of government so we actually go at a culling process that everybody has some faith in that has worked before on military bases and now apply it to the rest of government. and that's a system where we can actually get things eliminated, which we clearly need to do in a number of different areas. but it's not going to happen on a one shot by one shot basis,

because some people look at it and say this is program that really works in my area. we get hung up on the floor in lengthy battles and we're never able to get the bill through. i would urge my colleagues and i hope that some on the majority bill, the carfa bill, to see about putting that in place so that we can get at these in a systematic way that everybody is agreeable to. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask consent that liz dunn and eric peterson of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays -- mr. kohl: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 27, the nays are 70. and the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. the time is yielded back on the mccain amendment number 2030. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor aaye. -- say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that senator brown be recognized for a period of how long the senator -- how long does the senator wish to speak? mr. brown: seven or eight minutes. mr. reid: eight minutes and then senator saunders permitted to speak. so he can speak at 12:15 when the recess occurs. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the majority leader and his leadership in deferring to me. first of all, i ask unanimous

consent -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that chan park on senator leahy's judiciary staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 111th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask that mike be allowed floor privileges during the debate of justice sonia sotomayor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today as i have every day for the last week or so, to share some letters from ohioans from people in mansfield, glainsfield, people all over the state. we hear about the exclusivity, gateway and all of these washington terms that people

don't necessarily understand. but we don't talk enough about how this health care legislation -- the presiding officer: will the senate be in order. please remove your conversations from the well and the floor. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: we don't talk often enough. we don't think often enough about how this health care system today -- the damage it's doing to the country. we don't think often enough about the situation people -- the situations people find themselves in because we're not just enacting a whole health care reform here, mr. president. if we do nothing. if we continue down this road, it means small business who's are so overwhelmed with health care costs are going to have to -- more are going out of business. more small businesses are going to have to eliminate their insurance program. larger businesses, our biggest companies in the country, have trouble competing internationally because of health care costs an people

paying huge costs out-of-pocket are not able to afford insurance, are not able to afford their copays or premiums or deductibles. so many people have deferred care, which is really no care. at the same time we insurance companies all too often using preexisting conditions to deny care, using lifetime caps to deny care. this system is broken. many parts of the system work. the point of this bill is to protect what works and to fix what's broken in our health care system. i'd like to, mr. president, just for four or five minutes share some letters that i've received from people around my state of ohio about what situation they're in with health care. this is debra from adams county. adams county is a county just three counties east of cincinnati on the ohio river. debra writes, in october of 2003 i discovered i had breast cancer. luckily we found it early. i was treated with a lump ectomy and radiation treatments. i'm doing fine now but i had to

fight with the insurance companies to pay for radiation treatments. i had 32 radiation sessions, over $800 per treatment. in 2002 i paid $1,800 for health care treatment. today the insurance company increased premiums to $719 per month. we're not poor but we're not rich. $719 per month for insurance is half of what i receive in a month. i cannot afford to pay that amount. no insurance company wants to take me because of my preexisting breast cancer condition. i don't know what i'm going to do. if i canceling the insurance, then i come down with cancer again, we'll lose everything we worked so hard for all our lives. i paid for my own insurance since 1985. i've never asked for help, but i can't do this. please can you help me? think about this. this is a woman that was paying $200 per month for health insurance. she paid for health insurance for almost 25 years. then she gets sick.

then her health insurance, she had to fight with her insurance to get them to even pay for the treatment. and then they have more than tripled the cost of her health insurance. that's not what health insurance should do. that's not what functioning good health care system should do. that's why we need this health care reform to help people like debra in adams county. barbara from delaware county, an increasingly suburban but somewhat rural county straight north of columbus, central ohio. barbara writes i had excellent insurance when employed for many years, then i was laid off when i turned 63. i went without insurance and tried to find a health insurance policy which i could afford. i was very happy to turn 65 and now have medicare. having worked for 30 years, i'm grateful for social security and medicare. at the age of 68, i don't mind paying into a system since i'm part of a system that helps all of us in our advanced years. the security of knowing that i

would be covered if something unforeseen would occur keeps my stress level down. barbara lost her job at 63, lost her insurance. fortunately had no catastrophic illness or disease happen between 63 and 65 until she got on medicare. when i hear this kind of -- this kind of assessment, when i hear her talk about social security and medicare and how it's been there for her and last night on the senate floor, i heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how government can't do anything write rite, we don't want government involved in health care, this is a conspiracy of big government intrusion into our lives, think about social security. think about medicare. we know government's run social security and medicare pretty darned well. medicare has an administrative cost of well under 5%. private insurance has administrative costs of 15%, 20%, 25%, sometimes 30%. we know this is a health care system -- this isn't going to be a single-payer system. this is going to be people have

choices between the public option and individual insurance plans. that's the way we're going to build this health care -- help to rebuild this health care system. if you're in health care that you appreciate and you're satisfied with, you can keep it. we're going to put some consumer protections on it to make it better. barbara speaks so articulately about why medicare and social security have worked. last couple of letters i'll read, madam president, cynthia from mercer county on the indiana border. my son had a cyst removed in february. i had hernia surgery in may that costs $12,000. my insurance company picked up some of the costs but i only make $31,000 a year. we can barely afford my property taxes. my son also has a learning disability and will likely not go to college this fall. therefore, my insurance company sees fit to drop him from coverage in october when he turns 19. americans who work hard should be at least granted excellent, affordable health care without

breaking the bank. let's get the best care possible, not just a band-aid. cynthia's son, when he turns 19, gets dropped off their insurance plan. our legislation says if you choose to, you can stay on your parents' insurance plan until you turn 26. so it gets people through those tough years of school, looking for a job, maybe into the military, coming out of the military, all the things that happen in young lives. it protects people up to 26. our bill today, under this -- under the status quo, cynthia's not protected. cynthia's son is not protected. cynthia cannot afford these huge costs, huge premiums, huge copays and deductibles. that's why we need a change. the last letter i'll read is mike from ross county. ross county -- the county seat of ross county is chillicothe, south of columbus. mike writes i'm a self-employed small businessman.

i'm unable to obtain insurance for my family. i live that risk every day praying my wife and daughter don't need major medical care. this is america. we can and must do better than that. madam president, one of the things we did in this bill was put together provisions for small business people. if you're self-employed, if you run a small business, you can get better -- you can get insurance at a more reasonable cost. we know big insurance companies charge small business much more per person than they charge larger businesses. this will allow a small business to go with other small businesses in what we call the exchange, and they'll get much better rates because the insurance costs and the cost of illness and treatment will be spread over hundreds of thousands of people instead of only 5 or 6 or 10 people in one of these health care plans in a small business. this also has tax credits, additional tax credits for small businesses. and we're going to see a lot of help in this legislation for small business. madam president, i'll close

with, again saying our health care bill that was voted ouflt health, education, labor, and pensions committee protects what works in our health care system and fixes what's broken. if you're happy with your heurbg insurance -- with your health care insurance, you can keep it. we will build some consumer protections around it. if you're not happy, or you don't have insurance, you'll get insurance under this bill. madam president, i yield the floor to the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i thank the senator from ohio. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: and i applaud his efforts in fighting for health care for all americans. madam president, i wanted to take a few minutes right now to touch on an issue that in fact has not gotten a lot of discussion here in congress, and that is that family-based dairy agriculture is on the verge of collapse. this is not a regional issue. this is a national issue, from

the east coast to the west coast, what we are seeing is prices plummeting for dairy farmers way below the cost of production. and if congress does not act, all over america rural communities are going to be suffering economically. people are going to be losing their jobs, and the american people increasingly will not be able to obtain fresh, locally produced food. and as we talk about stimulus, as we talk about trying to revive this economy, let's remember rural america, and let's remember the dairy farmers throughout this country who are producing an important part of the food that we consume. madam president, at this moment dairy farmers across the country are suffering from the lowest milk prices in four decades. let me repeat that. dairy farmers across the country are suffering from the lowest milk prices in four decades. in the last year, the prices

that farmers received for their milk has plummeted 41% to $11.30 per hundred weight. to understand how low $11.30 per hundred weight is, you must understand that it takes $17 or $18 to produce 100 weight of milk. in other words, every cow that is milked, the farmer is losing a substantial amount of money. as a result of these low prices, many family farms have gone out of business. and if we don't act immediately, you're going to see many more from one end of this country close up. i could tell you that in the state of vermont, there was a lot of publicity surrounding a farm in the southern part of our state that had been in one family since the revolutionary war, since the revolutionary war. but because of these horrendously low milk prices,

that farm has gone up for sale. madam president, this is not just an issue for dairy farmers. this is not just an issue for rural communities. this is an issue for every american who wants to gain access to good-quality, locally produced food. all over this country people are saying, no, i don't want my food coming in from china. i don't want my food coming in from places all over the world. i want to see the quality food that is produced in my area, in my state, in my region. and if we do not act to protect family-based dairy agriculture, we're going to increasingly lose that opportunity. this is not a -- and let me underline it. i know people that are familiar with dairy always say these are great regional fights. the northeast is fighting the midwest is fighting the southeast is fighting the west coast. and every region has its own set of priorities. this is not a regional issue.

this is a national issue. let me just talk a little bit about what's happening briefly in various regions around the country. california -- california farmers union president joaquin contente talked about the situation in his state of california. he testified -- and i quote -- "in my life long history as a dairy farmer i have never seen prices this far below our costs for this long, and i have never seen so many dairy producers so desperate for relief. in my county -- this is in california, not vermont. "in my county alone, 25 dairies have either filed or are in the process of filing for bankruptcy, and many more are closer to bankruptcy every day." end of quote. joaquin contente, california farmers union president. let me talk about texas, southwest, the executive director of dairymen spoke about

the situation in his state of texas, and and he said, "this is the worst situation i've seen since 1970. some say it is the worst since the depression." that is the state of texas. let me talk about the midwest, wisconsin. a stanley, wisconsin dairy farmer stated that -- quote -- "in my area farmers are burning up the equity accumulated over their lifetimes. one farmer in my area had to cash out his wife's ira just to get crops planted to spring. my parish, priest and my small town has had to counsel one or more dairy farmers a week to prevent their suicides. we know across the country of farm suicides that have already occurred." end of quote from wisconsin. these are a few examples from wisconsin, california, texas. i could go on and on on what's going on in vermont and the northeast. madam president, last week after congress's strong urging, secretary vilsack announced the

government would support dairy farmers and we very much appreciate the secretary and the obama administration's quick response to our needs. that support was important. but it is likely to raise milk price supports by about $1.25 a hundred weight. that is something, but nowhere, nowhere, nowhere near enough what have we need when in fact cost of production is $17 or $18 a hundred weight. madam president, this afternoon i will be offering legislation cosponsored by you -- senator gillibrand -- cosponsored by senator schumer, by senator tom udall, by senator arlen specter, by senator jean jeanne shaheen,g others. this amendment will, i think, go a long way to help farmers over the short-term crisis. long term obviously we need to do some fundamental rethinking about dairy agriculture, how you bring long-term stability to the

dairy industry and end that volatility which has been just rampant in that industry for so many years. a lot of issues out there about how we bring long-term stability for dairy farmers in this country. this is short-term relief to make sure that farmers all over this country don't go out of business. and what this amendment would do is provide the secretary of agriculture with $350 million in additional funding for milk price supports. and that would, again, bring the price up about another $1.50 per hundred weight. this could mean the short-term help could mean the difference between economic viability or financial disaster for dairy farmers from one end of this country to the other. so once again, all of us are focused on how we get out of this deep recession. all of us are focused on how we create decent-paying jobs. i would urge my colleagues, do not forget about rural america.

rural america, whether it's vermont, wisconsin, california, colorado, rural america is hurting. they need help as well. so, madam president, later on this afternoon i will be bringing forth this very important america to provide economic support for rural america and would hope to have the support of all of my colleagues. thank you, madam president, with that i would yield -- no, i won't yield the floor. i will ask i ask unanimous consent that the senate will proceed to the medial consideration of the postal naming bills en bloc, 133 through 144. s. 748, s. 1211, h.r. 774, h.r. 987, h.r. 127, h.r. 2090, h.r. 2162, h.r. 225, h.r. 2422, and

h.r. 2470. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and paspassed en bloc and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you, madam president. i would yield to -- mr. kohl: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: i request that the quorum be set aside. a senator: i would like to rise for a minute and concur with the

comments of my colleague from vermont, senator sanders and i have spent some time on the phone over the last few weeks with independent dairy producers in missouri and it's heartbreaking what is happening. mrs. mccaskill: you know, in this economic downturn, it's hard to look everywhere we need to be looking. one day the car sector is grabbing our attention. another day we're talking about what's going on in -- in terms of utility costs for our constituents. another day we're talking about whether or not people can even afford health care. and i -- there's just so many places that we are trying to look and do what's necessary to get us through the rough patch. unfortunately the independent producer, they don't have a whole lot of lobbyists out here. a lot of the big multinational agricultural corporations have plenty of help in these halls much but the families that i

know and the families i've talked to that are trying to continue to produce dairy products for this nation in a family way, in an independent way, are really on the ropes. and i would ask unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to senator sanders amendment and that we remember that it's not just our car manufacturers that are in trouble right now. in almost every sector of economy we have trouble and we can't neglect one area of our economy in an effort to help another area of our economy. thank you, madam president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: madam president, i ask to make a point of order en bloc on several pending amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: madam president, i make a point of order that the following amendments are not germane postcloture: amendment 2225, 2226, 2246, 2248, and 228

-- 2288. the presiding officer: the point of order is well taken. the amendments fall. mr. kohl: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. the senate resume consideration of the coburn amendment number 2244. that senator harkin be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes to be followed by senator coburn for as much time as he consumes. that following senator coburn's remarks, the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the coburn amendment number 2244 with no amendment in order to this -- to the amendment prior to the vote. further that upon disposition of amendment 2244, the senate then resume the following amendments with two minutes of debate prior to each vote. number 2245 and 2243. that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote and that no amendments be

in order to any of the amendments listed here. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kohl: madam president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: i suggest the absence of a quorum. i yield the floor. i'm sorry. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> maybe some government grants? >> i would say donations.

>> advertising for products? >> public money, i'm sure. >> my taxes? [laughter] >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> the cash for clunkers auto trade-in program runs out of federal money this friday. while the house has approved additional funding, the senate has yet to do so. we talked about it earlier this morning on "washington journal." >> host: wearing a number of different hats on the national board of the car dealers' association and the chairman of the washington, d.c. area new auto dealers' association. i want to begin this morning with a story this morning front page of the washington times that gets into the minutiae of the back and forth in the senate, but really gets to the heart of what may be happening

this week, and the report by miller saying that democratic leaders will have to strug l to overcome the often plodding pace of the senate before the august recess. friday's the deadline because the white house is saying if it doesn't pass this bill, the program will end. >> guest: right. they'll be out of money. surely they'll be out of money. i think that the first $1 billion that was allocated went much quicker than anybody had anticipated. >> host: what has it meant for your industry? >> guest: well, you know, it's created a lot of excitement, it's brought a lot of customers into the showrooms and everything. in our particular case and i'm pretty sure you'll probably see it across the country, you know, we have several dealerships, and we're seeing about, almost nearly 80 percent of our business under this program is in our import dealerships. people are buying import cars, trading in domestic cars. >> host: and some of the most often-asked questions, first of all, why doesn't this program

just benefit american auto dealers, chrysler, ford, and gm? why should it be open to foreign imports as well? >>ing >> >> guest: i guess it depends on how do you define american automaker? toyota's producing more cars in the united states, so they are american cars as well. >> host: and the other argument is why not cash for washers or other appliances? why just identify the auto industry and not other eak sores -- sectors of the u.s. economy? >> guest: i think the original premise was try to get america rolling, and the only way that the american economy can rebound is to get the automotive industry to rebound. i mean, as goes the automotive industry, so goes our economy. so, you know, if washing machine sales are down, that really doesn't have as much effect on the economy. i'm, i am not really sure why the government took this kind of approach. i mean, i think it's great, we love it, we've sold so many cars from it and everything, but there are so many other things

that would have cost them nothing to be able to get this industry to rebound. >> host: so what, what have you seen? obviously, a big influx in the last week, but what else is happening inside the showrooms? and if you don't have a so-called clunker, are people still buying? >> guest: yeah, people are still buying cars without the so-called clunkers. what we're seeing is a lot more late nights because people never know, for example, last thursday when they announced this is it, tonight's the last night, i mean, dealerships all over washington were open until 2 or 3:00 in the morning because customers thought this would be the end, and they came back friday with a little more of a grace period, but i expect towards the end of this week particularly if this doesn't go so well in the senate, there's going to be another mad rush, and you'll also see much lower inventories right now. >> host: but isn't that good? >> guest: well, you know, in normal times it would be good, but with so many plants that have been shut down, they're not going to be able to restock these inventories as quickly as

we normally would be able to. >> host: in some of the reporting last night there was one sentence that struck me which is the industry was coming back anyway, why did they need this stimulus? how do you respond to that? >> guest: well, you know, i think it's a great stimulus, but you have to remember i think this particular plan began several months ago. i mean, several months ago. it just took them so long to get it going and everything. if this had been able to roll out in january and february, this entire year would have probably seen a completely different result than we'll end up seeing now. >> host: and i know you've been spending a fair amount of time in the senate, and dianne feinstein who initially opposed additional funding has now come out and said she would because people are trading in clunkers for hybrids. >> guest: you know, it's not just hybrids. there are so many vehicles, take toyota alone. toyota has actually 16 models that are eligible under the cars program. only two of which are hybrid.

so there are so many models available, so it's more more fuel efficiency, not just hybrid technology. >> host: by the way, if you have some of the most commonly-asked questions about this program, we did talk to the transportation secretary, ray lahood, on sunday, and we want to direct you to cars.gov which answers the questions about what qualifies for the program. angela is joining us from kentucky, good morning. >> caller: to your guest, i am in support of extending this program. just watching the results from last week what less than a week implementation and seeing the massive response that's going on at dealerships nationwide, people need to realize that within the auto industry there's so many related businesses that require employees. this has the big potential if this is extended to put people back to work and really gin things up especially to the states that's been so hard hit by this downturn. and i think we really need to give this another chance at

extending it. i ask anybody out there supporting this to, please, call their senator now. tell them they sport this -- support this, i think this is too important to let slip by. thank you. >> host: angela, thank you for the call. did you want to respond? >> guest: oh. we agree. i mean, we hope the program does continue, and, you know, you're right there is a lot of ancillary effect from having a program like this. most importantly, it creates the excitement back into the economy. it gets people out thinking about spending money and actually spending money. and, you know, i think originally when the cars program was designed, it was more about getting so-called dirty cars off the road and replacing them with more fuel-efficient and cleaner cars. but because of the change in the economy, it's really benefited in so many other ways that i don't think were initially anticipated when the program was first developed. >> host: let me follow up on my earlier point, the "detroit free press" indicating again some of

the key senators including dianne feinstein, but also chuck schumer of new york and susan collins of maine saying they believe there is sufficient support to provide the extra money, but senate riders had -- leaders had not agreed on how and when to provide the vote. >> guest: i'm sure that the industry is lobbying very hard with lawmakers to make sure that -- well, you know, it's already passed congress, so it's really up to the senate at this point. so we have until friday until they recess to have some sort of resolution here. >> host: with all of the changes that have taken place with gm shutting down many of its dealerships, ford the only domestic automaker that did not go through bankruptcy and chrysler going through its own transition, where do you see the domestic awe toe industry five years from now? >> guest: i'm particularly concerned about the 3400 dealerships that are slated to be closed at this time between

gm and chrysler. there's 169,652 direct jobs affected by that. the best customer domestic automakers could possibly have is someone driving their products right now, and they're not going to be able to keep these customers because they're not going to have any place to service their vehicles. you have to remember automobile dealers are very embedded into their communities. their customers and our communities resent this action that was taken. if you look at -- i was walking through the lot last night with a reporter looking at all of the clunkers. we've done almost 500 of them, and it's interesting to see that we've done over 300 new toy toya in the clunker dealers and almost 90 percent of the trade-ins are domestic vehicles. what does that tell you? they're not going to go and buy back domestic three, four, five years from now. >> host: there's a tweet that says they're stealing money from other productive people to give to another part of the auto

industry. and you're hearing that. >> guest: i agree, there's a lot of taxpayer money being used unnecessarily, but it's not going to the dealers. and what people really don't understand is an automobile dealer, we're independent businessmen and women. we are fully funded with private capital. all of this taxpayer money is going to executives' bonuses, it's going to pay for lobbyists for general motorists to have on the hill all day to fight independent businessmen and women trying to cope their basic constitutional -- keep their basic be constitutional right of being ip dent entrepreneurs. dealers are filing bankruptcy, they're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money, private capital, not taxpayer dollars. >> host: our guest is tammy daughter visual as we talk about the cash for clunkers program, she is a member of the national automobile dealers' association, she's also the chair of the twa

area new auto dealers association and the vice president of her own automotive group. next is larry joining us from columbus, ohio, good morning. >> caller: i'd like to take a moment to wish president obama happy birthday as i schaffer his birth -- share his birthday, and i hope he's listening. >> host: happy birthday to you. i would suspect he's probably not listening, but thank you. [laughter] >> caller: but my opinion on this cars is it really looks more like a disaster to me. and let me explain why. my local cbs affiliate did a story on a dealership here in columbus last night, and they were showing the cars that were coming in into what they did to disable and disarm them, how they dump some kind of gunk in the engine to make it seize. i was expecting to see a bunch of broken-down, old beat-up clunkers. well, that's not what i saw in this commercial. i was seeing '90s model

cadillac devilles, lincoln town cars, ford explorers, pickup trucks that were all perfectly good vehicles and there's an enormous market for that one being folks who cannot afford to go out and spend $30,000 on a new vehicle. these cars and the other people that are cut out of this loop here because they're only good on cars that get a certain gas mileage is families. just take the middle class family that makes 50-60,000 a year that has four kids. they need a car that they can function as a family, and in many cases all they can afford is that 10-year-old cadillac. it's big enough to support the family, and it's a good enough car with the north star engines that are in them. and i think that there are many, many cars that are being destroyed needlessly, and it's slimming the market for people who don't have the money to go out and buy a new car. >> host: larry, thanks for the car.

happy birthday, and a related e-mail saying are the clunkers in this program to be scrapped and recycled in the u.s. or ships overseas? how would you respond? >> guest: you're right, the disaster part of this is the processing of the vehicle once a customer trades it in. we're having very difficult time with the web site. remember, the dealers are carrying the, the responsibility of the accounts receivable here. if you take our organization alone, we have almost $2 million out there that we haven't been paid the first dollar from the government on 'em yet. but i agree, you know, there's two ways to look at this, and i was thinking about this yesterday that there are so many, you're right, perfectly good cars that there's a lot of poor families or people who could really use these cars. think of how many people we could donate these cars to that they could get back and fort to work -- forth to work, they could get their kids to school or whatever. but remember, the original premise of this was to take the dirty cars off the road and

replace them with more fuel-efficient vehicles, and by the way, they haven't made the toyota echo in many, many years. >> host: and a follow up, the beauty of twitter is they're quickly responding, and this is a viewer, joe, who says it's not going to the dealers? has the taxpayer money benefited the dealers or not? >> guest: no, it has not. no. in the cars program, yes, that benefits the dealers because it brings customers into the showroom, but all of the money that they lay lotted for the so-called bailout of general motors and chrysler not one penny of that money went to the dealers. >> host: next call is alice from new york. good morning to you on the republican line. >> caller: morning. i think it's just a shame that the government has to intervene in everything. i think cash for clunkers is a stupid program, but they seem to be finding a lot of ways to spend our money stupidly. thank you. >> host: any response? >> guest: well, you know, as a salesman, we love anything that would, you know, get customers into the showroom or back out

and spending money and everything. i really think that maybe they could have done it with far less incentive. i don't think they needed to do the $4500 to get this program going. >> host: and, again, some of the comments from yesterday and last night, is this a sugar high for the auto industry? a big spike in sales and then a drop off when the program ends, whenever it ends? >> guest: well, there will be some sort of dropoff. you know, if you think about in the early '8 os when they first started doing customer rebates, we've never been able to get out of that. where does it stop, where does it end? the other area of our business and the economy that it's going to hurt is the used car business because, remember, all these vehicles are being destroyed, they're being crushed. so we normally would take these cars in, recondition them, make them pass the state inspection as far as, you know, the safety of them and everything and be able to turn around and resell these vehicles. so not only are we going to see

a very depleted inventory on the new car side because of, you know, this increase in the sales and the manufacture plants having been shut, but we're not even going to have used cars being replaced on our lots. >> host: the headline in "the washington post" gives you a sense of what will happen on the senate floor as we watch the proceedings today, tomorrow and friday on c-span2, the chunker debate teams up old foes, and the senate vote will be close. mary ann is joining us from, is it trowtwood, ohio? >> caller: troutwood, yes. >> host: where is that located in the state? >> caller: it's right near van dale ya. i wanted to ask her who thought of the plan, where does this plan come from, and i thought other people asked some great questions about the environmental impact of the older cars, you know, what's the real cost there? and then i have a '96 dodge

pickup truck, and i've got my last kid in college, i'm a single parent, and there's no way i could afford to trade this car in because i couldn't afford taking on any other payments. i don't even have health care right now because i've got my last kid in college so, gosh, i would have liked that $4500 towards health care. i think it's basically a good program, but i made an observation the last couple nights, chris matthews was showing all sorts of people protesting the health care reform, but last thursday neither one of them showed the people in washington, d.c -- c-span did -- who were marching for health care reform. and chris matthews said, where is the other side? he missed it last thursday, and so did rachel mad doe. i'm always kind of fascinated with what the mainstream media covers and what they don't. >> host: thanks. we talked to a couple members on friday about that very issue.

did you want to respond to her earlier point, who came up with the idea? >> guest: well, you know, this program been historically in europe, and europe ran a very similar program to this, and i think that some of, you know, our lawmakers watched and studied how the program worked in europe and just sort of translated it into our own environment and introduced it here. >> host: in "the new york times" reporting this season above the follow, spurring sales, the car rebate plan is left up in the air, but keillors estimated that they sold -- dealers estimated that they sold about a quarter million. in a typical week how many cars would you sell and how many did you sell this past week? >> guest: well, it depends on which dealership and which franchise it is, but in two days alone in one of our toyota stores they sold over 90 cars in two days. that's like a week or ten days' worth of production out of a particular dealership. so, yeah, it was very, very busy. >> host: how do you feel about

the economy? are you optimistic? are you concerned? where would you game your emotion on what we're at right now and where we're going? >> guest: well, i'm very concerned with how things are being handled because when you take a group of people, these so-called czars that are being appointed and they're not elected officials, and the amount of power that they're given to interfere with basic constitutional rights of americans, i just have got to believe that president obama, i mean, he did the right thing. he put together a team that he thought he could trust to handle a situation. but the gross abuse of the power and the trust that some of these groups have displayed is, it's despicable. >> host: clyde is joining us from hayesville, north carolina, independent line. our conversation with tammy darvish of the washington, d.c. area new car dealers' association. good morning, clyde.

>> caller: yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call. couple of issues here. i think larry from ohio mentioned the con cords being destroyed. actually the concords really are in washington that thought this deal up, $4500 taxpayers money and to go out and buy somebody a car or give them a bonus. anyway, anytime the government gets involved in something like this it stairs me -- scares me because they don't understand free market or profit or business. but two issues real quick. one of them is the used car should not be destroyed. in this down economy there's plenty of people out there that would love to have an 8-year-old, 10-year-old car like the family man who is working at a job making 2 or $10 -- 8 or $10 an hour. the second issue that i haven't heard at all, remember the housing market and what the government did when they

injected themselves in the housing market? they went out there and they got people loans that they couldn't afford to pay for 'em. how many of these new automobiles is going to end up back repossessed from the banks and end up back on a used car lot? i mean, a lot of people will see $4500, they'll go out there, and they'll jump right in the middle of it. are these people being screened? can they pay for these cars? see anytime the government gets involved, it exacerbates the problem. i want to see the auto industry be helped, but this is the wrong way to do it. >> host: appreciate the call. tammy. >> guest: well, of course, the loans have to be approved by banks, and the banks are not approving laws any where near the same criteria they would have perhaps a year ago. and quite frankly, there's really never been a better time to buy a car. i mean, to get $4500 back from the government, some

manufacturers are matching that, then you throw in 0 percent financing or -- and then the dealer incentives on top of that, that's a lot of, i mean, that's a huge savings. you can get an $18,000 car for almost 8, $9,000 depending on the manufacturer and the incentives that are there. you know, sometimes -- and i've learned this in the last couple of months with all the time i've spent in washington, we expect our congressmen and women and our senators to be experts of everything. we expect them to be experts of health care, experts of birth certificates, experts of czars, experts of anything that comes for law making. it's up to the people of the united states of america to be in constant contact with your local congressmen and women and your senators to let them know how you feel during the process of the law making. you know, laws are made based on feedback from constituents, and it's amazing to see how few really would pick up the phone and call. and i've had over 100

appointments on capitol hill in the last month, and i've only had less than a handful of people refuse to meet with me, and most of those are from the administration -- the task force. but there has not been one congressman or woman or senator or their offices that have said absolutely not, we won't talk to you, you're not welcome here. >> host: tammy darvish is the vice president of daughter cars auto group in the washington, d.c. area, and dale is joining us from st. petersburg, florida. republican line. good morning, dale. >> caller: good morning. i'd just like to agree with tammy on that one as far as people aren't getting loans that can't afford cars. that's not happening. it just seems like i'd like to see american-made cars on the next round have a chance to -- over the imports. i think this should be an

american-based car dealership program instead of including the imports. i think that would go a lot further, and it's also been a wonderful program. thank you. >> host: thank you for the car. >> guest: i would just comment again, how do you define an american car? toyota has ten or 11 manufacturing plants in the united states of america, and over 90 percent of the cars we sell from toyota are produced here in the united states. >> host: the white house yesterday indicating this would be a huge trade agreement, the u.s. cannot provide money for basic programs, for u.s. programs, u.s. companies and not foreign companies. can you explain that? are you familiar with that issue? >> guest: quite frankly, i'm a car salesman. i'm not as familiar with the trade issues, but i think what they could have done was because the government has so much vested in general motors and chrysler, maybe they could have said, listen, if you buy a gm or chrysler product, we'll give you

the $4500, but any other product the incentive is only 2,000 or $2500. >> host: our next call is from amy in florida. good morning. >> caller: three quick things because i've just recently been in the market because my mom's in the market for a car. i've learned quite a few things. first of all, i don't mean to sound like a cynic, but where is the reporting or the accountability for these car dealers to take in these quote, unquote clunkers and actually trash them for parts? >> host: amy, we'll come back with your follow up. go ahead, tammy. >> guest: that's really simple, because the onus was put on the automobile dealer and very simply in layman's terms, no tiki, no laundry. we have to get these cars to a certified salvage auction, and until they provide us with a certificate that these vehicles have been destroyed and that they are in the hands of the salvage yard, we don't even get paid on these vehicles.

>> host: amy, your follow up? >> caller: okay. i think that's great, thank you. the other thing is that where is the incentive for people like my mom who don't have a clunker to turn in but she would like to buy a new car? we spoke with many car dealers. i'm not seeing a whole lot of deals out there for people who don't have a clunker to turn in. and the other thing is that really confuses me is i spoke with many car dealers yesterday, and i thought if i said my mother will pay cash, i thought that they would be very happy. but they said actually it's better to get a loan. and i watch all the hearings during the automobile issues, and what happened to the gmac is going out of business and the car companies are not tied to the loan companies any longer? >> host: appreciate the call. >> guest: well, you know, the car companies are tied to the loan companies because there's only one way a loan company makes money, and that's loaning money, and the only thing they

loan money on is cars. so gmac and chrysler financial, i mean, they need that. now, some of our manufacturers if you take toyota motor sales and toyota financial services, they work very closely together. they're a marketing arm of each other, so they're very closely partnered. you know, when you say you're not seeing a lot of deals, i think a lot of customers think if i don't have a clunker, there's really no deal. unfortunately, a lot of us including ourselves and our manufacturers have targeted most of our advertising towards, hey, we're in the clunker business or the cars program. but there are still great incentives, great rebates from the manufacturers, 0 percent financing, and dealers have all kinds of incentives on -- no dealer does not have an incentive on a vehicle. >> host: so finally, the initial program a billion dollar, it was supposed to go through november 1st, the government going through a billion in just over a week. the senate taking up debate this week for $2 billion. at what point will the program end?

how long would $2 billion last in your mind? >> guest: i mean, if i were a betting man, i would say if the 2 billion passes this week before the third week of august at best. so if somebody really wanted to take advantage of this, i would get involved as quickly as possible because, a, availability's going away, and the money -- when it's gone, it's gone. it's over. it's done. i don't think we'll ever see this again. >> host: tammy darvish, thanks very much for joining us. appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you.

>> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> maybe some government grants? >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products. >> public money, i'm sure. >> my taxes? [laughter] >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> now a discussion on the

sea-based component of the u.s. missile defense system. this event comes a few days after the military reported a successful test of the system. it's designed to destroy short and mid-range missiles in flight and in mid flight. the george marshall institute in washington hosting the event, it's an hour and 15 minutes. >> a nonprofit public policy research institution here in washington, d.c. that explores science and technology issues. and brings together groups like this and hosts forums to talk about issues where science and technology impact major public policy. of which missill defense -- missile defense has been a priority over our 25 years. public opinion polls and surveys of public attitude show over the years a consistent and persistent theme, the public wants and thinks that it has ballistic missile defense. and they want that because they understand, i believe, and are

growing to appreciate that the threats to their security, the direct safety of the american homeland from ballistic missiles is both real and growing in size and sophistication. the aegis ballistic missile defense system is one of our principle responses to that threat, and it's a successful response. in 19 of the past 23 flight intercept tests it's successfully destroyed or met its targets, and those tests are of increasing sophistication and complexity to match the threats that it faces. in addition, it operated successfully in a real world context in early 2008 where it destroyed a dying u.s. intelligence satellite. so the question before us today is where is the aegis program heading? what are the new roles that it may be assigned, what are its new capabilities, what has it accomplished, and where is it going? it's my pleasure to have here today rear admiral alan b.

hicks, the program directer of the aegis ballistic missile system, the sea-based elements of the united states missile ballistic system -- ballistic missile system, and he is the commander of the aegis ballistic missile defense. this will be the third time that admirable hicks has been with the marshall institute in two-year increments we were discussing at the table, in 2005 in the fall he was here, in 2007 in the fall he was here, and now in the summer of 2009. we're very glad that he's able to join us to provide an update on where the program is and where it is going. ..

>> i think it is. it also shows my longevity. my hair has gotten greater, but i did assume the job fairly lacking in air, so there's no change there. but i am greater.

i have adopted to just keep cutting it short and about the high speed, low drag mentality that some do. i did acquire a 10 this summer. i would like to say it was due to comp time but i just returned from hawaii where we're just successfully wrapped up another test campaign. and if you've got to work it's always good to do it in a wide at barking sands and in the sunshine of hawaii. it has been since late november of 2007 i spoke to you last, and also back in the previous december of 2005 when i spoke to you before. at that point, i had just relieved rear admiral page, and that year of 2005 director of aegis ballistic missile system. part of my discussion to do is to capture you where we have been and where we are going, and let you kind of judge for

yourself you think our successes are and where we are heading. as it has been stated we feel we are pretty successful. i will tell you that i am always the toughest critic of my own program. i think that's only by necessity because, frankly, the stakes are very high in this mission. whether i am dealing with my own team in virginia or whether i am dealing with my contractors are what i did with the fleet and the ships, i constantly press the system because i do worry about making sure we deliver what we promised. and that the ships operating under the utmost. and as someone you are aware, this recent april the chief naval operations stood up, a command which is ballistic missile defense as a subset part of the core mission.

and that bridge that interface between acquisition to be whether it's in the navy or the missile defense agency and the war fighter, the fleet, and all that joint interface to make sure the correct equities are sustained, you get the right to get the job done. i will speak you about that today. let's hope i'm not -- a. this light has not changed since i showed it to you in november of 2005. it is very similar. what i will tell you is that back then, this was a stated supposition of what we did. what i can tell you for today, when i talk to you before we had no engagement schedule in 2005 and do what i talk you into thousand seven were down to a handful of engagement and very little inventory. to today we