the low-power television stations are not required to go digital. that will have a consequence, especially on small community broadcasts, especially those that are not in english. we know that right now, if you are watching television on an older television and it is not connected to cable or satellite, you will need to have a converter box, but we have a lot of cable and satellite it subscribers that may be cutting their service. . .

it is important to us not to have a portion of the population, awful. -- cut off. >> are you pleased with the sec response to the transition? >> what we have seen in recent weeks has begun to make a difference. we have seen the national telecommunications and information association mate and investment, and that makes a real difference. is a call center, 1-888-call- fcc. it is a good resource. complementary to that are more resources in cities and communities across the country.

>> erica swanson is with the leadership conference on civil rights, and their web site is civilrights.org/dtv. what would you do differently if you could do it again? >> we would have started concentrated outreach efforts well before february. if we had, we would be in even better shape in terms of producing a small number of households that are not ready. the coupon program has been good. a number of people are there for whom $40 is decision all. it would not be in a situation to upgrade if they did not have it. additional $10 has been encouraging the availability for the dollar boxes. so there's no copiague, if you will. -- no co-payment.

>> this will all happen june 12, and next week on "the communicators," we will get an houpdate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] minnesota gov. jim pawlenty discusses the economy's impact on his state. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> nancy reagan, nancy pelosi, and michelle obama were on hand in the capital for ceremonies to unveil a new statue of ronald reagan. we will surely that night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

♪ >> this is c-span's "america and the courts." sonia sotomayor spent much of the week visiting capitol hill. we follow her as she meets members of the judiciary committee and leadership. she began her first visit on tuesday with senate majority leader harry reid. >> thank you very much. when we finish here, we will go in another room and have an in- depth conversation.

i want everyone to understand, we have a whole package year. academically, we have princeton, yale law school, the editor of the law review. that is very impressive. if that were not enough, her background is very significant. as a trial lawyer, i'm very impressed. a prosecutor, a trial judge for many years, and then an appellate judge. we could not have anyone more qualified. i think your life story is so compelling, and america identifies with the underdog. you have been an underdog many times in your life.

but your top dog, and i appreciated. thank you very much, everybody -- i appreciate it. >> later, sotomayor met with patrick leahy, senate judiciary committee chair. >> the judge and i were talking about the second circuit, difference -- dear friends.

[inaudible] have you all got enough footage? >> thank you, senator. >> can we -- let's be fair. she will talk about that. >> do you know when you may start hearing? >> thank you. good morning. i first of what to say i appreciate how difficult is for everyone to squeeze in and squeeze out of a -- i apologize,

we do not have a bigger room. i was delighted to see her again. the judge, i have known her for years, and she was on the second circuit, the circuit i am admitted to. and i watched her in there, watched her as a district judge, as a second circuit court of appeals judge. she makes me think of justice souter, someone with a great legal mind, and packable pock credentials. if confirmed, she will the only member of the court with experience as a trial court judge, which i think is

extremely important. you have a different perspective. from a personal point of view, i was always proud to see someone who served as a prosecutor. you really have an understanding of the good and the battle of life. robert morgan paul wrote an opinion piece strongly praising her. i am proud to see her restraint. we do not somebody who will undercut congress, being an activist, and she is not. i wanted somebody outside of the judicial monastery, and her background was such that she had had a lot of experience outside.

so -- what are you, from the south bronx? the self side of chicago, south burlington vermont -- your life experiences to shake you. she has never forgot where she was from. we are meeting tomorrow morning to speak to senator sessions about this. but we say one thing on a personal point of view. i know how difficult it is for somebody nominated, they cannot speak out. and what difference for us who run for elected office and to debate every day. i think some of these attacks against her are some of the most vicious i have ever seen. one called her the equivalent of

the head of the ku klux klan. another call her a bigot. the one thing dead gives me consolation is republican senators have resisted that. a 300 million americans, the president is making the nomination, and 100 senators voted on it. any questions? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. normally, i will not talk about what a nominee says to me. i think a vote on everything

since chief justice rehnquist was chief. i never talk about it, though i did raise that question. it would probably according to her answer, none whatsoever. but life experience ships where you are. but ultimately and completely, as a judge, she follows along with the law. there is not one law, one race or another, one color or another, for richer or poorer. there is only one wall -- lock -- law, and she says

ultimately and completely, a judge must follow it. i had to make up my mind as a prosecutor based on what the law wanted. what's ahead on, not their background. >> [inaudible] >> she told me her philosophy. she has probably given hundreds of speeches, written hundreds of opinions, she is head, and her philosophy is that what ultimately and completely determines it. i find that very good.

we will have hearings this month. she was recommended and dominated last month. i feel like that is too soon. senator sessions and i worked together for the questionnaire. i think it will be back here in the next couple of days. we got our background. i will tell you one thing, we want to go sooner, rather than later. we had a vicious attacks were of leading republicans called her the equivalent of the head of the coup clucks clan, they called her a bid to -- bigot.

there is only one place she could answer those charges, in a hearing. i want her to have a chance to answer those charges. >> republicans talk about labor. >> the floor vote will be decided by the leadership, by harry reid. in 35 years, i have never handicapped. i want everyone to have a

chance. i asked republicans if they wanted a list, and we have a whole list. it is not a big surprise. >> it is not clear if you have or have not directly asked about it. >> everyone has life experience. you do. but the law is what controls. we know about his experience, his background. that makes up who he is.

i do not respond to anyone who thinks they can play without saying that. to remember president bush spoke about clarence thomas as a man who would have empathy, and nobody complained about that. so let's stop grasping at straws. the question is will she follow what law. she has for years. the law has always been her controlling factor. she knows that a lot better than most of us.

i cannot speak for people who have restrictive gun laws, like arizona and texas. >> [inaudible] >> later, jeff sessions brief them on the upcoming confirmation hearing.

>> sorry to keep you waiting. wheat shared similar experiences as a district judge, and a trial judge. i think that is a good background for any judge, particularly a supreme court judge. and we talked about the views on law and other matters relating to how a judge conducts themselves on the bench. i commend it to her and what we talked the day she was nominated, i said she will get a fair hearing in the judiciary committee. she will be treated respectfully, she will be given opportunities to answer any allegations out there, and i

think it is going to be a good time. this is the best hearing we have ever had. and there are issues and questions, we have seen complaints in the papers, and those things will now be raised and she will be given a chance to talk about that. >> did you ask her about the comments she made in 2001? >> not directly. we talked about the idea and the concept of personal feelings, how that influences a decision. i will not go into that. i think our conversation was a

confidential conversation, but yes. we talked about it briefly, and it is not going to do that. i have the opportunity to study her record. >> [inaudible] are your feelings about a hearing before the august recess? >> i would urge this chairman to keep an open mind on that. we will talk tomorrow. he came in to visit me and i think we're getting together tomorrow to talk about that. ialso, senators agreed and, --

senator reid and mcconnell will be involved. three or 4000 cases right now. records need to be examined, and they will be, and i do not think it is good for the rest of them. i look forward to talking. i think that would be a good time. we have until october 7 or 5 for the nominee to take office. that is when justice souter will be departing. >> what about concerns that she might be an activist?

>> we really have not talked about her experiences beyond being a lawyer and a judge. >> what is your take on the language and criticism we have heard about her being racist? >> well, i did not think that that is the wine which -- language -- i will now use that kind of language. -- i will not use that kind of language. those sorts of questions, people who feel strongly about it use strong line which. i think they're right thing to do is ask people what is and how

she will decide those cases. >> when you see that line with, is that damaging for the republican party? >> the people out there are not officials. they are not republican officials. the senate owes the responsibility to give her a fair hearing. we talked about doctrines in law schools that i consider unhealthy suggesting that words do not have real meaning and can be made to say whenever we want them to say. i talked about the cynical view

of law and expressed that a judge could -- a judge who took that you could erode respect for law and the public's mind. so we discussed the moral authority of law and judges and the need for the american people feel that those judgments are based on fact, and she discussed that forthrightly. i thought it was effective. but it really was not a detailed discussion of any of her comments or speeches or things of that nature. >> he used those words -- >> yes. how does the judge fined the law? and what approach to statutory

construction do they utilize? i was very impressed with her knowledge, experience, her energy level, and it was a delight to talk with her. i enjoyed the conversation, and i think she did. she thought it was an little longer than we planned to go. >> chuck sumer was tapped by a white house to be her shirt but -- chuck schumer was tapped by the white house to be sotomayor's sherpa. he talked about the judge and the process moving forward. >> ok. well, we had a very, very good lunch with a new yorker we are proud of, and that is judge sotomayor. let me say this. she is impressive when you read about her history and

credentials, even more impressive talking to her face- to-face. she is somebody who presents a very smart, thoughtful, and powerful image in a quiet way, and i am convinced that she, as she talked to my colleagues both democrat and republican, is going to so impressed them. she is even more impressive in person than on paper, and she is really impressive on paper. so this meeting was very gratifying to us, because she will make such a fine supreme court justice in every way. i am proud that she is a new yorker, proud that she is an american, and proud that she was nominated. >> one of the most significant things from our lunches how much i appreciate her focus on her

long judicial career on rule of law. she not only understands it as a guiding principle but she follows it, and i have every confidence she will be an extraordinary justice. >> ready for questions. we cannot take too many. >> what is your role in the campaign? >> it is clear she does not need anyone to accompany her. she makes such a strong impression. obviously, i will do whatever is asked. i will first and foremost in former colleagues of her great reputation in new york, in the bar, on the bench, and as a person. i will be giving her advice in any way that she asks. third, i will introduce her to some of my colleagues. >> this latina comment that is

being much-discussed -- are there any concerns that she engages in identity politics? >> to answer your second question, when the nominee of her background, 80% of the time decides that no discrimination occurred when people have brought cases of discrimination, it says it all in terms of rule of law. we asked her about her, and she said read three sentences later, where i said that nine white males changed america with brown versus the board of education. is so obvious in which he said and in her 17-year record as a judge that she puts rule of law first in every way, and i do not think this will be of any concern at all. >> i have to agree. what is so impressive is the h