research service analysis on her opinions concluded she deludes easy ideological categorization and demonstrates adherence to judicial precedent and emphasis on the facts of a case and avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. described as a political centrist by the nonpartisan american bar association journal she has been nominated to the federal courts by presidents of both political parties. when president judge h. w. bush in 1992 nominated sonia sotomayor to the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york the senate approved her nomination by unanimous consent. when president clinton in 1998 nominated her to the second circuit court of appeals the senate voted 67-29 to confirm her on an overwhelmingly

bipartisan co. per now familiar personal story is no less impressive. the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the highest court in the country will inspire girls and young women everywhere to work hard and set their dreams high. americans look to the lawmakers to work together to make the country stronger. they expect us to put partisanship aside to advance the interest of the american people. if there is one issue we should be able to come together on to put aside our differences it is the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i look forward to having the opportunity to go to in support of her confirmation with the majority of my colleagues. thank you, mr. president and thank you senator klobuchar. >> i yield back the floor to

senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator shaheen -- >> the center of minnesota is recognized. >> having looked at sonia sotomayor's record senator shaheen pointed out for 17 years on the bench and fairness and integrity she will bring to the job i'm proud to support her nomination. when judge sotomayor's nomination was announced i was impressed with her story as was everyone else which all of us know by now. she grew up in her own words and modest and challenging the circumstances and worked hard for everything she got. her dad died when she was 9-years-old, and her mom support her and her brother. and one of my favorite images as a member of the judiciary committee was her mother sitting behind her every moment of the hearing never leaving her sight. the mother that raised her on a

nurse's salary who save every penny just to buy an encyclopedia britannica for their family. that struck me mr. president because i know in our family we also had a set of encyclopedias that had a hallowed place in the hallway and that is what i used to write all of my reports. judge sotomayor went on to graduate from princeton summa cum laude and phi beta kappa before graduating from law school. since law school she's had a varied and interesting legal career and has worked as a private civil litigator and she's been a district court and appellate court judge and has taught law school class is but one experience of terse in particular as it meets with me. immediately after graduating law school she spent five years as a prosecutor at the manhattan district attorney's office. i want to talk a little bit about that because it's something she and i have in common. i was a prosecutor myself mr. president, you know what that is like to have that duty.

i was a prosecutor for minnesota's largest county. as a prosecutor after you contracted with victims of crime, after you've seen the damage the crime does to individuals and communities after you have seen defendant's going to prison and we know their families are losing them sometimes forever to know that the law isn't just an abstract subject, it isn't just a dusty book in the basement. the law has a real impact on their real lives of real people. it also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. no matter how many years past you never forget some of the difficult cases. for judge sotomayor we know that this includes the case of the serial burglar turned killer, the tarzan murder. for me there was always the case of an 11-year-old girl with an unforgettable smile at home doing her homework one day when

a stray bullet from a gang shooting went through the window and killed her. as a prosecutor and you don't just have to know the law you have to know the people, you have to know the families, you have to know human nature. as judge sotomayor's former supervisor said she is an imposing and commanding figure in the courtroom, someone who can weave together a complex set of facts and forced the law and never lose sight who she was fighting for and as her old boss manhattan district attorney robert morganthaal said she is a fearless and effective prosecutor. before i turn this over to my colleague, the senator from michigan who has just arrived i thought it would be interesting for people to hear a little bit more about judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor and you can hear this first hand from her own colleagues. this was a letter sent in from dozens of her colleagues that we worked with her when she was a

prosecutor. the work of her bosses necessarily conscious colleagues and this is what they said in the letter. they said we served together during some of the most difficult years in the city's history. the crime was soaring, a general sense of disorder prevailed in the streets and the attitude was increasing violence was inevitable. sonia sotomayor, they say the letter, began as a rookie in 1970 by working long hours prosecuting enormous caseload of misdemeanors before judges managing overwhelming dockets. she distinguished herself in this challenging assignment that she was among the first in her starting class to be selected to handle felonies. she prosecuted a wide fire ayittey of cases including serving as co-counsel at a notorious murder trial. she developed a specialty in the prosecution of child pornography cases. through this she impressed us come from her colleagues, as one single lee determined fighting crime and violence.

prosecuting was an order to bring to the streets she dearly loves and they go on. we are proud to have served with sonia sotomayor. she solemnly adheres to and believes it should be applied equally and fair to all americans. as a group, says this group of dozens of prosecutors who are her colleagues, as a group we have different the world views and political affiliations but our support is entirely nonpartisan. and the fact that so many of us have remained friends with her over three decades sparks, well, we think it speaks of her warmth and collegiality. mr. president, i see my colleague for michigan has arrived. i will continue my statement when she has completed hers but i am proud to have senator stabenow, the senator from michigan here to speak on behalf

of judge sotomayor. i yield the floor. >> the center of michigan is recognized. >> thank you. first i'm pleased to be here with the senator from minnesota and have to appreciate her wonderful words about judge sotomayor as well as her advocacy on behalf of minnesota we have lot in common between minnesota and michigan and so it is always a pleasure to be with the senator from minnesota. mr. president, i rise today to support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor as the next justice of the supreme court. over 230 years ago alexander hamilton called experience the best oracle of wisdom and his words continue to ring true today. judge sotomayor has over 17 years of experience on the

bench. she will be the most experienced supreme court justice in over 100 years, a lifetime. but it isn't just her years of experience that will make her a great justice. it will be the experience of a uniquely american life. the american dream. she was raised in a south bronx housing project where her family's instilled values of hard work and sacrifice. at the age of nine her father died tragically. after that, her mother, a nurse raised her the best she could. i would say she did a pretty good job. her mom urged her to pay attention in school. she pushed her to work hard and get good grades which she did. she studied hard, graduated at the top of her class in high school. it was through education bourse

opened for judge sotomayor as they opened for millions of other americans. after law school she went to work as assistant district attorney in new york prosecuting crimes like murder scene robberies' and child abuse. she later went into private practice as a civil litigator working in parts of the law related to real-estate employment, banking and contract law. in 1992 she was nominated by president judge w. bush and confirmed by the senate unanimously to serve as a district court judge. she performed admirably and president clinton having been nominated first by a republican and then again by a democrat, president clinton elevated her to the second circuit court of appeals. it is in part due to this

enormous breadth of experience as a prosecutor, a lawyer in private practice, as a trial judge, appeals court judge that the american bar association has given her their highest rating of well qualified. judge sotomayor's story really is the american story that a young person born into poverty can work hard, take advantage of opportunities and then succeed brilliantly and why is to the top of their profession. judge sotomayor is an inspiration to all of us. she is a role model for millions of young people of every race, class, creed and back round today. last november we demonstrated every child in america can grow

up to be president of the united states. judge sotomayor proves with hard work and dedication they can be a supreme court justice too. mr. president, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm judge sotomayor. thank you very much. >> mr. president. >> senator from minnesota is recognized. >> i thank the center for her very strong support of the nominee. as i was talking earlier the experience judge sotomayor brings to the bench as a prosecutor. for me it means she meets my criteria for a nominee because i am looking for someone who appreciates the power and impact the criminal justice system have on people's lives from her first day in the manhattan d.a. office judge sotomayor talked about and

understood how it was important to view the law as about people and not just the law. but when you talk about people, it means you have to look at their cases and look at the law and facts and one of the things we learned in the hearings was sometimes judge sotomayor had to make difficult decisions. as a prosecutor she had to turn down cases although she was by all accounts more aggressive and other prosecutors and took on cases many wouldn't but when she was a judge she sometimes had to turn down cases and turn away victims like the case involving the crash twa flight and she actually disagreed with a number of other judges and said as much as she found the victim's family to be incredibly sympathetic law to occur somewhere else. the facts and the film will meant something else. you could see that in a number of her cases which is part of the reason people don't think of her who have looked at her

record as a judicial activist they think of her as a judicial moderate someone who in her own words has fidelity to law. what are we looking for in a supreme court justice? i think one of sonia sotomayor's old bosses, robert morganthaal said it best. he testified on her behalf and he said many years ago what he was looking for when he tried to find prosecutors for his office and he said we want people with good judgment because a lot of the job of the prosecutor is making decisions. he said i also want to see signs of humility and anybody i higher. we are giving young warriors a lot of power and want to make sure they will use that power with good sense and without arrogance. these are among the same qualities i look for in a supreme court justice. i too m looking for a person with good judgment, with intellectual curiosity and independence but who also

understands her decisions affect the people before her. with that i think comes a second quality, the quality of humility. i'm looking for a justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility she will be given if confirmed, who understands the gravity of the office and the different roles the constitution provides for each of the three branches of government, something judge sotomayor was questioned on extensively and made clear she respects those rules for the three different branches of government. finally a good prosecutor knows her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor likewise supreme court justice must interpret the law without fear or favor. i'm convinced judge sotomayor meets all of these criteria. she has been a judge for 17 years, even as an appellate judge and six years as a trial judge. president judge h. w. bush gave her the first job she had as a

federal judge in the southern district of new york. her nomination to the southern district was enthusiastically supported by both new york senators democratic senator daniel patrick moynihan and republican alfonse d'amato said there she is first nominated by judge h. w. bush supported by the republican senator and as senator shaheen noted confirmed unanimously by the senate. judge sotomayor as i noted before has more federal judicial experience than any nominee the past 100 years and i think the best way to tell what kind of justice she will be is to look what kind of judge she's been. one person who knows a little bit about something about sonia sotomayor is a judge as the former director of the fbi who served as a judge with her before he was director of the fbi and he became a republican appointee again, he came and testified at her hearing and mom

just on a review of her record. he testified based on his own personal experience. he was actually her mentor when she arrived as a new judge and i want to read from the letter he submitted to the judiciary committee. louis st. rights it is with tremendous pride in a former colleague i write to recommend wholeheartedly you confirm sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the supreme court. judge sotomayor has the extensive experience and the judicial qualities that make her eminently qualified for this ultimate honor and i look forward to watching her take the place on the nation's highest court. he goes on to say i first met in judge sotomayor in 1992 when she was appointed to the united states court for the district of new york as the van newest judge in the courthouse at fathi square in lower manhattan we followed the tradition of having the new agreement judge mentored

by the last are writing member of the bench. despite questionable wisdom of this practice, he went on, i had the privilege of serving as judge sotomayor's point of contact for orientation and help her get underway as she took on a full complex civil and criminal case docket. into this pressurized and unforgiving environment where a new judge's every word, decision, writing and question is scrutinized and critiqued by one of the harshest professional audiences imaginable judge sotomayor quickly distinguished herself as a highly competent judge who is open-minded well-prepared, properly demanding of the lawyers who came before her fair, honest, diligent and follow the law and with that rare mcclintock and street smarts. louis st. republican appointed

judge goes on to me to say there is no better measure to evaluate a judge than the standards of the former chief judge of the united states district court of minnesota, mr. president, i like this part, nationally renowned american jurist edward jay digit a former member of congress and world war ii navy hero he was appointed to the federal bench by president eisenhower and became one of the country's leading trial judges and teachers of judges. as a standard jury instruction book as well less profession's most coveted award recognized outstanding judges the award bares his name. he goes on to say i recently had the honor of participating in the dedication of the court room named for judge. the judges and lawyers unspoken tribute ably and insightfully described the critical

characteristics which described and predict great judges. but rather than discuss judged of its many decisions particular rulings or sound bite and the losses which could have been parsed from the thousands of complex fact specific cases that crossed his pocket the focus on those ultimately more profound priceless tradition qualities and he goes on to talk about those qualities of a good judge. judging takes more than intelligence. i take to the bench prepared, call them as you see them. and he then goes on to say judge sotomayor would have gotten an a-plus from the judge from central casting, judge savitt, former judge from the state of minh+!x>áî#l< mak& you have louis free testifying in behalf of judge sotomayor as i read earlier you have dozens of her former colleagues, republicans, democrats independents right and what kind

of prosecutor she was. every step of the way she impressed people and i see we are now joined by the senator from new york, my distinguished colleague who will also be speaking in favor of judge sotomayor. actually senator gillibrand and had the distinguished honor to introduce judge sotomayor when she so eloquently spoke at the hearing and i'm very honored to have her join us today. with that, mr. president, i will turn this over to senator john lubber and and i do ask for the record since i'm giving my remarks about judge sotomayor in five or six different pieces that my remarks become blind as one set speech. >> without objection. >> thank you. and i turn over to senator john brandt -- gillibrand.

>> thank you for your kind words and extraordinary advocacy on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor. your words and believe in her contribution is extremely important. thank you. i stand today to speak on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor and lend my strong support to her nomination to the united states supreme court. judge sotomayor will bring the wisdom of her experiences to bear as she applies the rule of law and will grace the supreme court with the intelligence, judgment, clarity of thought and determination of purpose that we have come to expect from all great justices on the court. much has been made of judge sotomayor's personal remarkable story. there has been great import afforded to the characterization of the wise latina. clearly the life lessons and

experiences of justices and form their decisions as has been noted during the confirmation process these time and time again. justice antonin scalia discussed his being a racial minority and understanding of discrimination. justice clarence thomas indicated his exposure to all facets of society gave him the quote, ability to stand in the shoes of other people across the broad spectrum of the country end of quote. justice samuel alito described his parents' growing up in poverty as a learning experience and his family's emigration to the united states influence in his view on emigration and discrimination. as americans we honor the diversity of the society. as the esteemed jurists have noted the construct of the court is shaped by the diverse experiences and viewpoints of each of its justices. however, sonia sotomayor's

ethnicity or gender alone doesn't indicate what sort of supreme court justice she will be. rather is judge sotomayor's experience and record that more informs us. the breadth and depth that judge sotomayor's experience makes her uniquely qualified for the supreme court. her keen understanding of the case law and importance of precedent is derived from working in nearly every aspect of the legal system as a prosecutor and corporate litigator advocates and appellate judge with confirmation judge sotomayor will bring to the supreme court more federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years and more over all judicial experience than any justice in 70 years. as a prosecutor and judge sotomayor flout the worst of society's ills for murder to child pornography to job trafficking. judge sotomayor's years as a

corporate litigator exposed her to all facets of commercial law including real-estate employment banking, contracts and agency law. her pro bono work for the quarter began legal defense fund demonstrates her commitment to the constitutional rights and core value that a quality is an inalienable american right to be on the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york judge sotomayor presided over 450 cases earning a reputation as a tough, fair and thoughtful jurist. as an appellate judge judge sotomayor participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authors roughly 400 published opinions as evidence of her integrity of her decisions and adherence to precedent only seven cases were brought for review by the supreme court reversing only three of her offered opinions, two of which were closely divided.

in an analysis of her record done by the brennan center for justice the numbers overwhelmingly indicated judge sotomayor is in the mainstream of the second circuit. judge sotomayor has been in agreement with your colleagues more than 94% of constitutional decisions have been unanimous. she's voted with a majority over 90% of constitutional cases. when judge sotomayor was voted to will the government will action on constitutional her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. republican appointees agreed with her decision to hold government action on constitutional nearly 90% of the time. when she voted to overrule lower court agency her decisions lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time. republican appointees agree with judge sotomayor's decisions to overthrow the decision in a 94%

of the cases. judge sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedent. per unyielding belief in the wall and the constitution. i strongly support the nomination of judge sotomayor and firmly believe she will prove to be one of the finest tariffs in american history. iran urge my fellow senators to join me in voting for her confirmation. thank you mr. president. >> senator from washington. >> i want to thank -- >> senator from minnesota. >> i want to thank the senator of new york for her remarks. as she was talking i this realizing she is a pioneer of sorts being the first woman center of new york who took over with having very small children. i have seen there and they are small and babies and she has been able to manage and do a fine job in her role as a senator while being a pioneer as a mother at the same time in the

state of new york and with that is a good six way to introduce my colleague from the state of washington patty murray one of the first women to serve in the united states senate and i love her story because when she started running for office she was working on school issues and went to the legislature and one of the elected legislators said to her how do you think you're ever going to get this done? you are nothing but a mom in tennis shoes and she went on to where the tennis shoes right to the floor of the united states senate so with that i am proud to introduce to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor my colleague from the state of washington, patty murray. >> senator from washington. >> thank you mr. president and i thank the senior senator from minnesota for all of her work helping to move this critical important nomination through the united states senate and i am here to join her in support of the nomination of judge sotomayor to the united states

supreme court. the united states supreme court is the final arbiter of many of the nation's most important disputes and it's the constitution provides for a lifetime appointment to this court supreme court justice has a tremendous opportunity to have a profound affect on the future of law in america. that is why the constitution dirac's that the senate is responsible for providing advice and consent on judicial nominees. so why take my responsibilities in this nomination and confirmation process very seriously. but mr. president i take a special, personal interest in supreme court nominations. i was actually watching this court confirmation hearing many years ago that inspired me to challenge the status quo and run for the united states senate. i was deeply frustrated by the confirmation hearings of than nominee clarence thomas, and i believe that average americans people all over this country

didn't have a voice in the process. there were important questions questions the need to be answered that were never even raised to the nominee. so i have worked for years to be a voice for those average americans when it comes to judicial appointments and make sure those questions are asked. i've had the opportunity to meet in person with judge sotomayor and ask her questions that will affect all americans including working families in my home state of washington. .. i followed her progress through the senate judiciary committee and watched her answer a number of difficult questions. and with all of this information and her answers in mind, i am very pleased and proud to support her nomination. by now many americans have heard the remarkable story of judge sonia sotomayor. she's truly an embodiment of the american dream. although many americans today have now heard of her story

some points, i think bear repeating. judge sotomayor is the daughter of puerto rican parents. her father died when she was just nine years old and she and her brother were raised by her mother in a public housing project in the bronx. sotomayor's mother, who was a nurse, worked extra hours so her mother was a nurse and worked extra hours of that she could pay for her schooling and buy a set of encyclopedias for her children. after she graduated from high school judge sotomayor attended college at princeton and law school and yale. to spend five years prosecuting criminal cases in new york, seven years in private law practice, and 17 years as a federal judge and on the united states district court and court of appeals. judge sotomayor's story is an inspiring me minder of what is achievable with hard work and the support of your family in your community.

of course, the compelling personal story of triumph and tests of circumstances is not itself in that. mr. president, i have long used several criteria to nominate aaron will they protect the rights and liberties of all americans? i am, and in that judge sotomayor meets those criteria. she has 17 years of federal judicial experience in unanimously received the highest rating of the american bar association which calls are well qualified based on a comprehensive evaluation at a record and her integrity. and she hasn't directly answered questions about her personal beliefs and prior statements. she has been fair with me, the judiciary committee and the american people that her own biases of personal opinions never played a role in deciding

cases her 17 years on the bench same as a testament to that fact. judge sotomayor has demonstrated her independence. she was nominated to the federal district court by president george h. w. bush and appointed to the u.s. court of appeals by president clinton. down judge sotomayor has received rave reviews from her and fellow judges on the second circuit both republicans and democrats as well as strong support from endeavour's professors -- cross-section of organizations from across the political spectrum. finally mr. president it's clear to me that judge sotomayor is committed to protecting their rights and liberties of all americans. she understands the struggle of working families, she understands the importance of sell rights and her record shows a strong respect to the rule of law and that she evaluates each case based on its particular

tax. having followed the criteria by which i measure all judicial nominees i am confident that judge sotomayor will be a smart here, impartial unqualified members of the u.s. supreme court. i believe that any individual or group from my home state could stand before her and receive fair treatment. and as you will serve the interests of justice and the public as our next supreme court justice so mr. president i want to come to the floor to join with many of my women colleagues in the senate and let the people of washington state know that after reviewing her qualifications and her record and renewed her testimony i am very proud to stand and support this nomination. hagee mr. president a yield of the lord. >> the center of a minnesota. >> mr. president i want to thank the senator from washington for her excellent remarks on behalf of judge

sotomayor. during this hour we have heard from several of my colleagues all strongly supporting judge sotomayor and i have talked about for so long for her growing map and her difficult circumstances, i spoke about her work as a prosecutor and the support she has received an her prosecutorial colleagues, talked about her work as a judge and read extensively the director of the fbi and about her work as a judge. in and out in the final part of my talk elements to adjust some of and the and the issues that have been raised with respect to judge sotomayor tariff now have to say i woke up this morning to the radio on my clock radio and heard one of my colleagues who decided that he was not one to support her in his words because of a aphis the standard and that put the pillow over my head and thought you must not been sitting in the hearing because to a specifically asked by one of the other senators about how

she views the cases and it specifically asked her if she agreed with president obama when he said you should use your heart as well as fellow officers and actually i don't agree with that. i looked at the law and a look at the facts. some people consider all kinds of things about her if they like but i suggest they look at her record. my colleagues in the senate are entitled to a post in nomination of a wish, that's their prerogative but i'm concerned that some people keep returning again and again to some quotes and the speeches as she actually said a phrase she did not attend any body in should have put differently. many have 17 years of a record as a judge what is more important for us 17 years of the record of a judge or one phrase which is basically said was not a word that she meant to use. what is more important parks and reverence of senator moynihan if you are entitled to your own opinion budget are not entitled

to your own facts. so let's look at the facts of her judicial record. this nominee was repeatedly questioned the and i sat there through nearly all of this, she was questioned for hours and days about whether she lived that bias or prejudice contract for judging by again the facts don't support these claims repaired and race discrimination cases mr. president for example judge sotomayor quoted against plaintiffs 81 percent of the time. she also handed out longer jail sentences and her colleagues as a district court judge barron to sentence white-collar criminals to end least six months in prison 48 percent of the time for as her other colleagues did so only 34 percent of the time. canyon drug cases 85.5% is of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least six months in that judge sotomayor compared with only 79% in her colleagues cases purpose

of a few weeks ago i was in the minneapolis airport in the guide came up to me wearing an orange vests and asked if i was going to vote for that woman and a person i didn't know what he was talking about and he said that judge, i said i actually want to meet her first before i met her and ask some questions and he said i don't know, how are you going to do that because she has always let your feelings get in front of a long. now the sky news to hear the statistics. news to hear the statistics that senator gillibrand was talking about, that when she served on the bench as a republican appointed tally 95 percent of the time the madison decision that so i guess you must believe the same republican appointed judges are letting their failings get in front of the law if you take that logic to its extreme then a 5 percent of the time sided with a republican appointed judge colleagues. during her hearing judge sotomayor was questioned about issues ranging from the death

penalty to her use of orloff. i say this, that was repeatedly mentioned that she might use foreign law to decide if death penalty case. what do we have as evidence that there is on vacation decided was a death penalty came before her and she rejected the claim of someone who was to say the death penalty would not apply when she was a district court judge and she never cited one long, there was no mention of france or any law in that decision. those are the tax and her judicial record. in no place has yet decided forum law to help for interim decision of the u.s. constitution. i believe that a vat everything in the nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. after all we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone for an incredibly important lifetime position. that is the constitutional duty and i take it seriously. that said when people focus on a few items in a few speeches that

judge sotomayor has given phrases which he has basically said she would have said the really if you have another opportunity you have to ask yourself again to the statements outweighed by the records? check out all these endorsements of people that have lived in her record, look to how she has come on decisions. have the endorsement from the district attorney's association supporting her if you have the support from the police executive research forum and the support from the national fraternal order of police, not exactly a raging liberal organization, you have the support assures association and these are the facts. that my colleagues to be looking at. you have the support of the international association of chiefs of police. you have the support of the major cities to association in have the support of the national association of please

organization and the prosecuting attorneys, we have a letter supporting her from the texas endowment association and the national black processors, the national organization of black congressman and the list goes on and on. those are the facts. unanimous from the aba those other attacks. i believe everyone to know what kind of a justice judge sotomayor will be our best evidence is a look at the kind of judge she has been in and i want to just one more thing i mentioned that the judiciary hearing when we voted a rose for a judge sotomayor and that has been a point that irritated me and there have been some stories and comments mostly anonymous about judge sotomayor's judicial temperament. according to one is certain about this topic judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral

arguments ebbing sometimes press concurred with lawyers who are not prepared to answer them well, where i come from asking tough questions mr. president having very little patience for it and prepare lawyers is a very definition of being a judge. as a lawyer you owe it to the benton tier clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can be. when justice ginsburg was asked about this anonymous comments regarding the judge sotomayor to rhetorically asked has anybody watched justice scalia or justice breyer on the bench? surely we have come to time in this country mr. president when we can confirm as many to the crop coming to the point breath female judges as we have confirmed to the point brought up mail and judges. we have come a long way as it can see from my colleagues that came during the last hour. we know that when and sandra day o'connor graduated from law school the only offer she got was from a law firm position of a legal secretary.

two justice ginsburg face some obstacles. we have come a long way. but i hope my colleagues in this case will also come a long way and look at the records look at the facts. as i have said before of people are entitled to their own opinion but they're not entitled to their own packs. in short mr. president apprentice support judge sotomayor nomination in them believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law she knows the constitution pushiness america to appear in thank you mr. president and i yield the floor space and the senator from florida. >> mr. president i rise to speak of the nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court of at the united states and i am happy to have this opportunity for ibm as an historic moment in

many ways. the confirmation of the supreme court nominee is one of the most solemn and a think the constitutional system of government and the players recognize and the risk of abuse inherent in a lifetime judicial appointments berated the process that brings together all three branches of the federal government. and the constitution, and a call to section two requires that a nominee to the federal court must be selected by the president and that i quote was consent of the senate. so these moments must be appreciated in a brush with a great deal of of of all this and respect, this is all the more true when the appointment the supreme court of the u.s.. there was a time when members of the senate's have better understand their rover centers expected and president of the

other party to pick a judge who was likely be different than someone they would have mixed and there's a couple of examples of like to use. justice ginsburg, a very talented person who served as general counsel of the aclu not likely to have been someone selected by a republican president but yet she was confirmed with 95 votes republicans knew that she would be a liberal justice but she was also well qualified for the job. another example and that is the justice scalia pitch by a republican president and received 98 votes. every democrat in your problem should have known they were voting for a conservative but they also understood that then justice scalia was incredibly qualified and should be serving on the u.s. supreme court to given that he had been nominated by president and had the

requisite qualifications which is really the essence of what this confirmation process is and should fit up for a windfall for the things have changed since those votes unchanged from what is historically acceptable and what has finland along historic tradition of the senate when it comes to senate confirmation of judicial nominees. over the past decade have lived in the seventh has long side of his role to advise and consent for your tremendous another for example, the nomination of adel as java and chief justice roberts in justice alito to illustrate how partisan politics have been permitted to overwhelm the fundamental question posed to the seventh richest is this nominee qualified feared it to you give you advice and your consent. my colleagues will recall left mr. estrada was first nominated fine jurist of the bush to the d.c. circuit fifth day of 2001

tariff use unanimously rated farewell for all five events fed aba appear if you with someone who had a very impressive history is from personal sorry for the resume, a native of honduras from a emigrated to this country of 17 and graduated magna thune allowed five behalf from columbia and received his law degree from harvard in 1986 for he was a member of the harvard law review if it went on to other for support for justice kennedy feared he was a man entered private practice and was very well respected for a fee and in view of law firm often serve as assistant u.s. attorney with a scientist with heavier for i believe the nominee today is fair enough of them is john as an assistant solicitor general. what is the solicitor general to come of it. i did cases before the supreme

court. what could be a better training ground in addition to a further shift for a fourth rate for a member who then to be heavy solicitor general fear if that is a longtime cherney and the always admired greatly those who served in the office because there was in the very best of the very best. but politics and giving, his brand of a conservative. to the course of an unprecedented seven cloture votes democrats in this on a filibuster if his nomination. time and again filibuster if his nomination founded later for 28 months until he finally exhausted from one to get on with his life when that he needs to be able to continue to do work for clients and couldn't continue to be in a limbo because of the misguided notion few assess to conservative and so it was okay to filibuster him and for 28 months hanging in the

wind that was not right. it was not to the supreme court but some fear that someday he might be a supreme court candidate, he might have been the first hispanic serving in the supreme court. nominee perhaps by republican president some of the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito ended quite different from mr. estrada the record is frankly equally disturbing. a during debates on both robbers and justice alito then senator barack obama declared a man to be qualified to sit on the supreme court. blethen judge john roberts president obama said on the set for there is absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court of the land. two which i would then say so why would you vote for him? he then said of justice alito i have no doubt he has the

training and qualifications necessary to serve and he is an intelligent man and accomplish jurist and there is no indication he is not a man of great character. but now it is a valid statements of and then senator obama voted against confirmation ny? because of his perception that their velocity would not allow him to vote for them. given this record some of my colleagues conclude that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, that because of these recent presidents and despite her qualifications they may still vote against judge sotomayor confirmation. and i couldn't disagree more heartily. it is my hope that's starting to date we will no longer to what was done to the gal of strata that beginning today no member pursuing forest and come to the floor of this chamber to argue against the confirmation of a qualified nominees. so what about our current

nominee? what makes her qualified? first i think we do have ended judge sotomayor a very historic moment and opportunity and will be the verse hispanic to serve on the highest courts of this land. it is a momentous and historic opportunity is for that is not good enough. what makes for qualified? i think that experience, knowledge of a lot temperament the ability to apply the law without bias, these qualifications should override all of the considerations when the senate fulfills his role to advise consent to the president's nominee as dictated by the constitutional charge that we have. in these of the standards by which we as a body should determine who is qualified to serve on any of federal court including the highest court of the land. these of the standards that have used in evaluating judge sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. she has the experience, she knows the law.

she has the proper term temperament and here is something that is important her 17 year to this show overwhelmingly indicates that she will apply the law without bias. and that is really important because we could find someone who really is facially qualified and whose views might be for some reason so outside the mainstream so different than what the norm of our jurisprudence would be that if i wrote zero linda them of racially qualified to the unqualified that they really could not be relied on to the to the case and apply the facts and evidence and apply the law to the evidence presented that they would not follow the law and not be faithful to their oath because of their views with the extreme outside the mainstream. so completely beyond what would be the norm or considered to be

the norm. but in this person we have a 17 year record. she has written thousands of opinions and these opinions provided the body of law of what she does as a judge. not what she said to a group of students one day try to encourage them in their lives and what they might be doing not what someone might ordain from rating in opinion that perhaps would not agree with. it's not about whether we agree with your outcomes are not is whether her opinions or reason, whether had a foundation in law whether they reasonable decisions and to reach them on a basis of law and evidence that are supported by sound legal thinking. even her worst critics cannot cite a single instance where she strayed from sound judicial thinking. i believe that he will serve as an outstanding associate justice to the u.s. supreme court to. and that she will be a terrific

role model for many young people in this country. for i have had to have my opportunity to pick i may have chosen someone different men of judge sotomayor. but that is not my job. i don't get to select judges, i get to give advice and consent. we sometimes confuse the role of the senate, elections have their consequences. in some of her writings and statements indicate her loss of the might be more liberal than mine. but that is what happens in elections. in when i was campaigning for my colleague john mccain i knew that it was going to be important because there would be vacancies to the court and i knew i would be much more comfortable with the nominee and john mccain would nominate to than one my former colleague and friend president barack obama might nominate. the president has the prerogative an obligation and responsibility to choose his own

nominees. our job is to give advice and consent. the president has chosen a nominee and my vote for her confirmation will be based solely and wholly on relevant qualifications judge sotomayor is well qualified. she has been a federal judge for 17 years she has the most experience of any person judicial experience on the bench experience of any person nominated for the court in a century, in 100 years there hasn't been anyone who has been on the bench with such distinguished record for such a long time. and that is a way for record is really, we don't have to wonder and sit around and try to divine whether some days you will answer the siren call to judicial activism. i've heard someone say on the floor of the senate. we don't have to wonder and the

my give you an excuse to vote against someone who is qualified but the fact is with 17 your record is two have a pretty good idea whether that call would have been answered by now into my estimation it hasn't been a pity she received the highest possible rating from the american bar association for a judicial candidates equal to that of the geld as java and equal to that of chief justice roberts and justice alito. she has been a prosecutor, she has been throughout her career and outstanding lawyer and she was a pretty tough one to appear in it with less than a handful of exceptions for judicial record reflects that while she may be left of center, she is certainly well within the mainstream of legal thinking. her mainstream approach is so mainstream that it has earned her the support of the u.s. chamber of commerce.

as well as an endorsement of several law-enforcement and criminal justice organizations. she has endorsed by the national fraternal order of police. the national sheriffs' association and the international association of chiefs of police. i daresay she will be a strong voice for law and order in our country. i disagree with judge sotomayor about several issues. i would expect to have disagreements with many judicial nominees of the obama administration but probably fewer with her then some i might see in the future although i might disagree with some of her rulings, we know she has a commitment to well reasoned decisions. decisions that the seat with restraint to apply the law as written. i do believe that she will rule with restraint, that has been her judicial history and philosophy. princeton's i believe. as expressed in her panel's maloney in purses cuomo opinion of whether the second amendment

applies against state and local governments is to narrow and contrary to the founders' intent. but i also know that there is significant and well reasoned disagreement among the nation's appellate court on the issue. in other words, not out of the mainstream. on this issue i accept the idea that reasonable people may differ this debate race is critical and difficult issues regarding the role of federalism in the application of fundamental constitutional rights. for the formation process is not the proper place to do bring up this question nor is our record is the issue outside the mainstream. i believe that her statements on the role of international law and american jurisprudence reflect a view that it's too expensive and enter judicial record indicates that in practice to has given only limited in any way to to any form court decisions.

now for example in progress is croat the two dozen international child custody case involving the hague convention on international child objection, judge sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion in which he concluded and that the holdings of the cores of foreign nations and to present the same convention we were quote not essential two her reasoning. i believe that some of her statements she has made in her speeches about the role of one's personal experience are inconsistent with the judicial oath as requiring that judges set aside their personal bias when made in those decisions. and there are several of my colleagues to say the salmon's demonstrate judge sotomayor is a judicial activist in hiding. this assertion, however is not supported by the facts. we can throw it out there but it is unsupported by the tax. the relevant facts for 17 years judicial record and showed that

she has not allowed her personal biases to influence her jurisprudence. they can talk about her speeches but they cannot talk about a single solitary opinion in 17 years on the bench where that type of of view has been given life. for that type of of you has found itself into the pages of a single one of her opinions. i would rather put my trust in my expectations for the future on her 17 year record and judicial decisions then i would on one or two speeches that she might have given to over 10 or 15 years of. those who opposed judge sotomayor have yet to produce any objective evidence that she has allowed her personal bias to influence her judicial decision making moreover, in her testimony before the judiciary committee to reiterated her fidelity to the law that as a justice she would adhere to the law regardless of what the

outcome it required. so based on my review of judicial record, her testimony before the committee, i am satisfied that the judge sotomayor is well qualified to sit on our nation's highest court. i intend to vote for her confirmation and i intended two also be very proud of her service on a the supreme court of a nevis is where i think again and she will serve a very historic and you need parole to many people in this nation who i know will look to her with great pride. thank you mr. president i yield the floor and suggest an absence of a quorum. >> mr. president, i rise to speak on the nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court of the u.s.. few positions carry more honor duty then become a justice of the highest court of the greatest democracy and also few duties carry more honor or responsibility than giving advice and consent on who should become a justice of the highest

court. the walls of the supreme court support the vessel the hodes projections of our liberty among the black robes give life to the freedoms of flourishing of our ideas and beliefs. the congress is part of the democracy than the supreme court is are sold guiding us on what is wrong and right. in my role as a senator voting to fill the vessel issuing those island to the constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent. it's an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator when i voted for legislation before this body indeed, if the constitution means or us manage to vote on nominees away could easily have sense of. if we were meant to do nothing more than cast a vote to placed on the other we agree with pat nominee where should we be then? with a bmd de every time it is congress of the opposite party and the cabin sits empty because of partisan divide?

with vacancies to the supreme court go unfilled because of a majority in one part is simply disagree with the presidents of another? of course, that could not have been the content. what kind of justice is what we have with nothing more than partisan majority devise? when sullivan show by the opposite party to allow the modern of voices or justices with no voice at all. freddie to prove only justices fess said nothing or wrote nothing which the majority disagreed. if some are saying a democratic president should not have a little justice is having a republican president should not have conservative justice? fess of something i can support for i show support a judicial conservative justice and certainly justice scalia had i been innocent and at the time. that is the kind of justice i support you're a judge to call balls and strikes like an umpire, not letting their personal view by is the outcome of a child. this attitude of justice is

blindfolded for a reason the it cannot tip the scales of justice with prejudice or bias or belief. but i have supported justices with whom i disagree on this philosophy. they come to mind when they take a more active role in shaping their decisions that fit in ideal other on issues. as a producer of nominees as did a six of my colleagues and 95 of my colleagues. i hope those votes to do not reflect the time that has slipped away when partisanship the not in fact every facet of our political life. i cannot pretend that time that regrettably president obama did when he was in the senate. i can easily say of senator obama said that i disagree with nominee's judicial approach that allows me to oppose the nominee of a different party. luckily for president obama i do not agree with senator obama. larry sheffield approach to nominees will i reject the way

that he approached nominations and that does not mean i support the approach judging. i disagree with solarize means a little that they do not deserve even a full opinion before it appeals court. i disagree that we should inspire with suggestions that was and has anything to do with the sex of a person with the color of skin. i disagree that judges should ever consider foreign law when looking for a meeting in the u.s. statutes and constitution. i disagree that the second women's protection of an individual right to bear arms not apply to states but i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself a well qualified jurist. i do agree that she has proven herself as a talented and accomplished it in, a federal prosecutor, a federal trial judge and federal appeals court judge. she has the backing of many in the law enforcement committee including the fraternal order of

police and the national association of district attorneys. i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself as a leader of her community who aspires the pride in hopes of a fund for large portion of felt and thought. i do agree she has proven himself as the symbol of breaking through glass ceilings and then to agree that my choice for president to not win the last election and that our people's democracy has spoken for the change in their getting a fair elections have consequences. the call of the decision of our democracy is the minister for the president and everything he has proposed and i don't agree this amos kent's government spending in national did an album and continues to rise. i do not agree with that injury legislation that would raise energy taxes and kill millions without changing the climate because china and india refused to do the same. i do not agree with a government takeover that would force

millions of their current health care and of health care costs even higher for families and ration scarce the latest cure and treatment of health care decisions rather than five years of patience. but is to brief the country is tired of partisanship and frightened every day. tired of -- fight congress becoming a battle and well i don't follow the hypocrisy to reduce the support justice roberts because they disagree with their judicial philosophy and now suggests that republicans not to the same. i respect and they agree with that legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote no but i will follow if the direction in the past and i hope for the future with less polarization, less confrontational less partisanship. my friends in the party can be assured that i will work as hard as anybody to ensure the next presidential a lesson has consequences in the opposite

direction where my conservative friends in the best way to ensure we have a conservative judges on the bench is to work to see that we elect presidents to will nominate them. then we can resume filling the bench with more judges like justices and robbers and alito and thomas. for my liberal friends i hope there are this day when another qualified nominee before the senate who is conservative. this data set by senator obama should not govern the senate. as for judge sotomayor to has the accomplishments and qualities that have meant senate confirmation with such a nomination. the senators who reviewed her nomination and asked his questions. there has been no significant finding an answer in been no public uprising against her. i do not believe that the constitution tells me that i should refuse to support her view because i disagree with her on some cases. i will support her and will be proud for her and the american

dream she shows is possible. i will cast my vote in favor of the nomination of judge sotomayor and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. president i think the chair and i yield the floor of. >> mr. president and like to address the nomination of judge sotomayor to be an associate justice of the u.s. supreme court estalella. i've spoken about this nomination several times both on the senate floor and the senate judiciary committee on which i serve. i have shared what i admire about judge sotomayor including her long experience as a federal judge to her academic background in which a stellar, and record of making decisions that for the most part are within the judicial mainstream. i have also explain why or why i voted against this nomination and i would like to reiterate in

expand on some of the comments today as all of us first hitting our intentions before this historic ago to which i respect will be held sometime tomorrow. first i cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the u.s. supreme court who will restrict several of the fundamental rights and liberties and our constitution including on the bill of rights. based on her decision and the maloney case judge sotomayor apparently does not believe that the second in the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. indeed, the issue held in that case that the second amendment did not apply to the states and local jurisdictions that might impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms and then based on her decision and the village of port chester case to palin does the believe that the takings clause of the fifth

amendment protects private property owners when that private profit is taken by governments for the purpose of giving it to another private property owner. in this case a private developer. and i am very concerned when the government and the government's power to condemn property for a private purpose conflicts with it stated intention of the framers of the constitution that the red a condemnation of private property only if sent to public uses and then and only then went just compensation is paid. and then based upon her decision in the ricci case, the new haven firefighter case, which calls into question her commitment to ensure that equal achievement applies to all of us when it comes to our jobs or promotions without regard to the color of our skin and. indians in that case because of her failure to even it knowledge of the seriousness and novelty

of the claims being made by the new haven fire fighters to give short trip to those claims in an unpublished order in the nine frank ricci ben ferguson avenue him an apprentice and the opportunity for a promotion even though they excelled in the competitive race initial examination because of the color of their skin. fortunately the supreme court of a u.s. office to overrule judge sotomayor's jasmine in the new haven predicates and millions of americans who became aware perhaps for the first time put of this mysterious decision and was a morass some of our laws have accretive when, in fact this english judges like judge sotomayor and think of the have no choice but to put people to be denied a promotion based upon the color of their skin for fear of a disparate impact lawsuits even when substantial evidence is missing this as a disparate

impact lawsuit would in time to have any merit or likely be successful. mr. president, i cannot vote to confirm a nominee whose publicly expressed some very radical full fare is percolating in the back of the lunges of our nation's law schools and we all heard this in the confirmation hearings and frankly eight judge sotomayor's explanations where unconvincing. previously she has said that there is no such thing as neutrality for objectivity in the law. nearly a series of perspectives. thus i think for undermining the very concept of equal justice under the law. the law is not neutral hamid of the wall is not objective and then apparently according to her release at that time a lot of spillage subject and of comes will determine on which judge you get rather than what the law says.

for and she has said as they know that ethnicity and gender can influence the judge's decision and that judges of a particular ethnicity or gender can enjoy make better decisions than individuals of a different gender and ethnicity third and cannot vote to confirm and judicial nominees who testified before the judiciary committee that her most controversial decisions were guided by the president when her colleagues on the second circuit inundate the justices of the supreme court and reverse her said that the opposite. wharf testified that he meant the exact opposite of what she said every time she said

something controversial and was trying to explain that for a person who testified that she had no idea what they call positions the puerto rican defense fund was taking even though she chaired the litigation committee of its board of directors. the hearings before the senate judiciary committee have a very important purpose and the purpose is informed by the article two of the u.s. constitution to provide advice and consent on nominations. it's not to serve as a rubber-stamp. i have heard colleagues say that elections have consequences and the president won that is obvious and evident the elections have consequences and president obama one but that does not negate or raise the obligation that each u.s. senator has of the san clause in article of the constitution to provide advice and consent based on our best judgment and good

conscience. in the case of judge sotomayor the question becomes what will she do with the immense power given to a member of the u.s. supreme court? what impact will she have on our rights and liberties over the course of a lifetime which of course, this appointment is for life? in short the question is what kind of gentle will she be on the supreme court or her decisions are no longer refuse to buy high airport as a favorite as a federal district court or court of appeals justice. the question is will she be the judge she has been as a lower court judge making decisions which by and large have been in the mainstream with some notable exceptions which i have talked about or will she be untethered, will she be the judge judge sotomayor have her speeches and writings which cause me concern? they insisted these questions i

regret are no clear after the hearings than they were before. of the 6i believe are simply too high to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from a liberal activist perspective. mr. president come sires by different views of different senators on this nomination and i have no doubt that judge sotomayor will be confirmed but i am unwilling to advocate the responsibility i have as a cemetery when it comes to voting my conscience and expressing my reservations. the u.s. senate when develop their confirmation process for a very important purpose to learn more about the individual nominees but over the last several weeks we have also learned more about the rising consensus with regard to was we should expect from a geddes and i would like to highlight two important lessons that have lent the summer, one that is encouraging and one that is

worrisome. the server the good news -- i believe that republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee in the it judge sotomayor herself seemed to say that the appropriate judicial philosophy for nominees to the federal bench is one that expresses fidelity to the law and nothing else. over years we have been debating whether we have an original understanding of the constitution or some involving constitution even though it can be interpreted and other ways and the words on the paper read is that this same. and we went back and forth on the merits or lack of merit of judicial activism that is changes taking upon themselves to impose their views as opposed to entertain the law passed by congress or a written constitution. on many occasions our disagreements over judicial a loss of feed for anything but simple and dignified. and i think of the nomination of

a miguel estrada to the district of columbia court of appeals which some have said was the second highest court in the land. miguel estrada although an immigrant himself from his native honduras who did not speak english when he came to the u.s. but he graduated from the top universities in law schools in this country he was a filibuster is seven times in denied an up or down vote. one member of that committee disparaging mr. estrada as a character called him a stealth missile with a nose cone coming right out of the red wings deepest silo then again there was samuel alito an italian-american proud of his heritage who had to defend himself before the judiciary committee against false charges of bigotry. accusations which left his wife in tears and then there was clarence thomas perhaps the one we all remember the best, and

african-american nominee to the supreme court who described his experience before the judiciary committee this way -- he said this is a circus. it is a national disgrace and from my standpoint as a black american it is a high-tech lynching. for up to the blacks. these nominees mr. president ever accused at various times of certain offenses event of a real crime as we all know was a crime of conscience. they dared to be judicial conservatives. a philosophy that the nominee that we are talking about today and senate democrats. to embrace tariff i hope these days of when these unfair and uncivil and undignified judiciary committee hearings are behind us. i hope our hearings are more respectful of the nominees as was this hearing for if judge

sotomayor tariff if she herself put with a sheaf of have received fair achievement it is in the i appreciated it is a valid david is the fairness of the vc of the process. i hope that the thought friends of mrs. iaff of income than foundation for a new bipartisan consensus. that the views that judge sotomayor affirmed at her hearing that we're from above as republicans and democrats and the news that judge sotomayor rejected that we rejected it as both republicans and democrats. let me give an example of this new what appears to be the bipartisan consensus now on the appropriate judicial philosophy for a nominee to the u.s. supreme court. at her hearing to put it this way. she said the intent was set forth in the constitution. is there were as that of the most important aspect is of judging. you follow it, they said it in their words and you apply to the fax you are looking at.

i can't think of a better expression of a modest and judicially restrain the philosophy that i embrace than what judge sotomayor said at her hearing and both republicans and democrats. to be pleased with that statement. we agreed that foreign law has no place in constitutional interpretation. notwithstanding her earlier statements judge sotomayor the said at the hearings for a long cannot be used as a holding aura to buy influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law. now, as i have said notwithstanding her earlier same as if i agree with that statement he made at the hearing and i believe both republicans and democrats were satisfied with an estimate as well with everyone that empathy or at once in a person's heart to borrow a phrase from then senator obama to not disclose the decisions of

a judge. i think recall a little surprise flynn at the judge sotomayor at the hearing rejected the president's obama standard. teeseven i would not approach the issue of judging the with the president does pair of judges can rely on what is in their heart and she said it, they voted him aloft. congressman's fellow. the job of a judge is to apply the law and some of it is not the heart of that compels conclusions in cases it is the law. and i agree with us a minute into republicans and democrats alike appear to embrace that statement of a proper judicial philosophy. and no one defended the same and that then senator obama made five rivera two empathy or what is in a person's heart and i was encouraged to see that. now, mr. president but supporters of judge sotomayor appear willing to accept your statements that i have just quoted at that committee at face value. and i hope they're right i

really do. i certainly intend to take my colleagues agreement with the statements at face value and i expect that future nominees to the federal judiciary that will confront in this new consensus articulated by judge sotomayor at her hearing baerga and embrace and a bipartisan fashion by the members of the judiciary committee. mr. president i have no question about the outcome of this vote for a judge sotomayor i regret for the reasons i have stated because i cannot reconcile her previous davis with your testimony for fn judiciary committee that i wish judge sotomayor well ahead as she serves on the u.s. supreme court and i hope my concerns i have racer and the uncertainty and have about what kind of just issue will be to approve of those concerns unjustified. by the way she distinguishes herself as a member of the u.s. supreme court. i hope with tenure will

strengthen the porridge as well as its fidelity to the plain meaning of the constitution. i congratulate her and her loved ones on her historic achievement. of mr. president i yield the floor and of fey absence of a quorum. >> before and discussed the nomination of judge sotomayor i want to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues in the senate for their very warm welcome and hospitality. i joined in this body of a less than a month ago but i have been humbled by this institution if fund overfed goes on here and listen for laying from my colleagues. it is an honor to represent people of minnesota is in a special privilege to do so here at the usf tariff of mr. president, one of my first responsibility is on joining the senate was to participate in the nomination hearings for a judge sotomayor. i said at the start of the hearings that i wanted to be a

voice for the overwhelming majority of americans who aren't lawyers. the actions and the supreme court directly affect the everyday lives of all americans we choose to place on the supreme court and fax for everyone of us. that is what i want to do this evening. to put the nomination of judge sotomayor in context. of a one to put it in the context of what to the supreme court has done a the past five years and how that has affected the lives of minnesota's and all americans profess a our friend is the lead to some tough times. we are experiencing the highest unemployment in decades businesses are failing investors received their investments shrank. even disappear. the and despite all of this, this kind are a faltering economy in the past five years of the supreme for a has restricted the rights of americans as employees and small

business owners end as investors and they have done this by overturning longstanding precedents ferry let me put this in the context of a minnesota continues and go minnesota had an unemployment rate of 2.8% in love me repeat that. 10 years ago minnesota had in the and the planned rate of 2.8% and today it is 8.4% to answer and counties it hovers between 13 and 14%. and at the same time minnesota has and also refers, the twin cities are for the and the nation and the percentage of seniors 14 pass they the 65 brennan businesses are making tough personnel decisions you can bet that they're taking a good hard look at older workers with higher pensions and health care costs. but just last month the supreme

court eviscerated the one law designed to prevent discrimination against older workers, the ins -- adda as it is called. because of this case the groce case it is not enough now for workers suing for age discrimination to show that he or she was fired partly because of her age. under this new standard an older worker must now show that aids was and this and go the seventh to reason and for of a hiring. this is a difficult evan not practically impossible standard to meet. this also embraced with a longstanding rule that add a must be interpreted in the same as title seven of the civil rights act which protect women and minorities against discrimination in the workplace. because of the groce case minnesota's older workers have fewer rights in the workplace

precisely when that they need them the the most. this was the same court that two years ago part in a title seven suits by lilly ledbetter the woman who is paid less than her male colleagues with the same work for two decades. minnesota women are paid $0.74 for every dollar earned by a man. and until congress fixes this ruling last year the lilly ledbetter fair pay act this was in another ruling that with limited it minnesota's rights in the workplace. .. like entrepreneurs around the country, minnesota business owners are struggling. business bankruptcies in our state increased 40% between 2006 and 2008. and it will likely be worse in 2009. if there ever was a time small business owners in minnesota needed a leg up, it's right now.

but two years ago this supreme court overturned one of the strongest protections the small business owners have under the sherman act our main antitrust law. for over 100 years it has been illegal for manufacturers to price fix to force to prizes fix. that forces retailers to force their goods at a certain price. today, thanks to this court's ruling in the legion case, the price fixing is now permitted. in fact, the burden is now on consumers and small-business owners to show, through a complex economic analysis, that the price-fixing hooks them. this court has been no kinder to investors, like almost all investors, minnesota investors are reeling from the trillions of dollars of losses in the

stock market. these losses were partly caused by structural deficiencies in our finances them but they were also caused by speculation and by fraud. by people like bernie madoff and tom petters, a minnesota financier who is in prison right now charged with the 3.5 billion dollars scheme that bilked stockholders in a number of minnesota companies and yet last year, the supreme court handed down a decision that severely limited investors' ability to defend themselves against securities fraud. and the stoneridge case, the supreme court said that an investor cannot sue an outside accountant or lawyer that worked with the company to fraudulently alter its financial records to deliberately cut its books, and less than a third party somehow for some reason publicly announced its involvement.

together, the age discrimination in employment act title vii of the civil-rights act the sherman act and the securities and exchange act are some of the strongest protections that employees, small business owners and investors have under american law. these lots help to level the playing field for the less powerful in our society and yet and yet in each of these cases each of these laws the supreme court has ignored longstanding precedent and original congressional intent to limit the rights that these laws afford. precisely, when they are needed the most. the supreme court's willingness to ignore longstanding precedence to restrict individual rights is not limited to our economy. this supreme court also recently overturned a 30 year rule that

requires that a woman's health be taken into account in any loss of regulating her right to choose. this court is also boys to overturn critical protection to voters. the supreme court has questioned the constitutionality of section 5 of the voting rights act, even though the 15th amendment expressly grants congress the power to regulate elections and even though congress recently voted to authorize, reauthorize those provisions for the fourth time by a vote of 98-0. talk about judicial activism. this is judicial activism. this is the supreme court questioning the constitutionality of a law passed by congress under an explicit and exclusive grant of

power, granted in the constitution of the united states. if she is confirmed, the first case of justice sotomayor will hear, will reconsider the constitutionality of sections of mccain-feingold that the supreme court held just six years ago. the underlying principle in question goes back over 100 years to the tillman act of 1907. for 100 years congress has set with increasing force that corporation should not be spending money on federal election campaigns. and yet this court is poised to contravene that 100-year-old rule and its own ruling on the identical provision just six years ago. again, i think that this is judicial activism. in fact that they get is judicial activism in one direction, away from longstanding protections for the

individual and towards a more friendly law for the powerful. mr. president, as i said last week i firmly believe that in this context with this supreme court, a vote for judge sotomayor is a vote against judicial activism. in a careful review of her opinions as an appellate judge the nonpartisan congressional research service recently concluded that "perhaps the most consistent characteristic of judge sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis the upholding of past judicial precedence." of the two lundrigan 30 majority opinions that judge sotomayor wrote as an appellate judge the supreme court has reversed only three. that is three reversals out of

230 majority opinions. but, the best examples the judge sotomayor's inherent judicial restraint are the two cases for which she has ironically received the most criticism. the ricci case and maloney versus cuomo, the second circuit's most recent 2nd amendment case. in both of these cases judge sotomayor simply follow the supreme court's own maxim that it is the courts, the supreme court's praga tick alone to overrule one of its precedence. when the three-judge panel in ricci affirmed the district court's decision, it was simply following existing title vii lot. when the three-judge panel in the maloney case said that the second amendment does not apply to the states, it was simply following a 120-year-old supreme

court precedent that said exactly that. moreover a three-judge panel on the seventh circuit that included two of the most prominent conservative judges in the country, frank easterbrook and richard posner, reached the same exact conclusion unanimously. judge sonia sotomayor is a judge that follows and respects precedent. she is a judge that does not make new law. in fact, it seems that judge sotomayor's worst sin in this whole process is her straightforward observation that her life experiences shape who we are and what we do. this is not a new idea. 125 years ago, on the first page of the most famous treatise in american law oliver wendell

holmes wrote the life of the law has not been logic it has been experience. this isn't just an old idea either. injustices alito, scalia and thomas each acknowledged in their own confirmation hearings that their own life experiences being born into an immigrant family and exposure to discrimination, a childhood in poverty, shaped their own approach to judgment. but, judge sotomayor went beyond justice is alito scalia and thomas by also recognizing that judges must be aware of these prejudices and must not allow these prejudices to impact their approach to a case. mr. president, since this is a body that fell use its history i thought it would be appropriate to close by mentioning the last nominee to

the supreme court with a comparable amount of experience to judge sotomayor. that person is benjamin cardozo. cardoso was nominated to the supreme court in 1932 after spending 18 years on his state's highest court. like judge sotomayor judge cardozo was from new york. like judge sotomayor, he had a tough childhood of losing a parent when he was nine years old. he had a tough childhood. like her. like judge sotomayor, cardoso was from an minority. he was a descendant of portuguese immigrants. like judge sotomayor cardozo was rightly proud of his heritage. like judge sotomayor, cardoza was the most experienced nominee to the supreme court in his

generation. and yet unlike judge sotomayor judge cordoza did not attract controversy. in fact, he was unanimously confirmed to the supreme court in a voice vote that lasted all of ten seconds. mr. president, judge sotomayor is one of the leading jurists of our nation. if confirmed she will be the only judge on the supreme court with trial court experience. she would become one of the only with experience as a prosecutor, and as many have commented she would be the appointee with the most federal court experience in a century. mr. president, we have right now a chance to make history. thankfully, unlike a lot of the important decisions that we have to make and that come before this body, this one is an easy

one to make. judge sotomayor will not only be the first latina on the supreme court. she will be the first person of hispanic descent to reach the pinnacle of any one of the three branches of the federal government. and she could not be more qualified for this position. her appointment will help protect the individual rights and liberties that are so necessary for minnesotans and for all americans. and that this supreme court has steadily and substantially-- i am honored to cast my vote in favor of judge sonia sotomayor and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me. thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. >> more than 90 senators have committed to how they will vote on the nomination of sonia

sotomayor to the supreme court. you can see who is in favor and in opposition by going on line to c-span.org and clicking on the senate commitment page to read the center statements on the nomination.

>> several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. that have of the council of economic of the advisers christina romer will discuss the state of the economy here on c-span2 ed 845 eastern. at 10:00 on c-span a governmental subcommittee looks at the state of the postal service. also at 10:00 eastern on c-span3

a hearing on regional airlines and aviation safety before a senate transportation subcommittee. >> now the head of the federal aviation administration, randolph babbitt. he spoke about airline safety in a forum hosted by the airline pilots association. the association represents more

than 50,000 pilots in the u.s. and canada. this is a half hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. john, thank you for that very warm and kind introduction. it is a pleasure for me to be here. my tenure in short. i have bindi administrator for now my 66th day so i'm not exactly a seasoned veteran here. i have been quite busy, but they did have a chance last week to finally get a little bit of a break if you would. i got a chance to go out to oshkosh. don't know if any of you have ever been to watch gosh, the great air show out there but if you ever want to see the roots of aviation and feel the passion life and up close it is the greatest show on earth. it also gave me a chance to do something. i got to ride out there and in faa airplane which i don't get to do very often but i got to go and go up into the cockpit. i got to say a phrase that for 40 years would put a tindell in

my spine. i got to walk into the cockpit and say hi, i am from the faa and i'm going to be riding along with you today. [applause] now, as far as my subject those i have been busy. lead for congressional hearings as was mentioned in my first three weeks and in the middle i have a call to action coming out of the ntsb hearing. that broadband 50 aviation players from around the industry and brought in airline rabkin management and union representation ought to take a good hard look at safety. i have been back and forth to capitol hill more times than i really would like to count and i have been called to the white house four times in the midst of all of that but my schedule really is only a reflection of our issues and when i say our issues they are your issues. i want to say when we talk about these issues first, john, thank

you for calling this form. i am pleased that you invited to me. i'm happy to be here. i have had a chance to look at the agenda and i think you wallet covering the right stuff that the right time and this is a very important for met in a lot of progress can be made here. i would like to make a few observations if i could. when we talk about the things that are going on, there is a lot going on in in the midst of things like the inspector general looking at things we do, the omb, the gao, the "new york times," "usa today," brian williams, first-class passengers complaining we are seven minutes late and why can't i fix that, it is easy for a sometimes to forget something that has become very close to us and that is the issue of professionalism and the fact is that we cannot simply cannot regulate professionalism. no matter how many rules, now many how many regulations

mandatory training sessions, you pull them all together. the ended the day it still comes down to one thing it is the us and isi mean every pilot. each of us has a responsibility here. and each of us knows as professionals is up to us to earn their respect and to operate the aircraft professionally. the tools are there. we have spent a long time building in refining those tools, cockpit resource management and other things we have of our disposal but the chief pilot can't make you use them, the air safety inspector the line check pilot can make you use them, i can make use them. only you can make certain that those tools are used and applied properly to enhance our professionalism. if you haven't read the transcript, the cockpit voice recorder i would encourage you to do that. the professionalism of the flight crew has been raised as an issue. this isn't the first time we have had that come up as an

issue. the accident we have seen in the call to action i made have all really focused on the need for all of us to refocus on professionalism and that is the theme that runs through all of those investigations. don't get me wrong, i am not saying that pilots is a group are and professional. quite the contrary. what i am saying is it is time for veterans, people with experience, to take the extra effort to mentor the the young pilots that are coming up in this industry so that they have instilled in them the need in the demand to maintain the highest levels of professionalism all the time they operate aircraft. is not only deals with safety but this needs this deals with the need for all of us then he went particular to help the new pilots learn how to adapt, how to change things you have learned over the years with your experience pick up in the cockpits. let's face it, a number of us to back in the day as you might say

came up in a different environment. you couldn't find an airplane that didn't have somebody in the left seat that had it least ten years of experience when you came on board and those captains let me tell you, they might as well have been caring tablets of stone direct from the mountain. it they said it, you did it. there was no question. you listen then you learn. somewhere with our expansion we have lost a little bit of that. a number of us here, i am sure some of you are not familiar with airplanes that have flight engineers but if you started in that area you actually got to watch to pilots flying for your first couple of years and that was great experience that we need to find a different way because that is not happening today. their airline out there today were senior pilots have three years of experience and on like back then they are going right into jetson flying into some of the busiest air space in the world with for years of experience (202)628-0205 pilots. we have got to offer them better

tools. i am not saying that you've got to have 10 or 15 thousand hours under your belt, that is not what i'm saying that there is something to be said for having been flying around the system for a few seasons as you develop your experience. again, having experience is not enough. the people who have the experience need to make certain we are exchanging it. we need to make certain we are mentoring the ones who don't have that. this needs to become part of our professional dna. this transcript. if you have got experience in you are not sharing it, you are doing a disservice to the profession. this is not a time to be a man or woman of few words. no these new pilots need to hear from you. you need to point out the things you have learned in have those experience exchanges because this is about safety. safety is about saving lives. right now there's a rulemaking committee that john a little too and i am sure you will have

further discussions on. that is the huge issue for all of us. i know personally how big of initiatives because i tried to have a dress back in 1992. every predecessor of mine has worked on it. we are at a point now where we have a timeline of 45 days in that room making committee and that brings us to september 1st. we will that that rule inside of the faa by statute and by process. we will then turn it over to the department of transportation. they have a period of time to look at it. omb look said it and in that point of time that rulemaking will go out for public comment. i would not that i have asked in the interest of accelerating this that both the omb and the department of transportation accelerate their review of this support will. why does this take so long? people's said, it seems like an exceptionally long time. i think this audience appreciates just how complex this particular rule is that

rulemaking in general is delivers it and it is delivered to buy its vary design. the last thing we wanted some sort of a knee-jerk rule that does not answer the question at hand and i can tell you that this committee is giving all of the issues here a very good look. just as an example let me give you a question. what person do you think is concerned more with tea, the pilot who was flying from detroit at night with a backup crew and funds for rest or the private to its cud eight takeoffs and landings, who was going to or she is going to make those where the whether never gets better than 401 and they will do it all without leaving these cuts? at the end of the day, who is going to be the most fatigue pilot? i think we all know the answer to that but the regulations don't reflect that. that is wyden convener rulemaking committee. i want to make sure that the answers we get as working men

and women aviators are actually the right rules. rulemaking not only this one size not fit all but it is absolutely unsafe to think that it can. therefore we have a pretty close scrutiny in this rulemaking process. the early look at the flight time and do the time so far is progressing well. they are looking at the subject of the tiegs science which is something new, bringing signs into the rulemaking which i highly applaud. they are looking to see the difference in our limitations again, based on scientific data as they go through this process. they have presented physiological concepts of time in flight time in dooby and rats limitations and how they ferry. we have now definitions of duty and rest. captains authority and reserve all being considered by this committee. the scientists who specialize in fatigued have made presentations

about sleep operative tunis. all of these things including suki and rhythms and potential scheduling changes will be absorbed then commented on by this committee. regarding regional safety john mentioned and i am happy to have so much participation and contribution by the alpa pilots in union pilots run the nation along with the industry. we are holding a series of 12 nationwide airline safety forms and that started on july 21st. the goal is to stimulate a safer and more professional environment at our regional carey and i am pleased to report the airlines and the unions have all responded incredibly well to that call. the meetings will continue through august and they are around oliver. they are going to be in places like detroit chicago seattle twin cities, miami denver, st. louis, and denver. everyone should have an

opportunity. people's said to me i missed the first one. trussle you have a lot more opportunities. the discu air carrier management responsibilities and i would say to some degree our own responsibilities, crew education and support because some of the very things you are going to to be talking about that this very conference. professional standards, training standards, the performance, all of these are going to be discussed and is you expect the term i have used a lot mentoring and experienced transferrer are coming up over and over again. so we plan to collect best practices and innovative ideas and i will be sharing the results of that with the airlines and the unions. we can maximize how we take that information forward and put it to best use but the bottom line is i'm expecting all of the participants to make commitments to ratchet up their approach to excellence. taking us to the next level of safety. i can't say this any more

directly then i'm going to say right now. we all have to take on additional responsibilities whether we are required to legally or not. this is about safety and again safety is about saving lives. recently i spoke to the delta nuc and a private told me not to and set the bar too low for starters. but let me repeat now what i said then. i absolutely agree. we are working to devise training rules. i think we have had some discussion on that here. we are working in other areas. we are talking about raising the requirements tire and ordered to be the first officer and a multicrew pilot operation or airline operation. i might not be in the cockpit every day like i used to be but-- safety is what got me there and my goal is faa administrator is to make certain that safety is paramount in everything we say and everything we do.

and, i will leave you with this. if you think right now that the safety bar is set to high, then your standards are set too low. it is time for you to step up and without that, without all of us in this room stepping up we will not reach the next level of safety for the wit that i thank you and i applaud you for the wonderful opportunity to come and visit with you today. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> well, caxton babbitt has graciously asked to spend a few more minutes with us. if there are any questions. i told them at the end of the week we might have questions and we might also have statements

and actions ready to go but at this time, if there is a pressing question, let's take the opportunity. if you stand you will have to come up here. i don't know if we have a microphone or not. it looks like we do have one here. over here. >> i am a captain out of chicago for united. just about the fatigue. i understand we are looking at the base which is probably quite the improvement. dhea and alpa sometimes find themselves on opposite sides of something and while lip service generally comes out from agreements about fatigue, we are going to be taking likely a different look at it then the ata is. and that they have already come out saying more studies need to be done and we need to slow this thing down basically. is the faa kind of, your political bodies of the reality of the situation they get to wield a pretty good stick in

trying to beat you about the head and shoulders with it, but are you guys prepared, you know this is coming and you know this is going to be something you are going to have to address. is it something between the operators and airlines themselves? >> it is a very good question and let me answer in this fashion. in the past we have made this attempts before and using the rulemaking committee process we have tried to bring the parties together and let them come to a conclusion. that always leave somebody unfortunately the opportunity to sit in the catbird seat or if we could not come to consensus we have walked away from the process and said we are better off where we are. ..

i have a piece of proposed legislation for the senate's which would mandate to part 121 operators to integrate from programs into a the system. if there is one paragraph that actually, i'm here which i will quote from here:.edu minister acting in collaboration from aviation industry interested parties shall consider the merits and feasibility of

incorporating cockpit voice recorder data in safety oversight practices. my question to you is, how do you view this? how good this benefits safety? and use it for this? >> well, first of let me back up if i could to about a 30,000-foot view of what is being proposed there. and some caution is to be used in how we do this. for example of this is mandated one of the reasons that the programs are voluntary is because by not mandating them the faa has no requirement to have lifted it and therefore is not discoverable and one of the things that makes the programs work and by the way i am a huge proponent, i signed a very first fogle agreement with david henson was by the way was having the thing among my colleagues at alpha at the time but i think we found is proven to be in incredible source of gathering data coming trends and spawning

things but by mandating in by legislating it we need to be careful that we maintain that immunity because my concern is a lot of people will put their hand up anymore. i think the idea of a spot check on the voice recorder has even been recommended i heard it first from an alpha group. why couldn't we do a spot check like we do this to make sure that we have a sterile cockpit and occasionally. but my concern is the same thing. again we want assurances that this is not discoverable data so well the paragraph cutter i several, i but when we look at that we need to make certain that anybody all the interested parties on unduly exposed or we don't do unintended consequences but damaging another program and so we will work as closely as we canñr with congress and of course, with representatives from out what two make sure that what we get is the best

collection of data to enhance safety and that would be its sole purpose so you are going to insist on those protections and i think we're going to have some explaining to do to make sure that people appreciate the unintended consequences of writing something that well but we will work with congress and i'm sure will come up with something in the end enhances safety. >> good afternoon capt. and not quite sure it was captain babbitt or mr. administrator i presume. i appreciate your coming here and the comments you have made of fatigue. i know as an alpha rep., the ntsb has on several occasions mentioned that reducing rest was never meant to be scheduling to and we've tried to get legislation on that as my peers mention the from the 88 thought that on numerous occasions.

in some of your comments you mentioned about voluntary compliance and i was wondering how you are going to address the situation between 28, reduced breasts of using the minimum allowed by the hours and airline voluntary compliance? >> let's separate issues, first of all the fatigue issue is very valid and i think which you will see addressed is one i talked about the differences and tried to side in my remarks to the difference between someone who is on a long-haul 18 our interest and then someone who will do it all and how our duty making takeoffs and landings all at the time approaches, there's a huge difference there. there's also a huge difference between going to work it 10:00 o'clock at night and getting through at 8:00 o'clock in the market which would appear to be imad the sow could attend our duty day. it is a big deal is between doing that in going to work in o'clock and finish of alondra

today at 8:00 o'clock tonight. right now the regulations do not recognize whatsoever the difference between those two it duties know what i'm hoping will come out of this would take and the flight to the time at rest requirements which is in consideration and is a recognition that those are different to you times and they do not need seven things. these aren't to be used as the scheduling tool because when you're on the back of the pocket is a difference in crime and so i hope those are unjust and when we talk about voluntary compliance some of the things we're talking about and again under say we have of the constraints that we maintain this information becomes ours and they're for becomes discoverable. what i like to see is adjusted every major carrier was viewed as the major carrier when you make an agreement with regional carrier you have the right to say i was to carry my passengers unless you have in place a vocal program and unless you have in

place looking into some of the other thing. of a proven to be a tremendous benefits and most carriers use it in the mainline world. of all of the things this is about taking the best practices and embracing them as opposed to making us mandate them and possibly losing some of the benefits we dead by compliance so that is the way as separate those things of that answers your question. may be time for one or two more. >> i'm delighted to hear your support for this. obviously those will be in a burn parts of reaching the next level of safety, but realizing the potential of the programs however, sometimes we find that realizing the potential is impeded by some dinosaurs and the administration whose thinking is in keeping with a lot of riss memorialization and safety folger and out like to know if you plan to do to address the khosa of the faa and

line those that don't get it yet or into if they refuse to come around? [laughter] >> [applause] >> there is the ntsb part of the question [laughter] i did appear to know who this faa khosa let me address that once i think that is sort of a misnomer sometimes. i think there has been there want to emphasize i have said this in public speaking before and will save here i just have a windchill. i'm looking out front not spending a lot of time in the rearview mirror. what we want to do going for that is have an enclosure within that the faa and there are great people that workfare and the two months i have been there i'm absolutely baffled with the professionalism and a willingness to work. given the tools and given the

signals and the clearance to go for and every time i turned around i am seeing the folks at the faa working in collaboration with alpha and the flight attendants and machinists and rules of manufacturers and the feedback i get is a terrific. i don't know again it might be of some benefit to have some bad round but i know what i am seeing going for it is very positive. it got someone to complain to if you don't see it heening that way i'm going to serving do my best and the taurus and tries to meet all the people in the faa and i encourage and i'm excited about these folks are doing. they have huge challenges in front of us. we have a whole next generation navigation space how we do all of the regulations and will have approaches. the equipment we never dreamed of 10 years ago. these are all big challenges and we need everybody pulling the

wagon. i can assure you you have all the horses at the faa pulling hard and if that is not the case you have my phone number. >> may i commend you on the aggressive safety agenda that you've been administrator. my question is what is your plan to balance that with promoting air safety? we know that the two primary missions are above and to promote air travel and to promote air safety. had you planned on bouncing to a better degree than their predecessors? >> congress of a little of that, they took with the promotion current, they truly have and they wanted us to focus more on the safety. it's not an obligation for us to promote interestingly for space travel but not commercial and am not making that up. [laughter] what i want to do and i think this is an area and you're going to see me working there in a

grotesque you to help me work there, it annoys troubles me when i sat in this state its state and john, i'm -- it's like an airline you get to sit in all the states. but it troubles me that last year in the year 2008 we carried it 753 million people. we conduct 70,000 operations every single day. dinow scratch to anybody we didn't hurt anybody. we had one accident and it was a tragedy and a man the front page and if we killed one person that is one too many. but 49 -- every day in this country which killed 49 people in rush hour before 8:00 o'clock. every day of. we put 90,000 people who are going to die in hospitals this year of staph infections. and we take an incredible amount of a front-page spectacular bad press for something that is a

tragedy here and i've met with those families, it's terrible and all of us wish no accidents ever happened but i think what we have been guilty of a four charged guilty of is we get looked past for all the incredible things that we do, this incredibly safe system that have comes under i think a fairly significant amount of undue scrutiny. we sort of look past all the wonderful things that we do. so we are going to need to read together better to make people appreciate. is your livelihood, your profession, your other professionals and as a way to have a lot of colleagues with flight attendants and mechanics air-traffic controllers and all the people of the faa area where from accounting to regulatory writing, all of those things make the system work. and i don't think that we've quite given enough credit for when a great system is so i will ask for your help so people will appreciate that because we do -- it would not work as well whether voluntary regulated and

it would not work without the professionalism of everybody involved so i'll ask for your help there.7s

>> next a hearing on regulating the credit rating agencies that determine the riskiness of investments. the senate banking committee is chaired by chris dodd of connecticut, this is a little more than two and a half hours. >> the committee will come to order, thank you. i think my colleagues for being here this morning.

the title of our hearing this mine is examining proposals to enhance the regulation of credit rating agencies and loving to say briefly i want to make a few brief opening comments in terms of senator shelby and it with the approval of my colleague from alabama and that is jack reed if you must make a quick opening as has senator shelby the opening comments on this as well and we planned it this at the committee level and committed a full committee hearing and i should point out to my colleagues beginning in march of 06 under the leadership of senator shelby we had a hearing in march on the subject matter. in september of 07i became chairman on the rating agencies we have a hearing april 22nd of a 08 and we had hearings on march 10th and march 26th that are broader hearings but spend a lot of time on the

rating agencies over the last three years one too five, this will be the sixth hearing that focused a lot on pretty agencies and this will be our last hearing before the coming back in september and i just want to thank that only my colleagues but our staffs. this has been -- we have worked pretty hard on this than in it this is a 29th or 30th hearing since january 20th end of this week alone had to. we have had 15 hearings on the subject matter alone in the last four weeks and i know that is exhausting for staff working very hard for these things and members with all the other work we have of the discussions going on it has been tremendously burst while and virtually always have been to try to determine what is the best course to follow what will be maybe the most important piece of legislation this committee will deal with or has dealt with in decades and that is the modernization of and into regulations so it's been

tremendously worthwhile and of the affair with this is for the administration as well as the private sector and academic and others to come in for the committee the dozens to share their thoughts and ideas and we're very grateful for that input as we will now begin the process of trying to take those ideas and in corporate them into some legislative approvals. senator shelby and ben are determined to have this and inclusive of process for all our colleagues are interested are invited to bid the table as we bring the ideas together and come up with a proposal that we can embrace and there'll be points where we have disagreements but i think we will be in agreement for more than disagreement on matters and that and that encouraging as you go forward so i wanted to share those thoughts and will ask the consent of the list of our hearings over the last 2,009 included for those who want to see it. on the subject matter before us today that they just say that

this hearing on rating agencies began of this may have different views of all of this but the two areas we all know that sharon culpability for the problems we have seen unfold in our economy but two areas alonqç i think this is a special recognition for the problems one was of course the failure to regulate the brokers around marketing and promoting products that the new record to grave problems, there was no with a bra worse for going to be the fully indexed price of these mortgages and yet were luring people getting paid and selling off and of course, covering themselves financially but literally knowing full well this was going to create a bubble and come back to haunt us. this was to me standing in a way that agencies that hold themselves out of altos looking this morning and this is not the witnesses before us today but a

major rating agency and this is the web site this morning not the web site of four years ago top of the website and the name of agency, independent credit ratings and the indices' risk evaluation authority the objective and credible. i mean, in a sense of risk evaluation, we're being paid by the people we are waiting. never about due diligence to determine whether or not these products or as credit were they as they were claiming to be in yet still two this day suggesting somehow that their independent conducting risk evaluation at all quite the opposite and so this is an area or a thing there is a lot of shared the views of what we need to do and you'll hear about that but this morning and asked to pull of this website and was in and find that despite all that has been said in six hearings on the seventh matter and some of us with a quick answer and how

we move in a different direction but clearly the present situation cannot last. so this is an area which will clearly be a part of the our legislation and one at that is deserving of some real attention in the coming days but again and that my colleagues for their work on the subject matter and these companies need to be providing income research and death analysis on their web sites. which is not today so let's return to senator shelby for opening comments and then jack free for comments and get to our witnesses. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the nature of today's credit rating agency reflects decades of regulatory missteps rather than the market preferences. over the years the government granted special regulatory status to a small number of rating agencies have been tied to those firms from potential

competitors. beginning in 1975 securities and exchange commission began investing in our tests are zero ratings that in to certain key regulations, once credit ratings and private regulatory status the griffin to state regulations and private investment guidelines. the staff of it sec and controlled access to the price nationally and recommends statistical rating organization or an rsr0 designation by suggesting potential interest to of a set of criteria and incredibly slow time line. they did little to receive a the nrsro and never the less because of the doors that open ratings from nrsro became an excuse for some investors to stop doing their own due diligence that senator dodd alluded to. widespread over reliance on ratings meant that the effects of poor quality or inadequately

updated ratings could ripple through the markets. by encouraging reliance on a small number of big. rating agency's bureaucrats at the sec expos and vietnam system to a tremendous risk. our friend the initial prices which was caused in part and that credit rating agency's failure to appreciate the risks associated with the complex structure products demonstrates just how big that systemic risk was barrett if the troubles caused by the sec of one regime, however cannot come as a surprise. several years ago when i was chairman of this committee we acted to address the problem after the sec film to the action on its own. i felt that the industry's heavy concentration in high office with symptoms of an industry in serious need of reform. we didn't pass a credit rating agency room and 2006 and the accent request is for the nrsro

application process it also gave the sec of 30 to regulate disclosures and conference of interest as well as an unfair and abusive practices. unfortunately fellow we pass in 2006 to not have time to take root before the problem that they were intended to remedy into their toll. the sec adopted rules pursuant to the legislation in june of 07. over the polling months the number of the nrsro devil just in the performance of many highly rated subprime securities revealed the such securities for not as safe as the rating agencies said they were. today we will consider a legislative proposal by the administration and others to revisit the regulation of credit rating agencies. in determining whether a new legislative steps are required i believe we should keep in mind that the 06 reforms are still working their way to the system, that doesn't mean however that we shouldn't consider further changes. every o(

one option is to remove. mandates from regulations. another is materially improving disclosure. as with any regulatory reform however, must also be mindful of unintended consequences. i strongly believe that the credit rating agencies played a pivotal role in the collapse of the financial markets. in a regulatory run at christmas a that into consideration and heavily we will. thank you mr. chairman timothy g. raymond and as i mentioned i want to commend our colleague in the former chairman of the committee senator shelby. he was really involved in the subject matter paul simon's work together on the matter and did great work and he has been followed in that effort by jack green and one to thank him publicly for dealing with these matters and has worked very hard in developing legislative proposals which can bide our colleagues to take a look at is considered part of our overall financial modernization bill but

has been tremendously helpful unknown to think jack reed for his work. and a cause? >> thank you mr. chairman, on to thank you for that only one in this hearing to reference to reform the financial institution regulation. i particularly want to commend senator shelby because it was his leadership in of six that first gave the sec and the clear authority to begin to regulate the credit rating agency is in affect the credit rating agencies are so central to invest decisions that is comparable for this good housekeeping seal of approval it is to expect in municipal finance director in a small town to build to do the due diligence to make sure he has the triple-a-rated asking a lot so we depend significantly on the rating agencies and as evidence suggests part of our current economic problems were

unresolved the of the ratings that are not substantiated over the long run. what i believe we have to do is to give legislative and support to the sec effort to focus on transparency to enhance disclosure and also to kantor and the appearance or substance of conflict of interest and the legislation i proposed and in many respects that is reflected in the administration's proposal would do that. the other issue that i have included my legislation that is to change the depleting standard in securities cases so that a plaintiff could at least reach the discovery stage with respect to a credit rating agency to see if, in fact, their behavior was reckless and we do not change the overall standard which is a very high atmar for liability but and i believe today under the securities laws is very

difficult for a plaintiff to even get to the discovery to see what impact went on with the rating and i think this is something that we should pursue. mr. chairman, thank you and of the board to the witnesses. >> thank you very much and we thank you again for your work in this matter in the frontier questions. as i said the assets, instead of helping people understand risk it was hiding risk in effect too often and relying on the people who pay their salaries and as much to do the market villiers' anything i can think of and the dependency people have on them so clearly there is need for attention so that we leverage your testimony. >> it's a pleasure to be fed fears today with you in the other members of the committee to talk about the administration's plan for an initial regulatory reform. as you know on june 17th president of, unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory

reforms to lay the foundation for a stay for more stable financial system% of jeff legislation for your consideration and most of the areas covered by the qboposal. and in the weeks since the release of a proposal we have worked with you and your staffs and testimony in briefings of a bipartisan basis to explain it if one of the legislation barrett it is today only to focus on credit ratings and agencies in the role they play in creating a system where risk build up without being accounted for properly understood and how these ratings contributed to assist in the far too fragile and it in the safety changes in the economic outlook for the uncertainty in the financial markets. this committee has provided strong leadership to end the the first registration with the regulation of rating agencies and give as an experiment under senator shelby's leadership and chairman donald f. from a ranking member shell because senators reid and bunning continue that condition for a.

the proposals that will discuss the they build on that already strong foundation as committee work. it is worth while to begin a discussion of credit ratings with a basic explanation of the role they play. rating agencies of the american failure in a market with our worst lenders them more about their own financial prospects of lenders do and especially in the capital markets where leather is what the purchasing is a small portion of the bar wars that in a form of a bond or acid and security it can be inefficient for all lenders to get the information they need to evaluate the credit worthiness. lenders will not lend as much as they otherwise might especially the lesser-known far worse such as municipalities and the zero offers a vivid in the higher rates. greta rating agencies provide a rating piece on scale economies access to information in the cumulative experience. at the same time put ratings played a key role in key enabling role in the buildup of

risk in our system. and contributed to the date fragility that was exposed in the past two years. the current crisis has many causes but the major theme it was at risk complex and often misunderstood the build up in a way as supervisors and regulators, market participants did not and cannot monitor %,5%ujuent or respond to rapid earnings from and growth driven by innovation overwhelmed the will or the ability to maintain robust internal controls and risk-management systems. credit rating agencies have a long track record of elevating the risk of bonds but of elevated stretch of an enterprise is a fundamentally different type of analysis. as a bank securities represent a right to the cash flows of a large bundle of smaller assets, and specs also rely on john chang and slicing a potential losses in this process relies on quantitative models that can produce in did produce any

desire probability of the fault. and credit ratings like transparency with regard to the true risks that the rating measured and mccourt assumptions that and from the rating and a potential conflict of interest in generating that rating. this would particularly acute for ratings board concentrated systemic risk are quite different from the more idiosyncratic risk of corporate bonds and a much more sensitive to the underlying assumptions. investors relied on a rating agency's assessment of process and is and they saw those risks of a remarkably similar to spy to the complex and different securities and the assets. all family this led to serious over reliance on the system for rating credits and was neither transparent nor free from conflict and when it turned out that many of the ratings were overly optimistic to say the least, it held to bring down our financial system during the the

financial crisis. we do need fundamental reform, the administration's plan thatñr focuses on a series of additional measures in three key areas, transparency, reduction of rating shopping and addressing complex of interest. recognizes the problem of over reliance and calls for reducing the ratings uses whergvi possible. with respect to transparency we would call first for a better transparency in the rating agency process itself as well as better in securitization market is more broadly. we would require a transparency with respect to qualitative and quantitative formation underlying the ratings of thatñr investors can carry out their own due diligence more effectively. mr. chairman, i see that my time is up, with human event ticket of a couple more moments to outline the key proposals? the use of a vehicle racism

between traditional corporate bond a stretch of financial products allow investors to use their existing san is with respect to ratings of end allowed regulators to use existing dimas with of the need to consider the different risks posed by a structure the products printed our proposal to address this to read for a third time that rating agencies use rating symbols that distinguish between centrism and then structure of financial products. and the press point transparency and second on rating shopping. an issue in an attempt to shop by listening readings from multiple agencies and listening the agencies that provide the highest one. our proposal would require instant that an issuer disclose all of the preliminary ratings and received from different credit rating agencies. the investor is to see how much the issue had shot that is exceeding one of the preliminary ratings and i should health deteriorating shopping in the press plays. in addition it has proposed the

beneficial role that would require agencies to disclose the rating histories of the markets can assess the long-term quality ratings. in addition we strongly support a proposed sec rule that would require issuers to provide in the same data provide 21 credit rating agency to all other credit rating agencies. it is to allow those agencies to providp additional independent analysis into the market and to improve the competitive in the marketplace in a beneficial positive way. third with respect to conflict of interest, is running transparency requirement with respect to payments, we would in addition been reading it is his from providing services to issuers that they also raised and each rating agency when required to disclose the fees that they were paid for particular rating as well as the total fees paid to the rating agency by the issue of the

previous two years. leslie we need to shave them and build on sec supervision with a dedicated office focused on the compliance a requirement that the sec evaluate the rating agency's compliance with their own rules and their own methodologies. in conclusion, we all love that markets rely on faith and trust. we need to restore honesty and integrity to our financial system and then we have set forth below for consideration with the and the foundation for an into regulation that in our judgment were, once again, homemaker markets both vital and strong. >> thank you very much, and the images say we appreciate very much as one of the administration's continuing conversation with us in this committee about your ideas here and we welcome them here and i perales senator shelby and then look for to the ideas that come up with and the thoughts that are coming from the administration as well as others

as i said earlier. this is a committee that is open and a dynamic process and we want to hear ideas. that is how we ought to move or in the levee began by raising the issue given the problems caused by faulty ratings and then a first bomb federal oversight we have come to that conclusion and the question is how do this but we recognize the problem and what is the answer is a lot of different views of what the position being and i said i'd try to some people in the private sector them begin to raise the question of whether the new rating agencies and given more transparency, the market in many ways can help to determine whether or not giving the product is knightley with a of a triple a rating or something less so there's an argument to say this is an archaic structure of although i don't believe that is a widely held view that those who embrace that you might want to share with new issue that has been held by some in direct conflict with the proposal with

administration has given us and that is degrading to office within the sec into vendetta the oversight of rating agencies. the council of institutional investors prepared by professor frank, recommends creating a single independent parading agency oversight board to oversee registration inspection standards and enforcement actions related to did nrsro a similar to the public accounting oversight board for accountants purvis as an independent board cannot for higher salaries gain expertise. others have observed the regulation could be moved in systemic risk regulator authority. in please describe a few have the treasury determines which regulator among these options would be best to oversee the credit rating agencies? haven't to come to the sec joyce? mr. chairman, mr. chairman and think choice? poor and functions in this area.

this committee's attention of the leadership ofç senator shelby enhanced that authority to the sec. we were attempting to build on the basic foundation in our legislative proposal. under our proposal the sec and to delegate some of those functions to the public accounting board as a way of recognizing their expertise. in our judgment of the sec is able to attract by highly talented individuals in this area and having been dedicated office focus on this would enhance the mission. >> let me -- i'm going to raise a question with to which i list them by the question because i assume that this one on the barely a dozen pair of the credit rating agencies i'm told they do not attend to verify the information appears to the issues provide making the rating and this has led to a perception among some that the rating agencies think this through samoset face fell in and choose

to ignore other information they receive or are aware of about the issuer's one producing the rating parent do you feel would be appropriate to require rating agencies in formulating to consider information they receive about an issuer and find credible from outside sources what i find standing is i assume that one on and i'm told it doesn't appear in so this is sort of an answering of my own question but tell me why you think there should be a different answer to the one of suggesting in my questioning? >> alan never be so foolish. [laughter] i hope. >> you shouldn't feel shy others to all the time the. >> we tried to draw the line in and tried to be quite clear that the government should be in the business of designing the methodologies with the rating agencies or validating them in any way because we think that will just increase reliance on them. we have been quite clear that they need to disclose what ever

due diligence they do so there is transparency to the investors when they get a rating company was say we did not to any due diligence on this rating with the rating company would have to say the due diligence consisted of calling our buddy or hopefully one of the transparency the rating agency would have to say we did a real due diligence with a third party and they can certify the enchanted loan files. i think that with that level of transparency i would be very hard for harder for it credit rating agencies to continue a practice at least a mixed practice with respect to the kind of due diligence. >> in the first sentence or two in your answer to my question, we don't want to dictate a required rating agencies to conduct their due diligence. fox8 if a but i don't of

december 2%, and we don't require them to do in due diligence, if we don't require them to please consider information credible information that my confidence information they are receiving from issuers paying, how can we have any confidence if we don't require that as a matter of public policy? >> i think there is room for a lot of reasonable peopleç to disagree about exactly where to draw the line on the methodologies mr. chairman but i think the key principle is we want to be sure there is transparency about one ever methods they use. we want to make sure that the sec can examine the with the agencies have actually use the procedures in this and they're using. >> is a they are relying on the issuer's and of all that his peers in the world you telling me that you're relying on the information that does not give me a great deal of confidence. >> it doesn't give me in confidence, and thus suggesting that but i think that we should

not inflate the confidence level the rating agencies would have on the basis of that level if the investor committee concede is required to be shown that the kind of do diligence that is being conducted isn't really the diligence that ought to be do i think it will have a significant affect on the process. >> secretary barr, it took a long stretch to bring a lot of confidence back into what we feel has been a loss of wages to live not? >> i would professor. >> secretary barr, s&p moody's and fitch have not in most people's lives performed well in recent years. i think that's probably an understatement. nevertheless the sec has exhibited any persistent confidence in these three firms. three firms a sentiment that

meant less to celebrate a tour of requirements that is less the organizational structure approaching to ratings and payment scheme of those firms. there seems to be similar bias in their draft legislation. i hope not. what steps if any did you take in you and your team to ensure that no particular organizational structure approached the ratings for pam malone was favored over another and that the rail into researcher will accommodate innovative interest and have those advocated three firms nominated that don't have a doll how all the business but there is not enough competition there. why should do just bless the three firms? >> senator we would agree with you there should be competition in this stage more intense than to the market. they should be done on a level playing field. we should have a diversity of approaches to business structure

and invested in issuer became models that need to be a common in the system and method of that is absolutely critical. >> something has gone wrong. we both agree with that and so what we're trying to do is have a basic new approach to it to try to bring more transparency, on a transparency and eliminate conflicts of interest on these things that you were so rampant and in this business. do we agree on that? >> yes and the fundamental principles are indebted in our legislation and we would be in agreement about that. >> how is it the decision to leave the nrsro ratings embedded in the regulatory framework consistent with the goal of not for a regulatory paralysis? >> senator, i think that we share the goal of reducing reliance both on by private investors and by public regulators on the rating system

and our judgment that requires methodically and carefully going through each way in which rating agencies are used by different regulators in different contexts. there may be some areas where you can reduce reliance and there may be others are you can eliminate reliance an emmy in some areas where you can use the rating which you have to require judgment on top of that. in each of the context is quite in our judgment specific and work our way through it. we are committed to doing that the president is working on financial markets bucking at this issue and again regulation by regulation and. >> t believe one of the priorities to have a lot to be to straighten out the problems of that trio team necessary with the rating agency? >> i think it is one of the top priorities and reform along with

any sure we have resolution authority and making sure we have a way of reducing systemic risk in this system and protecting consumers so it is a critical part of the overall package. >> one of the practice that led this committee to act in 2006 legislatively was that at the nrsro policy decisions were being made at the sec and the staff level by the than the commission level as you will not appear freestanding offices at the commission such as the office of compliance inspections and examinations have not always been subject to the same level of scrutiny as the main divisions. do you propose an office to be treated dedicated to the nrsro supervision? how to ensure here sufficient accountability to the commission? >> of senator that is an issue i'd be happy to continue to work further with the sec in our judgment having a dedicated

office would increase accountability to the commission and to the congress because you know exactly who's responsible for that job. >> my last question because my time is about out the also proposed authorizing the sec to delegate reviews of nrsro to the public accounting oversight board. and what is the expertise that makes it uniquely qualified for this task and would you recommend it to reflect the new field with a knife? >> there may be elements that could be delegated it with methodologies and other matters when they do have expertise and we have not considered restructuring the board to accommodate that. i would view that was available

option to the ual but not to the proposal. >> thank you very much, senator rated. >> thank you mr. chairman, with the issues event chairman donna raised with diligence is approached by the second panel on behalf of which. one suggests that we is trying to the mutual funds and other institutional investors that they cannot rely on ratings to meet their fiduciary obligations unless there wasn't that a third-party due diligence and mr. fitch's approaches to ensure that issuers perform such due diligence. you have a position with respect to these? >> administration has not weighed in on the question of whether there should be additional requirements was that of the rating agencies with respect to the purchasers of of. securitization is. i think that we would want to be

careful again than to take steps that would suggest success of confidence in the rings themselves and anything we can do that improves due diligence by investors is likely to be in the right direction in, but whether that is to be a requirement on the purchaser or not i frankly have not formed in developed the new. >> when i made aspics' of legislation i propose is to it at least a just a fleeting standards and effectively private brand and vashon would be i think a stimulus for a lot of due diligence is that your business? >> judgment this presented a complicated question. on one hand the change in the

pleading standard might increase the incentives and this is something the other hand we were concerned that such a standard might increase reliance by the investor public from the rating agency is and may provide further avenues for issuers to sue over corporate downgrades which we thought would potentially pose a problem in the system so in our judgment this was a very close question and we did not included in our legislative proposal. >> in his testimony he said mandatory registrations concept is unnecessary free-speech principles and then wrapping rating says my prediction of a proposal raise barriers to entry

how you respond to the use first minute registrations on this is very? >> and a judge of the credit rating agency shouldn't be able to opt out of having highest in its and a level playing field and consistent with our overall approach to financial bring good tory reform we don't think that financial institutions and credit rating agencies or other participants should choose their regulator were not. and so on our judgment having a high standard and level playing field for competition was important. on the basis of the 2006 legislation there is in place the system for encouraging new entrants into the credit rating agency process registration. it will not be a significant barrier and we think competition is a good idea when it is on a level playing field of high status and there's no race to the bottom the competition is based on everybody plan by the

same roles. >> finally in the testimony of for the questions it raised about the symbols and the structure and on friday suggests they do not know there were buying short-term products and they did not understand the rest essentially a non symbolic but accuracy and again how juries bond that? >> i think the rating of a structure project is a law fundamentally different answers as from the rating of the corporate bond and then in distinguishing features need to be noted. it is not just a symbol that is used with the underlying availability of quantitative information we would require disclosure on. the package of those was in his transparency and make it less likely that burma's ratings can

be invented it. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> senator carper. >> mr. chairman, thank-you for all of you're average and is regarded in this thing to remain here. you are in very pleasant guy and hoping that overtime will get this zero and balance. i want to say that just listening to the testimony it just seems a little schizophrenic in that in this was the biggest regulatory failure in two years and in essence regulators outsourced the regulation at that 34 private entities. that is really what has happened here. in and we obviously realize they were doing no due diligence and basically taking with issuers are saying. in testimony in answering a minute ago you said that the government should not be in the business of designing what these guys do is put on the other

hand, in as a relates to consumer protection you guys want to design the products that private companies are offering. i just find this almost and out of body thing when we're looking at trying to fix the inconsistencies that led to this in on one hand we're doing almost one thing but transparency. and, on the other hand, we're getting into and to a telling companies where products are going to offer. this is sort of an imbalance approach and i want to spend long on that but i wonder if you want to rebut that at all. >> yes you and i have had this exchange on occasions in our judgment, we are not suggesting that the government is going to win the business designing projects and the legislation provides a product in the marketplace that is a standard product demonstrator mortgage and when a customer is being offered to pay option on the

mortgage brokers should show them and so we're not in the business is done in that product in their san there is a product and it is a new product how do we judge this. in that context in large group of individuals who are not sophisticated investors and market participants is fundamentally different context from the context of credit rating agencies with the basic backdrop investor the basic sophisticated retail investors' participation so you'd want to come up with this inñr a separate to each of the marketplaces. >> i appreciate that and i do see the of that you're basically keeping this a mandatory scheme in process and making people live or pay for them. in new york insurance

commissioner up until recently suggested that instead of this scheme we have now since insurance companies in particular rely heavily on ratings that the insurance entities in the states that as we pay to the ratings and they should be made available to all and the weight of credit rating agencies don't perform properly there would be discarded but in essence a whole different way of looking at it so that may not be perfect but i wonder if that kind of thinking makes any sense from your standpoint. >> i do think it makes sense to have a diversity of piven models and investor pay model and is to repay models. i think investors pay models have some down sides once the rating occurs, there are concerns that the investor would have incentives to avoid downgrades on their own holdings but i do think there is having a diverse city of approaches within the same basic legal

structure makes a lot of sense. i think we need to reduce reliance on a by regulated entities and ratings but i think it will be picking process and to be the time to review of how to replace that function in the regulatory structure with alternative judgments that can perform similar functions. >> i have issued bonds in the past and have rating agencies made them. and you wanted to know we are paid in full. [laughter] but it is an interesting process that too go through. in you really do sort of an entity that is going to give the rating and then you pay them an up-front fee and then as the bar work is what the bullets to pay everything back over time. i do wonder -- and. >> that is very old fashioned of you, senator. [laughter] >> thank you for that i chile.

[laughter] i do wonder if we should consider in different payment mechanism where in essence the credit rating agencies have skin in the game over time and then instead of being paid up front of them are paid based on how to perform so we talked about that with mortgage brokers and others who have had no skin in the game and i wonder if he might comment on that investing some folks and colleagues and the other budding on the other side of the aisle have been promoting something called covering bonds were innocents instead of getting all of the banks' balance sheets they in essence are in the game all the way through. i wonder if he might comment on those and thank you for your testimony in spite of some of the differences we have and there's not time to enumerate all those right now. i do with ford to working with you and others to come up with something that is in the middle of the road team and thank you senator. i think both