"wasshington journahington jour >> the debate over healthcare reaches a top. the version of the legislation and in the house, three committees, ways and maens, energy and labor and commerce begin their markup. that's where we begin. much discussion of the house version which contains the

public option. we'd like to discussion with you the pros and cons and the offer for the insurance is. >> we begin this morning with peter who has been looking at the newspaper. >> the "new york times" leads what happened yesterday in the senate. the senate health committee approved legislation to remake the nation's healthcare system to become the first pnl to do so this year. clear clear

>> in the washington time this is morning, on the same topic. it says a plan appearing to form snartz charles schumer and snow suggested that the committee in a co-op. the only bill not to include a public plan with you could receive broad republican support. >> we'll be listening to your telephone calls in the first half hour. can you send us as message by twitter on c-span waunt

washington j. we'll begin on the republican line. what do you think of this idea? caller: i think, i don't understand the public option. i think that as long as the health insurance is still involved, it's going to be too expensive. if we had public healthcare like britain, it would be better. host: we'll move on to colorado on the democrat line. caller: i'm opposed to the public options.

it seems to me that the cost of this plan is not being adequately betted. they are rushing it through. i think we are spending too much here and that worries me. host: next phonebz in west palm who is not quite ready. peter, what do you have for us? >> the ways and means committee looked at the markup. they are beginning markup of it today. c-span will be covering that hearing. here is an article from the hill newspaper. blue dogs threatened to bring down pelosi bill.

seven blue dogs abandoned it together. representative mike ross from arkansas says that these changes aren't accepted, they'll vote down the bill. in the article, it gives some of the concerns. pelosi cut deal after deal with individual lawmakers to sweet the bill out of committee. lawmakers flew home they went home and got energy. now they are going to jam healthcare down our throat. what many republicans oppose outright. republicans object to a government run option. many blue dogs don't want to accept that. they don't want to use

reimbursement rates for healthcare. vulnerable freshmen and sophmores are worried about the surtax on the wedgy and could be forced to vote on another kind of tax when the bill comes back from the senate. host: this comment comes from twitter. the congress wines about the spending yet they have 150 versions of the bill. host: next call from west palm, florida. caller: i wanted to mention the fact that everybody, the $600 billion cut will effect the seniors greatly. especially if we have chose

hmos. i'm happy and the people i know. this is thousands of them down here. i live in a seniors development. they are all in their 80's and 90's. they are real happy. the $600 billion they are going to cut is going to definitely knockout the hmos and put us on this public plan which is going to be wkçhorrible. i want to alert these seniors. you better start calling your senators and congressmen, call and call or you'll be like in canada. you won't get your care you've been getting and your mris and other tests you've been getting.

that will apply to the people with medicare. they will loose so much. host: marty is next on the independent line. caller: i think the problem may be the people that have to fight for us as the people giving healthcare. they are worried too much still about the profit of the medical companies. there has to be a happy medium and take less profit. i think they are worried about keeping their profits high. i wish they would get that out of their way and think of the

people. host: joe. thank you for your call. caller: thank you for your time. i spent a lot of time working in germany. i'll tell you, people love their healthcare around. people throw words around like canada and the u. k. i don't really think they have the problems that they are leading us to believe they are.

hospitals are providing big-time cuts. they know their backs are nailed to the wall. this legislation has to get through. that's about all i have to say. >> the next comment from queens. i'd like to see a bill+jñ put fh that will go after the politicians and put them in jail. they are going after the american people. they don't care what burden they put on. it's time we started holding them accountable for what they

do. >> george has this to say by twitter. public option will bring the cost of health insurance down. peter, what else do you have for us.

host: mike tells us he thinks public option is a must. host: missouri on the phone. caller: i wanted to echo what the caller said.

people bashing canada and britain, that's really an a nomly. as an american that sdpt have health insurance right now. the last thing i want to say, i think we will have a big problem with healthcare as long as the healthcare companies and congressional people try to keep the deal of the day. we are always going to have conflict due to the mix of capitolism. it's not the same. host: jim from ok on the democrat line. caller: the last two;5ñ stole my thunder.

you cannot make money off other people's misery. i am uninsured. until we take the profit out of the hospital. out of the pharmaceuticals and healthcare companies. nothing will change. the republicans i hear call themselves good christians but make millions off people's cancer, heart disease and diabetes. that is not christian. we must take the profit. host: in ms., republican line. caller: . the public option to me doesn't seem feasible. the democrats are going to tax everybody, not just those at a higher tax bracket. i'm already paying enough for my

own healthcare plus the v. a. healthcare that comes out of my taxes as well. a lot of military members can't afford to pay for the whole military public. i hope the way they are going to go ba it is not to tax everybody. it just seems like they are trying to make a profit. that's just a moral dael that the nation should up hold. you don't make profit on healthcare. you help people. host: we'll listen to your comments to the bottom of the hour. next is a twitter comment.

host: good morning on the independent line. caller: i'm appalled that a group of people in washington could think they are so different and so much better that they could accept healthcare and the general public and a retirement package would deny that to everyone else. it baffles me that there could be that kind of arrow against and a believe that they could deny the things they deny other people. why would you not want even in

this country to not have healthcare. 4 i don't understand that. the house democrats soak the rich proposal on annual family income of $350,000 misplaced. ideally financing the reform will come from the financing itself. perhaps a cap on tax deductions for high-end healthcare, a plan mccain championed. kwleer clear clear scleer

making it the primary funding source would be a mistake. finally judge greg who used to share the health committee in the senate and is currently the ranking ebb. we need to reform the reform. there's a lot of agreement where healthcare reform should end up.

host: asking by twitter, what is the constitutional authority for the government to provide healthcare? next phone call on the democrat line in michigan. caller: i'm totally against this healthcare bill. we have to look at it through the eyes of other nations. cana canada, finance an empire. we have an empire now. now we are going to put this healthcare bill into place.

if they implement this healthcare bill, sooner or later, it's going to impact every american. i'm against it. host: next on the republican line in texas. caller: most people, i don't know how many have been watching the airings on c-span of the healthcare legislation with the senate. i do have health insurance. as a single 72-year-old person. i pay over $300 a month. it's a struggle to pay.

i don't have hospitalization civered because i didn't work under social security but i am against this edge care plan. obama has only been in the office for seven months. he is going to change our country forever. talk about prevention. does he really think about prevention. does he really think smoker also quit smoking and fast food addicts will quit guying fast fo food. it is just not going to be good.

thank you. host: thank you. in the "washington post," obama ize. this piece writing. pressing lawmakers to give unwup of the most valued perks. writing, delivering federal money, the largest insurance company could be a powerful tool. they are creating the jobs and improving healthcare for voters. back to your telephone calls from arkansas on the independent line. caller: shame on all the republicans. we are trying to advance our country to a point where other

democratic countries are. the republicans keep. they keep saying about the taxing and taxing and they have forgotten about all the mess we have gotten ourselves into by creating a war and spending and purports t be republican. they can't understand the human factor of this country. that's it. host: the house version of the bill is 1, 018 pages long.

you can do a word search through it. each of the three committees loved in it have a high light seat of their goals. we have linked that. caller: there are all these charges republicans come out with that are so absurd. from the beginning, they fought against social security.

i want to say it is important to have a public option. it's immoral for people to be maybing money on your health and well being. it goes back to what jus said about paining care of the least of these. i happen to have relatives who live in canada, they have no complaints. you don't see them in the streets clamoring to get back to private care. it's a human right. that's what we have to be driving for. it's a human right. host: a question by email. is there still a chance democrats and republicans can

mee in the mill will or is it just my way or the highway right now? host: it's also. this plan is over with a price tag of over $1 trillion. next call from britain didn't dump the health system. harper in canada, the most conservati conservative. all this stuff you hear from the healthcare communities. you know. anybody wants to come ut there and run for office it would be

interesting to see how many tens of votes they got. i like the single payer system. we have to have a system that cover everybody includingpre conditions. i'm happy with my healthcare. there's a lot of people that aren't. there's no way people should continue in this particular condition. host: we have about 3:00 on the healthcare discuss. anymore comments? >> i do. massachusetts faces suit over cost of universal care. a hospital sued the state charging that the costly universal healthcare law is forcing to civer the hospital too much of the expense of caring for the poor. facing a $38 million deficit.

host: next call from california on the independent line. caller: yes, the main concern i have is that people aren't aware that there's something really wrong. the doctors present as far as this system is concerned. there is real harp in order to

generate money. from the piece last friday, it showed the scandalous situation in which they asked for meetings. this is a clear indication that there is indeed widespread krungs in the press. most trust their doctors more than their÷fñ congressman.

people need to recognize, more harm done to you. take michael jackson. if his injuries were cured immediately, the doctors serving him wouldn't have made the money. host: thank you. we get the point. we end with this twitter. we bring coverage to you of the committee. it will be available on our website. as we move into the second half hour, we want to move into the confirmation hearings for judge sotomayor. she will be up for a hearing for a third time this morning. after they complete their

hearings, they will move on. the question is, if you are watching the hear agz, what are you learning about the judge or the herings? >> do you agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman as discussed. >> as you know the issue of marriage and what constitutes it is a pubt of much discussion. there's a number of state courts

discussing the issue about who regulates it under what terms. >> can i police interrupt you. i thought i was asking a simple question based on a precedent of baker versus nelson. in so many cases, whether griz wold or other cases, the casy case, the gonzalez case, the kilo case. you said these are precedent. are you saying to me that baker versus nelson is not a precedent? >> no, sir. i haven't reviewed baker in a while. actually, i don't know what the status is. if it is the court's press dense

i have indicated, i will apply that precedent to the facts of any new situation. host: in half an hour from now, we'll learn the opinions of senator john cornyn of texas. we want to ask you what are you learning. peter has been looking at the morning enoughs for stories. what do you have? >> a couple headlines to show you, soet soert avoids pointed

queres. on the inside of the "washington post," republicans unable to pin her down. senator cornyn will be on the show a little later. here is this headline, corn anyone needs to walk a fine line. he faces a double threat. he not only represents a state

with a rapidly growing hispanic population cornyn will have to repair fence was hispanics and will skrut nice him a lot harder after the way he questioneded her host: to your telephone calls. on republican line. caller: thank you. the past two days, i saw my fellow republican senators -- which i will turn independent. john cornyn, i wish you could ask him this shpwe.

he asked justice roberts, don't you think if you keep asking the same questions, you'll get the same answers? i'm going independent. that's all i have to say. the republicans should have focussed more on her record and not on her speeches. host: joseph sends us this message. >> i'm learning judge soet will lie and avoid answer is.

good morning. the one thing i've learned in watching the hearing is that judge soet is a brilliant, her legal mind and the way she approaches questions from the senators, she thinks ard about the one thing i learned from watching it, it says how brilliant she is but also that the republicans with chief justice roberts. yesterday when senator specter began asking his questions, he

seemed more concerned gi the congress saying what they wanted to do he seechled like he was upset. i did not hear anyone on any cable stations try and go into senator specter speaking about what's going on in the news with. host: thank you. next call from georgia on the democrat line. caller: i am learning i couldn't do what she's doing. i could not sit there and respond to those questions, the same questions over and over and over again. i applaud her and her patient

yens. this one statement she made is so taken out of context. they understand6z÷ perfectly wh s shi. they asked this woman. i believe she's very well qualified and not because she's latin know because of what she's done. she's a brilliant woman. she discerns to be there.

host: petter, watch people through the option of watching on c-span.org. >> right. the hearing begins this morning at 9:30 until the house comes in at 10:00 a.m. if you want to watch it on tv, you can two to c-span 3. you can watch it on line at spat right in the center, you will see a calm are you icon. you will see hearing begins at 9:30. on the right hand side, you'll see 4 different pgs options for cameras. the top one, can you watch exactly what is oired you can be

your own director at c-span.org. host: back to comments, what are you rerning the next phone comment comes from frisco, texas on the independent line. caller: i'm learning quite a bit. i think she's a better candidate than i had originally thought she would be. i think her depth in the law is very good. i'm a lawyer myself. i think she understands the role of the judicialry as one of the three brafrnls of the govrment

government better than she fishes she would be. i'm impressed with her handling so far. >> when i'm witnessing is the 3 owe crassy oypocrisy of pol i am very disappointed. i believe she is being protected. shouldn't we ask her questions and have them answered. she is not answer questions.

she is very disappointed. she should be asked questions the same of robert and she should answer them. host: thank you for watching we miss greta and brian. i will say what i'm learning is that sotomayor is very wall tied no one can sit up there and be honest about what they would do because not because of getting along. because she would be next. it is sad.

that's what i'm learning. host: donna, i'm learning that senators like to hear themselves talk. >> saw stan made no

>> finally in the "washington post," front page, a follow up to the c.i.a. story. host: we are asking you what you are learning from judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. senator cornyn will be our guest

from capitol hill in minutes. this coming in i am learning she is patient, funny and smarter than i originally thought, four, i am a bigger perry may son fan than she is. this, also there is little else for the republicans to attack. host: next, joe on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i think as with all these confirmations for the supreme court, where there's a majority of the leg slatedive

branch; i think both sides are doing more preening. there's a lot of other big issues out there. i apologize, i cut you off. host: diane in texas. you are on next. caller: i'm learning the good old texas saying if if you can't dazzle them with bril yens, baffle them with bull. i am disappointing in her read her lips. she pronounces it preen. that's all i have to say.

host: on the republican line. caller: i'm learning that the judge seems to have been greatly influenced by a white man named perry mayson which is fine. when you judge an entire group by the actions of a few is what i consider to be racism. we know her latin know statement very well. i would like to hear a question asked. this is to all future supreme court nominee. yu if any of your testimony appears to be true. those are my observations and thoughts, thank you very much.

>> >> two quick political notes. republicans could find it hard to hold on to pennsylvania gerlach's seat.

and the upper east side new york city congress depressionnal seat is up. >> good morning. caller: something mentioned the way she's answering. republicans only seem to be questioning her on her speeches. i am, she can only answer the questions asked. it is so obvious and it is so obvious that the republicans are doing what they normally do. one more thing, i do miss brian and greta. the thing is, c-span, i don't

have a computer. a lot of seniors don't have a computer. it would be great. now, i pay extra for c-span 3 so i can watch this. they've also taken c-span 2 off. host: when you switched to digital. >> yes. it's so frustrating. it is just a no game. it is so frustrating. host: besides c-span, all the other television stations are picking it up. caller: yes. i can. i can get cnn.

but i love the people that call. people are so influenced by some of these right-wing radio. either that or nothing. it's just terrible. c-span is such a great thing. i tell all my friends and kids, watch c-span for truth. in the last months, i don't know what's happening with skuly. i used to like him. it seems to me that he. it's fine to have two sides to the story. i don't know what to look for. they can't fighted. i wishes was up there so i

fight. we can hear frustration about all the move to the interpreter net. we are trying here to show you as much newspaper headlines as we can. >> getting harder and harder to compete with brian and greta it looks like. in the philadelphia inquirer. death in afghan war rise to an alarming rate. july shaping up as the deadliest month. in the financial times is this rt kel. "uk agony over afghan --

it looks like 68,000 u.s. troops are in after afghanistan right now. finally, blare named to become the european union's new president. he wants the job. host: later on, we'll introduce you to the new mayor of detroit dave bing who has a lot of troubles on his hands. they have high unemployment with the auto maker issues. we'll learn about what his approacheses are.

/á'h good m thank you for taking phone calls. host: what are you learning from the hearing? caller: i'm learning that it see seems. watching this coverage, i can see when she is asked questions by plains she is bunsing around and trying to uncover the fact. it is very racial. there's a white guy. we are getting hit hard being a white guy in this country. i'm tired of everybody getting ee selected because they are not the white guy. host: next caller. caller: good morning.

i certainly prech the cable company that's support c-span. i enjoy it very much. one of the previous callers this mentioned right wing, left wing. i think c-span does a great job of focusing on all sides of the issue. you are to be con grat light -- congratulate you. i'm disappointed that the democrats on the little press conference you have after some of the hearings where they come out and that the republicans are only commenting on these.

her ruleings can be overturned. i don't think they are emphasizing enough that it is important. i don't think it's beating her up or anything to ask her to explain those. it is an important part of the process to find out what she meant when she said those things. nik is watching in minneapolis on the democrats like. caller: make, it's actually michael. caller: the last caller, i have to agree with. they can take days to go rag on

her but the thing is, she's got the vote. thank you. host: james in michigan on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: you know, i'm an after i had listener of c-span. i think this is the most educational p educational program on tv. you can hear how uneducated a lot of people are. it is just very educational. i wish c-span was on 24 hours a day. what she's saying, if you can't dot time, don't dot crime. it seems like anybody could understand that. and president obama, he don't bring no idiots around him.

all these people have degrees he's a smart man. i don't disagree with anything she said because the way she deliberately explained everything is just a gray, great drama. great television. host: thank you very much, c-span is on 24 hours. peter, anything else? >> i want to repeat that you can watch all of the judge sotomayor hearings on c-span.org. in the middle of the page, it says hearings bin at 9:30. can you control each of the cameras you would like to watch also on the far right-hand side.

today is the day senators will wrap up their 20-minute round of questions for judge sotomayor. . .

>> joining us inside of the hearing room is one member of the judicial panel, john cornyn. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. host: what have you heard in the hearings? >> we have heard about the rights in this country, the right to bear arms, and just compensation for the government to take land use. the equal protection rights, the 14th amendment, this is the basic rights for a citizen. and it's important to ask the judge about her approach and her commitment to the $vrights, so people know what kind of judge she would be if confirmed. host: what you are learning from her answers?

>> it's kind of confusing, i have to be candid, because she's given provocative speeches, and judges and that affecting their judges. but on the other hand the 17 years as a judge, trial judge and court of appeal judges, here rulings look in the mainstream of judging. the difference is once you are confirmed to the united states supreme court, you have no higher court telling you when you cross the line. so she will be free to basically do what she wants. what i would like to find out if she will be the judge sot -- sotomayor that gives the provocative speeches that we

have seen, or the one we have seen on the bench. host: the people look at dias, and going back to the same topic. will you talk about the strategy? >> what we are trying to do is get-go answers, for example, your viewers regarding the questions of the wise latino and making better judgments than a white male. judge sotomayor on the first day walked away from that and said it was a bad idea and distanced herself. and then yesterday she reembraced it. and that has muddied the waters. there are seven republicans and 12 democrats.

and every senator has their own responsibility of asking the questions to make the decision on the nomination. host: senator, we have heard that you have taken on the chair of the senatorial committee and i want to talk about the politics, there is a headline saying that, cornyn needs to walk a fine line. and there is a gop in texas, saying that cornyn will be scrutinized harder and that's a texas-based marketing consulting who has created

latino outreach programs. guest: i know lionel well, but he's got it wrong, every judge is expected respect, and i feel we are giving that. unlike what the democrats gave a nominee, strauta, and i told judge sotomayor, she will get that and we will not filibuster. but we need to treat her like any nominee and we need questions answered from. i believe that the judge believes that it's not the sex

or ethnic that matters, but to see how they will make decisions on the bench. host: let's hear from viewers on the republican line, from ernie. caller: good morning senator, i agree with that article in some respect, needing to get these into the party, they are conservatives and they would benefit as far as the voting base of the republican party. but my question as far as the hearings, why haven't the republicans asked this judge about how she feels about gay marriage. and whether she believes that it's a man or woman or that a

tool that gays can be married? guest: each senator has been only given 30 minutes so far, and you are right some matters have not been viewed clearly. and i didn't ask about the constitution, as it is subject to different interpretations based on this idea that it's a living document that can change over time even though the words remain the same. you have raised a good example of that, for 220 years, we have accepted that the idea of marriage is a man and women. and some courts are holding differently, i will -- am going to ask her today, in what basis can they interpret these words in a different way. if they are interpreting the constitution or imposing their

personal views as a substitute. host: senator, a viewer sends this message by twitter. don't you think that sotomayor's "wise latino" comment is different? guest: no, i differ i think that as a wise latino, that will make a decision. and if we were to make a reverse that white judges make a decision of color, it would be the end of our career. and it should be. we have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer from judge sotomayor on this.

and seems to say on one hand that it was a bad idea. and then yesterday embraced this idea and explains it as i find inplausible. host: next question from dorothy. caller: thank you, i really think that republicans are demonstrating what is happening on their party. and unfortunately with the continued beating of a dead horse, which the senator should understand, is doing more damage inflicted by the denomination of the right wing. i am quite an elderly lady and have watched many confirmation hearings. in the first place, they are

all mistaken, sonia sotomayor said that she hoped that a latino judge would make better decisions. we are all products of our upbringings and experiences. and i am making this prediction, senator cornyn you may go after sotomayor, in a foolish way, an expression was used that was good and then launched into the same old, same old. i will make the prediction, if you are valued and your seat in the united states senate, no matter what you try to do to sotomayor, i will willingly

vote that you will vote for her, because if you don't, your senate seat will be short lived. guest: do you want me to respond? i disagree, i have cast a lot of votes in the senate, i try to vote my conscious and how my constituents want me to vote. and i think she's mistaken. i understand that the questioning seems repetitive, and that's the nature of the hearings. sometimes they are deadly dull. this is my responsibility. what i think her position overlooks, senators have constitutional obligations as well. the president has an obligation to nominate individuals who serve in the judiciary.

but we are to provide and consent, and we can only do that by asking questions of their background, and we are doing that. host: have you made up your mind to cast your vote? guest: i haven't, i have made a conscious decision not to make up my mind until all the information is in. i was a trial judge for six years and a supreme court justice for 17 years. i believe in fairness that we need to wait until all the evidence is in before casting a judgment on this nominee. host: next question from florida, this is trina. caller: good morning, i disagree with dorothy as well. actually i heard her the first time said she can make better

decisions than men. and then said white men. and the second time she said it. and that concerns me when she said she was talking to latino groups and etc. and that can't be so if started with men. and talked about the policies and that concerns me. and the right of abortion and i am not good with that. and she's been reversed nine out of 10 times. i have been watching for years as far as the confirmations. and i actually think that the republicans softballed a little bit. they play under and try to stick to what they need to know about the candidate. and don't destroy them like the democrats do.

a perfect example of that is gingrich as compared to strata. and she's an artful dodger, and knows what she's doing. host: how about the question. caller: i don't think that anyone needs the quote unquote latino vote, and they need the american vote. and if they have sacred cows in the country and preserving the special rights. and wonder what you think about that? guest: as i have said numerous times, the quality of justice should not depend on the race or ethnicity of the judge. that's the proposition and i try to find out if judge sotomayor agrees with that or not. she says one thing one time and

another thing another time. these hearings are our attempt to try to reconcile what kind of judge will sonia sotomayor be? will she be the kind of judge as a federal district judge or court of appeals judge. if so, she may be fairly traditional in or approach, even though we may find cases we disagree with. host: this viewer sends this message by twitter, on the marriage debate, where in the constitution does it say that a man should -- marriage should be in a man and woman? guest: it's not in the constitution, but state law says it's between a man and

woman. and courts have taken upon themselves to hold the state laws unconstitutional. so the constitution i think is devoid of any definition of marriage. but what the judges are doing in the name of constitutional, is striking down those state laws and defining marriage not between a man and woman, which is not in the constitution. and they must get that claim from power from another source and that's not good. host: next caller is ann, republican line. caller: senator cornyn, i want to say thank you, because i really appreciate what you are doing. and all the republicans have a tough time. because she is hispanic. and strata didn't seem to make a difference to the democrats but this does to the

republicans. and also her comments consistently are often about white men and how she as a hispanic woman makes me feel scared. i am a white woman, i love my husband and my grandsons and my brothers. and i love our friends and i love my son-in-laws. and i don't like the feeling that they will be judged or treated differently because they are white. host: thank you, senator. guest: well, of course the ideal that we aspire to is that everyone is equal in the eyes the law. that's what this should be about. and we ought to acknowledge the fact that our country has had this terrible cancer called racial discrimination, that we

have struggle over war and other things to overcome. and i struggle with an african-american president and now judge sotomayor, to be on the supreme court, we can say, we finally arrived. everyone in this country, regardless of their race and ethnicity has the right to live up to their god-given potential. and that makes me feel good. but the idea that a judge would judge on race, we don't want to go there. host: senator, one message of what you mean by mr. strata.

guest: he is a man who came to america and became a natural citizen and went to the highest schools in the country. he was nominated by president george w. bush to be on the court of appeals, called the second highest court of the nation. and he was blocked by the democrats in the senate, because they felt he would use that as a platform to be nominated as the first hispanic of the supreme court. and they said that you needed 61 votes and filibustered him seven different time. while many organizations complained about that treatment, it didn't seem to make a difference to our

colleagues. and he was denied by a vote, and left to hang in the wind. and he withdrew his nomination. to me that was entirely disrespectful. and it was constitutional. the constitution doesn't say you need 60 votes but only a majority of votes to be affirmed. and all of that aside, i personally have made a commitment to judge sotomayor, she will be treated in a respectful way. and not block that nomination but allow that up or down vote on the senate floor. host: and 216 hart is where the senator is now, and thank you. in just a couple of minutes we bring you from detroit, dave

bing is the mayor and to talk about the tough economy. >> i have stories to read from the financial times, c.i.t. faces bankruptcy filing as governments rescue is filed out. and lock-heed martin will cut 600 more jobs in new york, despite the contract to build helicopters. and article on fed officials preparing for unusual economic recovery. with reports worse, according to their prediction, most

except the jobless rate at 9.8% and 10.1%, the ub employment rate has risen so much that the improved growth outlook isn't expected to do more than absorb entrance into the market. and in the "washington times", white house rips auto dealer relief efforts. they blasted efforts of aid of dealers and stopped short of threatening a veto. and a services appropriation bill to be voted on this week. host: let me introduce you to mayor dave bing joining us live from detroit.

he went 12 years in business and after problems of the last mayor, he comes to office with economic change. thank you for being with us today. guest: good being here. host: i am looking at the headlines of fed says jobless rate may hit 10.1%, what do you see in the high unemployment rate? guest: you have a lot of people today who have given up hope. we have been dealing with this for some time because we have the auto manufacturing in our city. based on what has happened on a global perspective, the

automotive industry is in turmoil. we have had two major firms, general motors and chrysler file for bankruptcy. even though they have come out of bankruptcy, it has a dampening effect on job creation here in detroit. host: what kind of tools do you have to deal with it? guest: i was an automotive supplier for the last years, i understand what they are going through. this didn't just happen, it's been in play for five to seven years and just got to the o.e.'s. and there is a glut, too many dealers and suppliers. based on the market, it's shrinking. therefore the dealer base and supply base will shrink also.

host: not only that but there are factories are closing down in the detroit region. what are your plans of working with public and private officials in the city, to help citizens move out of this phase into a new one ahead? guest: we are trying and have tried for the last several years not dependent just on the automotive industry for our survival. there are growth opportunities outside of the auto industry, what we are looking at today our health care industry is strong. they have averaged about a 10% growth rate and projected to continue in that path for the next five years. so there is a lot of growth opportunities in health care. most recently at the state level the governor has put in quite a few incentives for the

film industry. most of the people look at us as a manufacturing city, and say how are you going to convince the film industry to come to detroit or the state of michigan. and that's starting to happen and there is potential growth in that area. and because we have such a glut of homes in this area where people are not living because a lot of folks are leaving. there is a lot of work to do, so the construction industry in my opinion will go through a growth. host: of the homes that are abandoned due to foreclosure, we have talked to officials who spoke of detroit is one area they want to start urban areas and help a new vision. i recall reading one as seeing detroit as the future and town

centers with open space between them. what your thoughts on that? guest: i have only been if office 63 days and trying to get my arms around the budget and on a medium and longer term basis, we have to look at what the city will look at over the next five, 10 or 20 years. it's not predicated on new automotive industry or that we are a manufacturing center. but there are opportunities for growth, we have 145 square miles and probably only using half that space. so we have a lot of property to figure out what we will do down the road. there is a lot of conversations with the appropriate people and other professionals to give us

ideas of how to utilize that land. host: before we go to calls, can you give us numbers, what is detroit's plan for the year and can you operate in a deficit? guest: i have inherited a $280 million deficit. and that's got to be dealt with. but more importantly this year's budget which is projected to be balanced. but in the same token what is going on, the figures that are a part of this budget, i have to go back and re-do. when you look at the houses in the city, where we get our taxes from. that's a problem because the value is not what we projected it to be. with both of our two largest

taxpayers, general motors and chrysler coming out of bankruptcy. there will be a lot of plants that are closed down, we have to get back with them for an understanding where we are going to be in tax standpoint. and i am going through a process with the labor unions, we have 50 labor unions we have to deal with and none of them are under contract. so i started last week with some heavy contract negotiations, and hopefully we will be able to come to some agreement in the next 30-40 days. and put that in the budget, and understand our cost, and look at where the revenue will be. and see what cuts have to be made and just how hard we have to negotiate. we are in a crisis, no doubt about it. and all of us will have to take some pain. host: have you yet been able to certify what amount and what

kinds of federal assistance is coming your way? guest: that's a moving target also, to date we are over 100 million and some is earmarked and the stimulus package. the key is to try to maximize the help from the federal government, and not only continue to look at the earmarks and other opportunities. we are centralizing in a lot of cases things in the government that have been all over the place. as i take a look at what we have to do, so the left hand is knowing what the right is doing, we are under that process and i think it's going to be a positive for us. i will hopeful that we will get in the area of half a billion dollar, that's the low side. i think that detroit than any

other urban city in the country needs it more than anyone else. host: we have talking with mayor dave bing, and viewers can call or send comments by e-mail or a twitter message and we will mix those in the conversation. for mayor bing, this is from texas, republican line. caller: just as a republican, i feel bad for you folks up there. i talk to lawyer people, 12 to 15 people daily from your city. i feel so bad for you, and it hurts me more to see the president telling these people out of work, that those jobs are not coming back. they are gone. and i guess with everything that's about to occur, we are

being told under the new energy plan that they are passing, that the folks in america, will pay 100 to 300 dollars more on our electric bill. i talk to them all the time. and your citizens tell me they don't know what they are going to do. they just want to pack up and move. mr. mayor, can you comment on that please? guest: one thing that's a major problem in the state of michigan and detroit, we are losing a lot of our population. in detroit for example, we were a city of roughly two million people, and we now have half of that population in detroit. and we are losing a lot of our young talent, they are frustrated and don't feel there is opportunity. but because of the situation we find ourselves today, as tough as it is, there is opportunity.

i want to implore to our young people with a good education that they need to help us. i am hopeful they won't leave and go to greener pastures. there is a future here, it's going to be different from what it was historically. but we have to re-make our city and we need that young talent to remain here and help re-build the city of detroit. host: michigan, from our republican line. caller: hi, i want to say god bless you, it sounds like a hopeless task. i am from michigan and in the county where i live the unemployment rate last month was 19.5. and my husband who has worked everyday of his life is 55 years old and was laid off four

months ago. and we don't even know what we are going to do, i never considered the fact it would happen. the question i have for you is practical, on the supplemental money to the states, i know it was for a lot of different things. i was wondering is there a website you can go to do find out jobs being made by the supplemental and where you can apply for them? host: thank you becky, and good luck to your family. guest: we have training dollars coming into the city through the stimulus package for the work development, a lot of the money is for job creation or people getting trained or

re-trained in the industry. in the greening area and construction area and health care area. and even though our manufacturing area is going to continuously decrease, there is still opportunities. especially in the technical area for automotive. once again as bad as things are, we feel in the short-term things will turn around. hopefully we will bottom out and the opportunities to get the right training is what we have to matchup. host: here is a viewer that's more pessimistic, jo ann writes that detroit's economy is dead, how do you bring it back? guest: as far as nafta, i won't agree that detroit is dead, we are alive.

and we have a people that will fight for their existence. detroit has been the mecca, and we will fight that we have a place in the american industry and manufacturing sector. but we have to make changes for areas to bring us back. as far as nafta we are still one of the largest trading partners, it's not as big as it was. but as the auto industry comes back, we will see the trade between canada and u.s. be strong. host: next question is from democratic line. go ahead. caller: yes, mayor bing, i was calling to ask whether or not

some of the money you used for -- host: sir, your tv volume is up, and causing feedback, we will come back ñénto you. let's go to steve, independent line. caller: hi, mayor. not to lack compassion of the issues you are facing. but when i hear you say as i sit here in virginia, that you will be tapping into the federal government just as much as you possibly can. the only thing i am thinking, that's coming out of my pocket or anybody not in detroit, it's coming out of their pockets and trying to shore you folks up to try to bail you out of a mess. and i am not sure that's where i want my money to go. guest: ok, i think we got a

national problem. your money is not just coming to detroit. detroitans and michigan's pay taxes also. when you look at the programs that are in place, money is not going just to michigan and detroit but those around the country. but they are looking at those cities most hurt with the downturn in the auto industry. you have ohio and indiana and kentucky, there are a lot of states, a lot of cities getting help from the federal government. not just detroit. host: ok, detroit caller. caller: yes, mayor bing, can detroit and michigan area get a share of the nasa money, every

president his backed nasa and i wondered if we could form a relationship to bring nasa to the state of michigan? guest: i believe that's a situation where we the city of detroit and state of michigan work together with ontario, and see if there are things to increase opportunities for detroiters and folks in michigan. that's a long-term process and it's something i will get into contact with the governor to develop a plan to do what you are asking. host: mayor, this is an e-mail, writing that dave bing was one of the best basketball players of all-time and a former resident of washington, d.c. he will have to work in the

political arena to get detroit out of the mess. my question, why did you want the job? guest: because i have been blessed. i have had two good careers, as a 12-year basketball player and an independent entrepreneur supplying products to the automotive industry for 21 years. from a personal standpoint, i am ok. and as i look around and see what so many families are going through, and this downturn, people are losing hope and frustrated. i couldn't just sit on the sideline, there are a lot of people hurting and i feel i can make a difference and took on this challenge. host: next question is from

joe on the republican line. caller: good morning, and if i can shout it one more time, bingo, when you make a basket. guest: thank you. caller: hopefully you will bring some discipline from the mayor's office that you learned from the basketball arena. it's too bad you didn't get a contract like they do now, and just working for a dollar a year. and you said you had 50 unions to deal with. having come from a very, strong union such as basketball has now, how are you going to take the tough stances that you are talking about? and lower salaries when in the basketball arena today the salaries are going sky-rocketing as well as other

sports deals host: thank you joe. guest: when you try to compare sports and athletics today with those in the real-world. it's different, as you made the statement, to work for a dollar a year. that's exactly what i am doing, frankliment -- frankly. i understand as here in detroit we are a heavily unionized area. we must work together, for 19 years as a uaw company, we have to work together. with that experience of unions and the private sector, i think i can take some things i have learned and the relationships that are established can be transferred to the public sector. but by no stretch of

imagination is this going to be easy or painless. we are hurting here and there are hard decisions to be made. i made those in the private sector and will have to make them in the public too. host: a viewer sends this, as a former resident of detroit, i can say my reasons for leaving in the 90's, with the high crime corruption level, how do you expect to bring in new businesses? guest: as i ran my campaign, one of the high priorities was crime and crime prevention. detroit is considered one of the more dangerous cities in the country. when we look at political leadership it's been a dismal.

and that's something they wanted to change, to do the right thing for the people of the city. and not worry about themselves as individuals. and that's where i am blessed, i am financially secure, and i am not in this position to line my pockets. my two careers have allowed me do that. and now i can be focused to do the right things to the citizens of detroit. to bring trust back to the mayor's office. and i think i was voted in based on that. host: we have another caller on the line. caller: good morning mayor bing, i was so happy to see you elected. i live in the suburbs of detroit, on the borderline. but i tell you if you can get as much stimulus money from the

government to bring the state back where it should be, everyone will be proud of you. if we have to finance the banks and don't have a word to say, i give you 100% of my support and hope you get the city and state back. god bless you. guest: thank you very much, we are going to work diligently and make sure that happens. i have a good relationship with this administration and washington, d.c. and i think they understand the plight that the state of michigan and detroit is in. i am looking forward to not only maintaining the relationships that are established. but increasing those relationships that we always have access. host: detroit's new mayor, 68 days and we have another caller.

caller: good morning, being a resident of chicago, i am in the white collar industry. i have seen an influx of white collar and blue collar jobs coming from detroit to chicago. you are saying you are trying to grow other industries outside of automotive in detroit. but when you see the bleeding of people away from detroit, what is the plan to grow the industries when you have people leaving the city. and once they do leave, they have a bad taste in their mouth, and they are not going to move back to the city they left. host: sir, thank you, we understand the question. guest: i think one of the things we absolutely have to do is change the whole business climate we have in detroit. and i think we are about doing that. and that started even before i came into office. because our unemployment is so

high with plants closing, not only the o.e.'s, fords and general motors and chrysler, but those who supply the product. a lot don't see a future in the automotive industry, and looking to go elsewhere. but a lot of people can't leave because of the housing crisis. and we have to create a business climate for those folks who are still here that are unemployed or underemployed and make sure they understand where the opportunities for growth and job creation are going to be. that's my job today, and i intend to make that aware and hopefully they won't quit on detroit. host: when you talk about opportunities, you listed the health care industry. will the discussion in

washington over reform in the health care industry reflect that future health care as an economic base? guest: we have an aging population not only in the city but across the country. and because detroit is an area that supplied good benefits for their employee base, we have folks that appreciate that. and now that our population is aging and people are living longer, that industry will continue to grow. we have to make sure we educate and supply the people to that industry. and with that we are still looking at a 10% growth over the next five to seven years . we have to make sure that folks get trained. host: next question, wendy, republican line.

caller: o.cgod bless you, mayor bing. there were indictments handed down yesterday according to the local news. and i wonder what impact the past bad behaviors of the city officials will have on the economy moving forward. my husband is in the health care field. i thank god for that, and that he's a hard working man. he pays taxes in the city of detroit, even though we don't live there, in lincoln park. what is the impact on the left-over mess and will be able to repair that? guest: thank you, i think this is an area that is hanging over our head for a long time. and now we are bringing closure to it. which i feel is a positive. it's almost impossible to move forward in the city, when they

don't believe or trust their leadership. now a lot of things that have been hanging over our head for a long time are starting to be closed. and people are actually going to jail. they are indicted. i think that's a good thing, and i would hope that anyone in a political position, in a leadership position out there doing something wrong, i support what is going on. we are going to clean government up. we want to get the public to have trust and faith in us. and we have to move this city forward. with new leadership and from my vantage point, i think i in a good position to start anew. as we look at the political future of the city council, there are a lot of good things going to happen. i think that change is good, we see that and i am a part of that. we want to make a difference. host: we have our next message

from twitter, that says that mayor, revitalize michigan avenue, do that and i will be impressed. guest: michigan avenue is a major thorough fair in -- thoroughfare in detroit, and i want to be sure that we don't forget our neighborhoods. a lot is going on downtown and with new development. but we have to look at the neighborhoods, and not forget them. and give them support. that's a main stay in my administration. we will continue to develop projects downtown, but our focus will be on the neighborhoods. host: next call is larry. caller: i want to respond to

that caller to keep nickels and quarters in his pocket to help detroit. and the people in detroit voted for two of the most horrible mayors, and sometimes you deserve what you get for. and now we have a chance to do something. host: thank you, mayor how long is your term since you are taking over for the former mayor? guest: it's very difficult, because you are picking up the pieces of a lot of problems we have had over the last several years. but it's a challenge. and the preparation, what i learned 29 years in business and 12 years as an athlete. taught me how important your teammates are and how important the folks around you are for your success. some of my decisions in terms of who you surround myself with

is the key to bringing this city back. leadership is one thing, i think i can provide that. but on the on other hand, i have to select the right people with the right skill sets and bring this city back. host: read yesterday that the city is facing a lawsuit from city pension funds for underpayment. what is your thoughts about that? guest: that's been going on for a long time, when you have a cash flow problem, it's not that you won't pay it but elongating the process. we can't cut ourselves to prosperity. that's only part of it. we have to stabilize our economy before we can start growing it again. that's what we are about, make sure we have our arms around the people.

i am fortunate to have 50-52 people outside of city government to look and see how to engineer our government. and that's starting to take place, they came in with my administration and committed to stay with me for 100 days with no pay. and these are some of the smartest people, and i look forward to their plans and bring implementation. host: next call from gwen. caller: thank you, mayor, i am so proud of you, and i have watched the "washington journal" and it's a nice surprise to see you. i voted for you and intend to again. i would like to know what are your plans, or do you have

anything regarding the stimulus coming from the president, what changes do you see take place in detroit? guest: the big thing from the stimulus dollars is training. we have a lot of folks unemployed and a lot of the money in the stimulus program is earmarked training and re-training the employees. and a lot of money will be available in the police department, so we can upgrade our vehicles and bring the technology that's necessary to help us put a blanket on crime, if you will. because that's a big issue here in the city of detroit. there is a lot of money will be available. our task and job is to maximize what we can get. and make sure we invest that money wisely, that we spend it wisely. that we get our people trained for the economy that's going to

come. host: one more detroit call, this is joe on the independent line. are you there? caller: hi, a couple of quick questions, why don't city councilmembers have two or three security people at all times. another one is why do you allow people to travel on our dime, example martha reese traveling for her mo-town stuff. and finally why don't you fire city councilmembers when they act like kids in the public? guest: the city council is a part i don't control. there are things that happened in our city council that none of us like. and the key as we look at going to the polls in august and the primary. going to the polls and the general, there seems to be a feeling in the air with the

people in detroit they want change. i think we will see massive change in turnover in city government. they are the legislative part of city government, and they have had as many problems and endured as the mayor's office. we sowhave had the change in t mayor's office and i think we will see the same changes in city and county. host: mayor, as we close, what will future generations call detroit? guest: i think it will always be the motor city, because we are not going to be as heavily involved in manufacturing as we once were. when you look at the brain power and in our area in terms of higher education, most of the car companies around the world still have their engineering people here . all the technical capabilities here in the city of detroit, i think will remain here. we won't see a lot of the plant

activity we have seen in the past. that's starting to move south and offshore. but in terms of the brain power, it's still here in the city of detroit. and i think it will be looked at as the motor city. host: mayor dave bing from detroit. thank you for being here. and now welcome congressman jim jordan, over the oversight and government reform committee that today will hear from henry paulson. the testimony was sent out in advance for his appearance today. and i want to show you two headlines, first of all in the "washington times", paulson

takes blame for deal. and also paulson saved from great peril. guest: what i believe that it would have been worse if we had not put this tax money at risk, and paulson will adhere to that argument. and he basically said to ken lewis, and he admitted that he was threatened. and everyone in the committee room understood that. and he had to not say it specifically, because these folks still exercise a great deal of influence. and this tim geithner was involved in this last one. and it's interesting, and the questions asked mr. paulson, what i believe is intimidation.

everyone understands that, and that took place with lewis, but my gigger concern is this pattern of deception. . that is my concern, because when you think about it, the

unprecedented level of involvement of the government and the private sector now, this is what is scary. when you have this pressure, intimidation, this pattern of deception is a real concern when we think about what we see. we may potentially see a takeover of health care by the federal government, and that is my big concern. host: we have just a short clip that i want to talk to you about after what about the goals of this situation. let's listen. >> german bernanke, did you instruct hank paulson to tell can louis that him and his board will be fired if they backed out of the merrill deal? >> i did not. >> well, i understand mr. paulson told mr. cuomo that you did. i does want to share that with you. >> i did not instruct paulson or

anyone else to convey such a message or threat to mr. lewis. >> did you personally tell mr. lewis that he would fire him or remove the bank of america board if he backed out of the merrill lynch deal? >> i did not. >> lewis testified under oath here and also told his board of directors that you and mr. paulson made verbal commitments to him in december of 2008 to provide bank of america with enough money to fill all created by the 12 billion lost at merrill lynch. in december, 2008, did you promise mr. lewis that you would provide bank of america with enough capital to fill the hole created by the losses at merrill lynch? >> i did not promise money. but was committed was the

commitment of the government to work in good faith with bank of america to develop a contingency plan that would ensure the viability of the company in the case of a financial crisis. host: what is the point? what exactly is the committee trying to get at? guest: he said he did not tell paulson to convey the message. we have emails suggesting they talked about it, that it should go forward, and that paulson did in fact tell mr. lewis, you need to go forward with the deal were you and your board are in trouble. so sometimes i think people are good at saying at the right way in front of the committee and congress. the point is, as i said earlier, there was definitely intimidation taking place. all you had to do was listen to the testimony. the bigger concern is that this

kind of unprecedented influence that we have seen in this merrill lynch deal, how it may have implications for others. we heard last week that he is on a short leash, because auditors are meeting with kemper -- meeting with him. now if they have federal health- care program, this highlights the kind of situation we can expect if we moved down the road. host: specifically in this committee, what are the partisan differences in the questioning approach? >> specifically, they're saying that lewis was trying to secure additional part dollars, and that is what he went to paulson

and bernanke and said he might try to get out of the deal. the government was putting pressure on mr. lewis to go through with the deal, and he expressed reservations because of merrill's $12 billion in losses. that is not doing your fiduciary responsibility, so that is what he expressed reservations. so i come at it from that angle, and the angle that this is unprecedented involvement by the government in the private sector. host: cameras will be there today in the rayburn executive office building. there will be opportunities to watch it on the internet and on television as the day progresses. the former title is bank of america and merrill lynch had a private deal turned into a federal bailout. we would like to hear your

questions. this is thomas on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. my question is, to the republicans, the first one president bailed out were the ones who caused it, the financial wall street, the little trips they pulled that got rid of all rules to control people. we have been told and told that we will regulate ourselves and it will be all right, but none of them regulated themselves. merrill lynch, all the big ones. the first thing republicans did was bail them out. now you are criticizing an obama for bailing out people who do the work and i think it is --

you always come with this -- guest: i have not mentioned obama. i was against the bailout when mr. bush did it. if you remember, in the weeks leading up to the october 3 of wrote that the condo -- -- october 3 vote that congress made, i voted against it, i thought it was a crazy idea. the premise of that debate was that the treasury secretary was going to take $700 billion and by toxic assets. they have yet to buy any of those. i want to ask mr. paulson, based on the deception playing out in the merrill lynch-bank of america acquisition, i want to ask him, when is it that he changed strategy? on october 3, the majority of congress assumed he was going to do what he told others he would do, purchase troubled assets.

but 10 days later, when the big banks were brought to washington, he said that we are just going to inject capital, we will to get cash. sign up for and take the money, whether you like it or not. so that is inappropriate question today. when did the strategy change, and did it change before the vote, which would square with the pattern we have seen. host: mr. jordan in is his second term. he has a master's in education from ohio state and a law degree from capitol university. he is also serving on the judiciary and budget committee. let's take our next telephone call for him as we discussed the tarp program. eric from maryland is on the line. go ahead. caller: i know that the constitution requires revenue bills, and the senate put the

bill in the paul wellstone mental health and addiction recovery act, which violates the germain a fact. i want to know if you think that the speaker of the house should be impeached for failing to fulfill her constitutional duty to boost legislation and send it back to the senate? guest: i voted against legislation for a number of reasons. what i have seen is that what the leadership wants to get past, they get past, and they find a way to make things germain. this one was made in order and did pass. i think it is the wrong direction, and what you start down this bailout trail, a turnaround, and we have seen at that.

for a variety of reasons. once you start down this, it is tough to turn back, and that is what we never should have started down the road in the first place. i am hopeful that we will kind of get the testimony square, because frankly, what he said is true. i'm hopeful we can square that up, and project to the american people why this is a bad precedent. what is wrong to have this kind of federal government involvement in the private sector, and more and more people are waking up. you see what happens with the auto bailouts. i know in our district, people are upset with the unprecedented nature of federal involvement and what i would say is a

political economy were government is picking winners and losers. who gets bailouts, who does not. c ip are not going to get additional help, said it will fail, but as we know, goldman was helped and had a record quarter. that struggle has more and more americans waking up. > host: citibank close to a secret regulator deal. i want to read that and see if we understand it. citibank is close to a secret agreement with regulators that will increase scrutiny and force it to fix governance issues. people close to the situation says that the deal has been discussed in recent weeks and has made increased pressure and could be finalized soon. agreement requires that they improved asset quality, better

manage expenses, and provide information on capital and liquidity added. the highlight concerns over 60's financial health the management team. the as i see is known to be frustrated with the slow pace of asset sales and lack of experience at the top. guest: if the pressure is consistent with law, it is appropriate. if it is the kind in the merrill lynch deal, with threats, intimidation, both the fed chairman and the treasury secretary instructing people about the timing of the closure being important -- if you have that kind of pressure, it is not appropriate. so i would have to delve into it deeper. but that is my concern. when it crosses the line and you

have this unprecedented type of pressure and intimidation of the private sector, that is a concern. host: they are about to cede a stake in equity to the governor -- government. but take our next call, from memory, louisiana. you are on the air. caller: thank you very much for grilling this guy, but i would like to see him arrested. being the fact that he has openly admitted to testifying -- being the fact we have a lot people in government right now what openly been admitted to committing crimes -- this lack of accountability -- is one thing to say, "yes, it is wrong, i am sorry, yes, yes --" but no

one, looking ahead instead of taking care of accountability of the crimes -- the federal reserve is not even legal. guest: we are working bipartisans with the chairman of the reform committee, working on legislation that says we do need greater scrutiny and oversight of the federal reserve, particularly in those areas where they have moved off of their central mission. we think it was appropriate. the other thing i would point out is that when you put legislation together as quickly as last fall, what started this whole thing was that last fall, in the midst of the crisis, with $700 bailout -- was the $700

billion bailout, but tarp program. there was a lack of oversight when we put that together that led to the hope that aig would have bonuses. that is what you get when you give this kind of power to government and that intervention. that is scary, and that is why you have to be careful when you throw things together. we have e-mail from other people involved in the federal reserve who say he was being over the top of those predictions, but it is always this crisis mentality grabbing hold of people who want taxpayer money and what were power and control over what happens in america and businesslike and family lives.

-- business lives and family lives. host: 8 viewer asked this question on twitter. do you think there was a crisis to put the global system at risk? guest: for those who say i voted against it, it was the wrong thing to do -- this action was a step in the private sector to determine who wins, which bank did help is a scary road to go down. i think there are better ways to go about it. it is the wrong approach to take. frankly, all you have to do is look that in february, we had to

pass this stimulus package, because if we did not, and upon it would rise above 8%. so the package was passed, i voted against it, but it was passed, and now we find that unemployment is close to 10%. so you have this crisis mentality. we have got to do something. we have touse -- to spend a boatload of money. but it has gotten worse. caller: i am a democrat, a bleeding heart democrat, and out of it. as it is, you folks get in there, you did not listen to the american people, 76% of them what single-payer health care and you will not give it. 76% does.

guest: you have to show me where that information comes from. i would disagree tremendously. caller: you worry about how democrats treat you now. guest: i have mostly been criticizing hank paulson, president bush's up 20 -- appointee. they have been doing things that do not square with empower families and the private sector. they have an unbelievable ability to intervene in our system. on the health care issue, i think the vast majority of americans would rather have their decisions made by

themselves with the equivalent power of the auto task force. i disagree with this premise. host: do you, as a committee member, have any better information? guest: we created the oversight board when tarp was passed and basically, there were three meetings of the oversight during the acquisition and mr. paul said waited until after the fact to inform the board was going on with bank of america and merrill lynch. so i do not think we're getting the kind of oversight we need, particularly thinking about the fact that it is $700 billion of taxpayer money.

the one issue we have not raised is that all this spending and stimulus and bailout is what it really needs for future generations of america. this past week, we had a deficit bubble for the first american history and still have an unprecedented thing we're doing to our kids, because it has to be paid back. there is no free lunch. the money has to be paid back. when a country begins to settle future generations with debt, you are moving in the wrong direction. we need to get ahead on spending and it starts these things that we should not have done in the first place. host: 90. they will be hearing today from henry paulson and our cameras will be there so we have a chance to see that. on thursday morning, it is day 34 judge sotomayor.

let's bring you live pictures from the room where the hearings have been taking place and after hearings take place for the senators, they will move onto different questions. it will be live about 40 minutes from now. let's show you what our website looks like, c-span.org, and you can see front and center the sotomayor hearings. you have an option down the side there for you to choose any camera. you can keep your eye on senators or keep it trained on witnesses, including the judge herself. that is your choice as you use the control room on the internet. we are now going to take you to the senate side of capitol hill for live coverage of the hearings. and you for being with us.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> thank you, judge, and welcome back to the committee for a fourth day. you seem to have weathered this well, and i hope that others have to.

mr. they we had extended first- round questions with an additional eight senators. this morning we can continue and hopefully conclude. senator kyl is recognized next for 20 minutes, or as a say with hope springs eternal, i set up to 20 minutes. everyone is certainly entitled continues the whole time but does not have to. >> i would say, i did not think we put judge sotomayor on the hot seat with our questions, but we did with the temperature in this room yesterday. for that i apologize and i know that it could get a little steamy this morning, as well.

if there's a question about her stamina and a hot room, that question has been dispelled without any doubt whatsoever. >> is really an impressive thing. anyone who has gone up where the press are, it is like an ice box up there. at least the microphone is working. i want to thank senator sessions for offering his microphone thank senator frank and for letting me use his. >> good morning. in response to one of senator sessions' questions tuesday about the ricci case, you said he was regarded with supreme court precedent, and that it was

being looked at with the established precedent and that only the supreme court had the body power to decide how this should be regarded. i carefully reviewed at the decision and i think the reality is different. no supreme court case decided whether rejecting an employment test would violate civil-rights laws. the majority did not discuss or cite any cases that addressed the question. in fact, the court in its opinion even noted, "this action presents to provisions of title 7 to be interpreted and reconciled with few if any precedent in the court of appeals discussing the issue." not only did the supreme court not identify any case is on point, they found few, if any,

lower court opinions even addressing the issue. isn't it true that you were not correct in your earlier statement that you were bound by established supreme court and second circuit precedent when you voted each time to reject the firefighter civil-rights complaints? >> let me place the decision back in context. the issue was whether or not employees were members of the desperately impacted group and had a right under existing precedent to bring lawsuits. did they have a right for a lawsuit on the basis of a prime facia case, and what would that consist of? that would be consistent, and at least until but when, it would have been concluded from

precedence describing the initial burdens. >> he said the right to bring a lawsuit. it is a question of summary judgment. >> exactly. when you speak about it right to bring a lawsuit, i mean, what is the minimum amount that have to file the complaint? and established a precedent says you could make out and establish a case of a violation of title 7 just merely by a -- by showing it disparate impact. then that the city was faced with the choice of -- >> the question asked, as the

court noted, they could fire a few, if any second circuit precedent. quest -- >> the question was it the city could view this as doing it on the basis of race or if it could avoid disparate impact. was it discriminating on a racial basis by not certifying? >> so you disagree with the president available for the case? >> the more focused one -- not

more focused, a different look. they say you have these precedents, employees can sue the city, the city is now facing liability, they are unsure whether they can defeat it, so they decide not to certify that test and see if they could come up with one that would still measured missouri qualifications. >> i know as a judge, if i argued a case in front of you, you would say, "that is all fine and dandy, counsel, but answer my question is." is it true that your decision was to grant summary judgment? you actually granted a summary judgment against to the parties -- against the party's --

against the parties. i am not sure what the president is. the supreme court said "few if any." >> it was the bushy line of cases that talked about the prime facia case and obligations of the city in terms of pending lawsuits claiming disparate impact. question then became, how do you view the actions? and that is what the district court has done in its opinion, to say you have got a city, facing liability -- >> so you contend that there was second circuit precedent. you are not bound by any 3-dutch panel decision in your circuit.

and yet, you took the same position in your review. for those not familiar, a three- judge court decides the case in the first instance. the entire circuit could sit for a review, and in that case they are not bound by a three jet decision, because it is the entire circuit of 10 or 12 or 20 judges. so what precedent would have been found in the review? >> in incorporate the analysis, those who disagreed made their arguments and those who agreed

that the certification wasn't necessary voted their way, and the majority of the court decided by to hear the course involve. some issued opinions. that is what we did in terms of the decision, which was to accept -- to incorporate the district court's pods -- district court's decision and say we agree with it. >> but that is not binding on a circuit court. and the un-review means the courts have looked at it in light of precedents that are stronger than a three-judge decision. i am baffled as to what president you are speaking up. -- what precedent you are

speaking of. >> when there is a district court decision below, it does become a precedent. >> three judges. >> yes. but i was on district court and issued a lengthy decision on a constitutional issue, a direct constitutional issue that the circuit had not addressed and various other few courts had addressed on the question of whether the statute of limitations -- >> i apologize for interrupting, but i have now used half of my time and pugh will not acknowledge that even though the supreme court said there was no precedent, even though the district court judgment in a three-judge panel of judgment cannot be considered binding precedent, you insist that somehow there was precedent that you were bound by.

>> when the circuit court inc. district court opinion, that became the holding. so it did become circuit holding. >> by three judges. >> yes. with respect to the question of precedent, it must be remembered that what the supreme court did in ricci was to say there was not enough law to approach it, should we adopt a standard? it is a question we much decide. how to approach the issue to insure the provisions are consistent with each other. of that argument was not the one raised before us.

it is different than saying the outcome we came to was not based on our understanding. >> do judges on the circuit usually dispose with a summary opinion? would that be typical? but i do not know how you define typical. it is -- if the opinion is adequate and persuasive, they do. in my case where there's a port on the constitutionality of an act by congress with respect to the suspension because of a habeas provisions, the court did it in less than a paragraph. they just inc. my decision as

pilau of the circuit, a holding of the circuit. the judge said that the use of procuring opinions adopting in full reasoning without further elaboration is normally reserved for cases presenting straight forward cases that do not require exploration. questions in this appeal cannot be categorized as such as they are indisputably complex and far from well-settled. analysts are simply going to have to research and debate the question of whether or not the cases of first impression are ordinary dispensed of that way. let me just say that the implications -- the reason i addressed this is that the implications of the decision are far-reaching. it is an important decision and it can have fared a freezing --

far-reaching implications. let me tell you what a free rider said about it and get your reaction. here's what the supreme court said about the decision, the rule of that your court endorsed. they said violating based on this would encourage race-based action at the slightest hint of disparate impact. such a rule would amount to a defect " this system in which a statistical focus could put undue pressures on employers to make hiring decisions on the basis of race, or skew practices with the intent of obtaining a different racial balance.

initial employers can do this whenever it failed to satisfy a racial quota. that is why the case is so important. i would imagine you hope the result would not pertain. i guess i could to ask you that. >> as i stated earlier, the issue for us, no. we were not endorsing that result. there was a good faith basis for the city to act, setting a standard that was new, not argued before, set forth on how to balance the considerations.

they say that good faith is not enough. evidence is what the city has to rely on. >> you hope the result would not retain. >> yes, but that was not the question we were looking at. we were trying to comply with all locked, we do not know what standard to use, we have good faith for believing, and the supreme court has made clear

what standard they should apply. different issues. >> ion dissed " about the role you endorsed in your decision, and again it said, the supreme court said about your role, that such a rule would amount to a defect code quota system. >> with the intent of obtaining employer decisions. that is not a good result. let me ask you, you made about the descent in the case. a lot of commentators have noticed that the justices disagreed with the panel granting summary judgment and

think the court should have been knowing the facts in the case that would allow them to know the test. your panel had been one test, the supreme court had a different test, the dissent had another test. in any case, all nine of the justices believed that the lower-court should have heard the facts of the case before judgment was granted. i heard you say you disagree with that assessment. do you agree that the way i stated it is essentially correct? >> there are a lot of opinions in that case, but engagement among debtors was buried on different levels and the first one down with the majority was that if you would apply the new

test, a new standard, you will give the new circuit court an opportunity to evaluate the evidence. >> the court did not say if you apply a new standard. all nine justices said summary judgment should have been decided on the facts. and they say it never should have been decided on summary judgment. they agreed, did they not? >> it mapped to speak for itself, but justice ginsberg took the position that the panel opinion should be affirmed, and took it by saying no matter how you look at this case, it should be affirmed. so i do not believe that that was my conclusion, reading the dissent. but obviously it will speak for

itself. >> it will. i guess commentators can apply and on it. -- opine on it. let me ask you one final question in the minute and a half i have remaining. i was struck tahiti -- struck the your asked by senator hatch about another speech gave, in which she gave the decision saying bad district court provides judges -- just as for the -- he said that the district court provides justice for the parties, and circuit court provides justice for society. now you believe that not only district and circuit courts have to follow precedent, but the supreme court should. so it is striking to me you would suggest, and this goes to another, a teammate, perhaps flippantly, about courts of

appeals making wall -- about the courts of appeals making wall -- making law. the court has only one job. to decide whether smith wins or jones winds. does not matter the effect of the case in society. as for legislators to decide. one job. who wins? smith or jones? and you decide, yes, the lower court was right, smith wins. you're not making any decision except that a court that helps

make precedent helps build on the alliance on law and the country. >> when president is set, it says it his follows the rules of law -- when president iprecedens set. but not in the meaning of the legislature. the legislature gives it a meaning in terms of making wall -- making law. i'm talking about making precedent. you are making law when you do that. >> both district court and circuit courts former president

-- former president by making a case. but they are required to do that, right? >> i sent your 2000 supreme court case as precedent, and a binding second circuit case, and as the judge has noted, she inc. the district court, as they often do, with the decision. senator feinstein? >> thank you. i worked with senator kyl for 10 years now, but there's a fundamental misreading of the supreme court decision, if i understand it. it is my understanding that the

court is 5-4, correct? and dissenters indicated that it would have reached the same conclusion. i have had people ask me what. curium is. can you explain what that means? per curiam? >> it is where the court is not saying more than incorporating a decision from below, because it is not -- in one case, is simply

used to denote an issue is so clear and unambiguous, there is still law. it can be used in a number of ways, but mainly when you're doing something in a cursory fashion because the district court has done their job. >> it was a voluminous opinion that was over 50 pages long, correct? >> as i said, my circuit did that in a case where i addressed it as a district court judge, a case of first impression on a direct constitutional. >> supreme court nominee is sotomayor on capitol hill for a fourth and final day of confirmation hearings.