did. having gone that off my chest, let me return to the question. a little more than five months after the recovery act was passed, can we see the effect on the macroeconomy? the answer is almost surely yes. the reason i say almost surely is because the recovery act has only been in effect for five months. that means we only have one quarter of economic data on economic outcomes. if there is one thing i have learned in the past six months it is not to read too much into any one number. but with that disclaimer in mind, let me show you a graph of the growth rate of real gdp. ..

>> it would have been hard for the economy destabilized much faster than it had. this graph shows you the pros rate -- shows you the change and growth rate of real gdp for the last 25 years. the rise in gdp growth from the first quarter to the second was the largest in almost a decade, and the second largest in the past quarter century. all right. this picture shows the change in payroll employment over the recession. a key indicator of just how brutal this recession has been is the fact that in the first

quarter of this year, we lost there late 700,000 jobs per month. in the second quarter, we lost on average 436,000 jobs per month. this rate of job loss is horrendous. but the change does suggest that we are on the right trajectory. this figure, again shows the change in the change in employment. and the movement in job loss from the first quarter to the second was the largest in almost 30 years. in other words, after we administered the medicine, the economy that was in freefall stabilized. stabilize substantially. and now looks as though it could begin to recover in the second half of the year. of course, identifying the effects of the recovery ask it is just a few data points is inherently difficult. we don't observe what would have happened in the absence of the fiscal stimulus. one way to try to add rigor to

the analysis, of the behavior of the key indicators, is to do a more formal economy after forecasting exercise. and there are of course the various ways to do such an exercise, but let me just discuss the results of a typical one. we forecast the usual behavior of gdp and employment jointly using data from 1990 through 2007. what we will do his forecast gdp growth and average job loss in the second quarter of 2009 using actual data up through the first quarter of the year. what this picture shows is the forecast of employment change, that's the light blue, that's the light blue bar, using this procedure. with a baseline forecast implies is further substantial job loss in the second quarter. indy, based on just the past history, right, the implied average monthly decline that we would have predicted for the second quarter was about 600,000 jobs. what you see, that's the dark

blue line, is what actual job loss was in the second quarter. it came in substantially lower than the forecast. these calculations imply that employment is now about 485,000 jobs above what it otherwise would have been in the second quarter of 2009. this number is very similar to a mark zandi's estimate that statement is added roughly half a million jobs in the second quarter relative to what otherwise would have occurred. i do however want to be very cautious. the approach we used is one of a number of sensible ways of predicting what would have happened in the absence of stimulus. other methods could lead to somewhat different estimates, the jobs impact of the program in its first full quarter of operation. but the clear implication is the program is working. now, the result for this forecasting exercise through real gdp are shown here. arai. so again, the dark blue lines

are actual data. the light blue line is our forecast. what passed as he says based on the usual behavior of employment and gdp, past history predicts that real gdp would continue to decline at a substantial rate in the second quarter. the projected decline is three-point 3%. again, substantially worse than the actual decline, which was 1%. this way of specifying the baseline confirms that something unusual happened in the second quarter. gdp growth was to .3 percentage points higher than the usual timeseries behavior of gdp would lead one to expect. private forecasters across the political and methodological spectrometric and much of the unusual behavior of gdp to the recovery act. this table shows you that analysts estimate that the fiscal stimulus added somewhere between two and three percentage

points to real gdp growth in the second quarter. now if you look at the different pieces of gdp, you can see telltale signs that the recovery act role in stabilizing the economy. so this figure shows you the contribution of each of the main components of gdp to overall growth in the first and second quarter of this year. the role of the recovery act is clearest in state and local spending. shortfalls in revenues and a balanced budget requirements have been forcing state and local governments to tighten their belts significantly, but state and local government spending actually rose at a healthy 2.4% annual rate in the second quarter of 2009. no one can doubt that the $33 billion of states have already gone out thanks to the recovery act, is a key source of this increase. another area where the role of the recovery act seems clear is in business fixed investment,

firms purchases of everything from machines to software to structures. a key source of the more modest decline in gdp is in the second quarter is this type of investment, which had fallen a mind-boggling 39% annual rate in the first quarter, fell at a much more moderate 9% rate in the second quarter. one important component of the recovery act was investment incentives such as bonus depreciation, businesses received about $14 billion of tax relief in the second quarter. and this may have contributed to the slower investment decline. for the personal consumption component of gdp, the picture is more nuanced consumptions fell sharply in the second half of the year, but has largely stabilized in the second half of last year, but has largely stabilized despite rising unemployment and falling gdp. been making work pay tax cut in the improvements and confidence as a result of the recovery act

and the administration's other actions almost surely contributed to the stabilization. at the same time, the fact that consumption fell slightly in the second quarter after rising slightly in the first quarter could be a sign that are usually using the tax cut to pay off debt. obviously, these monitoring behaviors consumers closely as we move forward. because the evidence from the path of the economy over time can settle the issue with the effects of them, it's helpful to also look at other types of data. in particular, i want to mention two kinds of comparative evidence. the first involves comparisons across countries. countries responses to the crisis have varied substantially. one can therefore ask the question whether countries that have responded more aggressively seem to be recovering more quickly. to get evidence at this we started with a set of four cast of growth in the second of this

year which were made way back last november after the crisis had hit, but before countries have formulated their policy response. we been collected and was recent best guesses for what the second quarter growth would be in the same questions. what this figure shows is the relationship between how countries second quarter growth prospects have changed from what was expected back last november, and the country's discretionary fiscal stimulus in 2009. the fact that those points by a long and upward sloping line shows that on average things have improved more in countries that adopted bigger stimulus packages. and the relationship is sizable. on average a country with a stimulus that the larger by 1% of gdp had expected real gdp growth in the second quarter that's about two percentage points higher relative to the november forecast. a second comparison that we

examine involves individual states to the u.s. the largest portion of aid to the state under the recovery act so far has taken the form of additional matching funds for state medicaid spending. so what this figure shows you is the correlation between employment growth from february to june in a state, and the size of those extra matching funds per capita. what you're supposed to see is that on average states that received more funds lost fewer jobs. now, there is an obvious element of reverse causation that is pushing the relationship in the other way. state whose economies are weaker in to get more of these funds. but preliminary analysis by several members of my staff addresses this issue by focusing on a subset of the spending that isn't a response to state economic conditions. they find that the results hold up well. more spending is associated with less job loss. obviously this is a very

preliminary analysis of the data across countries and states, and it doesn't account for all of the factors that may be at work. but our first look at these numbers provide further evidence that the stimulus spurs recovery. all right. so much of what i discussed so far is focused on the role of the recovery act. in moderating the gdp decline and in saving jobs in the second quarter of 2009. the obvious next question is what can we expect going forward. well, first the impact of the recovery act will almost surely increase over the next several quarters. we expect the fiscal stimulus to be roughly $100 billion in each of the next five quarters. the impact of this steady stimulus, however, will increase over time because the multiplier effect tends to rise for substantial period before it begins to wane. also, the composition of the stimulus will be changing towards components with larger

short run effect of the earlier stimulus was weighted more heavily towards tax changes and state fiscal relief. whereas going forward there will be more direct government investment. these direct investment have a short run effect, roughly 60% larger than the tax cut. second, we can expect going forward, because of the recovery act, other rescue measures that we have taken and the economy's natural resilience, most forecasters are now predicting that gdp growth is likely to turn positive by the end of the year. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke second his opinion in a recent congressional testimony. however, as is always the case, especially around a turning point, there is substantial uncertainty to this forecast, and there is even greater uncertainty about how strong the recovery is likely to be. third, it's important to realize that job growth will almost surely lagged the turnaround in

real gdp growth. the consensus forecast is for the unemployment date for the employment and unemployed statistics that we get tomorrow to show that the u.s. in ghana may continue to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in july. given that gdp growth was still negative in the second quarter, this is all but inevitable, and it is unacceptable. unfortunately, even ones gdp begins to grow, it will likely take a still longer for unemployment to stop rising, or for employment to stop falling and begin to rise. fourth and crucially, given how far the economy has declined, the recovery will be a long, hard process. even if gdp growth is relatively robust going forward, it will take a substantial time to restore employment to normal and to bring the unemployment rate back down to usual levels. but the president is committed to job creation, and this is and has been the focal part of our

efforts. the bottom line is we are no doubt in for more turbulent times. the actions we have taken, particularly the american recovery and reinvestment act have clearly changed the trajectory that we are on. they are doing what the president always said needed to be our top priority. rescuing an economy on the edge of the second great depression. and i firmly believe that when the history of this period is written, the recovery act will be seen as beginning of the end of this terrible economic crisis. well, the focus of my talk this morning has been on the recovery act as a lifesaver. and it is a central part of our strategy to rescue the economy, complementing our effort to stabilize the financial system, restart lending, and help homeowners in distress. the president has always made clear that rescue is not enough. the u.s. had problems even before the current crisis. for this reason, the administration is working with

congress to help rebuild the economy better. it's as if when you went to the doctor for that strep throat, you discovered you had high blood pressure as well. well. the antibiotic was great for the infection but he prescribed other medicine, a better diet and a healthy dose of exercise for the blood pressure. well, that's what the president is trying to do for the economy. he is urging health care reform to slow the growth rate of spending, tamed the budget deficit and provide all americans with secure health insurance coverage. we're working with congress to pass financial radios where reforms to make sure that we never again walk as close to the edge of a cliff as we did last september. and we are committed to copperheads of energy and climate legislation to stimulate the move to renewable energy and combating climate change. inshore, we are urging serious medicine for serious economic problems. if we can't i publish these important changes, we will not only come through the current

crisis, we will emerge even stronger and healthier than before. thank you. [applause] >> ask a few questions, and please if you filled out cards handles up and i will go through the. the first question we have is an light of your comment on economics in this bill, is there anything that the administration would have done differently if it had recognized how deep the economy's problems are going to be in changing the way the legislation was drafted? is there anything you have changed in light of hindsight and how that does actually formulated? >> i think one of the things i try to describe as i think we try to get this thing with as much force as we could. we did know it was a very serious economic downturn. would also very much were aiming at what could we get out the door very quickly. and that is why things like that tax cut, the state disco really for so specific because they did

get out the door. they did get out the door quickly. the other thing that i want to say in answer to that is you know, i very much want to get a sense that the recovery act is a piece of a much bigger plan. all right. so all of the work that secretary geithner and the rest of the administration did to help rescue the financial system, the housing program, all of those were things that we did precisely because as we saw, the economy getting sicker we knew it needed everything we could get it. >> the next question is you didn't exactly predict what your own or give your own views on when you thought we would be in positive gdp territory. would you be willing to say we would be in positive gdp territory in the first quarter, second quarter through quarter, foursquare or you are not going to say? >> i will take that i think the consensus is doing very well. that they are predicting will see it before the end of this year and i think that is a reasonable prediction. >> next question is was the

administration blindsided by the cbo analysis on the cost of the health care legislation, and what is an acceptable 10 year cost for the health care legislation? >> all right. again, wide-ranging questions. you know, the cbo is doing its job, which is trying to give congress estimates of what they think bills will do. and i think it is important to realize the cbo's job is really to think about the ten-year budget window, and here we are in complete agreement with them. that we have said from the beginning that anything we do on health care, any investment we make him any expansion of coverage, absolutely has to be paid for in the ten-year budget window with hard, scorebook savings that cbo says are there. with revenue changes that are there. so that is completely a place where we are in complete agreement. and i think their numbers on things like the kind of reforms we have been talking about for medicare are absolutely lineup with hours.

i think where we might have a difference is much more on the longer run, because if you look at sort of a long run the number one problem we have is skyrocketing health care costs, and that is why so much of what the president has been trying to do with the health reform act, or the legislation, going forward is to make sure that there are all the things that help economists a need to be there to slow the growth rate of costs. that is why we have proposed independent medicare advisory council, a structural change to really give us a chance at slowing the growth rate of costs. so we think those are important. i think cbo inherently doesn't intend to do long term projections we have to go with what the experts, the health care economist tell us, these institutional changes that we have talked about, delivery reforms, all of those things, they tell us absolutely will slow the growth rate of cost and we feel absolutely need to be in any legislation. >> can you give us a hint about

whether the unappointed rate is likely to hit double digits when the numbers come out, and what do you think it will go to the level of 4.5%? >> all right. the first thing to say, i have not seen any numbers. so they do come out tomorrow. and i'm not going to make any predictions other than to tell you certainly what the forecast, what market expert are telling us is that we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. i know they are anticipating that the unappointed rate will go up. it does emphasize the economy is still in a recession. we do think we are improving the trajectory, but there is just no denying the fact that we are still in tough times for the american people. how quickly it comes back down, right. i mentioned in my talk, once the gdp starts to grow, there's usually a lag between when we see gdp growth and unemployment start to go into better

direction. it also depends crucially on how fast you go. it's not enough to just turn the corner. you actually, gdp needs to grow at about 2.5% just to keep the unappointed rate where it is. and so we have to get growth above two points i present to finally make progress in the right direction. so obviously what we are going to be looking for, what we want to see is not just gdp growth but strong gdp growth. that is a thing that would bring it back to normal quickly. >> are you more worried about inflation or deflation? >> the truth is, i am thrilled at the fact that inflation expectations seem to be pretty darn flat. and i actually think that is attributed to the federal reserve. i think it is a fact we have had 25 years of pretty steady inflation is the reason we haven't seen movement in either direction. that said, given how bad the recessions have been, given the fact that we have unemployment, again, over nine or at 9.5%.

i think a greater risk is on the down side than on the upside. that i for one, you, i don't believe inflation comes, we know the fed's balance sheet has gotten much bigger. but i think the evidence tells us that inflation doesn't just come out of nowhere. it doesn't just come from a lot of stuff on the fence about what she. it comes from an economy overheating. and we are so far from overheating, i think we have a long time before we have to start worrying about inflation. >> all right. and ask you the next question is, do you have a view on the direction of the dollar? is it going up, down, or staying the same? >> i have only been to in washington for six months, but i know more than despicably of what the dollar is going to do. especially in front of five tv cameras. [laughter] >> well, i thought you would say that. but i had to ask it anyway. is there any wiggle room on the president's position that no one in the middle class will see any tax increase at any time during

his presidency? >> can i go now? [laughter] >> you know, the president has made it very clear through the campaign that middle-class families have really gotten a bum deal, not just in this recession but probably for at least the last 10 years. and that is why he doesn't want to do anything that burdens middle-class families. and obviously, no one is talking about raising taxes. we are in the middle as i've been describing the worst recession since the great depression. in fact, that's why we gave tax cuts than 95 percent of american families. what is true, isn't that we have a long term budget problem. and the president is committed to dealing with that, and right now the way we are focusing on that is on health care reform. as i mentioned there is simply nothing that is causing more trouble in the long term budget projections than the predicted path of health care expenditures. doing all the things we have been talking about, slowing the

growth rate cost, is the number one thing you can do to help every american. >> what is the biggest surprise you to sing in the economic policy is made compared to what you thought you would see before you came here? >> i would say, i mean, the most positive, and it has been a positive development, which is i am surprised at what a role analysis and, you know, empirical evidence played. i mean, it is something i learned that i often say this is a tribbey to larry summers, who you mentioned is the head of the national economic health. there is a fantastic economist, and one of the things is he listens to good argument. so i learned very early on in the transition that the way to have an influence and to be useful is to do good analysis. and i am forshaw and i have many members on my staff want to come with me today but i have the worlds best staff. we have a great group of incredibly talented economist, and i have been really pleased at the degree to which people

will say tell us what is true, not make us some numbers that support our position. they want to actually know what the effect areas are going to be. and that is a real positive, positive sign about the policy process. >> in insight about what the daily presidential briefings are like on economic policy? watch the president comprehension, understanding of economics for somebody who wasn't trained in the area? >> ikea, the scariest thing is to be in one of these briefings and for one of us to ask a question and the president answers at. so i will tell you that he absolutely knows a lot of economics. the briefings are, one of the things that has been hard to get used to there is often a scheduled topic, people will take turns today we will brief the president on what can we expect about inflation or deflation, or what can we expect about the jobs numbers. one of the things you learn is you have to be ready to change on a dime because you may have a

beautiful, slide deck ready to tell the president. you will say, you know, i'm really worried about the auto companies you can use a descent okay, switch gears. so you do have two be ready to do that. so they are freewheeling. i think the economics team in the white house is known for being sort of very free and open with our opinions, and so there are often good lively discussions. a great way to spend 40 minutes every day. >> okay. we're going to have some questions from the audience, and then we have a few minutes for that. there is a microphone, so somebody have a microphone for this speaker? gary shapiro. >> thank you. thank you david. this is an economic club so i want to ask tougher questions if i may. rising deficit, the trend is clippard is the nominal, and the ambitious goal is half the record, rising protectionism,

proposing increases on taxes for those who create jobs. how is this justifiable in the long term economic growth of the country? i feel like we are fiddling and rome is burning. >> all right. let me just be so clear. first of all, you described cutting the deficit in half as an ambitious goal. first of all, let's not lose sight of the fact that we inherited a budget deficit that was 1.3 trillion. the president has said he wants to do it in half before the end of his first term. about the first thing he did was to call a fiscal summit to bring in people of congress, experts, because he felt cutting it in half wasn't enough. so i couldn't agree with you more. i think the president couldn't agree with you more. it is absolutely a problem and something we absolutely have to deal with. i think if you're really concerned about the deficit, i would bring it back to health care reform. again, you look at any study by the congressional budget office, those long term budget projections, the thing that will really reach out on our budget

deficit is if we don't get the growth rate of health care costs under control. they are rising at just an astronomical rate. and that is why in the middle of a deep economic crisis, in the middle of a time when we need to reform our financial wregget or system, we need to deal with energy independence, the president said this can't wait. the status quo is precisely what is going to cause real problems for the deficit and for the country. and that is why we are working as hard as we can, we do good health care reform that genuinely expands coverage, yes, but slows the growth rate of cost. just absolutely crucial. >> one more question from the audience. anybody? okay. the mike. while you're getting at, what is your biggest frustration in your current job? is there anything you don't like about your current job? >> it's very hard. no. i think i will have to say i have my 19 year-old son home from college, and i got home at

11:30 p.m. last i. i got home at 11 the night before. so i'm frustrated that i don't get to be at home nearly as much. my husband has had to learn to do laundry, grocery shopping, all the cooking. so it's hard work, based. >> husbands do that all the time, right? >> he always did have to work. is now doing all the work. >> one last question. >> we're going to leave the remainder of this live event with a reminder to you, you can watch it on line at c-span.org going on now. the u.s. senate is gabbling in momentarily for just a bit of morning business. first of a big day planned as lawmakers will finish the debate on judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. about expected at 3 p.m. eastern. later in the senate, a possible work on providing additional $2 billion for the cash for clunkers program. that coming up next, the u.s. senate live here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, thank you for the continuous blessings of your handiwork. from the first blush of dawn to the wonders of the starry heavens, we're daily made aware of your creative might. bless our senators to see the wonder of your presence on capitol hill today. in the hands of the many workers who enable them to do their work, help them

to catch a glimpse of the unity and cooperation you desire for them. make them willing to both receive and give forgiveness, as they manifest your spirit in deeds of kindness. as our lives intertwine through common tasks, remind us that ultimately we're accountable to you. good our thinking, speaking and decisions that we may live worthy of your great love. we pray in your mercyful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., august 6 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kristen gillibrand , a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks if any, there will be a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. it is my understanding the distinguished senator from iowa wishes to speak on a sad note in

his life. if he needs more than ten minutes, i would ask consent that be the case. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at 10:00 the senate will resume consideration of the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. debate until 2:00 will be controlled in alternating hour blocks of time with republicans controlling the first hour and the managers later controlling the time from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. with each perted -- permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. at 3:00 p.m. the senate will vote. upon disposition the senate will proceed to the emergency appropriations bill with the consumer assistance to recycle and save program known as the cash for clunkers. under agreement reached last night seven amendments are in order prior to vote on passage of the bill. each amendment has up to 30 minutes for debate prior to a vote. i would hope that some of the debate time can be yielded time so that we're able to be voting at a reasonable time this afternoon. madam president, i want to spread on the record my

appreciation for the cooperation from all senators. we worked through some difficult things yesterday to get to a point where we are today. i especially want to express my appreciation to the republican leader, senator mcconnell, who had to work through some difficult issues on his side, as i did on mine. we spoke and met yesterday many times, and of course our most helpful staff was with us every step of the way. on our side lula davis. and on mcconnell's side david schiappa. i want to say briefly, madam president, that our newest senator, al franken, gave his maiden speech last night and it was really very, very good. i was so impressed with how well prepared he was. i was very, very impressed with how well he delivered the

speech. here's a man who is a harvard graduate, best-selling author, and entertainer, and now he's united states senator. the people in minnesota are so fortunate. and if things work out like i think they will, he will be presiding over the senate when the historic vote is called today on the new supreme court justice. madam president, the senate historian dick baker will be retiring. in honor to his service to the senate and the senate community there will be a reception from 3:30 until 5:00 in the l.b.j. room. he's a wonderful scholar, great writer and a lecturer. we are going to miss him very much. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the

leadership time be reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you very much, madam president. this morning a funeral service will be held in sioux city, iowa, for a 44-year-old woman who began working for the people of iowa in my office, january 1988. mary joe hoffman was a loyal and trusted advisor to me and a beloved friend to my wife, barbara, our family and many of my senate staff who served with her more than a decade ago and still in a sense serving with her today. always filled with purpose, mary joe spent the last two years and four months fighting cancer with the tenacity, strength, and determination that we all knew

and loved about her. when mary jo set her mind to something, she didn't let much get in her way. she was that way when i met her when she was a bright young college student at the university of northern iowa -- my alma mater -- and she was that way when she worked effectively to serve constituents first as legislative correspondent and as scheduler and as a top aide in my senate office. and later on when she worked for my political campaigns. i valued her judgment and appreciated her hard work and commitment to quality in every position she held. mary jo also taught at night as a volunteer and earned a master's degree while working on capitol hill. she reached out and gave to others in so many ways, through her church and her community and even on the united states air

force base in greece where she lived for a short period of time with her husband while he was serving. someone in need had a friend in mary jo. she always got a lot done and she did it in a way that was generous, spirited, committed to ideals. mary jo was a person of great faith. she provided leadership wherever she went through worship and fellowship and with the example that she set with her own life. mary jo was a faithful witness for christ and never more so than the darkest hours and days of her last two years. she will continue to inspire those of us who were lucky enough to have her in our lives. we all mourn mary jo's departure, and our heart goes out to her family, including her

devoted husband, brant; mother karen. i know that mary jo's beautiful young children, silas and lydia, will miss her every day. i pray they find comfort in the honorable life lived by their mother and my dear friend, mary jo. she served the people of iowa and the lord with distinction and humility. she left this world for the next with courage and grace. and i'd like to read one sentence from the sioux city journal, i think summing up her life. "her words were like thunder, because her life was like lightning." and i ask permission to put that in the record. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president, i'd like to ask that the time between now and 10:00 be distributed five minutes for senator alexander and then the rest of the time be equally divided between senator durbin and me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: madam president, the white house, the congress and the american people are engaged in the historic debate over our nation's health care insurance system, and a lot is at stake. we'll make a choice in 2009, and that choice will determine the health care system we have in our nation for a long time to come. 15 years has passed since we last attempted to pass health care reform. what we do now hr-bs consequential for decades to -- will be consequential for decades to come. it will be a long, long time before the people of this country and their leaders will return to this complex and contentious issue. so let us carefully review the potential plans. we have a plan being developed

by the house of representatives. we have a plan from the senate "help" committee, the plan coming from the finance committee. we have the bipartisan wyden-bennett plan, and then we have the plan i'm going to spend a lot of time talking about. that is the p.h.s. plan. in listening to my colleagues as they speak on the floor of the senate, television, talk radio, newspapers and from private meetings, one thing is clear. they think the plan we'll end up with will be the p.h.s. plan. they think a combination of those who want no health care reform and those who like none of the proposed plans will combine to kill all other plans. so, madam president, what is the p.h.s. plan? our present health care system. let's look at what will happen to average americans if we keep our present health care system. first, americans' health care insurance costs will explode.

that's not an overstatement. explode. the average family in america can look forward to praoepl costs for health insurance of more than $24,000 a year by 2016. that is an 83% increase over the cost in 2008. in my home state of delaware, the cost will be even higher, with the average premium for family coverage approaching $29,000. at that amount, more than half of delaware families would each have to spend half of their income on health insurance. this means families will be forced either to go without insurance or to buy less coverage and put their life savings at risk. second, personal bankruptcies from medical costs will soar. today bankruptcies accounting for medical bills account for 60% of u.s. personal bankruptcies, a rate one and a half times of that of six years. going forward on p.h.s., we can expect more families in bankruptcy. third, ensuring americans will

keep paying a hidden tax to help pay for care for the uninsured. under the m.h.s. doctors -- under the p.h.s. plan doctors and hospitals will charge even more. today this hidden tax is estimated to be $1,100 per family per year. under the p.h.s. plan, it will most assuredly go up raising the cost of health care for all americans. fourth, americans will continue to be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions. several weeks ago i talked about four delawareans who because of preexisting conditions could not find insurance coverage. others who could get coverage have to pay exorbitant premiums because of preexisting conditions. these problems which threaten the security of all families will continue under the p.h.s. plan. fifth, for too many workers, health insurance portability will still be beyond reach. too many americans lose their

insurance when they lose their jobs. some can't afford their cobra coverage and others can't get another policy due to preexisting conditions. even when they can find a new policy, they often discover they can no longer see the same doctor or use the same hospital. as a result too many americans are stuck in their jobs, foregoing career advancement to keep their health care plans. madam president, now let's look at what will happen to the american economy if we keep our present health care system. first, our present health care system is bankrupting the government. the biggest deficit is the skyrocketing cost of medicare and medicaid. in 2008 government spending on medicare and medicaid took more than $1 out of every $5 in our budget. the more we spend on health care the less we have for other investments, for veterans and jobbiting to name a few. we have to pay more taxes or borrow more from other nations.

health care spending will crowd out the national savings and lower our standard of living. health care costs a a percent of the gross domestic product will grow from 18% to 28% in the year 2030. third, the present health care system is killing u.s. competitors. today u.s. manufacturing firms pay $5,000 per worker per year in health care. that is more than twice the average cost of firms in our leading trading partners. in the global economy our workers and corporations face competitors who can beat them on price every time. because our broken health care system, controlling health care costs will help to level the playing field in a fair fight our workers and our businesses can win. finally, more firms will stop offering health insurance for their employees. the p.h.s. will erode the employer-sponsored insurance.

in 2008 employer-health benefits surveyed by the kaiser family foundation, only 63% of all companies offered employees, down -- these numbers are even lower when looking at small business. with the national small business association reporting only 38% of small businesses provided coverage last year compared to 61% in 1993. if -- if we choose to maintain the p.h.s. plan and continue our present health care system, consumers will pay higher and higher premiums, including the hidden tax to help pay for all americans. we will continue to see a rise in personal bankruptcies due to higher medical costs. americans will face -- have insurance drop their policy once they do get sick and they won't have portable insurance that they can take from job to job. if we choose to maintain our present health care system, health care spending will continue to threaten the bottom line of our federal budget,

giving away a higher percentage of our gross domestic product. our businesses will face more of a disadvantage from our competitor paying more for health care for their employees or dropping it together. the present health care system mistreats individuals and serves the country badly as a whole. we cannot continue our present health care system. i hope my colleagues will return in september committed to replacing the present health care system. i hope we'll turn our backs on the bankrupt health care system and give the american people a health care system that they can be proud of, we can do no less. they deserve no less. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: madam president? -- a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: how much time remains? the presiding officer: five minutes remains for the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you.

there is a good deal we have talked about in the health care reform legislation. it's headed in the wrong direction. the mayor clinic has told us so the democratic governors have told us so. the congressional budget office has told us so and we're hearing from people around the country who fear they may be -- millions of people may lose their employee-based health insurance, may find themselves in a government-run plan, find new tax to pay for medicaid. i'm not here to catalog those problems, but as we go back to our states in august, there's plenty of opportunity to go in a new direction, and i hope when we come back, we'll start over in that direction. as an example, yesterday 12 senators, seven democrats, five republicans, wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" about the bill sponsored by senator wyden, a democrat, senator bennett, a republican. i'm a cosponsor, among five republicans of that bill.

there are a number of things that i agree with in the bill. some things i don't. but i agree it is the right framework upon which we can build a bipartisan discussion. for example, the things i like about the bill and the reason i endorsed the effort is it's been scored as budget neutral. in other words, it doesn't add to the defendant sit, according to the congressional budget office. it doesn't create a government-run plan to compete with private insurance plans. people would have choices among private plans just like most people have today. it replace medicaid and the children's health insurance program with private insurance plans. now, it doesn't replace all of medicaid. about 40 million of the people who are on medicaid today, which is the largest government-run program we have, would have a choice to buy plans like the rest of us do. i think one of the worst things about the bills we're seeing is that it dumps low-income americans into a government-run program that's failing, medicaid, that 40% of the

doctors won't see and that none of us would want to join if we were forced to do that. this takes away that problem. it makes a fair distribution of the government subsidies that we already spend. subsidizing health care by giving more americans a chance to benefit from it that. it would give more americans a chance to purchase the same kind of health insurance policy that federal employees an members of congress have. provides a tax deduction for all american individuals and families to address the unfairness of our tax system. it includes an individual mandate, in other words, no free ride. we're all in this. states that implement some sort of reforms against junk runaway lawsuits against doctors which drive up the costs of malpractice -- of -- of malpractice insurance will receive bonus payments. it includes some of the insurance market reforms that we're hearing so much from our democratic friends about. what they don't tell su that we're all for those. these are the insurance reforms

that say you have a right to purchase insurance without a physical examination. and that if you have a problem when you go in to get the insurance, you can't be denied insurance for that reason. these are insurance reforms that vitally all of the republican plans that i've seen and all the democratic plans are already in there. those aren't the issue. it provides a subsidy for people living 100% under the poverty level to buy insurance, to buy a private plan. this would be roughly $5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for families to buy a plan. after that, you pay for it yourself. there are some points i don't like about the bill. but i endorse the framework as well. i want to mention those. i don't like the employer responsibility part. and during negotiations, if this were the bill we were discussing, i'd like to change that. i don't like the fact that the bill is -- that the plans are required to be of the higher level of the federal employee

plans. i think that's a level higher than most federal employees have, and we can save dollars if we use the basic plan and use those dollars to provide higher subsidies to middle-income americans to buy health share. i don't believe the subsidies in this bill are enough for many middle-income families. i just suggested a place to get some of that money. i thank the president. and we phase out the tax deduction at about $62,500 a year, which may not be high enough to make this a fair proposal. i'm concerned about the abortion provisions in the bill, although it doesn't provide government subsidies for abortion, and i'm concerned about allowing the secretary of health and human services to directly negotiate with medical care part-d. but the point is, madam president, there is a framework that's headed in a different direction. it has the support of 12 senators, democratic and republican, and i ask unanimous

consent that op-ed from "the washington post" be included in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i thank the president. and i ask unanimous consent also that an article by art lafer, in wednesday's "wall street journal", which provides yet another reasonable option for providing health care opportunities for americans without adding to the deficit. so there's a way to do this if we really don't want to head in a different direction. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: how much time do i have? the presiding officer: six minutes and 12 seconds. mr. durbin: madam president, i'd like to address two issues briefly. later today we're going to take up the cash-for-clunkers program, this is an idea whose time has come. when we passed this legislation a few weeks ago, i wasn't sure. i didn't know if this would work. if you put a dollar incentive in front of american buyers and said, if you bring in an old car or old truck and trade in a new

car or new truck more fuel efficient, would you consider it? i didn't know they would. we're in a recession. people don't have a lot of money. it turns out they not only considered it, they made it a wild success. in matter of a few days the billion dollars that we set aside for this program led to dramatic increases in sales auto shows in illinois and across the nation. i got phone calls from auto dealers in illinois saying keep it coming. people are coming into the show rooms and buying cars. it is not only the activity clearing the inventory and the -- in the automobile dealerships, it also means we have more jobs as we have more of the new cars being purchased, there's more demand to rebuild that inventory at the auto dealership. put autoworkers back to work. and also the good news is people are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles. 83% of the vehicles traded in are old trucks that are not fuel efficient. most people, the majority of

those people, are buying fuel-efficient cars. that's a good change. that means there will be less fuel used, less depends on foreign oil and less pollution and for those who buy it, it will be a car they can operate more cheaply than the one they traded in. this program's work and we have a chance to extend it today. it may be our last chance. there will be a lot of amendments offered. some of them may be good-faith amendments to improve the bill. some of them may be mischievous. i'm not sure. i haven't had a chance to review them. any amendment adopted today means that this program will be stopped in its traction, we'll have to wait for the house to return in september. so for the next four, five, six weeks, nothing will happen. let's not lose the momentum on the cash-for-clunkers program. this is helping to put life back in our economy. helping to save and reate jobs and really get our automobile sector moving forward again. that's something that we desperately need, to come out of this recession creating jobs and get back on our feet strong

again. the cash-for-clunkers program has been a success. let's continue it. the second issue i'd like to raise, madam president, relates to health care. i heard my colleague from tennessee come forward and suggest that he's working on an awltd to health care reform. i salute him for that. i hope that he'll continue that effort. i also want to salute three republican senators who have been meeting actively for weeks, if not months in trying to hammer oit the differences in health care reform. it is a constructive, positive dialogue. i am sure that i won't agree with everything that they've come to an agreement on, but that's not what this is about. it doesn't have to be a bill that's perfect in my eyes. it has to be a bill that is reasonable, that will bring down the cost of health care. i know what happened in my state of illinois, 1997, health insurance premiums through employers averaged $5,462. just nine years later that number was $11,781. and if we do nothing by 2016, it

will more than double t to $29,409. those who come to town meetings who say, don't touch it, all you can do is make a mess of it, ignore the obvious. the current system is unsustainable for families an small businesses. fewer and fewer businesses are offering health insurance protection. more people are finding themselves out health insurance protection. in illinois 15% of our population has no insurance at all. during the course of any given year one out of three illinoisans have no health insurance coverage at least some time during that year. that's unacceptable. people without health insurance coverage are one diagnosis or one accident away from bankruptcy. we know more and more people are going to bankruptcy because of medical bills they can't pay. for those who say, don't touch it, leave it alone, i want to tell you, it's is unsustainable it is a system headed toward

disaster. who wants to keep the current system in the people making the most money in the current system, the health insurance companies much they've been profitable when many parts of our economy have not. they are now sponsoring activities and advertisements and all sorts of things, town meetings, to try to create resistance to change in health care. that's not good. it's not a constructive dialogue. you know, to think that these town meetings that are supposed to take place for a healthy, honest dialogue back home have now turned into political theater. some groups have websites that instruct people about how to disrupt the town meeting, how to embarrass a senator or congressman. well, let me tell you, this isn't -- i know when i go to a town meeting, some people may disagree with me and be emotional about it. that's ok. to have a coordinated effort to disrupt the town meeting, who wants that? that's not constructive. let's move forward in an honest

bipartisan dialogue much three republican senators are doing that now. i wish there were more. if we do that, we could reach the kind of bipartisan compromise that i and he the president would -- i and the president would like to see in september. let's have real health care reform that brings stability to the cost that american businesses and families pay. that brings stability to coverage so you don't lose your health insurance because of a preexisting condition, changing a job or caps and limits on your policy and quality access to preventive care, wellness care and the kind of quality care that every american deserves. we do that with patient-centered health insurance reform, and we can get it done in a bipartisan fashion in september when we return. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, supreme

court of the united states, sonia sotomayor of new york to be an associate justice. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided in one hour alternating blocks of time, with republicans controlling the first hour. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, madam president. i do want to talk about the president's nominee to the supreme court. but first, just a couple of response comments to the senator about health care. i think if the record be known to americans, the preponderance of health reform legislation that has been presented over the last five years here in the senate has been from republicans, and the democrats have consistently blocked any reform that would make health insurance more affordable and available to americans. their goal appears to be not patient-centered care, but

government-controlled care. if you look back just a few years, the president, along with all the democrats, voted against interstate competition between insurance companies. it's hard to say they're not on the side of insurance companies when they vote to prevent a national market, a national competitive market that people all over the country could buy policies that were more affordable and perhaps match their needs much better than the ones that they can get in their own states. today americans can potentially buy health insurance in the states where they live. that means a few insurance companies can dominate the market. this is something that we've tried to change. we've introduced. the president has voted against it. we've also proposed tax fairness to americans who don't get their health insurance at work. the other side seldom discusses the fact that when you get your insurance at work, you get some pretty big tax breaks. the companies that provide that health insurance do not have to pay taxes on it.

they can deduct it from their -- it's a business expense. and the employees don't have to pay income taxes on benefits. it's an equivalent benefit of over $3,000. the bills that we've introduced as republicans would give health care vouchers to every american, every family would get $5,000 a year to buy insurance if they don't get their health insurance at work. every individual would get $2,000. in addition, some lawsuit abuse reform and some block grants to states to make sure that people who are uninsurable who have preexisting conditions can buy affordable insurance. the heritage foundation says one of the republican plans would have 22 million americans insured within five years. they're plans that work. unfortunately the other party won't discuss plans that don't have more government control involved in them. what we can do is make sure

what's working work better and we don't need to replace it with what's not working. one of the reasons health insurance is so expensive food is the government programs of medicare and medicaid don't pay their fair share and those costs are shifted. we don't need to expand the part that's broken in health care. we certainly don't need to expand a cash for clunkers type of health care system for america. madam president, i'm here today to talk about the president's nominee to the supreme court, sonia sotomayor. i want to commend my republican colleague, particularly senator jeff sessions, for conducting a very respectful and civil hearing process for the nominee. this is something we haven't seen in a number of years here. they were respectful towards her. even those who disagreed with her judicial philosophy showed courtesy and respect during the hearings, and it's something i

very much appreciate. our goal through this process has not been to block this nomination and to stop her from going to the supreme court. the votes have never been there to do that. what we have been trying to show is a pattern here by the obama administration and the democrat majority of moving towards more and more government control in all areas of our lives. we see it in the stimulus plan, that instead of leaving money in the private sector, we take it away and spend it on things like tur tepl tunnels and other kinds of -- turtle tunnels and other kinds of wasteful spending across the country. government spending. we're trying to manage the private economy. we see it in cash for clunkers where we create an economic earmark for one sliver of other economy. it the sae time in the health care legislation we're talking about adding taxes to the small businesses that create 70% of the jobs in this country. we're benefitting a few at the

expense of many. this is economic central planning. it's a concept that has failed throughout history. yet we're trying it again. and what we see in the president's nominee to the supreme court is this belief that our constitution is inadequate, that we need to have judges on our courts, justices on the supreme court who add to it. the president has said that our constitution is a charter of negative liberties. it tells the government what it can't do, but it doesn't tell us what we have to do. and the whole point of the constitution is to limit what we can do. but the president considers it inadequate, and he is nominating people to the courts that will be activists, that will expand what the federal government does and make arbitrary decisions rather than those based on the constitution. unfortunately, i do rise today in opposition to the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i met with her personally, and i watched the hearings.

i believe she is a very smart and gracious person with an inspiring personal story. but i also found her evasive and contradictory in her answers. on several issues ranging from judicial temperament to her infamous wise latina speeches, judge sotomayor experienced what we call confirmation conversions on many of her issues and simply walked away from a lot of her past statements and positions. and now seeing her willingness to tell us what we want to hear, neither her testimony or her long record on the judicial bench can give the american people any confidence that she will rule according to the clear language and intent of the constitution. let me talk for a second about the constitution versus precedent. i'm very concerned that judge sotomayor repeated efforts to deflect questions by stating she relied on precedent to guide her

decisions. i understand the circuit court judges are guided and even bound buy supreme court precedent, but precedent is not the same thing as the constitution, particularly on the supreme court. a judicial confirmation process that puts the constitutional interpretation outside the bound of discussion is a waste of time. on issue after issue during her hearings, judge sotomayor, rather than giving her own opinion, simply offered the opinions of many other judges. we have no idea of what she really thinks. in one sense this is fitting that congress routinely passes

quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, on tuesday i explained some of the reasons why i cannot support the nomination of judge sotomayor to replace justice david souter, and i will mention a few others today. these are a few points, her record conflicts with principles about the judiciary in which i deeply believe.

i wish president obama had chosen a hispanic nominee whom all senators could support. during the debate this week many of my democratic friends read judge sotomayor resume rather than reviewing her record. nearly every speaker said that she has more federal judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in a century. i believe she does, and i respect her for it. but justice samuel alito only had one less year of judicial experience an five more years on the federal court of appeals when he was nominated. he had been a prosecutor and received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the a.b.a. 19 current democratic senators threatened to filibuster his nomination, including the president. other senators emphasized the importance of appointing someone with judge sotomayor's inspiring life story and ethnic heritage.

once again, i do not disagree. she has an inspiring life story and a great ethnic heritage. yet she is being treated with far more dignity an respect than miguel estrada, a highly qualified nominee with an inspiring story. the senate, for example, today will vote on judge sotomayor's nomination. in 2003, for the first time in american history this body was prevented from voting at all on the estrada nomination even though he had majority support. senators and goos and grassroots said that -- for judge sotomayor opposed even holding an up or down vote for mr. estrada. the treatment of my bell estrada was -- miguel estrada was

disgrace full and damaging to the traditions an practices of this boasmed my democratic colleagues want people to believe that the concerns about the sotomayor nomination are limited to 1 speech and one case. some of them said as much at the same time they say that our review should be limited to only certain parts of the nominee's record. as i've done with past nominees, however, i examined judge sotomayor's entire record for insight into her judicial philosophy. in addition to the controversial speeches i discussed on tuesday, judge sotomayor gave a speech at suffolk university law school later published in that law review. she embraced the idea that the law is indefinite, impermanent and experimentmental. she rejected what she called -- quote -- "the public myth that law can be certain and stable." unquote. she said that judges may in their decisions develop novel

approaches and legal frame works that push the law in new directions. judge sotomayor's speech and article presents something of a perfect judicial storm where her views of judging meet her views of the law. combined partiality and subject activity with uncertainty and instability in the law and the result is an activist judicial philosophy that i cannot support and that the american people reject. my democratic colleagues will no doubt quickly say that judge sotomayor's do not reflect that judicial philosophy. but, remember, that appeals court judges are bound by supreme court precedent. on the supreme court justice sotomayor will help fashion the precedence that -- that today bind judge sotomayor. that makes other views expressed, i might add, while she has been a sitting judge, much morrell vant to her -- much more relevant to her position on

the supreme court than the appeals court. nonetheless sotomayor has made many troubling decisions on the appeals court. on tuesday, for example, i discussed the case of kidden -- ddidev. the village of port chester. she came to the bizarre conclusion that mr. didden should have sued. she ruled that general economic development can constitute the public use that justifies the taking of private property. we hear a lot how the judge's decisions affect people. the "san francisco chronicle" said that the decision might turn the american dream of

homeownership on its head. and one "washington post" headline after the decision read "court ruling leaves poor at greatest risk." this decision was devastating not only for the right to private property in general but for individual homeowners in particular. the decision in kelo was issued after the briefing and art of didden, but before judge sotomayor had issued her decision. even though kelo was a hallmark or should i say landmark decision that dramatically changed the takings, she did not ask for a rebriefing or reargument. instead it took her more than a year to issue a cursory, four-paragraph opinion that not only made it easier for the government to take property, but also severely limited the ability of property owners to challenge the take of their property in court. i and other senators have discussed judge sotomayor's

troubling decisions regarding the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. she has applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that the second amendment does not keep state and local government from restricting the right to bear arms. and she has gra ough ought heldt to bear arms is insufficient that any reason is a reason to justify a weapons restriction. no federal judge in america has expressed a more narrow, cramped and limited view of right to bear arms. my friends on the other side of the aisle have made creative attempts to downplay these troubling decisions. perhaps the most curious is the second amendment right to keep and bear arms was created by the supreme court. on the other hand, i am baffled why this should bother those who believe in a flexible and shape-shifting constitution. the supreme court, after all, makes up rights all the time. the right to abortion comes

immediately to mind without a peep from most of my democratic friends on the other side of the aisle. but the senator who offered this strange theory should simply read the constitution. the right to keep and bear arms is right there, right in the constitution, in black and white. perhaps he is instead referring to the supreme court's recognition last year that right to bear arms is an individual rather than a collective right. perhaps that is why he believes the supreme court created these rights. but the second amendment said that the right to bear arms is a right of -- quote -- "the people." unquote. the fourth amendment says the same thing about the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. it too is a right of -- quote -- "of the people." unquote. does any senator doubt that the fourth amendment protects an individual right? does the senator who believes the supreme court made up the individual right to bear arms

believe that supreme court made up the individual right to be free from unreasonable government searches? when i shared this judiciary subcommittee on the constitution in 1982, we published a report on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. it thoroughly examined the long and rich history of this right which predates the constitution itself. thus anyone can see why i'm very concerned about this. we went -- who went to bother to right about it. as the supreme court recognized it was a fundamental right of englishmen at the time of america's founding where the second amendment was codified. justice story called this right -- quote -- "the palladium of the liberties of the public." unquote. our report shows that the right to bear arms is fundamental and individual. the supreme court may have taken

a long time to recognize this constitutional fact, but it made -- made nothing in doing so. i ask consent that this report be printed in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank the chair. finally, let me describe one other matter that arose which i found very troubling. before i say that, eight of the 10 cases of judge sotomayor heard by the supreme court were reversed. the ninth one she was seriously criticized for her approach to the law. and that was a 5-4 decision. these are matters that bother a lot of people. i've mentioned a whole raft of other cases and a whole raft of other issues in my prior remarks here, so i'll refer back to those remarks. now, prior to her judicial service, judge sotomayor was closely situated with the puerto rican legal defense and

education fund. from 1980 to 1992 judge sotomayor held at least 11 different leadership positions with the fund. including serving as a member of the board of the directors and executive committee and as a member and chairman of its litigation committee. in a 1992 profile "the new york times" described judge sotomayor as a top policymaker with the fund. other articles and profiles in the "times" and associated press say that she met frequently with the legal staff, reviewed the status of pending cases, and briefed the board about those cases and was an involved and ardent supporter of the fund's legal efforts. these descriptions relied upon and quoted lawyers with whom she worked at the fund. minutes from the fund's

litigation committee specifically judge sotomayor reviewing the fund's litigation strategy in cases. at her hearing i asked judge sotomayor whether she had been aware of the friend of the court briefs that the fund found in several high-profile supreme court abortion cases. i just wanted to know what the truth was. i asked her about that because those briefs made arguments that can only be described as extreme. even by some who are in the pro abortion -- proabortion movement. the fund compared the refusal to pay for abortions with taxpayers' medicaid funds to oppression of blacks symbolized by the supreme court's infinite dred scott opinion. the fund opposed any and all

restrictions, including that parents be informed before their young daughters have an abortion. the fund argued that the first amendment right to freely exercise religion somehow under minds parental notification laws. when i asked judge sotomayor about these briefs and arguments, i made absolutely clear in my -- in my preference remarks, that i was asking only about whether she knew about and agreed with them at the time the briefs were filed. i was not asking her, even about her current views, let alone any position or approach she might take in the future the judge sotomayor told me that -- future. judge sotomayor told me that she did not know that the fund was filing those briefs or making those arguments. at times she used what appeared to be the prepared talking point that she had not -- quote -- "prepared the briefs." unquote. in answering my questions she went further are than that and said -- quote -- "obviously the fund was involved in litigation,

so i knew generally they were filing briefs. but i wouldn't know until after the fact that the brief was actually filed." unquote. to be clear judge sotomayor said that she never knew until after a brief had already been filed what arguments were made in the brief. or even that it had been filed at all. i was shocked at this response, and, frankly, found this claim very difficult to believe. how can a leader of the legal defense fund actively working with the legal staff, supervising the staff during some of the years, briefing the board about pending cases, and an involved supporter of the fund's legal efforts be completely out of the loop about the briefs that the fund is filing and the arguments the fund is make. -- making. did her discussions about the -- with the legal team about

pending cases skip these high-profile supreme court cases? i've got to tell you, i doubt it. did she brief the board about everything but these abortion briefs? i doubt it. the six abortion cases in which the court found briefs were among the most visible cases on the supreme court docket. the 1989 case of webster v. reproductive health care services, for example, attracted a record 78 different friend of the court, or amicus curiae briefs, evidence it was one of the most anticipated cases in decades. virtually ever in the public interest legal world, especially at civil rights groups, had it at the top of their watch list. and yet, judge sotomayor would have us believe that despite her leadership positions and active involvement with the fund's cases and legal strategy, she

was completely unaware that the

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: there are a number of letters that are important from people in groups who have given great thought to this nomination and who have written to oppose it, and i'd like to make those part of the record at this time.. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sessions: a letter from fidelis, a letter from the national rifle association, a letter from the national -- life association, a letter from f.r.c. action, the women's coalition for justice, the s.b.a. list, susan b. anthony list, the american association of christian schools, and the ethics and religious liberty commission of the southern baptist convention are one group. in addition, madam president, there are -- a letter from the national rifle association, as i mentioned earlier, they have not

often -- and i don't believe perhaps ever weighed in on a judicial nomination. but this case -- this nomination was so close to one of the most critical issues facing the country today and that is whether or not the second amendment applies to states if the second amendment does not apply to states, then states and cities, their credittures can -- creatures can ban guns within their jurisdiction. and judge sotomayor this year, after the heller decision, in the first case of its kind of a, the supreme court's decision in heller concluded the second amendment does not apply to the states and under law at that time that result may not have been wrong.

however, because there's an old case that seemed to be consistent with such a holding. however, the -- she concluded in her very brief opinion that second amendment does not apply to the states. they could eliminate firearms and she concluded that it was settled law, that this was the case, when the supreme court in heller, as the ninth circuit concluded, who held differently, explicitly left open this question. so i think any person that cares about the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms has to be very troubled that the nominee earlier this year concluded that it does not apply and it's settled law when the supreme court had -- had really opened it as a ninth -- as the ninth circuit said. if it is not reversed, her opinion is not reversed, then

cities and counties will be able to constrict firearm possession completely. sandra froman, with the -- the -- the former president of the national rifle association, a harvard law graduate, herself, wrote that surprisingly heller was a 5-4 decision with some justices arguing that the second amendment does not apply to citizens or that if it does, a total gun ban would be upheld if legitimate government interests could be found. the dissenting -- she goes on to say the second amendment survives today by a single vote in the supreme court. heller was just a 5-4 decision, amazingly. in its application to the states in whether or not there will be a meaningful strict, stringent review will remain with the high court. i will enter that letter and others that we have received into the record.

i'll offer into the record a series of op-eds that i have written that i believe the analysis of a nominee should be conducted and what are the important principles. and i would offer to the record a statement thanking my staff for the fabulous work that they have undertaken to make this process go in a way that we can be proud of. i see my colleague is here and i would at this point yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: i rise today, fellow senators, to discuss the current appointment, nomination that is under consideration by the united states senate for the united states supreme court's seat. like every member of this body, i take this responsibility seriously.

mr. risch: this gives each member of the body the solemn duty to participate in this under what is the advice and consent provision. obviously, there are two parts here. first advice and second consent. the first part, advice that the president seeks is not under the control of any member here, but under the control of the president. he did not seek my advice in this, which is not surprising. but, secondly, i am required to exercise my constitutional duty to express either consent or the withholding of consent. and i appear here this morning to explain the conclusion that i have reached in that regard. this is a serious constitutional duty. and i think every member here takes it seriously. i think as we do exercise this constitutional duty, each -- it

is incumbent upon each one of us to create in our own mind a path forward and a criteria, if you would, as to how to reach a conclusion concerning that consent. i think all of us come at it from a different point of view. some of us have had some experience in that regard. although i haven't had experience here in this body, nor with the -- with a united states supreme court appointment, i have had the opportunity at the state level, since i've served as governor, and had to appoint judges, to determine in my mind a path forward, if you would, or a -- or a way -- a method in which i would reach that conclusion as to the appropriateness of a person's qualifications to serve in a judicial capacity. i've done that. in addition to that i think all

of us look to other people who have exercised this responsibility and looked for the type of matrix that they used to reach the conclusion. i have also done that. and i have chosen someone to emulate as far as how i would reach a conclusion as to whether or not i would grant the consent or withhold the consent. that person who i've chosen to emulate is a person who actually chose a matrix that is similar to mine, and that is when we do this, we judge who the person is and what that person stands for, the who and the what. like the person i've chosen to emulate, my focus is not on the who. my focus is on the what. what does this person stand for? because it is, indeed, at the end of the day the what that

will guide that person when that person -- when the nominee makes decisions in the capacity as a united states supreme court justice. and so i -- i met with the nominee. i've read her opinions and i have read a lot that has been written about the nominee and reached -- and weighed those using the matrix that i've chosen and that the person that i chose to emulate chose to reach a conclusion as to whether or not to grant the consent or to -- to grant the consent or withhold the consent. i think that this is a -- a decision that no one should reach lightly. but should reach based upon weighing the factors that they have chosen to weigh.

when it comes to the who, i find that the nominee that the president has put forward to be someone who clearly is a person who is engaging, who is very wise, who has had clearly the experience to fill this position, and i have no difficulty with that at all. i'm honored that she would spend the considerable time that i think she made available for me to meet with her and discuss with her the various issues that are important to the people in the great state of idaho. at the end of the day i have to move from the who to the. what in that regard i want to talk about now who i chose to emulate when it comes to making this decision. the person i chose to emulate is a person who currently serves as the president of the united states.

he came to this body and had the opportunity to do just what i've done and that is to go through this exercise to determine the who and the what when it comes to the appointment of a united states -- and the qualifications to serve as a justice of the united states supreme court. the then senator obama went through this exact same exercise, and at the end of the day when he voted on the -- on two of the nominees -- two of the united states supreme court -- to the united states supreme court, he determined that based upon his weighing of the nominee, he could not in good conscience vote for the nominee because not of the who part of the equation, but rather because of the what does this person stand for part of the equation. he did that based upon his vision of what he wanted to see

in america. and i did likewise. he concluded that when he withheld his consent on those two, that the person did not meet his view of what the vision for america was. i've reached the same conclusion on this nominee. in all good conscience, i must withhold the consent. my fellow senators, i will withhold my consent based not on the who, but on what, on this nomination i will vote no. thank you very much. i yield the floor.

the holding of the supreme court that the second amendment provides individuals with the right to keep and bear arms. when the supreme court handed down its decision in district of columbia v. heller last year, i approved the court and applaud the court for affirmation what so many americans already believe. the second amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm. the heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our bill of rights. madam president, vermont has

some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. in fact, most would say they have the least restrictive gun laws in the country. for example, one does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm if they don't have a felony conviction. but vermonters are trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely, and we do. i'm a native vermonter, lived there all my life. i find that vermonters do conduct themselves safely and responsibly. like many vermonters, i grew up with firearms. i have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms the second amendment protects. in fact, i own many, many firearms. like other rights protected by our bill of rights, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is one i cherish, one of the things i find relaxing.

fortunately, i lived in the rural area in vermont. i can set up targets and use my backyard as an impromptu pistol range, and often do. and often do. the supreme court decision in heller recognized that the second amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms against federal restrictions. so before we just go off using talking points and ignore what she did or ignore what she said, i thought it might be good, madam president -- i recognize the new occupant of the chair -- it might be good to kind of spoil the rhetoric by actually going to the facts. and the facts are these: at her confirmation hearing, judge sotomayor repeatedly affirmed her view those second amendment

guarantees as set forth in the heller decision. this seems to be ignored by some who criticize her. in fact, i asked a question on it because it is important to me as a vermonter and as a united states senator, and certainly as chairman of the senate judiciary committee. in response to my question, she testified, "i understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many americans. in fact, one of my god children is a member of the n.r.a. i have friends who hunt. i understand the individual right fully that the supreme court recognized in heller." and judge sotomayor reaffirmed the statement in answers to questions from senator kyl, senator coburn and senator feingold. judge sotomayor participated in the second circuit panel in a case called maloney v. cuomo. that was decided earlier this year, in which the unanimous

panel -- let me family size that -- the unanimous panel recognized the supreme court decision in heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment against federal law restrictions. now, justice scalia, a arguably the most conservative republican on the u.s. supreme court, it is his opinion that the heller case explicitly reserved as a separate question whether the second amendment guarantee applies to the states and laws adopted by the states, whether the state of vermont or the state of arkansas or any other state. in doing so, the court left in place a series of supreme court holdings from 1876 to 1894 that the second amendment does not

apply to the states. i mention this because there are those who want justices to not be activists but to be traditionalists. going back to 1876 to 1894 sets the tradition of this country. the question posed to judge sotomayor in the second circuit maloney involved a challenge by a criminal defendant to a new york state law restriction on the martial arts device, the nu nunchuruks. in declining to overrule the trial judge, the trial judge would not set aside the state law against nunchucks and the court of appeals did not overrule that. the second circuit panel

emphasized that the decision was dictated by supreme court precedent, something that every single member of this chamber should do, all of the supreme court precedents. in fact, had she voted otherwise, now she gets criticized for doing what a second court of appeals is supposed to do, that is follow the precedent of the supreme court, she seems to be caught in this hob sons choice. had she violated that rule, had they acted otherwise, had they refuseed to follow the supreme court precedent, then i'm sure she would be attacked as being a judicial activist. come on, let's be fair. we've had nominees by republican presidents here. we've heard over and over again how republicans want these people because they follow

precedent. here they're attacking -- some republicans are attacking judge sotomayor because she did follow precedent, because she did do what a kphraoes judge is -- what court of appeals judge is supposed to take. the approach taken in maloney was adopted as well by some of the most respected jurists in the country. judges easterbrook and posner, both renowned conservatives, people i hear quoted by the republican side over and over again, they serve on the second circuit. they agreed with the second circuit panel. what i'm saying is judges of all stripes ruled the same way. the national rifle association v. city of chicago, they ruled the same as the second circuit

in maloney. judges easterbrook and posner refused to ignore the direction from the supreme court, implement supreme court holdings even if the reasoning in later opinions undermines the rationale and said lead to the supreme court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions. what i'm saying is be conservative judges, liberal judges, moderate judges, moderates like judge sotomayor all came to the same conclusion. follow precedent. it may sound lik -- it may sound like i'm doing a tutorial for a law school class. i thought rather than having the rhetoric, let's go to the facts and let's go to the law. because both the facts and the law are unrefutable. and i asked judge sotomayor during her hearing whether not bound by the second circuit or supreme court precedent on

whether second amendment rights should be -- be considered fundamental rights, keep in mind -- keep an open mind and evaluate that question. her response to me was straightforward. she asked me whether i have an open mind on that question. absolutely. she said i would not prejudge any question that came before me if i was a justice on the supreme court. she couldn't have gone any further without prejudging justice scalia's opinion. in recent news accounts in the national rifle association decided to score the vote on confirming judge sotomayor to the supreme court. they did this in response to pressure from the republican leader. as a matter of fact, it's the first time in history that n.r.a. scored a supreme court nomination. the irony is if she had been nominated by a republican president, they would all support her with her record. i ask consent to place in the record at the conclusion of my statement a copy of a july 24

letter from the congressional -- to the n.r.a. executive vice president and executive director. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: reize and john salazar wrote we are disappointed. it is not -- by the record or hearing testament. he said that more than ever specifically she said it confers an individual right as recognized by the supreme court in its heller decision. and the letter continues, this is my point, even more troubling it appears are you holding judge sotomayor to a different standard than you held judges roberts and alito when they were nominated to the court or for that matter any previous nominee

to the court. i think it is a double standard when those two men were nominated by a republican president, they didn't have this standard. when this woman was nominated by a democratic president, suddenly they change the standard. the double standard, as they went on to say the double standard you set for judge sotomayor is a disservice to all members of the n.r.a., particularly those who are hispanic, and i was mystified why the n.r.a. is hostile to the right of gun owners in evaluating judge sotomayor by a different standard than which you have held previous supreme court nominations. i would ask consent to be put in the record letters of support -- a large number of prosecutors, including the national district

attorney association. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and letters of support from a broad cross section of law enforcement agencies. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: including the national association of police organization, national sheriffs association, the sheriff of the los angeles county sheriff department. all i'm saying, madam president, is they ought to follow the same rule when president bush nominated two men that he did to use the same standards when president obama nominated this woman to the supreme court. i see senator lincoln on the floor. one of my distinguished colleagues, and i yield to her. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. chairman. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mrs. lincoln: thank you, madam president. i thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. he is a good and trusted friend

and i appreciate all the hard work that he and all of our colleagues on the judiciary committee have -- all of the efforts that they have put into this nomination and -- and hearing process. madam president, i rise today to discuss one of the most -- what i think is one of the most consequential and long-lasting decisions in the duties that a u.s. senator can perform under the constitution. the confirmation of a u.s. supreme court justice. it is a rare practice. so rare, in fact, that my consideration of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor will mark only the third supreme court nomination that i will have considered since i was first elected to the u.s. senate in 1998. even though the president today making this supreme court nomination has changed from the previous two mo nominees, as the chairman of the judiciary committee has mentioned, my standard and the standard of any

of us for evaluating a nominee have not changed nor should they have changed. i believe the people of arkansas, our great state, and certainly our nation, deserve a supreme court justice who is able to interpret and apply the rule of law fairly without political favor or bias. ensuring that a nominee meets this standard is an obligation that i have sworn to uphold as a united states senator and more overis the standard that i expect for a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. in making my decision about judge sotomayor, i have taken a number of factors into account, as i evaluate her qualifications for serving on our nation's highest court. first among these are the opinions of my constituents in my home state of arkansas including those in the legal community. i've heard from a number of arkansans who have expressed strong support for judge

sotomayor, emphasizing her unique background, impressive resume, and solid judicial record. i also gained a lot of insight when we met at length in june. i was able to learn firsthand about who she is as a person, her temperment and her unique life experiences, all of which i believe will help give her the ability in every litigant who comes before the supreme court a fair shake. arkansans can readily identify with her because judge sotomayor is no stranger to hard work. she was born in new york and is the daughter of parents who came to the u.s. from puerto rico. after her father died when she was young, judge sotomayor was raised by her mother, a nurse. a hard-working woman with tremendous values. she went on to become valedictorian of her high school and a member of phi beta kappa

and edito editor of yale law sc. she has served as a district attorney and in private practice before serving for 17 years as a federal judge. she has a long history, madam president, and, again, one that starts with hard work and dedication to hard work. arkansas is known for its ability to grow self-made americans and those are americans that are no strangers to hard work and they understand what is involved in putting into who you are and what you are trying to become and what it is that you want to achieve on behalf of others. judge sotomayor even told me in our personal meeting that she had entered her practice in real estate and business law because she had a great appreciation for business and the industries of this great country and she wanted to increase her knowledge of corporate law and broaden her

experience. moreover, madam president, i was impressed during our meeting with her eagerness to learn more about arkansas and her attentiveness to what issues were more important to my constituency in my home state of arkansas. the senate judiciary committee hearings provided me an opportunity to learn about her record and judicial philosophy. i was able to monitor the hearings an watch her performance under intense scrutiny and pressure. and i was impressed with her knowledge, her composure, and her candor. given the weight of this decision, madam president, and the responsibilities i have to my constituents in my country, i've carefully exam independent the information -- examined the information about judge sotomayor's nomination and i will support judge sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i have confidence, madam president, as she made clear through the committee hearings that she understands a judge's

obligation is first and foremost a fidelity to the law. as -- just as the chairman of the judiciary committee mentioned earlier, i was raised as a add individual duck -- avid duck hunter and gun owner. i was pleased to hear that judge sotomayor made a promise before the senate judiciary committee to have an open mind on the issue of the second amendment and to understand what it means in terms of our-our rights as american citizens -- our rights as american citizens. in response to questions, judge sotomayor expressed caution on how she would rule on an unsettled constitutional issue likely to come before the supreme court before hearing the arguments and studying the opinions before her. i would have been concerned about a nominee who had already made up their mind about an unsettled legal issue that is likely to come before the court.

her responsibility is to not come in there prejudging or predetermined in her decisions, but to come to the court with an open mind. based on her substantial record serving in two courts, i'm satisfied that judge sotomayor will give future cases involving the second amendment and the rights of americans to own firearms for recreation and self-protection a very fair hearing. madam president, i'm also satisfied that her past rulings on these issues follows precedent -- previous precedent and falls within the judicial mainstream. overall i -- and i think senator sessions mentioned some of that in his -- his comments in terms of being judicial mainstream. overall, i appreciated judge sotomayor's approach to the judiciary hearings and her willingness to respond to questions from both senators on both sides of the aisle on many important topics. based on her answe answers, madm

president, i believe that judge sotomayor cares more about following the law and maintaining the respect for the judiciary than she does about politics and ideology. as judge sotomayor stated, the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. finally, i have gained, again, searched my conscience an reflected on my principles as a senator for the people of the great state of arkansas using my experiences whether it's being a legislator here in the creation of law, both here and in the house of representatives, but also as a farmer's daughter. my experience as a wife, a mother, a neighbor to evaluate a decision of such great weight. it has become apparent to me that judge sotomayor does meet the test to serve in our nation's highest court. i base this conclusion, madam president, on the respect and support she has earned from those in my home state,

colleagues on both sides of the aisle who know her well, on the evidence in the record from her own comments and those of her colleagues that she has had an abiding respect for the court's decisions, and that she understands the value of the continuity in our law. we also see the support from industry representatives like the chamber of commerce as well as labor organizations. the senate judiciary committee received a letter of support for judge sotomayor's nomination from the united states chamber of commerce, the world's largest business federation representing businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. the u.s. chamber wrote in their letter -- pursuant to our longstanding endorsement policy, the chamber evaluated judge sotomayor's record from the standpoint of legal scholar ship, judicial temperment and an understanding of business and economic issues. based on the chamber's evaluation of her judicial

record, judge sotomayor is well qualified to serve as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. her extensive experience both as a commercial litigator and as a trial judge would provide the u.s. supreme court with a much-needed perspective on the issues that business litigants face. consistent with her senate testimony the chamber expects judge sotomayor to engage in fair and even-handed application of the laws affecting america's business. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the letter to the senate judiciary committee from the chamber of commerce be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. lincoln: madam president, i do believe that judge sotomayor will make an excellent supreme court justice. and i will give all who come and she will also give who come before the court on which she is poised to serve a fair hearing and the attention and respect that they deserve. so in this very important

decision that each of us as senators must make, i am proud to be able to support her in that nomination. madam president, i yield the ictures that

he has. now, madam president, let's assume for a moment that there is a difference between judge sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. if so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench even if he or she has a different personal opinion? at the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. that is the essence of a -- of an impartial judiciary. in other words, judge sotomayor has demonstrated the very trait that she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door. the congressional research record -- the congressional research service has analyzed judge sotomayor's record and has concluded the following:

"perhaps the most consistent characteristic of judge sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, that is, upholding of past judicial precedents. other characteristics," they noted, "appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role." well, madam president, that is the opposite of an activist judge imposing her views despite the law. we all have personal views and sympathies. some judges regrettably can't lay those aside when making their judicial calls. judge sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can while faithfully applying the principles of the united states constitution. and for thee reasons, i'll vote

to confirm judge sotomayor to the supreme court. i would ask unanimous consent, madam president, that letters that have been received by the judiciary committee from the afl-cio and from apps be inserted in the record at this time. and i would also ask unanimous consent, madam president, that the entire -- my entire stbe printed in the record in full. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. madam president, the judiciary committee has received several letters and statements of support from organizations dedicated to advancing civil and women's legal rights, including latino justice, prldef, the alliance for justice, and the national women's law center. i ask unanimous consent to put these letters in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, as a member of congress, there are votes that you'll cast that you'll remember for a lifetime. recently, a new senator, al

franken, came to my office the day after he was sworn in and we talked about his adjustment to the senate. and he talked to me about his concern about the first three votes that he cast in the sena senate, that he was pushed in quickly and had to make decisions and didn't have a chance to reflect as he would like to reflect on those votes. i said to him that i understood that, but after you have been in the senate for awhile, or the house, for that matter, and you've cast many votes, they all aren't that important. this is an important vote. it's not the most important vote that a member of the senate can cast, a vote for a nomination for the supreme court. i would argue the most important vote you can cast is whether america goes to war. because if the decision is made in the affirmative, as it has been, people will die. i can't think of anything more compelling than that vote. but this ranks a close second in terms of the impact that it will have. these are lifetime appointments to the supreme court.

supreme court justices on average serve 26 years, longer than most members of congress. and the supreme court has the last word in america when it comes to our most significant legal issues. this high court across the street, nine men and women, defines our personal rights as americans to privacy and the restrictions that the government can be -- can place on the most personal aspect of our lives and our freedom. it doesn't get any more basic than that. the supreme court decides the rights of voters, consumers, immigrants, victims of discrimination. the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws to protect our civil rights and our environment. they decide what checks will govern the executive branch, the president, in time of war. in critical moments in american history, the supreme court has succeeded and failed our nation. in the dread scott decision in

the 1850's, the supreme court per peacperpetuated slavery ando us a civil war. in brown v. board of education, that same court in the 1950's brought an end to the legal blessing on discrimination based on race. because these issues were so important and tomorrow's issues may be as well, we make our choices for the supreme court with great care. we obviously need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, the proper judicial temperament, and a commitment to impartial, objective justice. more than that, we need supreme court justices who understand our world and the impact their decisions will have on everyday people. we need whose wisdom comes from life, not just from law books. sadly, this important quality seems to be in short supply these days. the supreme court has issued

decision after decision in recent years that represent a triumph of ideology over common sense. the case of ledbetter v. goodyear tire and rubber company. what an example of a troubling trend at the court. in that case, the supreme court dismissed a claim of pay discrimination simply because the claim was filed more than 180 days after the initial discriminatory paycheck. but most employees and most businesses in america have no idea how much the person next to them is being paid. so it's often impossible to know you're a victim of pay discrimination until long after the fact, long after 180 days. the supreme court's leadbetter decision defied common sense, the realities of the workplace and a long record of earlier decisions. there was another case saferred united school district v. redding. a 13-year-old girl was

stripsearched at her school based on a false rumor that she was hiding ibuprofen pills. at the oral argument before the court in april, several supreme court justices asked questions about the case that revealed a stunning lack of concern for the eighth-grade victim. one of the justices even suggested that being stripsearched was no different than changing clothes for gym chase. justice ruth bader ginsburg helped her eight male colleagues understand why the stripsearch of a 13-year-old girl was humiliating enough to violate her constitutional rights. a majority of the justices, nevertheless, ruled that school officials were immune from liability. these and other decisions demonstrate that the supreme court needs to understand the real world and the impact their decisions have on real people. i believe judge sonia sotomayor will be such a justice. one of my favorite memories of

sotomayor's hearings was watching her mother's face glow with pride as judge sotomayor talked about the history of her family. she spoke about growing up in public housing, that she lost her father when she was nine years old, that she struggled to succeed against adversity and illness and the odds. she talked about what a great impact her mom had on her life, that her mom taught her what a friend was worth. she talked about earning her scholarship to princeton university, yale law school, serving as a prosecutor and a corporate litigator. then being selected by president george h.w. bush to serve on the federal judiciary and being promoted to a higher judicial office by president bill clint clinton. it's a rare occurrence for a federal judge to receive appointments by presidents of different political parties. sonia sotomayor received those and that reflects so well on her skill as a judge.

she served for more years al th >> former giants receiver plaxico burress's arraignment on felony gun charges has been rescheduled. initially set for september 23rd, burress will now appear in manhattan's supreme criminal court on august 20 at 9:30 a.m. >> vikings quarterback tarvaris jackson said his left knee felt fine after practice wednesday morning. jackson's competing with sage rosenfels for the starting rosenfels for the starting q.b. job. he sprained his knee on saturday when a lineman rolled over his leg. >> you hold your breath, chris, when somebody's rolling around on the ground, but yeah, he came back, he's treated it well, got out there and moved around yesterday afternoon, was able to get in drill work, and he's working as hard to get back as he works to stay on the field. >> one of several nfl quarterback competitions is blossoming at jets camp.

kellen clemens, who backed up brett favre last season, is fighting for the starting spot against mark sanchez, who was the fifth overall pick in the draft. >> they both had their moments, and then they have had their moments when it's like, "what are you doing?" something like that. >> this is, i think, the third time i have been in a quarterback competition with the jets, so i'm more able to just kind of put the competition aside and focus on improving myself and improving my teammates, and not focusing on all the extracurricular stuff that goes on. >> when this is all over, do you think you will have the starting job? >> that's the plan, and i know kellen will say the same thing, we both want to play, and that's the unique thing about the quarterback position. you don't rotate like running backs or receivers or linemen. there is one guy. >> here is the tale of the tape between these two signal-callers. -- between these two quarterbacks.

>> being second string hasn't tempered vince young's confidence. in an interview with "esquire" magazine, the titans quarterback said he's in the best shape of his life and his critics no longer bother him. said young, "i'm only 26, man. if you think you can write me off, just watch." oh, wait, it gets even bolder. vince young goes on to say this. >> when the l.a. angels were ravaged by injuries in the first few months of the season, conventional wisdom said that once healthy, the angels would hit their stride and that's exactly what happened. once five games under .500 in april and as many as 5 1/2 games out of first in the a.l. west in may, the angels have been baseball's best team since the all-star break, a 14-4 slate

including an eight-game winning streak. when you're playing well, you're loose. angels in chicago to face the white sox. bottom of the fourth. jim thome high and deep off sean o'sullivan, his 19th home run of the season. we're tied at 1-1. thome not finished. bottom sixth. two men on. he crushes that one off darren oliver. his second home run of the game. thome 561 career home runs, two behind reggie jackson for 12th on the all-time list. for thome, the 44th multi-homer game of his career. >> edwin jackson has just one win in his last nine starts. against the orioles wednesday eight innings, two earned runs, three hits, eight strikeouts.

offense didn't get him much until the eighth. placido polanco a two-run single. tigers win this one 4-2. jackson wins for just the second time in 10 starts. the orioles 5-14 since the all-star break. looking at the a.l. central, the tigers maintain a one-game lead on the white sox. twins lurking as well. they're 3 1/2 back. >> coming up, at age 25, brandon roy is one of the up-and-coming stars in the nba. the blazers have made sure their franchise player sticks around. the bridgestone tees off thursday. tiger looks for his second win in a row.

>> rockies skipper jim tracy had high praise for j.a. happ. he said, "happ pitched one of the best games we've seen all year." the phillies lefthander struck out a career-high 10, finished with a four-hit shutout -- his second shutout of the season. pedro martinez made a rehab start for philadelphia's double-a team wednesday. six innings, three earned runs, 11 strikeouts. that creates a bit of a situation. if pedro joins the phillies rotation it's assumed that it's happ who could be headed to the bullpen. the giants and astros wrapping up a three-game set at minute maid park. brian moehler, on the mound -- bottom sixth, tied at 3-3, not

now -- eli whiteside a grand slam, his first career home run. the giants win 10-6. rookie joe martinez wins his first major league start. he was pitching in the bigs for the first time since being hit in the head by a line drive on april 9. the giants have won 10 of their last 14 while the astros have dropped nine of their last 12. n.l. wild card race looks like this. the rockies a scant half game behind the giants who sit in the top spot, the cardinals two games back and the marlins are 4 1/2 behind san francisco. >> three years ago, drew carey went to spain to film a documentary on the rivalry between real madrid and barcelona. he returned smitten by everything about barcelona -- in fact, when carey became part owner of the mls's seattle sounders, he modelled his franchise with barcelona's fan-first approach in mind. one aspect he copied? well, a group of fans vote every

four years on whether the to keep the g.m. there is a clipper fan going "how come we don't have that?" there is carey, bill russell honored with a special gold scarf. seattle and barcelona. lionel messi in the 21st minute past casey keller, 1-0 barcelona. 41st minute, barcelona looking for more. and it's messi -- the great touch. 2-0 barcelona at halftime. they win 4-0. it's the superliga final, tigres against chicago fire. tied at 1-1, going to penalty. batista past john bush to win it -- tigres are your 2009 superliga champions and the victorious club pockets $1 million for its efforts. the united states remains 12th in the august soccer rankings

following its 5-0 loss to mexico last month. >> we always help you stay current here at espnews. the portland trail blazers are making sure their young gun doesn't ride out of town -- the blazers and guard brandon roy have agreed in principle on a five-year contract extension -- the deal will be for the maximum amount allowed with specific numbers not available until the nba salary cap is set next july. >> tiger and lefty will both be part of the field in this week's bridgestone open. last year, tiger missed this event. he was recovering from knee surgery at the time. as for lefty, he hasn't played since the u.s. open. remember, both his wife and mother are battling breast cancer. on wednesday, phil and tiger both spoke to the media.

>> this year, i think just to be able to come back and play and be successful again has been a tremendous step. if you had asked me at the beginning of the year, before i even played whether i would have four wins by now, i couldn't see it because walking 18 holes was going to be a task. >> things at home are going much better. we've had a great six week. we're in a much better place now than we were and i'm excited about that, and i'm excited about the chance to play a little golf too. i expect to play well. i feel we have been fortunate because of a couple of reasons. both my mom and amy have caught it early, and we have been able to have some wonderful care. >> phil mickelson's scoring average this year just 60th on tour. as we take you to the next level, you can see he's still able to post low numbers.

>> the yankees head into their series with the red sox with a bit more breathing room. our top stories are next. >> the call to canton comes for six new members of the pro football hall of fame. buffalo bills sack king bruce smith and owner ralph wilson. defensive standouts rod woodson and derrick thomas. 12-time pro bowler randall mcdaniel and a gold medal-winning sprinter turned receiver -- bullet bob hayes. join us for the pro