address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, america lost a great lawman last thursday in florida. united states border patrol agent robert rohaus was brutally murdered by thugs illegally crossing in the united states. agent rohaus was shot and killed at approximately 9:15 p.m. while following a group of people who are crossed the border illegally. the agent by himself, like a lot of our agents nowadays, was alone. he radioed for backup. the group he was following split up before backup agents arrived to help him. agent rohsus was following one of the groups but when fellow officers arrived they found agent rohaus outside his border patrol vehicle. he had been shot several times in the head and other places in the body. . he served with the border patrol for three years. he was only 30 years old, was

married, and had a son and daughter. a suspect is in federal custody in baja, california. he had a standard border patrol pistol tucked in his clothes when he was arrested. four other mexican nationals were also arrested. they were part of a violent smuggling ring. one of the others arrested is wanted for two homicides and a rape. also detained were 21 illegals. shooting at border patrol agents is a drug cartel way of life. the president of the border patrol council said around 50 border agents are year are shot at. others are run down by vehicles. for example, in january, 2008, united states border patrol agent luis aguilar was run down and killed by a drug smuggler in a humvee 15 miles north of the border in california. when agents spotted a drug laden hummer trying to flee back to mexico, agent aguilar threw down

a spike strip to stont vehicle. witnesses said the driver of the humvee swerved to intentionally hit agent aguilar and the vehicle was traveling over 55 miles per hour. agent aguilar was killed. he was a six-year veteran of the border patrol and was 32 years old. he left behind a wife and two kids. the humvee driver, the drug smuggler, escaped back into mexico. there are others killed by smugglers. in august, 2002, united states park ranger chris eggle was shot and killed in the line of duty at organ pipe national monument. theaire is known as cocaine ally . a -- alley. a drug cartel hit squad fled into the united states after committing a string of of murders in mexico. outmanned and outgunned, ranger eggle never had a chance. he was 28. agent rohaus is the first border

patrol agent to be shot since the deaths of two slain in texas in july of 1998. the cameron county, texas, sheriff's department was investigating a report of shots fired in rio hondo texas, in the reon grand valley. deputies found a woman and one of her daughters dead at their home. their son was also shot. the killer was seen fleing in a pickup truck. and with the help of the border patrol, sheriff's deputies spotted the vehicle in a drive way at a house moore shared with his dad. the deputies and agents were searching the home and nearby cornfields when they heard rifle shots. border patrol officers salina and rodriguez were both found shot and killed. the perpetrator was also killed. madam speaker, the border regions in this country have become the most lawless areas in the united states.

drug cartel thugs rome the border frontier transporting drugs, weapons, cash, illegals, and victims of sex trafficking across the border at will. the noble border patrol agents are outmanned, outgunned, outfansed by the drug cartels and these outlaw drug cartels need to be captured and brought to justice. our border patrol protectors in the meanwhile need our support. we owe the brave men and women who guard the border more than gratitude for the sacrifices they make. we owe them the proper funding, manpower, and support to guard not just the border but their safety as well. these agents are the first line of defense between the illegal drug smuggling cartels and the american people. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. more ran of kansas. -- mr. moran of kansas.

mr. davis of illinois. mr. gohmert of texas. mr. gohmert: i ask to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. we heard from c.b.o. that the president's plan for health care could cost an extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion. that's on top of of what we are already spending. well -- that's on top of what we are already spending. well, i asked my staff to help me gather the statistics and what we got from the c.r.s. and also the census bureau was the estimate for the last year that we have full year's numbers for 2007 of how much medicare and medicaid cost in tax dollars. we took the estimate from the

census bureau, how many households there were in america in 2007, 112 million households estimated. you divide the number of households in america into the amount of tax dollars spent for the year 2007, it's over $9,200 for every household in america. being spent on medicare and medicaid. when you realize that every house is averaging, coming up with $9,200 in order to pay for medicare and medicaid, what struck me is we can do so much better than this. this is atrocious. got seniors all over the country who are buying wrap around or surplus coverage to supplement

their medicare coverage, people on medicaid and that doesn't even include the amount being paid for schip. so i have asked for the latest rejection from the census bureau as of today. the census bureau is projecting for right now in america there are about 117 million households in america. we were told that the president's health care bill would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. so i got this chart. i want to do some simple division here. we've got $11,170,000,000,000 because we feel like that is a

conservative estimate since the president's projection will cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. we know there are 117 million households in america. let's see how much the president's plan is going to cost every household in america. it's easy if you had a good public school education like i did back in the day. we'll take that off both sides. cancel that off both sides. and divide 117 into $1,170,000. folks, the president's plan is going to cost an additional $10,000 for every household in

america onp top of the $9,200 per household we are paying in america right now. do you realize, madam speaker -- mr. speaker, you changed, how much we could do with that kind of money? that's what hit me. the point is the plan that i submitted, we finally got back tonight -- mr. speaker, i'm so grateful to leg counsel, i trash mouthed them a little bit the last few days because they stonewalled my plan, i thought. but we pushed, they got it through, we got it tonight. this plan for much less money, will buy every household in america that has people on medicare, medicaid, schip, it will buy them private insurance with a $3,500 deductible and put cash money in a debit card

account for their health savings account. they will for the first time in over 40 years have control of their future, control of their health care, and by golly they will have complete coverage. not in america ever had they had complete coverage. this will give them control. then we don't have to read articles like the one in "politico" about the president's plan promoting euthanasia, will it or will it not? we don't need to go there. don't have to go there. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mack of florida. mrs. bachmann of minnesota. ms. ros-lehtinen. without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the people of honduras. i rise in support of honduran

democratic institutions and legal authorities who refuse to be coerced and to ignoring their constitution and the rule of law and who refuse to have their future as a democratic nation and democratic society hydrogened -- hijacked. for months prior to june 28, man well had engaged in a systematic campaign to subvert the honduran constitution in order to strengthen and extend his own rule. last november he tried to postpone the primaries for the upcoming presidential elections. this january he tried to stuff the honduran supreme court with his personal buddies. then this march he issued an executive decree calling for a referendum that would ultimately allow for the extension of his presidential rule, all in direct contravention of the constitution. the honduran supreme court, the administrative courts, the attorney general, the commissioner for human rights,

the supreme electoral tribunal, and honduran national congress all declared this referendum to be illegal. but that did not stop him. in fact, following the decision of the organization of american states to open its doors to the castro regime, he probably felt empowered if not destined to follow the tyrannical ways of the castro brothers. he continued to demonstrate a blatant disregard for the legislative and judicial branches of the honduran government and sanctity of the honduran constitution. consequently he was charged with treason, abuse of authority, and usurping of power. on june 26 the honduran supreme court of justice issued a warrant for his arrest. while his removal from office was in accordance with the honduran constitution and the rule of law, u.s. officials were among the first to rush to judgment and condemn his

removal. joining arms with the likes of hugo chavez, daniel ortega, the organization of american states, and the united nations the u.s. continued to lead the calls for his return to power and reportedly for his immunity from prosecution for the political crimes with which he is charged. the u.s. has suspended more than $20 million in assistance to honduras. u.s. leaders have now chosen to punish those who are working to preserve the idea of checks and balances in honduras. they are revoking the visas of all current government officials, even members of the judicial branch. in fact, the vice president of the supreme court has already had his visa taken away. sadly the same officials who continue to call for direct engagement with the iranian regime irrespective of that regime's violence, torture, and other actions against its own people, the same u.s. officials

who recently reaffirmed iran's so-called nuclear rights are the same ones who are now seeking to intimidate and strong arm hondurans into submission and very strongly into difficult humanitarian straits in the coming months. in fact, as the u.s. increases the pressure on honduras, the u.s. is making unilateral concessions to the regime in syria and just ease sadgeses -- sanctions on damascus. this just days after the state department submitted to congress a report stating that syria continues to pursue advanced missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities and continues to sponsor violent islamic extremist groups like hezbollah and hamas. we are at a critical juncture in our foreign policy. in the western hemisphere, the situation in honduras has become the linchpin for the thwarting

of all the leaders and anti-america and anti-freedom agenda. yet the approach adopted by the u.s. is one where enemies of freedom are emboldened and strengthened while democratic institutions and allies are undermined and weakened. let us hope for our nation's security interest that the u.s. will see the danger in this approach and change scorse before it is too late. . let us hope the leadership will heed the words of ronald reagan from march, 1978, when reagan said, our fundamental aim in foreign policy must be to ensure our own survival and to protect those who also share our values. under no circumstances should we have any illusions about the intentions of those who are enemies of freedom. mr. speaker, let us send a clear significant nat to the enemies of freedom that we will not --

let us send a clear signal to the enemies of freedom that we will not stop. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. we are here to discuss the health care reform proposal that is being now discussed in washington, d.c., and really throughout the country and i think we're going to use tonight's hour of our 30-something working group to talk a little bit about what's in the bill, what is actually in the bill, not what is being said on talk radio from some internet site that is not -- that is basing their comments and their critiques of this bill on really things that don't exist.

and we want to do that. and the interesting that -- and it's interesting that tonight the 30-something working group will be articulating this and then over the course of the rest of the week and into the fall to discuss this critical piece of legislation for the american people because one of the previous speakers was talking a little bit and it reminded me, as i heard some of the rhetoric, you know, they were talking about health care saving plans, you know, and these accounts. and a couple things came to mind, the original nation of this 30-something working group was the creation of then minority leader pelosi to discuss social security privatization. that's how this whole thing originated. four or five years ago. with congressman meek and then congresswoman wasserman chicago bulls and i and later on, chris

murphy from connecticut and we were discussing all of these issues but one of the issues was social security privatization. so before we get into this bill, i think it's critical for us to remember that our friends on the other side who are now so critical of what we're trying to do here, we're in charge of the house, of the senate, of the white house, they had president sh, they controlled the senate, they had this chamber, tom delay was running the show. and they didn't do anything for health care costs. so i think that's important that that's out there. and if they wanted to pass some kind of comprehensive health care reform they should have done it because we are still dealing with the problems that they failed to solve when they were in and this is a problem facing millions of americans. millions of small businesses, that we need to help address. so that's why as we talk today this needs to be in context and the social security privatization, i mention that,

because let's imagine where our country would be today if our friends or on the other side had their wish -- friends on the other side had their wish and privatized social security. you can imagine where this country would be today if president bush and tom delay got their wish and privatized social security? and know in my district we're dealing with all kinds of pension issues, delphi salary, delphi hourly, u.a.w., steel workers have all lost their jobs. their pensions in many cases are in jeopardy. thank god for the pbgc to help cushion the blow. but could you imagine the cost of this country if the republicans had been able to fully implement their economic agenda? they did the tax cuts, most of their economic agenda, but fortunately we were able to prevent social security.

so it's important for to us realize that as we begin to debunk some of these myths. and i would just like to suggest, mr. speaker, as we go through this and i have encouraged my constituents and encouraged all members of this congress -- all members of congress, within an earshot, to base their critiques on what's actually in the legislation. don't we at least owe that to the american people? this is big, this is comprehensive, this is complex, multidimensional, every chip you move move it's something else another chip on the -- every chip you move moves something else a chip on the table. but we owe it to the american people to have an honest, mature discussion and the rhetoric that's being fed to the american people is outrageous. i want to start with with one and we'll go through some others

and talk about the bill a little bit. but one of the, you know, from some of the commercials about how much it will cost, my friend from texas mentioned it a few minutes ago and i'd love to talk about that and the c.b.o. scoring, but one of the things that i'm hearing from people who listen to fox news or talk radio is, this plan is going to cover illegal immigrants, how dare you drive up my health care costs, how dare you, you know, i have to lose my pension but you're going to spend the american tax dollars covering illegal immigrants. it is clear right here in section 246, no federal payment for undocumented aliens. nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united

states. black and white. can we move on? can we now move on and talk about how much health care's costing our country, that it may bankrupt our country? section 246, no federal payment for undocumented aliens. right here. so now let's have an honest discussion about what's in this bill. as we start to knock down some of these. first the cost of doing nothing, which has happened over the last 13 years or 14 years. we haven't done anything since president clinton tried to move health insurance reform in the early 1990's. we know that if we do nothing that there will be an $1,00 increase for a family of four --

$1,800 increase for a family of four every single year. that's what happens if we do nothing. there's been a 4% increase in property insurance and an 11% increase in health insurance. year in, year out. year in and year out. so we can pull out boards and say it's going to cost you this and cost you that. the biggest expense is the cost of doing nothing. look at this system. it's atrocious, to even call it a health care system is ridiculous, because it's not. why would you possibly be ok with a system that doesn't try to prevent sickness? why would you be ok with a system that waits -- we don't want to prevent from you getting sick, but, gosh, once you do, come right into the emergency room, we'll take care of you, because we're a compassionate country.

and we are a compassionate country. but let's be a smart country. let's be a wise country. and true compassion would be not waiting until someone gets deathly sick and shows up at the emergency room. god gave us a brain, too. and he wants us to use that brain and we're all in agreement here as we use the gift that god has given us to use logic and process information, that if we take some of this money that we're spending in the system and instead of waiting and being reactive and rescuing people, we spend a fraction of that money on the front end and we make sure that everyone has some preventative coverage. this is not a democratic idea, it's common sense. talk to the c.e.o.'s of

hospitals. i've got one in my district, republican c.e.o.. he says, please, tim, whatever you do, give me the opportunity to give this person a $20 prescription instead of having this person show up in my emergency room and costing me $100,000. this is not brain surgery that we're trying to perform here. and the fear tactics and the fear tactics and the fear tactics that are coming from, you know, members of congress, they're coming from talk radio, they're coming from fox news, about illegal immigrants are going to be covered thunderstorm plan and as i read earlier in section 246, they're not. they're not. section 246, no federal payment for undocumented aliens. nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for

affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the united states. i'm going to say that to every single person i meet who brings it up because this debate has more to do with the well-being of all of our citizens than the -- than to try to be demagogued and try to alienate people. you look at our planet, covered -- plan, covers 97%. why doesn't it cover 100%? because the reason i just said. and it's already in law where illegal immigrants can't be covered under schip, they can't be covered under medicare, they can't be cover under medicaid, and from the employer-based system that we already have, an employer's not allowed to hire an illegal immigrant. so how could you cover them under this plan if you're on an employer-based system with when an employer isn't allowed it to hire an undocumented worker? so let's put this aside and let's have this discussion. the american people want us to

have a mature discussion here. small business owners want us to have a mature discussion. earlier it was mentioned that medicare, and i got a call today in my office, and i periodically pick up the phone and chat with my constituents who call, and the concern was about seniors on medicare being hurt by this plan. and it's important for our seniors to recognize and our friend said it's, you know, $9,200 a family, and i'm happy to pay my share because i remember when my grandparents were in their last months, weeks, years of their life, they had health care because of the medicare program. so all of these folks who want to not have the government involved in health care, you know, tell your parents and your grandparents to give back their medicare, give it back, you don't want it.

the government's involved in that. give it back, no medicare. of course you're not going to say that. of course you're not. and to have this discussion, honestly we would say, we could save money in medicare. we should. not on the backs of our seniors, but there's a lot of overpayments in medicare advantage, for example, that we can squeeze out of the system. one of the costs to medicare is the fact that there's no previous care for a lot of people. so if you're 60 or 61 or 59, you see the date coming where you're going to be a medicare eligible and you don't have health insurance coverage or you don't have a good plan or you have a pre-existing condition in which you can't get health insurance, you have a heart disease or you have cancer and the not been in remission long enough, i had this woman come to a little

round table i had the other day. she had cancer and she got kicked off her plan, got cancer and then could not get on any other health insurance plan because she had this pre-existing condition. her cancer wasn't gone for 10 years. so until it was gone for 10 years no one would pick her you up. tragic in the united states -- pick her up. tragic in the united states of america. but a lot of people do that and so they wait. instead of getting health insurance, they think, i'll be on medicare in a few years so i'll just wait this out. and that leads to some chronic issues, chronic disease issues. that leads to, again, not preventing things from happening, maybe cancer spreading, maybe breast cancer, maybe serbcal cancer, because they -- cervical cancer, because they failed to go and get preventative care, so they get into the medicare program and costs blow up because they've waited. so part of squeezing some of the fat out of medicare is adding

this element of prevention. this is what our grandparents told us growing up, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. don't get yourself into trouble. you know, you get in a fight, i was right, he was wrong, you should have not gotten in the fight, then you wouldn't have all these series of events that happened that now have to deal with with. prevent yourself from getting into these situations. that's what we're trying to do with this legislation. it makes a great deal of sense. . another myth is the cost that c.b.o. gave a week or two ago in their analysis that the trillion dollars that we are saying needs to be spent in this plan is actually $2 trillion or $3 trillion. i don't know exactly what the exact number is. now, this is the point i want to make. the congressional budget office

is nonpartisan. so they deal a blow to the democrats and then they deal a blow to the republicans and then -- we have an opportunity -- they are not partisan. they slammed everybody. but what we want to say and what needs to be highlighted is in the c.b.o. analysis of the health care plan, when they factor in the costs, they try to do the long-term costs and long-term analysis, they do not factor in prevention. so as i mentioned with the c.e.o. of the hospital the other day, if you're not factoring in this person who shows up at the emergency room with late-stage cancer when you may be could have given them access to an ob/gyn or a mammogram or regular

prostate checks, these are the kind of things that will prevent that. if you are adding what if this person doesn't have health care and shows up in the emergency room and the long-term costs of that person without factoring in the preventive side, that cost would balloon. but common sense will tell you that the prevention will lower the costs. that's what c.b.o. has not factored in. so this prevention can save the system a heck of a lot of money. now, the c.b.o., one of the other myths, is that the c.b.o. or our friends are saying, well, this is going to dry up the employer health care plan -- the employer-based system. it's going to put -- everyone's going to go into the public option and they are not going to stick with their employers. so c.b.o. did an analysis of this. as i said a couple minutes ago,

c.b.o. blasted the democrats. we have a response to that saying that they failed to factor in the preventive aspects of our bill. so the next myth is that our friends are saying that this is going to destroy the employer basis tell. so i would like to read an excerpt from the c.b.o. letter analyzing this over the weekend they did this. it says there will be an increase in employer sponsored insurance coverage. this is a quote. we estimate that about 12 million people who would not be enrolled in an employment-based plan under current law would be covered by one in 2016. largely because the mandate for individuals to be insured would increase workers' demand for insurance coverage through their employer. so they are saying that 12 million people who would not be

enrolled now would be covered by one in 2016. so an increase of the employer-based system, but in 2016 by 12 million. largely because employers want to give their folks a benefit. and under this plan they will be negotiating with millions of other people as opposed to in the instance of a small business, just being out there on their own with five, 10, 15, 20 people trying to piece this whole thing together. we'll go through the costs of doing nothing for small businesses. it's incredible. so they will -- they see this as a real opportunity to leverage their business with others and therefore increase the amount of people who will be covered under employer plan. third party validator, congressional budget office, not

always in agreement with the democrats, says that's just false. medicaid coverage does not crowd out private health insurance. c.b.o. does not anticipate a substantial shift from private insurance to medicaid. specifically we estimate that about one million people who would otherwise have employment-based insurance or individually purchased coverage would end up enrolling in medicaid in 2016. so very small numbers. one of the things, too, there's been this group's analysis and about the public option and people going into the public option. c.b.o. knocks that down and it's good to know i think, trying to remember, i think it was united health -- the group who did this analysis saying everybody's going to leave employer and go to this public option, that

study was funded by united health care and requested by the right wing heritage foundation. it's been widely discredited for its flawed review of the house legislation. so it's important, again, that we be our analysis on what the facts are. what's actually in the bill. so the c.b.o. refuted this group estimate, quote, for several reasons we anticipate our estimate of the number of enrollees in the public plan would be substantially smaller than the group even if we assume all employers would have that option. so c.b.o.'s projecting 10 million to 11 million people would maybe go into the public option. a very, very small number. and it's important for us to remember that. so, again, another myth. there's going to be a decrease in employer-based health care. not true.

c.b.o., nonpartisan, actually an increase of 12 million people by 2016. also stated by our friends on the right that this is going to drive people to this public option, c.b.o. again nonpartisan saying that's just not true. that that just won't happen. one of the other things that i think's important to remember, again doing nothing costs -- will cost you, your family next year $1,800 for a family of four . $1,800 increase. that is not just next year and tends as people know it keeps going. so there's a business in my district, i was talking to the gentleman who owns the business, he happens to be on both sides of the insurance industry. he's a provider, but he also has 150 people who he employs. and over the course of the last

five years he's had an increase, aggregate increase of 42% in his health care costs for his company. and then he's on the provider side. so he gets paid by insurance companies. and with a 4 it -- 42% increase on health care for his folks, yet he got no increase for the services that he was providing to the insurance company. so you see again that we need reform in the system where you can't just continue to increase costs, not pay your provider, and deny coverage. that was really one of the messages that was hammered home in our town hall, wasn't a town hall, a round table we had this weekend in miles -- niles, ohio that a lot of people are very, very concerned about this

pre-existing -- being denied for pre-existing condition. with all the money that we have in this system. -- system, for us as a country to say, oh, no, you have cancer, you're on your own. you're not eligible for medicare yet. you're not poor enough to be on medicaid yet. and you got to go out and try to get cobra coverage or is something else -- or something else is completely outrageous. and needs to be dealt with in this country. and i feel like this is a moral issue for our country for people to have to have that level of suffering that is unnecessary. there's enough suffering already with the cancer or with the issues that the -- the health issues people are dealing with. we don't need to add to it. there should be a level of security within the system that we know everybody will get taken care of.

one of the issues that we have to deal with and tried to be helpful with, and again is this issue of cost. now, this is a chart of our expenditures up to 2006, as you can see the united states is in red. france, canada germany, and the united kingdom are in a shade of blue. and this line here is life expectancy. you can see that we are all pretty much in the same realm of life expectancy give or take a year and a half, two years. which if it's you, that's a very important distinction. but on the average we're pretty much around the late 70's, early

80's. and the cost as you can see of health care for americans goes through the roof. goes through the roof. so you can see how much we are paying per individual in 2006, it's close to almost $7,000 a person when france is spending a little over $4,000 a person. and we all have the same life expectancy. what's wrong with this picture here? so to say that we are going to let this continue, that for a family of four, $1,800 increase next year. $1,800 increase in 2011. these are compounding on top of one another. play it out. we bankrupt the country. you want to talk about small businesses being innovative,

being able to compete against china, india, and all of these other countries which is all other issues, but we've got to make these folks' cost competitive. and small businesses increase 129% increase for health insurance since 2000. want to just keep going down that road? we know how it ends. it don't end pretty. we can just keep going. and that's what many people on the other side of the aisle want to do. they want to say no. they want to nitpick and make things up to try to put the kibosh on this because they know as has been stated in a memo from a top republican consultant if they destroy health care they knock the legs out and they kneecap president obama. this is a political issue for some people. and it shouldn't be.

because the people that i met with at vernon's cafe want change. an independent, small businessperson was sitting right next to me, neal, he had to close his lawn and garden business because he couldn't withstand the health care bills he was getting. and he was supportive of barack obama's plan because he couldn't sustain his business. 129% increase since 2000? you want to talk about a tax increase on a small business, you know what, we are going to do it again next year. we are going to put more on next year. another couple thousand next year per employee. another couple thousand the next year. and the next year. and the next year. as your energy costs go up, as your health care costs go up, as

manufacturing continues to decline in the united states, because we don't make anything anymore, on and on and on and on and you know what, this is about leadership. this is about leadership. and sometimes some people just aren't going to like you. and sometimes people are going to try to use and score political points to try to prevent progress from happening. we need to do something, mr. speaker. we need to do it for the people who are out there suffering, we need to do it for the people whose costs keep going up. we need to do it for small businesses who recognize that this can put them right out of business. and every single way these small businesses, i tell you, have really gotten the shaft in this whole health care deal.

they don't have much bargaining power. i think part of the magic of this approach that we have been working on and will continue to work on over the course of the next days and weeks is to allow small businesses who now have to go out into the market and try to find something on their own, will now be playing with millions of other people, and that ability to use the buying power, the partnerships through this exchange that's being created will reduce costs for them. . i mean, that's common sense. if you're a person, you're a small business, and you have 10 people and you've got to go to a major insurance company and try to strike some kind of deal because you want to provide health insurance for your

employees, then you're on your own. what we're saying is, let's pull everybody together and give you an opportunity to go into these different plans, but if you like the plan you got, you coup keep that, too -- you can keep that, too. and that will help drive down costs for these small businesses. finally put them on a level playingfield. so 129% increase for small businesses since 2000. their premiums are 18% higher for a small business than they are for a big business. so they get it on that end, too, and the percent of premiums that deal with administrative costs are higher for small businesses, 25%, as opposed to 10%, and, yes, it does make sense. they're a small business, this is a bigger business. there's going to be more administrative cost. but if we allow them to join together to -- together, to pool

together, then they'll be able to reduce some of those costs. and this is a winner for small businesses who are already covering their employees because they're not going to see that 8%, 12% increase. and what's great about this plan is that there are limits to how much, and we've talked a bit about pre-existing conditions, so you get into the plan and you may be sick and you may have cancer or heart disease or a variety of other illnesses and what this plan does is it limits and caps for catastrophic coverage. so if you're an individual you can't pay more than $5,000 a year for catastrophic coverage. if you're a family the number now is about $10,000 a year for catastrophic coverage. and that's still a lot of money.

but the bottom line is, it's not going to bankrupt most people. and when you look at what's happening today in the united states, with we have half of our bankruptcies, mr. speaker, half are caused by health care. a health care crisis -- imagine this, 2009 and the united states of america, that could you have a health care crisis in your family and you have to file bankruptcy. is that incredible? are we ok with that as a country? i'm not. and i think there's millions of other people who aren't either. this was a problem that we need to solve, to share together to say, hey, wait a minute, one of the values we have in this country, liberty and freedom and, you know, a lot of different phrases and words we

have, but what do we really believe? and are our actions and our policies in line with those values that we have? and what we're saying is that that is unacceptable. so our friends on the other side who had control of the house and the senate and the white house didn't do anything about it. you want to take small piecemeal steps? you could have taken that one. you could have said -- in fact, you passed a bankruptcy bill that made it worse. they passed a bankruptcy bill that made it worse. 50% of bankruptcies are health care related. unacceptable. if our friends on the other side found it necessary, found it in line with their values to end

denial for insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions, could have happened. they had control of the house, had control of the senate, had control of the white house. but it didn't happen. and so now we've got some johnny come latelies with a piecemeal plan here or there that doesn't solve the overall problem. we've got to bend the cost curve here. we've got to bend it. and you don't do that with piecemeal actions. you do that with bold actions that will help bend the cost curve. and ultimately that's what we're trying to do here. the presenttive side here also, no co-pays for prevention. so there will be an incentive for us to be assured that people will go to the greatest extent possible for preventative care.

and let me add this, we can only do so much with the system. people, average americans, need to do a better job of keeping themselves healthy, too. it's not all us, it's not the government -- the government's not going to do that. the insurance industry's not going to do that. but if we tilt the system towards prevention, if we tilt the system to create incentives for it, with doctors and there's a component in here that gives more say to the doctors and the patient, to keep that relationship sacred between those two, to make sure that the doctor gets rewarded and paid based on quality. not on quantity.

and so there will be an incentive in the system to make sure that our docs are able and willing to provide the most quality care and not having to worry about a variety of other issues, they will deal with the patient. patient-centered. and you hear about president obama was at the cleveland clinic about an hour north of my clinic in cleveland, at the mayo clinic, you hear what these top hospitals do. every time you hear what they're doing successfully, it's patient-based, not insurance-based. you know, not, i got to call somebody at the head office and see if the ok -- some doctor's got to call, is it ok for me to do this to the patient? is it paid for, is it not paid for? that's ridiculous. and we're going to weed that out of the system. and make the doctor making these decisions, not the insurance

company. which brings me to another point. again, our friends, right wing talk radio and -- you know, which is, at this point, pure entertainment because i find very few facts issued out of a right wing talk radio station as of late, the issue of rationing. people are saying that, oh, my god, this big, you know, socialist system's going to be in place. not true at all. this is not canada, this is a blend of what works here in america to make sure that we can bend that cost curve and this is going to be very uniquely american. which it should be. it maintains competition, gives choice, so you can keep what you got but you also have these other options of what you want to go, including a public

option, which should be there, i think, to keep people honest as a component of this whole system. but you're able to shop around and get what you want or keep what you have. and have choice. and help contain costs. but what our friends keep saying is, the government's going to come in and ration health care. if you don't think health care is being rationed right now, you are -- you have not talked to anybody who's been breathing for the last decade. the insurance companies are rationing health care right now. and as a nurse who was at our town hall meeting this week said the government couldn't possibly ration more than the insurance companies are. we deal with it all the time. people calling their congressman or congresswoman saying, hey, you can help me, my god, this insurance company, they denied

me, i thought it was in my policy, they wouldn't let the doctor do this or that, they're not going to reimburse, they're not going to pay for this. the insurance companies are rationing right now. they've been hiring people to knock people off the rolls. their employment has gone up, their coverage has gone down because of rationing by insurance companies and what we're saying is, you can't do things like deny someone coverage for a pre-existing condition. there will be a basic plan of which 95% of employer plans right now already have, meet the standard for the basic level. but there will be a basic plan in which people will be covered. this ultimately, as i've said before, is going to save us a lot of money. and it's going to help bend that

cost curve. and by doing that, ultimately, which we fail to i think incorporate into this discussion , is that when you insure and assure people that they will have coverage, that they will have pretentative coverage, that their kids will have coverage, there's a level of anxiety that obviously goes away, which is very helpful. but this is going to increase the level of productivity in the united states because people will be healthier and there's a tremendous investment here to make sure that our docs and our nurses have the proper incentives for student loans to go to high risk areas and practice and make some money so their loans don't keep them from maybe wanting to be helpful in a

community that they want to be helpful in, to make sure that we deal with the nursing shortage, all of these things. but it will increase the level of productivity that we have because we're going to have more people healthy, participating in this economy, and contributing. and there was a story a couple weeks back, i think it was in "the wall street journal" in which there was a kid who was -- not a kid but he was probably in his 20's or early 30's, wanted to go out and start his own business, i think it was a computer technology business, but he couldn't because the job that he had had insurance, his wife was sick and had cancer, i think, but he knew that if he left and tried to get insurance for his wife that she wouldn't be able to qualify because she had a pre-exist condition. how many stories are like that -- pre-existing condition.

how many stories are like that across the country? you want to leave, you want to start a small business, you want to create value and grow your business, but you can't because someone in your family may be sick and so you don't because you have to stay put. how many times does that happen? we have really the gem of youngstown, ohio, and the valley, we have a business ipping baiter, youngstown business ipping baiter. great place. our -- incubator. great place. and "entrepreneur" magazine last week or two weeks ago said that the youngstown, ohio, was one of the top 10 places in the country to start a business. it was really cool, they had this -- the cover, it said, "top 10 places to start a business,"

yunkstown, ohio, number one. so here we are in yunkstown, trying to convert our economy over from -- youngstown, trying to convert our economy over from manufacturing steel. communities have started this incubator where we have all of these business to business software companies that are incredible companies. the level of talent that works in this incubator, there's i think 300 people that work for the company, average wage is $58,000 a year, companies from around the country now want to move there. you can begin to see what we need -- why we need to do this. because you want these young, bright, intelligent, creative people to feel like they can take a risk, take a chance, start a business, without having to worry about the burden of health care. this is going to unleash a

generation of young, smart, creative people to get out in the marketplace and create wealth for us and to hire people . and especially with the green revolution coming, we're not really sure what's going to happen. there's so many nuances to green technology, with solar panels and wind mills and biodiesel plants and batteries and we don't know. but wouldn't you want, wouldn't it be smart to say, don't worry about health care, you're going to have to pay some, you know, this is not going to be a free raid, -- ride, there's going to be shared responsibility here, everyone's got to do their fair share, no one's going to get, you know, onboard for free. there's going to be a ticketed price here and everybody's going to have to pay something, but wouldn't be you want these young people to feel secure, to be able to create the next generation of wealth?

i know we need it. i know when you're looking at places in the midwest like youngstown, like warren, we need these young people to feel unleashed and let their cretive juices flow as they come out of engineering schools. and they want to take a chance and be in an incubator and grow a company or start a company. that's what we need here. . we are trying to compeent, mr. speaker, in the united states of america -- compete, mr. speaker, in the united states ever america, with 1.3 billion people in china, 1.2 billion or 1.3 billion people in india, and we only have 300 million people. so we are spending all this money on health care and we are not getting anything out of it. let's spend this wisely. half of the money to pay for this gets squeezed out of the current system. $500 billion of the trillion gets squeezed out of the current

system. and these young people in the youngstown business incubator, and incubators like it all over the country, and young people like them all over the country let's fuel that fire. let's throw some coal on it. let's get it nice and hot. let's let it burn. because we don't have the same luxury that the chinese have where if 300 million or 400 million people fall off the side of a cliff we still got a lot of people to contribute. we don't have that luxury. so what we need to do is take the wealth that we have, invest it strategicically -- strategically in this country and one of the biggest burdens for people to be creative and start new businesses or for small businesses to grow is the cost of health care. so our friends on the other side who say they are pro-business

are going to allow an $1,800 tax, go on the backs of a family of four next year. through inaction. there's acts of commission and acts of omission. and there are taxes of commission and taxes of omission. and through inaction there will be an $800 tax put on the backs of families next year. and small businesses next year. how can you say you're for small business development when you're -- when your inaction allowed health care costs to balloon 129% since the year 2000? that is strangling small businesses. let's let them compete with -- pool their resources and get into the exchange, bend the cost curve. let's do -- let's have a

uniquely american health care system. i mean not what we got now. this is ridiculous. we are going to keep this system that we got? it stinks. it's not working. we are not ok with keeping it like it is. we want it to change. we want something different. we want it to work for the people. we want it to represent our values. we want it to unleash the creativity that the american people have. the artists in this country in many ways are our small businesspeople. they take risk, they take chances, they go out into the public, they sell their products, they make it happen. that's an art form. it takes a lot of courage. let's help them. let's not sit and turn our head, bury our head in the sand and hope problems go away. that's not what the people voted for. they didn't vote for to us stand by and watch. we are not on the sidelines.

we are actors in this game. we are supposed to do things. and inaction, you can argue, mr. speaker, they could continue to argue inaction. keep the government out. don't do this, don't do that. that's bad. no, no, no, no, no. that's all we have been getting here. the american people don't want it. we've got to go out and explain this to the american people. we've got people running around, they are so afraid of this happening, the only argument they think they have, which isn't even true, is that, oh, my god, this is going to cover undocumented illegal immigrants. that's your health care debate in 2009 in america? that's what you're telling your small businesspeople? that's what you're telling this country we can't do it because it's going to cover illegal immigrants when in section 246 it says no federal payment for undocumented aliens, that's all you got?

that's it? 2009 and the united states of america and congress and on right wing talk radio, all you got is this is going to cover illegal immigrants when it's not even in the bill. come on. the american people deserve better than that. this is not what they signed up for. running ads? we've got politicians running ads about how this is going to cover illegal immigrants. what are you talking about? stop it. the american people don't want to hear that. it's continuing. it's very consistent with what president bush started of fear mongering to the american people. if we can't beat them, we scare people. if we can't beat on the merits, we try to scare people. it's not right. and so over the course of the

next few days, weeks, and months we are going to go out and we are going to talk to the american -- we want to hear what they think this is, what they want. their concerns. but i can guarantee you one thing right now, i can guarantee you one thing right now, mr. speaker. that there is not any level of fear that can come out of right wing talk radio, that can come out of fox news, that can come out of the republican conference, that can come out of the republican senate conference , that can come from karl rove and newt gingrich and everyone else, there is not a level of fear that they could manufacture that will meet or be able to compete with the level of fear the american people feel under the current health care system. they can't meet it.

and we are going to try to the best of our ability to alleviate that fear for the american people. our friends on the other side have not produced an alternative plan. now, i just -- we are wrapping up here. i'm almost done. but the republicans have not produced an alternative. they have not produced a plan. because their sole goal is to destroy this one. and so, mr. speaker, i think it's important that we continue to ask the american people to look at the facts, look what's in the bill. if you have questions, that's legitimate. this is a big deal. we should have a conversation about this. about what's actually in here. what's the subsidy level, what are the tax rates, who's getting taxed in this whole deal?

who is not? who is going to get coverage, and what level of subsidy are they going to get? what's medicaid going to look like? what's medicare going to look like? this bill through the savings that we have here fills the doughnut hole in medicare. fills the doughnut hole through the savings that we squeeze out of the system here, we fill the doughnut hole for the medicare prescription drug bill. so that seniors won't drop off after a certain level and then not get covered again until their bill goes up to $5,000 or so a year. that's what we are doing here. and so, mr. speaker, it's important that we all ask the american people during the course of this discussion to remember that our friends on the other side who had their opportunity for health care reform, had their opportunity for energy reform, controlled the house, senate, white house, didn't do anything.

now they are coming to us saying that we are doing it wrongly. but it's important to remember that theirp top republican strategist issued a memorandum to the republicans in the house of representatives that they have to be against health care because if they defeat health care they defeat barack obama. and they bring him down. now, when you're listening to the debate on the issues and you hear unsubstaniated rumors, mr. speaker, it's important that the american people hear that and see that within the context of this memo in which the republicans have been instructed to march down the line of destroying barack obama's health care plan. you can keep the plan you have. you will have more choice. this will bend the cost curve. be uniquely american. save us money that we can

reinvest so that our small businesses can compete. doing nothing will continue the cost curve on small business up 129% since the year 2000. if we do nothing, a family of four will see an $1,800 increase in their health care bill, if that. and if we do nothing, people will still be denied by insurance companies who will say to them, we won't cover you because you have cancer. we won't cover you because you have heart disease. those days need to be over. and let's muster up the courage to communicate to the american people, to have a mature adult discussion about health care in 2009 in the united states of america. since when did americans get afraid to do big things? this is what we do. we build transcontinental railroads, we built the interstate highway system, we made sure we lift millions of

seniors out of poverty with the medicare program. we do civil rights. we do big things. and this is the next great challenge for us. and we've got to meet this challenge. not for the sake of me going home saying, hey, we met this challenge. or speaker pelosi saying it or anyone else, but because this is what the american people want. this is what they want us to do. so the next few days and weeks are going to be talking about this, quality, affordable health care, health insurance reform. and we are going to do this. this is going to happen. and this is going to be another landmark achievement in the history of the united states. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. ryan: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00

>> we will also hear house members talk about health reform. >> how c-span funded? >> publicly funded. >> donations? i have no idea. but the government? >> their the taxes. >> federal funding? >> how c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> now the senate judiciary committee meet to discuss and vote on supreme court nominees sonia sotomayor 0. >> we have a quorum. i want to thank all members of

the committee for their cooperation. two weeks ago, during our hearing, we nominated judge sonia sotomayor lawyer to the court. the hearing did provide it as questions and to raise concerns. it gave the nominee a opportunity -- an opportunity to respond we finally gave her her chance to have a public voice. it allowed the american people to see and hear judge sotomayor for themselves. during those four days, almost two dozen people attended the hearing in person in this room. millions more saw it or heard it, read about it, in

newspapers, blocks, television, and with casting. -- blogs, television, and webcasting. the wisdom accumulated over the course of a journey, a journey defined by hard work, fierce intelligence, and an enduring faith in it and america. thank judge so similar -- judge sotomayor enter family. now comes a moment when this committee faces the choice of whether to recommend this nomination favorably to the senate. each of us has responsibilities to vote yes or no.

as senators has responsibilities to vote yes or no. i look forward to a bipartisan vote. judge sotomayor is well qualified. she has the highest rating of the american bar association, and one need look no further than her experience, her ability, her temperament or judgment. the president nominated a person with more federal judicial experience than anyone nominated to the u.s. supreme court nearly a hundred years. he nominated somebody with federal trial judge experience, she'll be, incidentally, the only member of the supreme court with federal trial judge experience and of course, she's had tremendous experience in probably the most active prosecutor's office in this country. as the record and her testimony before the committee reinforced,

she's a restrained, fair and impartial judge who applies the law to the facts to decide cases. ironically, the few decisions for which she's been criticized are cases in which she did not, did not reach out to change the law or defy judicial precedent. in other words, cases in which she refused to be an activist judge and make law from the bench. in her 17 years on the bench, there's not one example, let alone a pattern, of her ruling based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. she has been true to her oath. she has faithfully and impartially performed her duties as set forth by the constitution. as a prosecutor and as a judge, she has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over another. she testified directly to this point saying i have now served as an appellate judge for over a

decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional statutory and other legal questions. throughout my 17 years on the bench, i have witnessed the consequences of my decisions. those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the interests, the larger interests, of impartial justice. i agree with her. during my time in the senate, i have often spoken of the standard i use for judicial nominees. i asked myself whether the nominee would be the kind of independent judge who would be fair and impartial. as one who has tried an awful lot of cases, i look at a judge and i say whether any american could expect fair consideration of this judge, regardless of race, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are a person, a corporation, defendant or the government, whether republican

or democrat or independent. i like to think when i would come into a courtroom, i could look at a judge and say this judge will make up his or her mind based on the law, not on who the litigants are. having reviewed her record, i know that judge sonia sotomayor has been that kind of judge. i am very confident she will be that kind of justice in the united states supreme court. so it's with enthusiasm and hope that i'm going to vote in favor of this historic nomination. we will recognize first starting with senator sessions and we'll go back and forth based on seniority. is that okay with you? >> thank you. yes, mr. chairman, you're very gracious. you conducted a fair hearing and -- i don't know if that's on or not. you conducted a fair hearing and for that, we are appreciative. i think people are a little

settled on this side against 12 on your side, have a duty and responsibility to ask the questions that are pertinent to this nomination. i believe they have done so effectively and thoroughly and fairly. i really appreciated the grace that judge sotomayor showed. she was patient as you said and she took care to participate in the process in a way that i think reflected well on her personally. i would just say, mr. chairman, that as i explained on the floor yesterday, based on her record as a judge and her statements, i am not able to support this nomination. i don't believe anyone should be on any court of the united states that is not deeply committed to the ideal of american justice and that is that they should set aside their personal opinions and biases when they rule from the court, but in speech after speech, year after year, judge sotomayor set

forth a fully formed, i believe, judicial philosophy that conflicts with the great american tradition of blind justice and fidelity to the law as written. her words in speeches are not being taken out of context, as some have suggested. she has repeatedly said, among other things, that judges must judge when quote, opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate, close quote. she accepts that who she is will quote, affect the facts i choose to see as a judge. it is her belief that quote, a wise latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male, close quote. and that there is quote, no neutrality in judging, just a quote, series of perspectives. well, those are phrases and

words that have meaning. i will agree that her testimony did -- was not consistent with those repeated phrases and statements, but i have to say her testimony to me was -- did not have the clarity and the compelling nature that would overcome those speeches. but for example, on the question she testified when i first asked her that she was agreeing with justice o'connor, but in fact, her -- when judge o'connor said a wise old woman and wise old man should reach the same conclusion, which is i think the ideal of american justice, in her speech she said quote, i am not sure i agree with that statement. and went on to explain why she didn't and what her reservations were. so we were urged to look at the

judicial record that she has established and i've done that. most cases before the courts of appeals are fact-based, do not raise serious constitutional issues of the kind that the supreme court deals with on a regular basis. judge sotomayor decided three cases in recent months, in particular, that are of the type that the u.s. supreme court hears on a regular basis. the decisions are extremely short, oddly short, frankly, and lack careful analysis. each reached i think an erroneous conclusion. each ignored the plain words of the constitution in ricci versus distefano, it was an appeal by 18 firefighters, the test that they took to pass for promotion

had been thrown out by the city, not because it was an unfair test. indeed, it was never found to be unfair. but because the city did not like the racial results. her opinion violated the constitutional command, i believe, that no one should be denied the equal protection of the law because of their race. judge sotomayor did not deal with this important constitutional issue in a thorough, open and honest way. without justification, in my view, and in violation of the rules of the second circuit, they initially dismissed the case by summary order, without even adopting the lower court opinion, with no explanation whatsoever. the effect was to deal with it in a way that would not require the opinion to be published or even circulated among the other judges on the circuit. the circuit rules state that when summary orders are

appropriate only where quote, a decision is unanimous and each judge on the panel believes that into jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion, close quote. it was only after another judge on the circuit requested that the case be reheard that the panel issued a per curiam opinion of the briefest nature, only a few sentences, adopting the lower court opinion. so i didn't feel good about that. that was a big case, a huge case, of great importance. if not, the supreme court wouldn't have taken it and they were trying to dispose of it by summary order. judge sotomayor's treatment of  critically important second amendment issues that have come before her are equally troubling. again, i think she got the text of the constitution wrong and did so in a cursory way that seemed designed to hide the significance of the case and her ruling. in maloney, even after the

watershed decision by the supreme court in heller, she held that it was settled law, that the second amendment did not apply to the states and that the right to keep and bear arms is not, quote, a fundamental right. when asked about the maloney case, at the hearing, she claimed to have relied on precedent but the precedent on which she relied considered the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. the supreme court has not really looked at that clause for over 100 years. instead, it's looked at the due process clause under the bill of rights. and the law has changed how we do incorporation, since the 1800s, and i think for her to fail to acknowledge that and to fail to acknowledge the very clear suggestion in the heller case in that famous footnote that this matter is now open for

consideration again, it's not settled law. in fact, the ninth circuit reviewing the supreme court decision in heller reached a different conclusion all together, that the second amendment does apply to the states based on the supreme court opinion, and i think that was a big error. and would note that if her decision is not overruled by the supreme court, which she aspires -- on which she aspires to sit, then any city in any state in america could completely deny the right provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms. they could deny the right of people in their cities and their states to keep and bear arms. and a third case, handled in a similar cursory manner, the maloney case was what, two pages, a page, maybe less than two pages, was the important property rights case.

three years ago, the supreme court in kilo decided, after the supreme court decided the case, judge sotomayor's court issued an opinion in which a private property owner found his property on which he planned to build a cvs farmly taken the developer told the landowner he could keep the land and built it as long as he forked over $800,000 in half ownership of his business. without much discussion, he rejected those claims the constitution says private property can only taken for public use. that was not followed in that case. it to these three cases are of importance and deserve to be

treated with great thoughtfulness and care, yet in each case, her decisions were unexpectedly short and results favored a liberal pro-government ideology of the individuals asserting their constitutional right. i appreciate you and i know people will disagree on this. after all is said and done, our evaluation of the testimony and the study of the cases i have mentioned, i have concluded on this nomination and not being confirmed. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i want to congratulate chairman leahy as was your staff on judge sotomayor's confirmation hearing. today i am pleased to cast my vote for judge sotomayor, an

individual is an inspiration to millions of american, a child of immigrants with modest means, judge sotomayor has risen to some larry academic accomplishments and hardware. dint of exemplary academic accomplishment and hard work now to the cusp of confirmation to our nation's highest court. but judge sotomayor is much more than only a sry of accomplishment. she has shown herself to be a judge truly worthy of elevation to the supreme court. both on the bench and before this committee, judge sotomayor has proved that she has the necessary character, competence and integrity to serve on the supreme court. judge sotomayor's distinguished 17 year judicial record demonstrates her commitment to fair and impartial application of the law and respect for the values which make up our constitution.

at her hearing, judge sotomayor assured us that she will listen with an open mind to all sides of an argument, and that she will be mindful of the very real impact her decisions will have on each and every american. she pledged fidelity to the constitution and to the court's precedent, as well as the responsibility to cautiously review precedent when justice requires. as we conclude our committee's action on judge sotomayor's nomination, i believe we need to reflect upon the role that confirmation hearings play in the senate's duty to advise and consent. while i have no reservations about my support for judge sotomayor, i share the concerns expressed by many americans, legal commentators and others, about our committee's ability to have candid and substantive conversations with nominees about the issues americans care about. we all know that the

confirmation process is crucial. it is the public's only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for life on the highest court in the land. but for many years, we have seen a familiar pattern from nominees, democrat and republican alike, who have learned that the path of least resistance is to limit their responses and cautiously cloak them in generalities. understandabl understandably, nominees don't want to risk their confirmation by saying anything that might provoke potential opponents. and we cannot ask nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come before them. but it is reasonable for us to ask them to speak more openly about past supreme court decisions and how they would decide cases that are close calls, when reasoning they -- what reasoning they would use and what factors they would consider. the concerns raised do not reflect any personal criticism about judge sotomayor. i think she responded to our

questions with great intellect and sincerity and that she has rightly earned bipartisan praise. however, going forward, mr. chairman, i hope that together, our committee can explore ways to achieve the greater candor that the confirmation process demands and that the american people deserve. for example, we could convene a bipartisan group of committee members, members of the bar, constitutional scholars and perhaps members of the media who have experience following the court and our hearings, to help us determine what specific questions we can and should expect substantive answers about. if we can do this, then the committee's unique opportunity to engage nominees in the great legal questions facing our nation will more effectively fulfill the senate's constitutional duty. in the meantime, i commend president obama for nominating judge sotomayor, a woman of great ability who has

demonstrated an enduring commitment to public service and to the law. i look forward to her tenure on the court. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator kohl. senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions, for conducting a fair and thorough hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was especially pleased when judge sotomayor said the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for a president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court says a lot about our country, america. i like judge sotomayor and respect her service to her community, the judiciary and the nation. as i expect her to be confirmed, i know that her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sotomayor's

speeches, articles and cases, and i participated in all three rounds of questions at the hearing. i genuinely wrestled with this decision. i did not use the political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justice john roberts. he voted no even though admitting that the nominee was qualified, humble, decent and had the temperament to be a good judge. senator obama voted against chief justice roberts because he thought the nominee's personal values, perspectives and empathy would lead him to results that senator obama would not like. i cannot accept that standard. i believe the proper judicial role in our system of government focuses on the process of interpreting and applying law that leads to results, not on results themselves. i believe that in the judicial process, judges must self-consciously and deliberately set aside personal views, sympathies and prejudices so that the law, not the judge, determines the results. i have a statement, mr.

chairman, which explains in more detail the decision i've reached in this case and i ask consent that it be placed in the record. >> without objection, it will be placed in the record and of course, the record will be open for any member who wishe to extend whatever they say. >> thank you, sir. let me just say here that i examined judge sotomayor's entire record with the more exacting scrutiny appropriate for supreme court nominations. her speeches and articles evidenced and described a troubling approach to judging that her hearing testimony did not resolve, as far as i was concerned. in some of her most important cases, she gave short shrift to fundamental constitutional rights and in my judgment, used inappropriate legal standards and did not properly apply precedent. in the end, judge sotomayor's record regarding her approach to judging simply left too many unresolved controversies and too many conflicts with fundamental principles about the judiciary in which i deeply believe. as a result, i regret i cannot

support her appointment to the supreme court and my extended statement will go into this in much more detail. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. senator feinstein? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for conducting these hearings in the way in which they were held. it's very much appreciated. mr. chairman, it's interesting to me to hear the comments of those who clearly will not vote for this judge. for me, i look at her very differently. i see her as a most impressive person on a number of different levels. first, in terms of personal history, it is truly impressive. it is everything that our country is all about. secondly, in terms of qualifications, there are more qualifications for this job than virtually any of the prior three nominees that i have heard as a member of this committee.

29 1/2 years in the law, prosecutor, private practitioner, appointed to the federal court first by a republican president, secondly by a democratic president, and the analysis of her record by the congressional research service says a very interesting thing. the most consistent characteristic of her approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis precedent. i think this woman has done a splendid job. she has shown a dedication to the law. this has been tested and tested. she has shown before us judicial temperament. this has been probed and picked at. i find no example of infidelity to the law. at this point, mr. chairman, if i might, i would like to place in the record a sixth circuit

court decision on the -- on ricci case-like matter where the sixth circuit found exactly as she did, if i might. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. i found no example of her not following precedent. for me, as a woman, to see this woman overcome the barriers that she has overcome, to have the education that she has had, to do with it what she has done, and to bring the kind of dedication and personality to this table was truly impressive. i believe she has been an impressive judge. i believe she's been an impressive lawyer and i believe she will be an impressive member of the highest court of this land. i will vote for her with enormous pride. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator feinstein. senator grassley? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

after much deliberation, i have concluded that i cannot support the nomination of judge sotomayor to be associate justice. the senate must confirm to the supreme court individuals who possess a superior intellect, distinguished legal experience, unquestionedntegrity and even judicial demeanor and temperament. more importantly, the senate has a tremendous responsibility to confirm individuals who truly understand the proper role of justice as envisioned in the constitution. this is the most critical qualification of a supreme court justice, the capacity to faithfully interpret the law and constitution without personal bias or prejudice. our system of checks and balances demands that judges not take on the role of policy makers. that's because our great american tradition of checks and balances envisions that

political and social battles be fought in the legislature, not the judicial branch of government. further, our american legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the courthouse. lady justice stands before the supreme court blindfolded. judges and justices must wear blindfolds when they interpret the constitution and administer justice. i have been a member of the senate judiciary committee since 1981, and have voted to confirm both republican and democrat presidents' picks for the supreme court using this standard. unfortunately, i believe that judge sotomayor's performance at her judiciary committee confirmation hearing left me with more questions than answers. it is imperative that the nominee persuade us that he or she will be able to set aside one's own feelings so he or she

can dispassionately administer equal justice yet i am not convinced that judge sotomayor has the ability to wear the judicial blindfold and resist having personal biases and preferences dictate her judicial method on the supreme court. president obama clearly believes judge sotomayor measures up to his empathy standard, which encourages judges to make use of personal politics, feelings and preferences. this radical empathy standard stands in stark opposition to what most of us understand to be the role of the juciary. to her credit, at the hearing, judge sotomayor repudiated president obama's empathy standard, but sotomayor's record both in and out of the courtroom revealed to me a judicial philosophy that bestows a pivotal role to personal

preference and beliefs in her judicial method. in speeches she gave in law review articles she wrote over the years, judge sotomayor doubted that a judge could ever be truly impartial. she argued that she proclaimed that the court of appeals is where "policy is made." she said that a wise latina will more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. she disagreed with a statement by justice o'connor, where justice o'connor said "a wise old woman or wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in the case of " she said that judges should look to foreign oil so they could get "

creative juices flowing." at her confirmation hearing, she attempted to explain in the statements away. i had problems harmonizing answers with the statement that she repeated over and over again throughout the years. the statement made at the hearing and those made in speeches and articles are in my mind polar opposites of each other. they are not compatible. they cannot be reconciled. i also question the reliability of statements made at a formal hearing were the nominee is clearly prepared to answer questions as compared to statements that were made over the years in any on guarded manner without any restrictions and without a set a goal in mind. ithout any restrictions and without a set goal in mind, that being confirmation to the

judicial branch. in addition, judge sotomayor's record on the bench raises serious concerns, hard questions -- hard cases say the most about a judge, and we all know the supreme court takes on only hard cases. well, those are the cases that raise the most concern with this nominee and what she will do if she is confirmed. first, her record before the supreme court is not a particularly impressive one. she was reversed eight out of ten times, was criticized another one of those ten cases, so the supreme court disagreed with her nine out of ten times. in addition, some of her cases raised questions about whether she will adequately protect the second amendment's right to bear arms and the fifth amendment property rights. statements she made at the hearing raise concerns that she will inappropriately create or expand rights under the constitution.

further, some of her cases raise questions about whether she will impose her personal policy decisions instead of those of the legislative branch or executive branch. at her confirmation hearings, judge sotomayor was questioned at length about her understanding of rights under the constitution, including the second and fifth amendments and the right to privacy and the rationale of her decisions in ricci, maloney and didden and other cases. she was also asked about how she views precedent, and how she applies it in cases before her. unfortunately, i wasn't satisfied with judge sotomayor's responses about her cases or her general understanding of rights under the u.s. constitution. moreover, i wasn't assured of judge sotomayor would disregard her strong personal sympathies and prejudices when ruling on hard cases dealing with the

important constitutional issues. for example, i wasn't persuaded by judge sotomayor's claim that she followed precedent in ricci, nor her explanation as to why she could dismiss such a significant case with absolutely no legal analysis. i was concerned with judge sotomayor's explanation of her decision in maloney, holding that the second amendment is not fundamental and her refusal at the hearing to affirm the americans have a right of self-defense. if maloney is upheld by the supreme court, the second amendment will not apply against state and local governments, thus permitting potentially unrestricted limitations on this important constitutional right. i was troubled with judge sotomayor's failure to understand that her decision in didden dramatically and inappropriately expands the

ability of state and local -- state, local and federal governments to seize private property and she mischaracterized the supreme court's holding in kelo. judge sotomayor's discussion of landmark supreme court cases and her own decision on the second circuit did not convince me that she understands the rights given to americans under the constitution or will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based upon personal preferences, nor was i persuaded that the judge will not allow those personal beliefs or preferences to steer her judicial methods and outcomes of cases. at her confirmation hearing almost two years -- two decades ago, then judge souter, or at his confirmation hearing, i want to refer to judge souter, speaking about filling vacuums in the law, this is something i brought up with her. that concept greatly worries me because courts should never fill

voids in the law left by congress. judge souter's decision on the supreme court, i believe, demonstrates that he does believe courts do indeed fill vacuums in the law, and in the only case of voting for a supreme court judge either by a republican or democrat, i regretted my vote to confirm him ever since. so i have asked several supreme court nominees about courts filling vacuums at their hearings. judge sotomayor's lukewarm answer left me with the same pit in my stomach that i've had with justice souter's rulings that i had hed to have cured with his retirement. and it reinforces my concerns with her hearing testimony cases and speeches. in conclusion, all judges must have a healthy respect for constitutional separation of powers and judicial restraint. all judges must be bound by the words of the constitution and legal precedent.

however, supreme court judges are in a very special position with respect to their decision making process. the supreme court has the final say on the law. justices on the supreme court have fewer constraints on their judging than judges on the district or appellate court. so it's critical that we ensure nominees to the supreme court will resist the temptation to mold the constitution to personal beliefs, as one witness testified at the hearing, the judicial restraint of the supreme court, justice is self-restraint. she's a remarkable woman. she's talented individual, woman of substance and personality, a trailblazer. there's no doubt of her intelligence, integrity or distinguished legal background. we're proud of those accomplishments. however, i don't believe that the judge possesses a critical

ingredient of supreme court justices, unfortunately i'm not convinced that judge sotomayor will be able to set aside her personal biases and prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner based upon the constitution. i'm not convinced that judge sotomayor will protect important constitutional rights, nor am i convinced that she will refrain from creating new rights under the constitution. i'm not convinced that judge sotomayor understands the proper role of a judge in our system of checks and balances, only time will tell which judge sotomayor will sit on the supreme court. is it the judge that proclaims that the court of appeals is where policy is made? is it the judge -- or is it the nominee who pledged fidelity to the law? is it the judge who disagreed with justice o'connor's statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately reach the same decision, or is it the nominee who rejected president

obama's empathy standard? only time will tell and i hope that i'm wrong on this vote, but i think based upon what i saw judge souter do and where she's coming from, i think i'm right by voting no. >> mr. chairman, i'll be brief. i do want to say a few words about judge sotomayor and about the hearing process we've just been through. first, i want to commend you and your staff for a remarkably well-run proceeding. i think anyone who saw the four days of hearings would agree that the process was scrupulously fair. everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they wanted to ask. they had the time they needed for follow-up questions and for follow-ups to those follow-ups and no stone was left unturned, even if the answers the judge gave weren't always what the questioner hoped to hear. what the public doesn't see is the work that is done behind the scenes to get us to that point. not just the setup of the room and all the complex preparations

that go into the smooth running of the hearing itself, but also the enormous effort to make all the background information that came to the committee available online virtually immediately, all of judge sotomayor's speeches and articles, over 100 letters and reports from people who know her, organizations that wish to express their views on her nomination, as well as all the materials received from the prldef organization in response to the committee's request. i think you set a new standard for transparency and public access to supreme court nomination proceedings and i truly want to commend you for that, and thank you for all you and your staff have done. it's been tremendous work. the scrutiny to be applied to a president's nominee to the supreme court is the highest of any nomination. the supreme court alone among other courts has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents and so i believe that anyone who sits on that court must not have a preset agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the

awesome power and responsibility of the court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of our citizens and that is the same standard i applied to the nominations of both chief justice roberts and justice alito. what we saw over four days of hearings on the nomination of judge sotomayor was a thoughtful, intelligent, and careful judge. a person committed to her craft and to the law, someone whose remarkable life story and varied experience will add diversity and perspective which the court sorely needs. not only will judge sotomayor become the first latina justice and only the third woman to serve on the court, but she will be the only justice who has served as a trial court judge and she will have more judicial experience at the outset of her service on the court than any of her colleagues did. there is no doubt she is highly qualified and i think we saw during those four days of hearings that she has an admirable judicial temperament

and demeanor that will serve her well on the court. judge sotomayor's record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the important role of the court in protecting civil liberties, even in a time of war. she sat on a second circuit panel that struck down portions of the national security letter statute that was so dramatically expanded by the patriot act. when i asked her how september 11th changed her view of the law, she gave the following answer. the constitution is a timeless document. it was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our country. it has protected us as a nation. it has inspired our survival. that doesn't change. and later when we discussed a case, she said a judge should never rule from fear. a judge should rule from the law and the constitution. those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the american people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch. at the same time, she appreciates the deference the judiciary must give to the legislature that seeks to solve

the problems facing the american people. i don't see in her record or in her public statements a burning desire to overturn precedent or to remake constitutional law in the image of her own personal preference and i certainly don't see any bias of any kind. i was also impressed with her record in statements during the hearing on judicial ethics. judge sotomayor seems to understand that the extraordinary power she will wield as a justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest. mr. chairman, all that being said, i do want to express a note of dissatisfaction not with you, certainly, or with my colleagues and not with judge sotomayor, but with a nominations process that i think fails to educate the senate or the public about the views of potential justices on the supreme court. in this regard, i completely associate myself with the remarks of my senior senator from wisconsin, senator kohl. i said before that i do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the supreme court has done in recent years

is the person from whom the american public most needs to hear. makes no sense to me that the current justices can hear future cases, notwithstanding the fact that we know their views on a legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion in a previous case that raised a similar issue, but nominees for the court can refuse to tell us what they think about that previous case under the theory that doing so would compromise their independence or their ability to keep an open mind in a future case. i remain unconvinced that the dodge that all nominees now use, i can't answer that question because the issue might come before me on the court, is justified. these hearings have become little more than theater, where senators try to ask clever questions and nominees try to come up with clever ways to respond without answering. this problem certainly did not start with these hearings or this nominee but perhaps it is inevitable. the chances of adopting a nominee who adopts this strategy is remote based on the history of nominations. nonetheless, i do not think it makes for meaningful advice and

consent. i cannot say that i learned everything about judge sonia sotomayor that i would have liked to have learned. what i did learn about her makes me believe that she will serve with distinction on the court and i should vote in favor of her confirmation. thank you, mr. chairman. he told me that his duties required him to be elsewhere, but he had a statement he once placed in the record he will be able to vote when that time comes. >> thank you. i live like to add my compliments to you for conducting the hearings, whatever shortcomings they may have about finding out about the nominee. you did a good job of giving us a chance to ask. i come to this a little bit differently. if you can tell it in my vote. i'm going to vote for the nominee i cannot disassociate myself, being a second term

senator. i really enjoy politics. it has been a great honor to represent people of south carolina and to have a say about things that matter in the country in a political forum. i enjoy travelling all around the country trying to help the senator mccain. everybody -- nobody feels -- a right is of real good about that. i feel good about the american people. i feel good about judge sotomayor. what i'm trying to do is recognize that we came paris close to damaging an institution to institution that is held this country together in difficult times. the courts have been all over the place like the american people have been all over the place.

sometimes they have different ideals. more times than not, the courts are a little bit of head of the politicians as to who we are. . . or politicians on some very important concepts as to who we are, and the filibusters that were going on a few years ago were historic in nature, and i think if carried out and keep repeating themselves, will, over time, drive good men and women away from wanting to become judges. we asked for the scrutiny that we asked for the scrutiny that we have as politicians, ads we run against each other and all the things that we say about each other. we have a chance to respond. but to be a judge is different. you know, the theory senator sessions espouses is true, the law should be a quiet place

where even the most unpopular can have a shot. no way could you win in the election but you might win in court, because there's something a little bit bigger going on in that courtroom than 50 plus 1. so this quiet place we call the law really concerns me that we're about to change it and make it just an extension of politics in another form. so that's why i'm happy with this hearing. there were no filibusters, and to my colleagues who voted no, i understand. i completely understand. to my colleagues who voted for justice roberts, i'm better understanding what you went through. leahy, feingold, kohl. you decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen. i am deciding to vote for a woman that i would not have chosen. and as the went on it got easier not harder for

me because all of us seem to have abandoned the senator obama test which would seem to be good for the judiciary and the country. can i no more understand her heart than she can understand mine and this empathy idea makes us all kind of dr. phils. i feel uncomfortable doing that. i really do. so i base my vote on qualifications, and i came away after the hearing believing that she was well qualified, that the american bar association gave her the highest rating anyone could receive, and that meant a lot to me and alito and roberts and it means a lot to me now, that she was competent, not just qualified, and it's not me saying that. it's what everybody who has worked with her has said, and she's of good character, so when i rejected the empathy heart standard and went back to what we used to do around here, i found that she was extremely well qualified, 17 years on the bench, 12 years as a circuit court of appeals judge, left of

center but certainly within the mainstream, and as to my good friend senator grassley she can be no worse than souter from our point of view, so there is not going to be a major shift in the balance of power here, but what she will do as a judge i think will be based on what she thinks is right and that's not me saying that or hoping that, that's based on a 12-year record where i haven't seen this activism that we all dread and should reject. and there's another story here. the speeches, the speeches did bug the hell out of me, not because i disagreed with what she was saying. she was a judge at the time she was giving the speeches, and she embraced some concepts that just really were unnerving, but you know what? how many of my speeches would unnerve people on the other side? probably almost all of them.

the speeches had to be put in context of her judicial record, and i do not want to set a standard here, mr. chairman, where people aspiring to be a judge will never have a thought, never take on an unpopular cause. the clients she represented i wouldn't have represented that side. would i have been on the other side, but that's okay, and i hope our democratic colleagues will remember that if a conservative republican gets back in the white house. it is okay to advocate a position that is different than we would advocate ourselves because good lawyering is required for a good country, and you want to reward good lawyers when you find them, whether you agree with them or not. so i took the speeches and her advocacy role and i put it up against her record, and i leave believing that she is well qualified, of good character and her record over a long period of time is within the mainstream. and the last thing i would like

to talk about is not the reason to vote for her or against her, but it is something to acknowledge. we're 200 something years old as a nation. this is the first latino woman in the history of the united states to be selected for the supreme court. now that is a big deal. i would not have chosen her, but i understand why president obama did. i gladly give her my vote because i think she meets the qualifications test that was used in scalia and ginsberg, and if she by being on the court will inspire young women, particular particularly latina women to seek a career in the law, that would be a good thing, and i believe she will. i wish her well.

america has changed for the better with her selection. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator graham, and senator schumer. >> thank you, and i want to add my compliments to you, mr. chairman, for the judicious way you've conducted these hearings, and i want to say to senator sessions i thought his questions were sharp but fair, and to all of my colleagues that way, i also want to thank senator graham for that moving and important speech that he just gave in favor of her nomination. mr. chairman, and one final thing, i'm sorry to be coming and going here. we have a democratic meeting of the finance committee to try to tie things down so i apologize to my colleagues for that. mr. chairman, i'm enormously proud to be able to cast my vote today in favor of the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. this is an historic day for

america. americans are familiar with the inspiring story that brought judge sotomayor from a bronx housing project through a prestigious legal education and now to a nomination to the highest court in the land. it is a great american story. it will inspire americans everywhere. americans of all races and creeds and colors to reach further and aim higher, and for that the country is already better off. judge sotomayor is a gifted jurist and dedicated public servant, not just an inspiring story. she's a judge with a 17-year record on the bench, more than 380 opinions on the appellate court alone, and yet the words that she was asked about most often during the hearings were these three, quote wise latina woman. to take a 17-year judicial career and sum it up in three words is unfair.

it's unfair to judge sotomayor. it's unfair to the supreme court. it's unfair to the american people. my colleagues did ask about a handful of cases, the new haven fire fighters case, the second amendment case, but they were unable to prove anything other than what we knew before the hearings. she follows precedent. in her courtroom, rule of law comes first. judge sotomayor's opinions speak much more clearly and loudly than snippets of speeches. her speeches, as she said, were to inspire and motivate. her opinions are to instruct and guide. as chief justice marshall said, quote, to say what the law is, unquote. and when we have so many opinions to review, it is troubling that colleagues seem to be looking for reasons outside of her record to try and posit that she is outside of the

mainstream. the court, even with such a large trove of opinions to examine hearings do matter. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were entitled to ask their questions. i was pleased to see that even the most difficult questions were asked and answered respectfully, but judge sotomayor's answers only emphasized what is abundantly clear from her lengthy record on the bench. she comes to the bench without arrogance and without an agenda. i have three tests for evaluating judicial nominees, excellence, moderation and diversity. judge sotomayor passes all three with flying colors. no one can seriously doubt her legal excellence, and i don't think anyone here does. on moderation i have a hard time understanding how anyone concludes that she is anything but moderate. in cases ranging from business to criminal law to immigration, she's squarely within the

mainstream. in her 17 years on the bench she has not produced even a stray thought that could be viewed as way outside the mainstream. finally, the diversity she will bring to the bench is not just cosmetic. it arises not only from her race and gender but also from her working class upbringing and her unique experiences, just as it did for other supreme court nominees such as justices alito and thomas who spoke movingly of their own backgrounds. if my colleagues cannot support a moderate pick like judge sotomayor, it simply suggests they will never support anyone nominated to the supreme court by president obama. she is thoughtful. she is distinguished. she is moderate. elections do matter. to think that the president would nominate someone who mirrors the beliefs of an extreme conservative and that is the only person who some of may

colleagues could vote for is perpl perplexing. so mr. chairman, the message from judge sotomayor's record comes through loud and clear. it's a message of supreme intelligence and moderation. there is no reason to look further than that, and that is why, among other reasons, i am so proud to vote for her today. >> thank you very much, senator schumer. thank you for introducing her before the committee. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues and as others have thanked the chairman and the ranking member fo the manner in which these hearings were conducted, judge sotomayor herself acknowledgesor nojd that she could not have received a fairer treatment before the committee, and it's

my hope that that will set the tone for hearings in the future, that perhaps somehow we have established a new standard of fairness that will guide both republicans and democrats as we consider future nominees from the bench. last week i made my -- cleared my intention to vote no on the confirmation of judge sotomayor to the united states supreme court, and i will do so for several reasons. first of all, judge some demonstrated that type of oriented -- decision-oriented results that has steered the supreme court in the wrong direction over the last years. decisions linked to the second amendment, an important provision of the bill of rights, not a trivial matter.

the cause, the right to private property and the right to just compensation and the assurance that private property will not be taken for anything by the government other than public use. and then there is the troubling new haven firefighters' case that others have spoken about. and it's not just the decision that the judge made without substantial evidence of disparate impact, it is the matter at that almost dismissively the judge refused to give what i believe was fair consideration of the firefighters' claims in a way that i hope that every federal judge would. second, many of judge sotomayor 's statements about judge include very radical ideas on the role of a judge in our society. some have said we cannot consider does. but to consider only her judicial record and not other statements she has made about

how she has just an office, i think is an incomplete picture. she has said that there is no neutrality in the law. she has said that legal uncertainty is a good thing because it allows judges to change the law and to make policy. she said that for a lot can get the "creative juices flowing," as they interpret the united states constitution. and that ethnicity and gender could have an impact on a judge's impact -- decision making. i will say that those are hard to square with her statement that her sole standard is the judge's fidelity to ala. -- to the law. judge is fidelity to the law by that i think demonstrates the conundrum with which many of us are left.

this committee gave judge sotomayor the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind some of her most controversial decisions as well as some of her public statements about judging and to allow her to put that into an appropriate context, but i don't believe she cleared up the confusion over what kind of justice she would be because i have no confidence which judge sonia sotomayor we will see on the supreme court i will vote against the nomination. the stakes are simply too high to vote to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from the bench. i know many senators take the position that judge sotomayor will not address legal questions from a liberal activist perspective, and i hope they are right. i also hope that her testimony before this committee represents a teaching moment, a moment that defines our consensus on what the proper role of a judge should be. in the past we seem to have had

very heated disagreements about judicial philosophy and judicial activism. we've debated original understanding versus an evolving constitution. yet i think a remarkable thing happened during the course of judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. we seem to have agreed that judges should interpret the law, not make the law. we seem to agree that judges should rely upon the original intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution, not on foreign law or international law. we seem to agree that judges should apply the law faithfully and not move the law in one direction or another based on their own policy preferences, and, yes, we agreed that judges should be impartial and not pick winners and losers based on some subjective empathy standard or whatever is in the judge's heart. mr. chairman, i think we've come remarkably close to embracing

the hamiltonian standard in federalist 78 where he called the judiciary the least dangerous branch having neither force nor will, merely judgment. if that is in fact the case, then i think we will have accomplished much in the course of this confirmation process. i for one would find that consensus encouraging. we've defined where the judicial mainstream is, and we've made clear that radical views on judging have no place on the federal bench, and we've set expectations i believe for future nominees. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. thank you, senator cornyn. and senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. a few weeks ago my colleague and friend senator al franken came to my office the day after he was sworn in. we talked about his new role in the united states senate and some of the challenges he'd already faced, and he talked

about the first three votes that he cast as a united states senator. i tried to remember the first three votes i cast as a united states senator. i couldn't. after you've served in the house and senate for a period of time you come to realize that you have to be reminded on some of these votes, but there are some votes that you will remember for a lifetime. one of them is a vote on would our nation should go to war. that is a type of vote that you'll always remember. it's one of the most important decisions we make, and so is this decision because we're here asked to judge whether a man or a woman should be appointed for life to sever on the united states supreme court. the court that defines our personal rights to privacy, decides the restrictions that can be placed on the most personal aspects of our lives and our freedom. the supreme court decides the rights of workers, consumers, immigrants and discrimination victims. the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws, to protect our civil

rights and our environment. they decide what checks will govern the executive branch in war and in peace. because these issues are so important, we obviously need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, proper judicial temperament and a commitment to impartial justice. in the 220-year history of the united states, 110 supreme court justices have served under our constitution. 106 of them have been white males. we have had two women justices and two african-americans. that's why this is such an historic moment because president obama's nomination, sonia sotomayor, is indeed ground -- breaking. in life and in our nation, if you want to be the first, you have to be the best. sonia sotomayor's resume i think meets that standard. when you take a look at her life, her splendid life story,

you may not be able to see it as some of us have seen it from this side of the table. we sat there during the course of this hearing as judge sotomayor told her life story, and i spent more time watching her mother than watching her. her mom who nodded as judge sotomayor told that story of growing up in public housing, losing her father when she was 9 years old, struggling to succeed against adversity and illness of reaching the pinnacle of success and academic achievement rat princeton and the same at yale law school, the serving as a prosecutor, going on to be selected by president george herbert walker bush to serve in the federal judiciary and then promoted by president bill clinton, a rare occurrence that someone receives bipartisan support for their judicial service which she had, and each time as those facts are recounted i watched her mother

nodding, recalling what her daughter had achieved. what a great story it is for america, and what a great story it is that president obama would give us a chance to consider judge sotomayor to serve as the first hispanic woman on the united states supreme court. for many who oppose judge sotomayor, her life achievements and her judicial record are just not good enough. after poring over 3,000 court decisions and hundreds of her speeches, judge sotomayor's critics focused their opposition primarily, not exclusively, but primarily on one case, the ricci case, and on one sentence from one speech. i hope someone was keeping track of how many times those three words wise latina woman were quoted during the course of this hearing. senator after senator asked her what did you really, really, really mean with those three words over and over again.

we are senators who live in a world of decisions and votes every day, and we understand when our decisions and votes are questioned and challenged often in an unfair fashion. if we vote in a way that's controversial, we ask that people be fair and judge us on our life's work, not on a single vote. it's a standard we ask for ourselves but obviously for some it's not a standard they would give judge sotomayor when it comes to her decisions. we also live in a world of senators of revised and extended remarks, jokes that flop and verbal gaffs. many want to condemn sonia sotomayor for otherwise latina remark that she conceded was a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i listened carefully to what she had to say, and i noted at the end of the day that she had received the highest possible rating from the american bar

association which interviewed 500 judges and practitioners in order to assess her integrity, competence and temperament, the highest possible rating. in my state of illinois the conservative "shik trchicago tr said this of her testimony. in four days of testimony under often intense questioning, judge sotomayor handled herself with grace and patience. she displayed a thorough knowledge of case law and appreciation of her critics' concern. the result was to reinforce a strong case that she will make a good supreme court justice and deserves senate approval. a lot has been said about the issue of empathy and this question of the wise latina woman. i pointed out when i asked judge sotomayor that the wise latina speech contains a line that her critics didn't often quote, and that line judge sotomayor noted in the same speech that it was

nine white male justices on the supreme court who unanimously handed down "brown versus board of education" and other cases upholding sex and race discrimination. judge sotomayor made it clear at her hearing that she believes that no single race or gender has a monopoly on good judgment. for some of my colleagues sonia sotomayor's statements under oath are not good enough. i would hope that senators would be wise enough themselves to look at judge sotomayor's long record on the bench and not on one line in one speech taken out of context. now let's be honest. a great deal of this debate is about diversity. why do we seek diversity when it comes to appointments to the federal bench? first, we are a diverse nation. second, we want every american to believe they have an equal opportunity to succeed and lead, but we also want every american,

black, white and brown, male and female, to know that our system of government is fair. we want all americans to look at our congress and our courts and feel their leaders can identify with the diversity of life experience in this great diverse nation. does anyone really believe that there is a clear objective answer in every case that comes before the supreme court, that precedent is so clear and the law is so clear? well, if they do, try to explain why one-third of all the rules of that court in the past term were decided by a 5-4 vote. does anyone really believe the supreme court's recent strip search case would have come out the same way if justice ginsberg, the only woman on the court at this moment, hadn't helped her eight male colleagues understand what it's like for a 13-year-old girl to be treated in such a humiliating fashion? does anyone really believe that women judges haven't helped their male colleagues understand the realities of sex

discrimination and sex harassment in a workplace? study after study has shown that men and women on the bench sometimes rule differently in discrimination cases. this doesn't mean their rules are based on personal bias. it simply acknowledges that americans see the world through a prism of varied experiences and perspectives. our supreme court justices should possess an equally rich and wide field of vision as they interpret the facts and the law. criticizing judge sotomayor for recognizing this reality is unfair. mr. chairman, something has happened since we concluded the hearings which is unusual. a major lobby group in washington, d.c., the national rifle association, has for the first time notified their members and colleagues that this is going to be on the scorecard. the gun lobby, the national rifle association, has come out in opposition to judge sotomayor. i believe it's the first time that they have ever taken a position on a supreme court justice. i listened to her testimony on the maloney case.

most of the criticism of her on this issue has focused on that case, but in that case she came to the exact same conclusion as a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit based in my home state of illinois which featured two of our most conservative icons on the federal bench, frank easterbrook and richard posner. they concluded that only the supreme court, not appellate courts, can overrule century-old supreme court precedents on whether the second amendment right to bear arms applies to the cities. i realize the national rifle association and senate allies don't like that ruling. they apparently wanted judge sotomayor to do what the ninth circuit did and overrule supreme court precedent but in the maloney case judge sotomayor did what an appellate court should do and she followed the law. the sotomayor nomination is the third supreme court nomination i voted on in 12 and a half years i've served in the senate because the stakes are so high i believe supreme court nominees carry the burden of proof when

they come before the senate. they must prove they are worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. judge sotomayor has met and exceeded this burden. america will be well served when judge sotomayor becomes justice sotomayor and i enthusiastically support her nomination. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to figure out how to catch -- couch my words since i've just been condemned because i'm the -- the basis of my vote might not be on something that senator durbin would think to be appropriate. i would mention that the ninth circuit ruled the opposite of your circuit, senator durbin on the second amendment, and i would also note for the record that the very person on our side that questioned surge sotomayor on otherwise latina comment was the very member that's going to be voting for her. he had more questions of her

than anyone on our side on that regard, so i think it's somewhat unfair to characterize us with a broad brush. @ the great disturbance that we had is that we cannot get answers in these hearings. i believe what we say as judges truly does come from our hearts. most of her speak -- speeches were before teaching moments. i believe that she believed in what she was saying. i also believe that she has great credit, that she has not allowed her personal beliefs to influence her judgments. but the dissidents that i came away with it what you believe,

you ought to stand up and that end and then stay -- and then said it is still be a great judge. but the two questions, which she she was about foreign law asked, one, about foreign law and her outside very critical very negative statements about justices scalia and thomas and then -- and then to walk away from that saying that she didn't say that is just flat not accurate, and then also to finally come to a point recognizing the supreme court justices' job is not to think about what the rest of the world thinks about us. their job is to interpret the constitution and to use the statutes and our constitution and the facts. i think she is one impressive individual, and i thoroughly enjoyed her. i like her a lot, but that's not

good enough for me, and it doesn't have anything to do with other than whether or not i believe with confidence, with confidence, that she has an understanding of the second amendment, the five-day amendment, the 14th amendment and the 4th amendment, and although i will have a complete written statement for the record, she is going to be on the court for life. they get to change it, and we all know the major instances and shifts in this country that have taken about when they have done so, so i go back to what senator cole said when we started out. we need to change the rules for the hearings. we need to let judges really know, let us know what they think but also sell us on the fact that they in fact are impartial dividers of the truth, regardless of what they think.

that's the characteristic of a great judge is that their personal thoughts don't enter, that they take the facts, all of the facts and decide what the ruling will be on the basis of that and that only. to have something other than that on the supreme court, which i agree on both sides of the aisle has happened, hurts us in the long run, so i -- i align myself with the comments of senators feingold and cole in hoping that future hearings, although i think it was a remarkable hearing. the chairman did a great job, and i think the american people got to see a great deal of this very fine woman. i regret that i cannot vote for her, and i can't vote for her not because she's a latina woman, and i can't vote for her because she has said all those things. i can't vote for her because she wouldn't defend what she said and stand up and say i really believe this, but i can still be

a great judge anyway, because i will never let that interfere with my judgment, and that's what i was looking for, and it wasn't there. with that i yield. >> senator cardin. >> well, mr. chairman, first, let me observe, this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court justice, and i just want to thank you, mr. chairman, chairman leahy, for the manner in which he has conducted this hearing. i want to thank senator sessions for the fairness in which he worked with our chairman so that each one of us would have the opportunity to ask as many questions as we want to get all the information. i might point out i've been told by staff that there were 17 questions asked on a wise latina, so we not only compliment judge sotomayor for her patience and i want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for their

patience in allowing each of us to pursue the information we thought that was relevant in evaluating judge sotomayor's qualifications to serve on the supreme court of the united states. i believe judge sotomayor's background and her professional accomplishments will add strength, balance and leadership to the supreme court. her personal story that we've heard about being part of an immigrant family from puerto rico, the fact that she received a scholarship to be able to attend college is an inspirational story about success in our country. we know of her professional background as a prosecutor, a trial judge and appellate judge, having more judicial experience than any nominee to the supreme court in 100 years. her command of legal precedent and her ability to challenge attorneys in their legal arguments will bode well to reach the right decisions in the

supreme court of the united states. her leadership ability in forging consensus among the judges in the second circuit will be a talent that i think will be very helpful in the supreme court of the united states. she is mainstream in her judicial decisions and opinions. with a correct sense of the role of a judge to decide a case based on sound legal precedent and the facts of the case giving due deference to the congress of the united states. she has a record of understanding the constitution and the bill of rights as a timeless document, able to protect individual rights against the abuses of power, applying these protections to contemporary challenges. she follows precedent to advance individual rights. i get -- you get confidence that she will reach the right decisions for the right reasons

not only based upon her response to our questions, and she answered every one of our questions, but in reviewing her decisions and her opinions. that's where i think we should spend most of our attention. so let me just mention a few. i have confidence that she will follow the protections that congress has passed in protecting our environment, the river keeper case gives me that confidence. i have confidence that she understands the importance of freedom of speech in the decision that she reached in baptist versus giuliani. the speech there was repugnant. all of us find repugnant, but she understands the importance of the constitutional protect n protections. i have confidence that she will pursue freedom of religion. the "ford versus mcguinnes" case where she protected the rights of religious freedom for a minority, whose religious practice is not as well known by the majority in our population. she protected the civil rights

of americans in equal opportunity and racial justice. he with the gant case where she did that in our schools, protecting the rights of an african-american. the boykin case where she protected the rights in housing matters which are very important today. we know that there is predatory practices against minorities in our community. i have confidence that she understands those concerns. i was particularly impressed by her commitment on voting rights in response to my question acknowledging that this is a fundamental right. she showed in the hayden case a deference for following congress and protecting voting rights. it's going to be particularly important as we look at the voting rights act, and she has shown an understanding of privacy rights. now here we don't have court cases that we can look at, but her response to our questions and her background give me confidence that she will respect legal precedent and advance privacy in the 21st century. as i said in the beginning, mr. chairman, this is my first

opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a preme court nominee. three years ago i told the people of maryland how i would judge judicial nominations, by their experience, their temperament and their understanding of the constitution of the united states. for all these reasons i will vote for the confirmation of judge sotomayor to be justice southior. >> thank you very much, senator cardin. i appreciate that. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you for your wise and fair leadership of these confirmation proceedings. i also thank the ranking member for his fairness and courtesy throughout the proceedings. i will be proud to vote in support of judge sotomayor's confirmation to the united states supreme court. i appreciate, as i know the chairman and others do, her background as a prosecutor, and i believe her non-conversion 17-year record as a federal

judge makes clear that she's dedicated to the rule of law, has a proper judicial temperament and gives every party before her a fair hearing. i also believe the unequivocal pledge that judge sotomayor gave me, that she will respect the role of congress as representative of the american people, that she will decide cases based on the law and the facts, that she will not pre-judge any case but listen to every party that comes before her, and that she will respect precedent and limit herself to the issues that the court must decide. in short, that she will use the broad discretion of a supreme court justice wisely. she promised that, and i take her at her word. mr. chairman, i think we are witness here to an effort to define justice in america in alignment with a particular point of view.

my colleagues ren titled to their point of view. they are entitled to their point of view about guns. they are entitled to their point of view about property rights. they are entitled to their point of view about other issues. what i resist is any effort to define that point of view as a judicial norm against which any other point of view is to be seen as an aberration, as biases and prejudices to use one quotation. in this case i further believe that their definition of justice in america, their definition, is just plain wrong, both as history and as justice. in particular i do not wish to force as the new judicial norm the sort of judges who, to paraphrase a recent article on the supreme court, in every major case vote for the corporation against the individual, for the government against the criminal defendant

and for the executive branch against the legislature. i do not wish judges without empathy who will ignore the long and proud history of the courtroom as the last stand for many beleaguered americans where they can get fearless justice even when all of the forces of politics, of proper opinion and of corporate power may be a raid against them. with judges willing to provide that fearless justice, even if it completely upsets the status quo. i would add that i find no fault in judges who won't as the price of entry to the court commit to expanding our newly minted individual right to own guns, a right that no supreme court for 220 years had previously noticed and that was created in a 5-4 decision by a divided court.

so i will with pride support justice sotomayor's nomination. it is an honor to serve on this committee and to vote for such a talented and exceptional person. we all realize that judge sotomayor will be an historic justice, but i think we can also expect that most important she will be an excellent justice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. i appreciate the comments and senator kaufman. no, senator klobuchar. i apologize, former prosecutor before she came here as was senator whitehouse. please go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. charges and i wanted to thank you and the ranking member for holding such a civil and dignified hearing. i had a few people say that it got boring at times, and maybe that is a tribute to the fact that it was a civil and dignified hearing. like many of my colleagues, i have been so impressed by judge sotomayor.

like senator durbin i most remember her mother sitting behind her, that mother who when the father died at age 9, judge sotomayor was raised by that mother who had hardly any money and nurse, saved all the money just to buy their family incyclopedia britanicas and when you watch that family and brothers it reminded you that judge sotomayor knows the law and she knows the constitution, but immediately after law school she became a prosecutor. that would forever shape how she views the law. i had interviewed -- interacted with victims of crime and you see what it does to individual people and communities. it is not just an abstract subject, a book in your basement. ec hubble law has a real impact on the lives of real people. judge sotomayor's experience

shows that she has one of my criteria. i am looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that loss in the criminal justice system have on real people's lives. in addition to her work as a prosecutor, we learned a lot about her long record as a judge. she came into this as a nominee with more experience than any nominee in a hundred years. i believe that my colleagues on the committee are entitled to oppose judge sotomayor's nomination if they wish. i do get concerned when people returned again and again and again to wait " to in some speeches. again and again to a quote in so much speeches, and i was so pleased that senator graham, my colleague from south carolina, put those speeches in some context. you have to look at her whole experience. you have to look at her 17 years

as a judge. you have to look at the fairness that she brings to this job. in the words of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but are you not entitled to your own facts, and in this case the facts are her judicial. the nominee was repeatedly questioned about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judging. she was questioned for hours. she was questioned for days, but, again, the facts don't support this kind of bias. in race discrimination cases, for example, judge sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81% of the time. her decisions are supported by precedent. when she served on panels with republican-appointed judges, she agreed with them 95% of the time. i appreciated senator durbin's discussion of the maloney case as i agree with the hellor case but the heller case specifically left open the case that judge sotomayor was confronted with in the maloney case, and, in fact,

the decision that she and her colleagues came to was the same decision that that three-judge panel on the seventh circuit came to which conclude judge eastabrook and the law professor at the university of chicago who was there when i was there and they are not rabid liberals and i'm just wondering if people would be using that same case against them if they were before us today as was used against judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues sass a district court judge and sentenced white collar criminals to six months in prison 48% of the time whereas her other colleagues did so 34%ves time and in drug cases 85.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least six months from judge sotomayor compared with only 79% in her colleagues' case. the nominee was questioned repeatedly about issues ranging from the death penalty to use of foreign law, even though she

rejected a defendant's challenge to the death penalty in the one death penalty case that she considered as a district court judge, and even though she has never cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the united states constitution. again, the facts are in her judicial. she received a unanimous positive rating from the aba? why, because she is a thorough judge who bases her decisions on the facts. she was supported by prosecutors across the country and by police across the country. why? because they looked at her record, and they trusted her decision-making. i think just about everything in the nominee's professional record is a fair game to consider and that's why i believe that this was a civil and dignified hearing, but that said when people focus on a few items in a few speeches you have to wonder do a few statements that someone made in an entire career trump 17 years of modest,

reasoned, careful judicial decision-makeing? there is one other point that i wanted to address that hasn't been addressed and that's because it irritated me, and that was the issues that were raised about the stories and comments mostly anonymous that questioned judge sotomayor's judicial temperament. according to one news story about this topic judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and kurt with lawyers who were were not prepared to answer them. well, where i come from, asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. as a lawyer you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can. when justice ginsberg was asked about these anonymous comments regarding judge sotomayor's temperament recently, she rhetorically asked has anybody watched scalia or breyer up on

the bench? surely we've come to a point in this country where we can appoint as many rough to the point female judges as we've confirmed rough to the point male judges. in short, mr. chairman, i'm proud to support judge sotomayor's nomination, and i believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law, and she knows the constitution, but she knows america, too. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator klobuchar, and next senator kaufman. >> mr. chairman, i would like to begin by others have commended you and the ranking member on running an excellent hearing, a fair hearing. >> thank you. >> and everyone had a chance to speak. everyone had a chance to ask questions, and it was just very, very well-run. >> thank you. >> judge sotomayor is an outstanding nom she. she has the superior intellect, broad experience, superb judge and unquestioned integrity. she would be a terrific choice at any time, but given our

current economic crisis and the likely role of the court in reviewing legislative responses to that crisis i submit that she's the ideal nominee at this time. one thing we've learned over the last two years is that we must reform our financial markets. judge sotomayor's extensive experience as a commercial litigator, business lawyer, judge in base cases and the passion for the law that she has demonstrated throughout her career suggests that she will be a leader on the court in business and regulatory issues at a time when such leadership is essential. as i said, she will be an excellent nominee and especially at this time. mr. chairman, would i also like to have my statement of july 24th i made on the floor entered into the record of this meeting. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> next is senator specter who is former chairman of this committee and one of the most knowledgeable lawyers in the senate. senator specter.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i will vote to confirm judge sotomayor. she brought to the confirmation proceedings an extraordinary record, none better on the 11 i've participated in or non-better than any i've reviewed. pretty tough to be suma cum laude at princeton and pretty tough to make the yale law school admission, even tougher to become a member of the yale law review. then an outstanding prosecutor and the dean of american prosecutors, d.a. morgenthau came to testify about how she good she was, an extraordinary record professionally, private practice, distinguished record on the bench, and those

qualifications add up to about an a-plus. the krit simpz made of her on the wise latina woman i thought were not only ill-founded but i appreciated the comment. when you consider that women were not given the right to vote until 1920 and when you consider, may the record show a smile from senator feinstein, when you consider -- when you consider that there are still a tremendous glass ceiling, when you consider lily ledbetter and you go on and on and on about the appropriateness of women standing up for women. if a woman doesn't stand up for women i wouldn't think much of her, and -- and senator durbin

had a poetic sequence of questions about women's insights that are sdincht from men's insights, and believe me as a senator who came here with one come senator, senator kassebaum and the second was added, it's a very different place today with 17 women and a much better place, and there was a book out "nine women and growing why the "and now it's 17 that will grow even more to the benefit of this institution, and when she refers to being a latino, it's a little ethnic pride. i think that's a pretty healthy thing to have a little ethnic pride. so i not only found -- i didn't find fault with a wise latina woman i thought it was commendable, and then the

business of empathy. there is no doubt about the history of the constitution in our country responding to empat empathy. the life of the law section appearance, not logic, core de la osa and palko, shifting values, plessy versus ferguson, 1896, separate but equal, warren versus board of education, shifting values at time and that's what makes this country so great. one grave concern or the one regret i have about judge sotomayor's testimony was her extreme caution, just extreme caution, and i don't know if it was her decision or if it was -- if that attitude was promoted by

her advisers, but there's no doubt well publicized that in the white house there are so-called murder boards where the nominees are prepared, and that's fine. they ought to be prepared, but the hearings did not produce a whole lot about what judge sotomayor's philosophy is or ideology. to pick a couple of words or her approach, if you see me dab at my eyes, i'm not -- i'm not sad, it's chemotherapy and i've made the clean "x" industry wealthy. i'm glad to say i'm fit as a fiddle and ready for re-election, not infirmed in any way, just a little -- just a little consequence of

chemotherapy, but i make that comment because people wonder about it. there has grown up a myth about judge bork's confirmation hearing, and the myth is that he was porked. they have turned into a verb or maybe it's a par tis pal, i'm not sure what form it is, except that i know it's not true. judge bork answered a great many questions because of his writings and because of his background. he believed in original intent, and he did not believe that the equal protection clause applied beyond, as he put it, race and ethnicity, did not apply to women, did not apply to disabled, did not apply to a litany of supreme court decisions which have expanded equal protections to the benefit of this country. he did not believe in due

process of law. he did not believe that it was appropriate to incorporate the ten amendments or a number of the ten amendments to apply to the states because of the due process clause. when i asked him how he would have desegregated the district of columbia schools in the context where equal protection applied only to states, "brown versus board of education, request" there was a champion case "bowling versus sharp" of the d.c. schools and the supreme court had decided that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporated equal protection which then made it apply to d.c. when i asked him how he would desegregate the d.c. schools, you know what his answer was? i want a recess, and he came back and he talked about freedom

of association, so judge bork wrote about "hess versus indiana" as an obscenity case and testified about it as a free speech case. judge bork didn't know he did not know his own record. after justice kelly at hansard, a center and i discussed having a resolution in the ascendant -- in the senate to set a standard. you cannot set a standard. you have to take your chances. if the nominee could reject answering of questions, it might set town. but that is not going happen. when asked judge sotomayor if she agreed with chief justice roberts