employ that. >> i will read a quote from an fda inspection report. when we ask to see some in process field product inspection report, weaver told we were not able to view them. that is the fda on the medtronic issue. >> i'm getting two different things, i can't handle this. the company may have said they didn't want to give it to fda -- >> if they want to give any

information why wouldn't the fda demanded? what could they have done? the fda could be amended. if the company refused, the fda could bring a lawsuit. >> a lawsuit. >> yes, they could penalize the company, they could seize the offending illegal product, they could join the company against future violations, they could bring a criminal prosecution -- >> on this case -- it is the fda's fault that they didn't get this? >> yes, that is true. dr. maisel made a point earlier that he and i are in complete agreement, the fda needs adequate appropriations, the statistics, the statistics that he quoted were from a few years ago, of the downturn in fda

inspections and other forms of enforcement action, but in the last two years, fda appropriations have increased by $900 million, from 1.4 to $2.3 million and was precisely because the fda science board report of late 2007 said that the agency was being starved to death. now they have the funds. >> the idea, another had i where in agriculture, they don't have the resources to monitor all the things we ask them to monitor. >> not everything, i agree. >> to my point, if you could not get to the bottom of whether the company gave the information to the fda in the first place, if you don't have a lawsuit, do you

understand my question? >> i am not a lawyer but the fda does not possess the authority to, quote, demand documents other than to ask for them. >> if they don't, mr. hutt says they should sue them. >> that is where we were before the medical device, back in the 1950s and 60s when the fda regulated medical devices to taken to court once at a time. it was very inefficient. >> you are saying it would be next to impossible, since you have 15,000 manufacturers, it would be hard for them, if they demanded the same 50 or 100, would they have the personnel to go on lawsuit, every one of them? >> i think you know the answer to the question. >> i don't know where they get the money to hire these high

paid lawyers. i am just kidding. >> it is a rare event when a company declines to obey the law and provide the documents that fda is entitled to. >> i would agree with that right now, but under riegel, if they can say we will never have to give those documents up, it would be a rare instance for the fda ever to take us to court to sue, and mr. mulvihill can't sue us and his lawyers can't get discovered to get those documents. >> their lawyers are going to tell them of we don't produce these documents, we can go to jail. the ceo can go to jail. that is to the fda brings criminal prosecution against, not some low-level people. there were two supreme court decisions, one in 1944 and one

in 1975, to bring criminal prosecution against the highest corporate officials, because they are ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. >> mr. mcgarity, i want to -- >> a couple points, that might happen but it doesn't. you don't see that many criminal prosecutions hopefully because it doesn't happen that often but the fact of the matter is the underlying fact of the matter is when we get this information about what was going on in the drug company files and device manufacturer files, it is not because fda inspectors got it, it was because the plaintiff sued and we had discovery, we had depositions taken, we had whistle-blowers within the company come forward with that information, but it is not because fda turned it down. >> let me just say this. the fda don't miss much.

the constant complaint is they are overregulatory, if anything. i don't know the instance with -- i heard the same points that you made, dr. it:-- dr. maisel, about medtronics. if they wanted those materials they would have gotten them. i don't know the reason behind it. maybe they did in the end. one concern i and others had deals with the mission of the fda with regard to medical devices. the current regulatory system, the device manufacturers have to go through an extensive review process and analysis from top experts in the fda and elsewhere, they have to strictly adhere to the fda at labeling and marketing requirements, even after the devices on the market, they have to report back to the fda on the implementation and use of the device including any

adverse events. what we are dealing with is a bar that has already been set exceptionally high. this legislation allows panels of randomly selected jurors with no expertise at all in the field, or any aspect of it, to overrule this entire process and won't create new standards of suitability and market readiness for medical devices. does this legislation not suggest -- let me ask you this, mr. hutt, does this suggest a jury of 12 layman is better able to determine the availability of these highly advanced medical devices and a team of highly trained experts who approved these devices? and if so, what could be the justification for that? >> that is precisely my concern. fda is not perfect. but certainly a jury is going to

be less perfect in determinism what is a safe and effective medical device. >> the very best devices we can to help people like mr. mulvihill, like mr. roman, in ways they have got to be helped. we have split the baby here. is that a fair appraisal? >> i agree with you. one of the best parts of the medical device amendment of 1976 was an innovative provision under which advisory committees would be convened for every p.m. a device to make certain outside independent experts agree with the fda that the device was safe and effective, and dr. maisel, who has chaired one of those committees and obviously has spent a lot of personal time for which all of us should thank

him, it is that kind of work that makes the system work. that is the way the fda confirms whether a device is safe and effective and has sufficient data to go on the market. >> mr. mcgarity, part of your testimony, you argue that the common law serves an important terms function, specifically you stated, quote, to the extent the anticipated punitive damage awards imposed by the civil justice system are greater than the cost of avoiding the farm, the irrational company will take action to prevent causing damage in the future. i see some problems with the application of this reasoning to a highly regulated area like medical devices. fda regulations make unilateral changes in labeling, design and manufacturing processes

virtually impossible. it is a convenience to argue that device manufacturers would simply and quickly update their product when they hear about possible risk the current system does not allow for this and for good reason, because the process is so expensive and intrusive that it would stand scrutiny. if bailout for changes to be made so easily, how could a manufacturer ever be confident that will be sufficient to avoid a suit? one thing to learn about the trial board is there's no shortage of legal fees in which to file a lawsuit. is there no benefit to limited

protection for manufacturers -- >> the negligence standard, you have alluded to and several times, fairly uniform across the country. the standard of defective products, there are minor variations but there is standard care -- yes, when manufacturers anticipates that they might be held to violate that standard of care in the future one hopes that that affects their decision particularly wants the device is on the market. . the fact is true that they have to get to the fda for approval to change their device, it is

also the case, a particular condoleezza rice comes to the warning on the device that when you go to the fda and say i discover with this device is not -- that will take too much time or effort, they tend to not get in the way of safety enhancing approvals. you are right, it does take, they have to go to the fda at some point to get that approval, but they are not issuing an injunction saying that you must do things differently.

they are simply holding the defendant liable and the defendant takes that message and does as the defendant kings is appropriate. >> in most instances product-liability lawsuits are resolved in the courts long after the safety issue is over because what happens is through various mechanisms, doctors report problems with medical devices, some doctors are patients reported directly to the company. as soon as those reports come in, any intelligent company starts to say what do we need to do? is this inherent in the product? like mr. roman was talking about, that it is just the way it is.

science and technology can to improve it any better. if there is a way of resolving it, that is done immediately and fda and the industry will cooperate. i agree with tom on that. all that occurs, any product-liability lawsuit arises, the product-liability lawsuit punishes the company, it doesn't increase the safety or effectiveness of a single device. >> there are a lot of small companies that come up with very creative products. what effect would it have on the innovative process? that is what i am concerned about. there are big companies that withstand this stuff. the innovation and entrepreneurial makeup of our country is generally the smaller companies that come up with these devices. i don't want that --

>> i agree. >> it has been a very interesting hearing and want to complement each of you as witnesses, you have contributed a great deal. i wish i had totally definitive answers. and yet still be able to have the devices. common -- you had a miserable life until you got that the vice and got to work. >> i will just say that -- what did i say?

had that figure. i don't think there's stifled at that time. >> from a small companies. >> they made a lot of money. [laughter]. >> thousands and thousands of companies, many are very small, that is where a lot of innovative ideas come from. >> i will say this for the record, i don't care how small they are, i don't care how small they are, they had better meet the most stringent standards of safety and efficacy, i don't care if it is a drug or a device. if they don't adhere to that, if it injures a person, this whole idea of pre-emption, as a lawyer look at this a lot in the past, seems to me a presumption against pre-emption. it is my reading of a little bit

of the history of this, the fda's position in early 2000s was a presumption against pre-emption. but that all change. it is up to us as a legislative body to decide. >> if they don't adhere to that, they may have some liability under current law. >> under criminal law. >> if it is pre-empted how will you get into court? >> if the fda sets up rules they may have difficulties. >> you are right. >> i know i am right. [laughter] >> the problem is, you won't be able to get that information -- that is the conundrum we have with this issue. use a the fda can go after them criminally, you just can't do

that on every one. the risks, companies take risks, you say the odds are 10,000-one that you will never have to do this, those are pretty good odds, i will take those odds and make a lot of money off of that device. i haven't adjourned this hearing. and i do have the gavel. >> i was trying to do that in a gracious way. >> i have two things to put into the record. an editorial from the new england journal of medicine. the new england journal of medicine. when did this article appeared? march 2009, new england journal of medicine, in which they said -- i won't?

march 2009, new england journal of medicine, in which they said -- i won't read the whole film. is perplexing state of affairs defies all logic. to address the inconsistency and come through the safety of medical process, they talk about the bill. they said, patients and physicians desert be fully informed of what the benefits and risks, the companies making the devices should be held accountable, we urge congress to swiftly pass this legislation. the new england journal of medicine. i have another article by margaret jane porter, chief counsel -- she was chief counsel, former chief counsel of the food and drug administration and i just have one quote from that, quote, although the agency, meaning the fda, had not expressed its position on the

precise issue of pre-emption, it is clear from the views expressed in other contexts that it did not believe state court claims were pre-empted under the medical devices act. this was the prevailing view in that medical community until the 1990s. no arguments for put forward for pre-emption of these claims. so i just ask the consent of those two articles to appear in the record. i am sorry. at like to also submit eight letters from victims of faulty medical devices also encouraging us to pass the medical device safety act. if i thought -- i think these

are good things. i also believe in holding people accountable to the strictest standards of safety and manufacture. i am concerned. i am just concerned about the fda, i have been concerned about the fda for longtime. i have a love/hate relationship with the fda. they do good things and sometimes they don't do what they should be doing and more often than not it is because we have not given them the resources with which to do it. i interjected that we are not going to do that, i don't mean we don't want to give them, we should give them the resources, we have asked them to do a myriad of things and get we don't give them the resources to carry out. count me as one that also believes we ought to do more in terms of giving them those

resources but under the present, it is not going to happen. we are starting to vote and i have to vote. anyone have any closing comments? you are going to set a new land speed record. >> sap friday and saturday. >> you're going to break the sound barrier. >> 17 miles an hour. >> i don't know what class this is. >> different cars run a different records. ours is at 170. >> somebody broke the sound barrier -- >> someone broke the sound barrier, the new record is 746 miles an hour. everyone has got to have goals. you start as a councilman, you move up. >> good luck to you. >> thank you very much. the record will be kept open for ten days for summation of other documents. thank you very much.

>> a couple of live events to tell you about. the senate banking committee holds a hearing on credit rating agencies. witnesses include the heads of several of those agencies and the assistant treasury secretary

for financial institutions. live on c-span3 at 8:30 eastern. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the young america foundation conservative student conference years from tony perkins of the family research council and radio talk-show host herman cain. that will be live on c-span right after washington journal. >> this week the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor as supreme court justice, live on c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. this fall, tour the home to america's highest court, the supreme court. >> members of the president's cabinet met with community activists yesterday to discuss job creation through energy efficiency and technology. we spoke with reporters at the white house for 20 minutes. >> thank you all for joining us

today. we just came out of a remarkable conversation. i want to give you a couple minutes overall about what we talked about and then i will ask each of my colleagues here to say a few words about what their agencies or organizations are working on. the president has made it very clear that the future of our economy is dependent on us being an international leader in a new, green economy and part of that is ensuring that we develop the skills and the jobs that will be necessary for us to compete around the world in the emerging new economy. what we talked about today is, how do we get quite literally all hands on deck? what i mean by that is, we understand in the administration that we cannot be successful in

creating this new green economy if we don't have every part of our society, every community, and every block participating around this nation. in particular, when you think about what has happened in this economy, the fact that many minority and low-income communities have been hardest hit by the economic downturn, we must begin with building the connections and the bridges from this administration to the communities, the organizations, that can make sure grass roots change happens on the ground. the president said over and over again that real change doesn't come from the top, it comes from the grass roots, we have to make sure the bottom up change meets the top down change that is happening here in washington. we have made an enormously strong start on that with the

recovery act. i want to talk about the work we have been doing at hud in the recovery act, $14 billion that we are dedicating to housing through the recovery act, we had an enormous opportunity to use that as a jump-start on greening our housing stock. 20% of the carbon emissions in this country come from our homes so greening our economy and building a new green economy starts at home quite literally. hud touches 10% of all the housing in this country, we spent $5 billion a year on utility payments, just for our public and assisted housing programs alone, and we are spending through the recovery act, almost 1/3 of our funding, close to $5 billion to green our public and assisted housing. because of the amount of money, the $5 billion a year be spent on utilities, that is estimated

a smart investment because it will overtime lower what we spend as a nation on utilities in public. it is a smart investment but also an opportunity to start building the kind of jobs that i talked about. and we have begun over that funding to build bridges. i worked with the secretary of the department of labour to create bridges between our housing authorities and workforce investment force to make sure that the jobs that are created by the greening of public and assisted housing are available to residents of public housing and the surrounding low income communities. we have all of been partnering with the department of energy and other partners in government to makes sure all of the dollars that are available are targeted to making sure public and assisted housing become leading agents for changing the way that we retrofit housing in this

country so we can demonstrate new techniques, new models, to work closely to create the jobs and ensure that they go to the residents of public and assisted housing and the surrounding low-income communities. that is the work we have begun at hud. i want to welcome my colleague in the cabinet, administrator jackson. ..

>> and from green for all about their plans to involve communities in that transformation. they know better than anyone about the jobs it can bring, they know firsthand about the ravages of pollution and the health impacts that can come from pollution. just today eps will be announcing $61 million of recovery act money to go to brownfield's job training programs across the country and to cleanup. brownfield's training grant program is putting community workers, community members to work not beautifying, but cleaning up their community. those are high-paying jobs, they pay on average 13, 14 clash 15 an hour, and we have a very high placement rate for those jobs. that's an example of a company's and the president's belief of a pursuit of an idea you don't

have to choose between economic recovery and environmental recovery. thanks very much. and now undersecretary christina johnson from department of energy. >> thank you, administrator jackson. our secretary chu calls the green economy the industrial revolution of our time, and the department of energy invests about $9 billion in the energy technologies that are critical for us to participate in this new industrial revolution. we spend additionally about $8 billion in weatherization in state energy partnership funds, and this includes not only getting at the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency and conservation, but it's also about training. now, what else is at stake? there was an op-ed piece in "the washington post" this morning which talked about there's trillions and trillions of dollars in the way we make and use energy, and that's what's at stake. how do we succeed in making sure we participate in this

marketplace? we need a talented and educated work force. the center for energy work force deployment says within five years 60 percent of our work force may retire, so president obama announced a new program by which we plan to invest tens of thousands of dollars, actually tense of millions of dollars and attract tense of thousands -- tens and thousands of our best and brightest into this field. the department of energy will announce a new $38 million small business program where we will be looking to invest in new jobs, processes and companies in the green tech company. next week we'll hold a business conference so we can help interface the small businesses into this exciting new area, so thank you very much, and it's my pleasure now to introduce the president and ceo of the hip-hop caucus. reverend yearwood. >> it's wonderful to be here on this day, august 4, 2009.

birthday of president barack obama. thank you, secretary donovan, administrator jackson, and undersecretary johnson for joining us. the hip-hop caucus, green for all, and all of us are here today to announce a new and very critical campaign be -- green the block. the essence of green the block is about creating new jobs and opportunity to do the work of making our planet healthier and to decrease the pollution that causes global warming. we are coming together to mobilize communities of color and low-income communities to have a voice and partake in the opportunity of our nation's transition to a clean energy economy. this will create more job opportunities than our current spending on fossil fuels. the building of a clean energy

economy. and the united states can serve to create new pathways out of poverty for the 78 million people in this country who are presently poor or near poor. the first milestone of the green the block will be our national day of service. on september 11, 2009, we will organize green the block service events around the country in coordination with the president's initiative united we serve. anyone can sign up for this at www.green the block.net. after september 11th we will be building out a highly visible grassroots effort to impact culture, to make the change within our communities and to impact how policy is made and how funds are spent when it comes to creating a sustainable green economy across america.

let me be clear, this is not a green jobs moment. this is a clean energy be movement. this is not a green jobs moment, this is a clean energy movement. the 20th century was defined by the civil rights, and the 21st century will be defined by clean energy. future generations will measure us by our success in transitioning from fossil fuel economy to a clean energy economy, and in the process building opportunity and prosperity for our most economically disenfranchised communities. for the green the block campaign we're organizing from the streets to the suites, from the hood to the hill. the clean energy movement is for all of god's children because we are all on this planet together. the green the block campaign is our president, is our gift to you, mr. president, because before be change happens we have to transition, and the transition to a clean energy

economy will make this country the change that we want to see in the world. again, this is not a green jobs moment, this is a clean energy movement. [applause] >> hello -- >> no, no, please. no, no, please. [laughter] next up will be faye da from green for all, the ceo of green for all. >> i'm here on behalf of green for all, an organization where the economy and the environment meet, and i am pleased to be here today because today we sat with dr. dorothy height who was on the height with dr. martin luther king at the civil rights march, and what today is about is about the administration and communities of color coming to be able to answer the question where are resources that make our communities stronger and better? african-americans and latinos are five to six times more

likely to be unemployed in this moment. african-american children and children of color are much more likely to suffer from asthma, live near pollution and also suffer most significantly the consequences of a pollution-based economy. what today is about is a commitment and a transformation, a recognition by the administration, and through the leadership of not just our president, but of administrator jackson, secretary donovan and undertech tear johnson. when people ask the question, how does my community get better? what we're here to say is it gets better beginning with you. september 11th is about bringing folks together to recognize that change happens in the streets of detroit, in cleveland, in san francisco, in oakland, in richmond and cities across the country. and what we are most trillioned to do -- thrilled to do is to start here but know that we began in our grandmother's kitchens in our communities, and this is about bringing resources to the communities that need it

the most. people ask us what happened to the recovery? we say, well, the money hasn't gone out yet, but there's incredible work to make sure that it does. i just want to say that today is incredible for the administration because i think there is no greater gift for a president and for a country than to say this economy will be an economy that competes with china and india, that we'll be able to understand that american workers deserve better, and that this is about the beginning of the inclusion of all workers into that economy and all people and communities that deserve to be uplifted, that this will not be an uplifting of yachts, but an uplifting of boats. today is the sound and smell of sweet jus cities. finish pleasure -- justice. >> [inaudible] >> we're doing this together. let me first say that the green the block campaign is not just a

campaign, it's a coalition. and so there are already a number of organizations that have signed on to it, so it's not just the hip-hop caucus or green for all doing this alone. how we're going to do this, as i said before, this is not a green jobs moment, it's a clean energy movement, and for us we have to convince our generation that this truly is our lunch counter moment for the 21st century. and we have to go out there and convince them that if we don't make a change now, nine years into the 21st century, there will not be a 22nd century. the time is now. and so with a sense of urgency we've come together, we've joined together with the help of the administration, obviously, we know together we can do that and change happens now. >> a couple questions to build on what kevin just asked. we understand that greening is

very expensive. there's a lot of supply but low demand because, for instance, solar panels. you won't see the economic benefit for decades, at least two decades to come. how can a community, african-american community, minority communities who are hit with possibly 20 percent unemployment rate this year who many have said have already suffered recession before the nation saw recession, how can communities that are hardest hit by the economy afford to go green? i mean, it's a wonderful thing to feel good, i'm doing something for the environment, but when my pocketbook can't afford it and i'm not going to see the benefits for 20 years down the road, i mean, what's the rationale there? >> you know, i think this is probably the most important question, and i appreciate you asking it. and i appreciate it because i grew up in a neighborhood that was between a shell refinery, c

and h, and the only jobs that people of color had were factory jobs that were in a pollution-based economy. and so the real question is how can we afford to not participate because those jobs are disappearing whether we like it or not. the reason we're suffering the most is because our communities were most dependent on jobs that polluted, and what this moment is about is saying we can't afford to be stuck to dying industries, that there's a whole new moment of creation, that the reason china is spending $12 million an hour isn't because they just thought it's the right thing to do, it's because they recognize the economy is growing. and what our communities deserve is not to be at the back end, not to be the people who work in factories that pollute, but what we deserve is to be at the forefront because a green economy is happening, the question is do we get to participate? and i think what we have an obligation to figure out is people think it costs more to be an environmentalist, it costs more to drive a hybrid, and what

we have to figure out is how to take advantage of this moment and through, i think, some of the programs you'll hear about through the administration and administrator jackson, you'll hear about some of the things that we want people to know about. >> let me take one quick crack, because i think we're moving into policy, and that's an answer that's going to have to be given. i'm so sorry. you know, the clean energy bill that passed the house of representatives, actually the modeling shows that low-income families make money from the energy bill. how do they make money? their bills actually go down. there's a net increase of benefits to families from an energy perspective because of the market-based energy bill -- [laughter] the market-based components of the bill. so i think it's really important for us to get the message out that this is not asking folks to make further sacrifice at a time when you're already feeling the pain. this is about a transition that takes that into account. one of the things the president

said originally was that he was for a clean energy transition as long as it didn't inflict further pain on those least able to pay it, so the public subsidies and then the move to a market-based, incentive-based program that incentivizes our markets to create jobs actually means all the economic modeling shows it doesn't cost more, there'll actually be rebateses to consumers. >> is the administration considering a way of showing an example by forcing agencies to cut their own greenhouse gases? >> yes, i'll let doe answer because i know they're spear heading. >> make a couple quick comments to these two excellent questions. if you look at the technologies that can save energy for families, it's energy efficiency and weatherization, so it's heating and electricity. so we've spent $8 billion along with our colleagues in hud to get at that. so the first thing is that it will save money, and we know

that wealth -- health follows wealth. the second thing is we have a very active program with the federal energy management program that is being spearheaded in part by department of energy where we do have goals to reduce, so we exactly feel that leadership starts at home. >> will there be an executive order mandating -- >> that's not for me to comment on right now, thanks. >>reporter: administrator jackson, can you comment on that? >> i can't answer, i can't comment on that. >> [inaudible] >> not in this meeting. this meeting was about community empowerment and how these two groups are stepping forward not to talk about what the administration should do, but what communities can and must do if we're really going to transform. >> how involved have you and other cabinet members been in developing the senate clean energy and climate change bill, and are you already reaching out to moderate democratic senators to try and get their votes? >> well, certainly the energy bill and the climate components

are very important to eps as well as a number of agencies across the administration and to offices in the white house. i have already testified before senate environment and public works, and then i joined secretary vilsack and secretary la hood and testified before senate agriculture. epa has a range and a wealth of technical expertise. we run the only program right now that has a market-based incentive, that one for cutting so2 pollution, so we've made it clear to everyone that eps is a -- eps is here as a resource as they consider ways to move the bill through the senate. >> [inaudible] >> i talk to senators all the time, and certainly one of the things we talk about is clean energy and the importance of addressing climate. >> last question. >> on the grassroots side, are you organizing folks to support a climate energy bill? is that part of this campaign as well?

>> we both can take a crack. >> want me to start? >> no, go ahead. >> i think it's important that we've been partnering to get people involved in the debate. you know, we think that what passed in the house had strong provisions for communities of color. the first a piece that would allow people to actually work in their own communities, a local hiring component. the second is almost a billion dollars in training money. so i think part of what we realized is that this debate is so critical because if communities of color aren't engaged, you won't see provisions like that. so we obviously are preparing for the senate side of this, hope to see the environmental protection strengthened, but think this is really the down payment on a clean energy economy and think that change will really begin to happen with this. >> is there a concern about cell phone towers in your communities, in urban communities on top of churches and in schoolyards? they're talking about making your communities better. they're not economically becoming environmentally sound,

can i just get that one answered from you, please? because a lot of communities are talking about. these cell phone towers. are you guys working on that? >> we'll talk to you right now. i'll check with you right now. >> you need to put it on tape. >> okay. >> right there at the microphone real quick? [inaudible conversations] >> vice president bide been said yesterday that the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package is working. after a meeting with economic

advisers. this is about 5 minutes. >> we just finished a briefing with the economic team about the impact and role of the recovery act in, in the more optimistic projections that we're seeing. six months ago we gathered here in the white house worrying about the u.s. economy and whether or not it was falling off a cliff, and today analysts are trying to determine, if, if an official recovery is already underway or to quote my good friend, larry summers, he said six months ago we were talking about whether or not this recession was going to turn into a depression, and now today we're sitting here today talking about whether or not not when, not if, but when the recession will turn into recovery. so it's a significant change in the last six months, and that's because we are, we're starting to see some signs of stabilization in key parts of

the economy. in the final quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, the loss rate of gdp was around 6 percent, and in the most recent quarter, gdp fell at a much lower rate at 1 percent. and many economists, many economists left, right, and center have attributed this in large part to the recovery act. one piece of the three-pronged approach that the administration has put together to get this economy moving again. recovery act was designed to do three things. it's been mischaracterized intentionally and unintentionally by a lot of people. it really has three pieces to it. first is rescue, the second is recovery, and the third is reinvestment. now, you know, there's now evidence that it's accomplished the goals it set out to do or on the way of accomplishing those goals. after falling the prior six months, state and local spending has increased 2.4 percent be last quarter, and a very

unexpected reversal that links directly to the fiscal relief we have provide today the states. household income has gotten a much-needed boost in the last quarter growing at a yearly rate of almost 5 percent following declines in the previous nine months. and business investment contracted less than expected as confidence is slowly, slowly returning to the economy. americans are now confident enough that with certain incentive ps they're starting -- willing to go out and spend again. for example, the tax credit for new home buyers has helped stabilize sales and prices of new and existing homes giving a boost and incentive to over 250,000 families who have gone out there and purchased a new home without reliance on unsound credit practices in the past. and the cash for clunkers program has been an unqualified success. it has boosted demand for cars and spur bed consumer spending.

spurred consumer spending. and our critics say they don't think this program is helping. well, all the economic data point to the opposite direction, it is helping. i think it'd be hard to tell a young family who just bought their first home because of a tax credit or the thousands of people who have just traded in gas guzzlers for more efficient cars that this is having no impact. don't get me wrong, we still have a long way to go. less bad is not the same as good. we know that growth in gdp is necessary but not sufficient. it's not a sufficient marker of recovery. for one thing, it's not going to occur until there are jobs. my grand pop used to have the expression, when the guy up the line is out of work, it's an economic slowdown. when your probably's out of work, it's a recession, when you're out of work, it's a depression. well, it's still a serious problem for millions of unemployed americans. too many people are out of work,

tomb families are in pain, and when that's no longer the case, that's when we will have recovery. but i can tell you today without reservation, the recovery act is working. and when we do recover, when we finish rebuilding, when we finish rest ciewging the tens of thousands of people who are going to fall into a black hole without our help of unemployment insurance and coa pa and fmap and the like, when we finish this process, we also will be through the process of beginning to lay the platform for a much stronger, more stable economy in the investments that we're making through this recovery act. so let me conclude by saying that i think, and it's a fairly wide spread and widely held view, that the recovery act is working, it was necessary, it continues to be necessary, and we're going to see to it we excoot the remaining portion --

execute the remaining portion of the act we have. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> sorry, no questions. >> you can follow the latest developments on the stimulus package online by going to c-span.org.

>> this week the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor as supreme court justice live on c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. and coming this fall tour the home to america's highest court, the supreme court. >> the phenomenon of facebook. best selling author ben mezrich on the success of this social networking site and how it tore two best friends apart be. after words, part of c-span2's booktv weekend. >> over the next hour, some of yesterday's opening floor debate

on the supreme court nomination of judge sonia sotomayor. later, you'll hear from republican senator orrin hatch. this portion begins with democratic senators sheldon white house and robert menendez. >> i rise in proud support of the con fir mission of judge sonia sotomayor. we are not only about to cast a vote this week that will make history, but we are about to stand witness in some small way to the coming age of america. the great founders of this democracy built a nation on an idea and an ideal. they devised the unique experiment and a new form of government built on toll ran, equal rights, and a constitution that protected us from the mighty sword of tyranny. they forged a community from shared values, common principles, yet preserved the freedom of every citizen to pursue happiness and reach for

the stars no matter their position, no matter their circumstance at birth. it was a revolutionary notion that in america one is bound by his or her economic or social status, one is not bound by his or her economic or social status, that if we work hard, reach further, aim harder, everything, anything is possible. unlike other nations united by common history, common language and common culture, america prides itself on its motto, e pluribus unum, out of in one. many one. we too often forget those words. we too often forget that we are united in our differences in a vast melting pot forged from common values and an ideal of freedom that is the envy of the world. today as we prepare to confirm

judge sotomayor the full realization of that ideal is closer than it has ever been. i know it. i feel it. for i have lived it. i stand here someone who myself came from humble beginnings raised in a tenement building in a neighborhood in union city, new jersey. the son of immigrants, first in my family to go to college and now in a nation of 300 million people, one of 100 members of the united states senate. i never domed growing up that one day i would have the distinct honor to come to the floor of the senate to rise in favor of the confirmation of an eminently qualified hispanic woman who grew up in the bronx across the river from the old tenement i lived at in union city. i never dreamed that as a united states senator of hispanic heritage i would have the privilege of standing in the well of this chamber to cast a

historic vote for the first hispanic woman on the highest court in the land. so for me personally my vote for judge sonia sotomayor will be a proud moment, one i will always remember as a highlight of my time here in the senate. when judge sotomayor takes her seat on the united states supreme court, america will have come of age. we will need only to look at the portrait of the justices of the new supreme court to see how far we have come as a nation. who we really are as a people, what we stand for and what our founders intended us to be. it will be a striking portrait, one of strength, diversity, spirit, and wisdom, a portrait of a nation united by common concerns yet still too often divided by deeply held individual beliefs. there are those in this chamber who because of those deeply held

beliefs will vote for judge sotomayor and those who will not, each for their own reasons, each in part because of who they are, where they grew up, how their perspective has been uniquely shaped by their individual circumstances and experiences. their vote will be based on their own logic, their own reasoning, how they interpret the facts in the testimony before them. each of us will analyze and debate those facts from our own perspective. we will hold to our own intellectual positions, we will disagree. some will find fault with judge sotomayor's choice of words, some will interpret her statements and rulings differently than she may have clearly intended. some will question her temperment, her judgment, the details of her decisions. but in this debate and ultimately in the final analysis none of us can deny the role our experience will play in our decision. none of us can deny our

backgrounds, our upbringing, the seminal events that shaped our life. we cannot deny who we are. thereall we can ask of ourselvef any of us, is that wisdom, intelligence, reason and logic will always prevail in the decisions we make. those who would say a united states senator or a justice of the united states supreme court does not carry something with them from their experience are simply out of touch with reality. but let us remember that who we are is not a measure of how we judge. it is merely the prism through which we analyze the facts. the real test is how we think and what we do. and let's be clear, given the facts, given the evidence before us sonia sotomayor is one of the

most qualified and exceptionally experienced nominees to come before the senate. of where she came from, not because we share a proud ethnicity, but because of judge sotomayor's experience and vast knowledge of the law. i am proud to stand in favor of her nomination, not because she is an hispanic woman but because of her commitment to the rule of law and her respect for the constitution; not because of the depth of her theoretical knowledge and respect for precedent but also because of theoretical knowledge and of respect for precedent but because of her practical experience fighting crime. not because of one statement she may have made years ago, outside of the court room, but because of a career long proven record

of dedication to equal justice under law. nothing, i repeat nothing, should be more important to any nominees and a dedication to those simple words chiseled above the entrance to the supreme court, equal justice under law. these are the reasons that i am proud to stand in support of her confirmation. and these are the reasons i believe judge sonia sotomayor should be, in my view, be unanimously confirmed by the senate. but i know that that will not be the case. i know there will be few on the other side of the aisle who will cast their vote in support of her. i know some of my colleagues have suggested judge sonia sotomayor may not have the judicial temperament necessary to serve on the supreme court. and to those senators who get up and say, i say watch the

hearings again, watch them closely. listen to what was asked, watch her responses, take note of the deck, the dignity and clarity of her answers, be aware of the difference she showed every senator on the committee, her tone, the tenor of her responses, redoubles, and tell me she does not have the proper judicial temperament. i think most americans who watched her, who listened to her, would respectfully disagree. most americans do not care about one specific statement out of hundreds of statements. they care about the person. they care about who she is and what she has accomplished in her long judicial career.

simply, they care about the record. and the record is clear. it shows that she has a deep and abiding respect for the constitution. it shows that the leaders of prominent legal and law-enforcement organizations who know her best, those who have actually seen her work, say she is an exemplary, fair, and highly qualified judge. it shows a crime fighter who as a prosecutor put the tar than murder behind bars, a judge who has upheld the conviction of drug dealers, sexual predators and other violent criminals. she respects the first amendment rights of those with whom she strongly disagrees. judge sonia sotomayor's credentials are impeccable.

set aside for a moment the fact that she graduated at the top of her class in princeton, set aside her tenure as editor of the yale hall review, her work at the manhattan district attorney's office, her successful prosecution of child abusers, murderers and white-collar criminals. set aside her courtroom experience and practical hands-on knowledge of all sides of the legal system. even set aside her appointment by george h. w. bush to the u.s. district court in new york and her appointment by bill clinton to the u.s. court of appeals, and the fact that she was confirmed by both a democratic majority senate and a republican majority senate which alone tells this senate if she was qualified than, she must be qualified now. set all of that aside, and you are still left with someone who would bring more judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in the last 70

years, more federal judicial experience than anyone nominated to the court in the last century. mr. president, the record clearly shows that someone so experienced, so skilled, so committed, so focused on the details of the law, can be an impartial arbiter who follows the law. and still have a deep and profound understanding of the effect her decisions will have on the day-to-day lives of everyday people. with all due respect to my colleagues who plan to vote against this nominee, what speaks volumes about judge sonia sotomayor's temperament, what speaks volumes about her experience, what speaks volumes about her record, the very worst her opponents can accuse her of is an accident of geography that

gave her the unique ability to see the world from the street you. i know that you very well. i grew up in it. i can tell you certainly, it gives you a unique perspective on life. it engenders compassion, it engenders pathos, it focuses the clear lines of the lives of struggles that are more profound than ours and his problems run far deeper. yes, mr. president, i know that few well, and it remains with me today and it will remain with me all of my life. i dare say there may be no greater vantage point from which to view the world, to see the whole picture that housing project in the bronx. thomas jefferson, in his first inaugural address, said, quote, i shall often go wrong through

the affect of judging. when right, i shall often be fought wrong by those whose positions will not command a viewthought wrong by those whos positions will not command a view of the whole ground. judge sonia sotomayor command a view of the whole ground. it is a strength, not a weakness. it is he she is, not how she would judge, it is the long view. it gives her an edge. she may see what others cannot. that is a gift that will benefit this nation as a whole. i asked my colleagues to take the long view, and see what this nomination means in the course of this nation's glorious district. for me, the ideal, the idea of america, the deep and abiding wisdom of this, will have come of age when judge sonia

sotomayor raises her right hand, places her hand on the bible and takes the solemn oath of office. with it, the portrait of the justices of the united states supreme court will more clearly reflect who we are as a nation, what we have become, and where we stand for as a fair, just, and hopeful people. let that be our charge. let that be our legacy. let someone who is committed to the constitution, to the rule of law, to precedent, who has exhibited a over a lifetime of work, be our next supreme court justice. i am proud and honored to support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor as the next justice of the united states supreme court. finally, mr. president, numerous civil rights, latino and law

enforcement organizations join me in supporting judge sonia sotomayor's nomination. i ask unanimous consent of letters of support from the following organizations be entered into the record. mexican-american legal defense, education fund, the national hispanic leadership agenda, the national puerto ricans correlation, the national fraternal order of police, the national organization of black law enforcement executives, federal hispanic law enforcement offices association, the united states hispanic chamber of commerce, the arizona hispanic chamber of commerce, the fort worth hispanic chamber of commerce, to name a few. with that, i yield. >> mr. president, the senator from oregon. >> i am honored to joined my distinguished colleague from new jersey today on the senate floor to speak in support of the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor as the next associate justice of the united states

supreme court. i had the privilege to sit on the judiciary committee for confirmation hearing and i join all of my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have complemented chairman leahy for a very well-run hearing. i was proud to vote for judge sonia sotomayor in the judiciary hearing and i am proud to vote for her confirmation here on the senate floor. judge sonia sotomayor as remarkable vegetation and professional qualifications, her commitment to public service, uncontroversial, 17 year record on the federal bench, longer than any nominee in 100 years, responsiveness and patient judicial temperament at the hearing, all confirm to me her pledge 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 before her, that she will not prejudge any case but listen to every part that comes before

her and 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 the supreme court justice wisely. i applaud those of my colleagues who have acknowledged that judge sonia sotomayor falls well within the mainstream of the american legal profession. at the same time, it is disappointing that so few republican colleagues have been willing to recognize her clear qualifications for our highest court. the nearly unanimous party-line opposition offered by republicans in committee on the floor raises serious concerns whether some of my colleagues would ever be willing to vote for anyone outside of the federalist society. to my republican colleagues and opposition i would ask, what democratic nominee would you vote for, if not judge sonia

sotomayor? with her vast experience, her commitment to the rule of law, approved an indisputably over 17 years, her remarkable credentials, and her extraordinary, moving, american life story. unfortunately, judge sonia sotomayor seems to be walking proof that conservative political orthodoxy is now their confirmation test. not concerns about judicial activism. many of my republican colleagues unfairly ignore her long record. to base criticisms on strained interpretations of a few routine and appropriate circuit court opinions and a few remarks taken out of context. those criticisms feel quite frankly like the criticisms of someone who is determined to find fault with a nominee. take for example the new firefighters case, the procure

e.m. -- the per curiam opinion in ricci v. destefano was based on circuit court, the sixth circuit took the same approach in a similar case are rising in memphis. the role of a circuit court is to follow existing precedents of the supreme court and the circuit court. that is what the ricci v. destefano per curiam did. the supreme court may have reason burst -- reversed but it did so 5-4 on the basis of an entirely new test that created it. it is reserved to call sonia sotomayor and activist for falling existing precedent. if you want a judicially conservative opinion, the ricci v. destefano per curiam is just that. the decision in maloney was also properly conservative in a judicial sense. it approaches with caution a newly minted and narrowly enacted constitutional right. with a extension to the states,

would upset generations of practice and experience by sovereign states regulating guns within their borders. a seventh circuit panel with two very prominent conservative judges on it, correctly did exactly the same thing. a ninth circuit panel reached a different conclusion and that decision was vacated by the circuit to reconsider that case. rather than beijing in the serious assessment of her fitness for the supreme court many of my republican colleagues have made this into a referendum on whether or not the newly minted individual right to bear arms should be incorporated against the state for the first time in our nation's history. this is doubly unfair. first, judge sonia sotomayor could not answer questions at her hearing that would suggest how she would rule in later case and. that is inappropriate. it is inappropriate to try to

force on a judge a particular political view as the price of admission to her judicial office. criticisms of a few stray lines in judge sonia sotomayor's various >> are equally perplexing. along and noncontroversial 17 year judicial record should allay any concerns about those remarks. social the context of those speeches themselves. the wise latina, and we have heard so much about came in a speech that argued how important it is for judges to guard against bias and to be aware of their own prejudices. is it not better and truer to admit that we all have prejudices we must manage? and than to pretend that white males form some sort of ideal cultural base line that has no biass? senator specter said it well.

there is nothing wrong with a little ethnic pride and the desire to encourage the student audience. maybe we should put ourselves in their shoes, perhaps with a little empathy ourselves, it might be easier to understand how a profession in the judiciary dominated by white males might look to those young law students. and how important a little encouragement to them might be that their experiences might give them something valuable to contribute, that they are not the exception, that they are welcome and fully a part of their society and they bring something valuable not only to the profession but one day, perhaps, to the judiciary. my republican colleagues's criticisms of judge sonia sotomayor are grounded in conservative political ideology rather than legitimate concern that judge sonia sotomayor is not fit to serve on the supreme court. grounded in a desire for more of

a right wing justices who in recent years have filled out a conservative wing on the supreme court. that wayne has march accord deliberately to the right in the last few years completely discrediting the republican claim that judges arm year umpires. jeffrey toobin, royal respected legal commentator focusing on the supreme court, recently reported a, quote, in every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth chief justice, roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff, in every major case. some umpire! is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue the quote, has served the interests and reflected the values of the

contemporary republican party. some coincidence. the phrase liberal judicial activism is now conservative speak for any outcome of far right dislikes. they did not use it when the conservative bloc at the court announced by the barista 5-4 martians an individual right to bear arms that had gone unnoticed by the supreme court for the first two hundred twenty years of its history. if that is not an activist decision the term has no meeting. it is activism that conforms with a deliberate republican strategy of many years' duration to pack onto america's courts proven conservative judges to deliver the political good they seek. we should never overlook

historic role judges play in protecting the less powerful among us and we should always appreciate how a real world understanding of the real-life impact of judicial decisions is a proper and necessary part of process of judging. judge sonia sotomayor's wide experience, i hope, will bring her a sense of the difficult circumstances faced by the less powerful among us. the woman on the phone shunted around the bait for a voice-mail to voicemail for hours as she tries to find someone to help her avoid foreclosure for her home. the family, struggling to get by in a neighborhood where the police only come with ray jackets on, the couple up late at night at the kitchen table after the kids are in bed, sweating out how to make ends meet that month. or the man who believes a little differently or looks a little different or thinks things should be different.

if justice sonia sotomayor's wide experience gives her empathy for those people so that she gives them a full and fair hearing and seeks to understand the real world impact of her decisions on them, she will be doing nothing wrong. nothing wrong by the measure of history, nothing wrong by the measure of justice. experience, judgment, wise use of discretion and a willingness to stand up against oppression, have always been the historic hallmarks of a great judge. experience, justice oliver wendell holmes famously explained, it has not been logic, it has been experience. the necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political furies, intuitions of public policy, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, and have had a good

deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. justice holmes continued this embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. experience. judgment. justice john paul stevens has observed the work of federal judges from the days of john marshall to the present, like the work of the english common law judges, sometimes require the exercise of judgment, faculty that inevitably calls into play notions of justice, fairness and concern about the future impact of the decision. wise use of discretion. justice benjamin cardozo wrote that the judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free, he is not innovate at pleasure,

he is not running at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or goodness, he is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. he is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment too vague and unregulated benevolence, he is to exercise discretion in formed by tradition, miss the guys by analogy, disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life. quite enough, in all conscience, the field of discretion that remains. as alexander hamilton explained in federalist papers, courts were designed to be our guardians against what he called those ill humors which the arts of divining men were the influence of particular conjuncture, sometimes disseminate among the people and which have a tendency to occasion serious oppression of

the minor party in the community. nowadays those oppressions tend to fall on the poor and the voiceless but as hamilton noted, consider it men of every description not to prius whatever will tend to be get or fortified that temper in the courts, no man can be sure he may not be tomorrow, the victim of a spirit of injustice by which he may be a gainer today. we should not discard the wisdom of centuries, experience, judgment, wise use of discretion and protection from oppression. the standard for judges, justice holmes, justice cardozo, history stands with them, and thoughtful people will note that empathy, empathy is a common thread through each of those characteristics. why might empathy matter? why might it make a difference?

let's go back in history and take, for example, the history of the cold facts massacre. go back to sunday, april 13th, 1873, when a gang of white men murdered more than 60 black free men in louisiana. some were burned patent in a court house where they had taken refuge. others were shot when they fled the burning court house. others were taken prisoner, and later that day executed. units sites -- united states attorney james back with deterrent to prosecute white citizens involved in the colfax massacre. it was tried by william b. wood to determine that rule of law should prevail in his district.

predictably, polite white society was outraged and it took notable human empathy in that place and time to see the massacre of the black free men as a crime. and to contemplate trying white men for the murder of black men, the case was brought as one of the first applications of the federal enforcement act, implementing the constitution's brand new, fourteenth amendment. there was wide room for a judicial discretion in an uncharted area of law. no-strike, no phony umpires here. district judge wood's assured a fair trial, but he was also prepared to honor congress's desire that outrage among the black community should be punished as crime. he had sufficient of the the with the widows of the slain free men to take seriously their need for vindication. and he had sufficient courage to

face the scorn and anger of the white community. joseph bradley by a procedure or rules of the time, wrote the second of lee ann and could sit in on trials and sit in he did. he had no sympathy for the former slaves and little regard for congress's intend to punish the abuse of 3 men. disagreeing from the trial court bench, justice bradley found repeated technical faults with the indictments, took a restrictive view of the authorities of the fourteenth amendment, dismissed the charges and released the defendants to flee, the enforcement act was gutted for generation and a wave of maria and violence by

klansman and white league members, emboldened by defective immunity from prosecution, swept the south. reconstruction was initiated in those weeks. justice for the murder of a black man by white, departed the south for nearly a century. history and the law ultimately proved district court judge woods correct. but how much turned on the character of two judges? one who had the empathy to see black men as victims of crime, and the courage to outrage white opinion by allowing the trial of white community leaders before a mixed jury. the other, a judge who valued the status quo and recoiled from any shock to proper white opinion and authority, the reflection of that proper opinion.

that is what we mean by empathy. and while the divisions in our society are less today, there are still people who feel voiceless, whose voices must be attuned to here. there are still americans who come to court bearing disadvantages that have nothing to do with the merits of their case. empathy to look through those disadvantages, to see the real merits of the case even when it is unpopular or offends the power structure, is the hallmark of a great judge. the words of hamilton, cardozo, stevens, that i have quoted, display that as history. the contrasting approaches of the two judges after the massacre, display it as justice. by republicans colleagues misunderstanding of judicial history have led to a missed