take more cases, it seemed like that was the softest softball that defined. after i cited the cestus stake, 451 cases in eight -- 1986. when century later, 161 with opinions. in the 2007 term, up 57 cases. it was time we televise the supreme court said that the american people could see what they do not do. what they do not do. i will not elaborate upon that because i have done that in the past. . because i've done that in the past. on "roe v. wade" there are a lot of people in america looking for a little assurance on "roe v. wade." well, i'm pretty confident how judge sotomayor will decide the

issue of a woman's right to choose, but not because of anything she testified to, and anything she testified to, and you don't have to make case a super precedent but you can say when the court has had 38 occasions to reverse "roe" and hasn't done so that that's a weighty factor and saying it's a weighty factor is well within the range of the generalizations. and i could -- i could enumerate quite a number of other questions i asked her and asking a nominee questions is hard. we all have a very limited amount of time, and i didn't like interrupting her a little. there's been some commentary on that. a couple of people said that it was not appropriate since she wasn't answering the questions. and a lot of questions were being asked to ask the questions. i think these nomination

proceedings are really very good for the country, very important to educate the country and remind the supreme court that when they have standards like proportionate and what's the other half of proportionate, proportionate and whatever -- can't remember, proportionate congruent, thank you, seem. did you say so, senator sessions? i applaud you. >> you taught me that phrase. >> and when you have chief justice roberts saying that he's not going to disagree with congress on finding the facts and then you have a voting rights case and all indications are that he does, those are matters to be pointed out. just one other comment about the fire fighters case. judge sotomayor's opponents thought they had her on that, but the critical question was did the firefighters think she did anything about act in good

faith. and both of them said they did not. so while there are concerns about the way she's answered the questions, we've got a lot to judge her on aside from her testimony. 17 years on the bench tell us enough to know that she is well qualified for the job. and it is my hope and i expressed it to her and got no response again, that she would run a hot advocacy role in the conference room like she has run a hot court and that her litigator background would lead her to a challenge. other justices in the conference room because there's no question about about the platte tuds we say about interpreting the constitution and statutes the supreme court makes a lot of

laws. they make a lot of laws and we have to trust their values that they are within the mainstream and within the bounds of what this country has stood for and should stand for in the future. i vote aye. thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much. and senator franken. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, i want to join my colleagues in thanking you and the ranking member in the way you've conducted this hearing. i'm going to speak more about this on the senate floor so i'll keep my remarks brief. the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor comes at the critical moment for the supreme court, the current supreme court has consistently struck down and questioned long-standing critical protections for americans. and i'm talking about individual rights, individual protections,

individual liberties. i think some of my colleagues said this best. as senator feinstein mentioned, this supreme court ended a 30-year precedent stating that any measure regulating a woman's right to choose must always protect the health of the woman. as senator cardinand specter said, this supreme court came close to overturning critical portions of the voting rights act. the court did this despite the express powers that congress was granted under the 15th amendment to enact this law. and despite the fact that this body has reauthorized these measures four times, most pre t recently four years ago by a vote of 98-0. as the senators mentioned, the supreme court reversed 100-year

ban on price fixing under sherman act. this shifts the burden to consumers and small businesses to show price fixing. today thanks to this ruling a small business owner can't just show price fixing has occurred. he or she has to prove through a complex economic analysis that it will hurt competition. this is the same supreme court that said that older workers don't have the same rights in the workplace as minorities or women that made it harder to sue for age discrimination in the workplace, now harder, if not practically impossible for an older worker to sue an employee who fired him or her because her pension was about to increase dramatically in value. this is the same supreme court that stands poised to overturn another 100-year principal the

act of 1907, that corporations should not be spending money in our election campaigns. not in donations, ads, anything. the court upheld this principle in 2003 when it upheld mccain fine gold and the court considered to constitutionality of the provision it upheld six years ago. this is judicial activisactivis. this is a court that is more than willing to overturn congress to achieve its own agenda of what is right. and in this context, in these times, a vote for judge sotomayor is a vote against judicial activism. it's true as a lawyer judge

sotomayor was an advocate for the latino community. she was a dedicated advocate. but as my friend and colleague senator graham noted, on the floor of the senate, judge sotomayor's record, her record is not that of a judicial activist or that of an advocate for any individual or interest group. over 17 years and in 3,000 cases judge sotomayor has proven herself to be an objective and partial jurist, a fair judge, a fair judge. in her life, judge sotomayor has overcome a lot. more than most people who accomplished as much as she has. but her record alone, her record alone is reason enough to vote for her. i am proud to be her supporter.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will put in the record many letters of endorsement for judge sotomayor we've received from law enforcement groups, current former democratic and republican officials, civil rights groups, americans of all backgrounds, including 32 letters received since the -- since the hearing. as consent that they be in the record without objection they will be. i do want to note, one, i appreciate the comments made by senators both sides of th aisle complimenting senator session and myself for holding the hearing. we had a lot of discussions prior to the hearing that i told him i was going to make sure that everybody had asked whatever question they want, give as much time as they want, whether repetitious or not. and i thnk we did that. we'll have a role call vote on

this in just a moment. then after that, please ask everybody to stay for another couple of minutes or be motioned to take up the floor, other nominees and then have a voice call. the clerk will call the role of the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be justice of the u.s. supreme court. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. franken. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. graham. >> aye. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy.

>> aye. >> 13 yays six nays. >> the nominee has been approved by the committee. the name will be sent to the post senate. christopher schroder and mitchell, those four nominees be considered on bunk without objection, those in favor, of those four nominations, say aye. >> aye. >> the aye appear to have it. we have 15 senators in the room. >> mr. chairman, i think there's some concern about some of the nominees but i think our members are committed to go forward. >> i appreciate that.

>> please stand in recess. next next week, the full senate will face -- >> next week, the full senate will face the vote for sonya sotomayor. >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, president obama takes questions on health care reform at a town hall meeting hosted by

aarp. after that, members of the u.s. house talk about changes to the health care system. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, we will focus on health care legislation. our first guest is jack the kucinich. after that, we will stick with congressman roy blunt. and then it will be house democrat franklin alo pallone. washington journal begins each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with your calls in the day's news here on c-span. now, president obama takes questions on health care from members of aarp, an advocacy group for older people. this is about an hour.

>> we are joined today by barack obama. we also have been any chin hansen. anytime you want to as the question to the president or the other panelists, telstar 3 on your phone. -- dial *3 on your phone. let's hear from jennie chin hanson.

[applause] >> thank you, mike. mr. president, it is wonderful they could join us for this meeting. i recognize that there is no greater priority than reforming our health care system. many of the stories of our members are becoming too commonplace. for some, scarfing health-care costs have forced them into bankruptcy. for other, losing a job loses their health-care coverage which puts them at risk. for those who are on medicare, they have told us how the part be done a whole is hurting them. for some of them, the cost is so high that they stopped taking

their medications completely. as our audience will tell you, people who have insurance coverage are paying more and oftentimes getting less. there needs are necessary to be addressed. many more expressing confusion, skepticism, and even fear about what congress has been doing on health care reform legislation. our members have been clear about what they want. they have told us that, if they're happy with their health care coverage and their doctor, that would like to keep it that way, period. those between 60 and 64, who have had trouble getting coverage, say that they're sick and tired that they cannot get coverage because of their age or because of pre-existing conditions. we have heard questions in other

town halls but we have posted, like are they going to cut medicare? will their ration their care so that -- because of mine -- will they rationale or cared because of my age? in short, what does this mean to me, my family, and my parents? mr. president, this is your chance to answer some of those questions. you know that our members are listening. the nation's health-care system is in need of positive change and, with your leadership, we look forward to working together with you and creating a health care system that works for everyone. with that, i want to turn to our ceo. [applause] >> thank you, jenny, formal introduction. mr. president, a warm welcome to

aarp. we're pleased to the you could join us today and get a chance to listen to our members and to answer their questions. again, thank you very much. i also want to welcome all of you who are here on the phones and on the web and here in the audience today to this teletownhall with president barack obama. i want to thank you for joining us. this is another way that aarp is reaching out to hear what you have to say about health care reform. there is a lot of misinformation about health care reform even on what aarp stands for and what aarp supports. this town hall as part of an ongoing effort to debunk the myth and provide accurate information for you and for our members were on the phones and on the web. i want to make it clear that aarp has not endorsed any

particular bill, any of the bills that are being circulated around congress today and debated in congress today. we continue to work with the members on both sides of the aisle and we continue to work with the administration to achieve what is right for health care reform. today, we want to hear from you, your stories, your concerns, your dreams. tell us about the challenges that you face, whether it is falling into the infamous donut hole or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. what we believe that aarp is that all americans should have affordable health care choices. our current system costs too much, wastes too much, makes too many mistakes, and gives us to little value of our dollar back. as troubling as that sounds, if

we do not act, it will only get worse. it will only get worse. we are here to make sure that you get a chance to hear the answers to your questions. in fact, across the country, there are too many people who lack of affordable, quality health care. this is closing the door to their american dreams. we have, right now, a historic opportunity to change that, to change their destiny. we have a chance for all americans to have affordable health care, to lower drug costs, to strengthen medicare, to strengthen quality and the way care is delivered and to gain real access to long-term care. during the august recess, you will find that members of congress will be back in their districts, back in their home states, and they're anxious to hear from you. this is the time that your voice can make a difference. this is the time that you can

tell how much we need health care reform. it is the time to act. you can make a difference. together, we can make sure that every american has access to affordable, quality health care. that is for our members and for generations to come. now have the distinct honor to introduce the president of the united states mr. barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. >i want to thank the many and

very for their extraordinary leadership. 44 years ago today, when i was almost four years old, after years of effort, congress finally -- the promise of the nation that our senior citizens would never go without health care. it has of seniors live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. it has enhanced their financial security and give us -- and given us all the peace of mind to know that there will be health care available for this when we are in our golden years. today, we have so many dedicated doctors and nurses and so many providers who offer excellent care. we want to make sure that all of their seniors and older people can access that care. we also know that, right now, we have a problem. it is the spiralling cost of

health care in america today. as costs ballooned, so does medicare's budget. within a decade, the medicare trust fund will be in the red. i want to be clear. i do not want to do anything that will stop you from getting the care you need. and i will not. you know and i know that, right now, we spend a lot of money in their health care system that does not do a thing to improve people's health. and that has to stop. we have to get a better bang for our health care dollar. that is why i want to start by taking a new approach that emphasizes prevention and wellness instead of just spending billions of dollars on costly treatments worwhen people get sick. they can use it on things for people to stay well, let mammograms, immunizations, measures that will save us billions of dollars in future medical costs.

we're also working on computerized medical records. right now, to foot -- right now to many folks take the same tests over and over and over again because there providers cannot access previous results. they don't have access to their medical history. electronic medical records will help that. we also want to start rewarding doctors for quality, not just for quantity of care that they provide. instead of rewarding them for him a procedures they perform or how many tests they were, we will bundle payments so that providers are not fit for the treatment they offered with a chronic condition like diabetes. instead, it will be for how they're managing the disease overall. we will create incentives for physicians to team up and treat patients better together. we certainly will not cut

corners to try to cut costs. we know that that does not work. that is something that we hear from doctors all across the country. for example, when we discharge people from the hospital eight days early with any kind of coordinated followed, too often, they went back in the hospital a few weeks later. if we had just provided the proper care in the first this, we would save a whole lot of money and a whole lot of human suffering as well. finally, we will eliminate millions in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies in the medicare advantage program. these are giveaways that boost insurance company profits, but do not make you any help you. we will work to close that donut hole in medicare part b that is costing some effects so much money. our reform efforts have already agreed to provide deeply discounted drugs which means thousands of dollars in savings for the millions of seniors paying full price when they can least afford it.

all of this is what health insurance reform is all about. it is protecting your dress of doctor, keeping your premiums fair, holding down your health care and prescription drug costs, improving the care that you received, and that is what health care reform will mean to folks on medicare. we have made progress in the last few months. we're no closer to health care reform than we have ever been before. if that is doing a small part to the team the to have. aarp. you have been doing what you do best, organizing, mobilizing, and giving people cross country about the choices that are out there, pushing members of congress to put up -- to put aside politics and partisanship and finding solutions to our health care challenges. i know it is an easy. i know there are folks who will oppose any kind of reform because of profits from the way the system is right now.

this is nothing that we have not heard before. back when president kennedy and a precedent johnson returned to -- and president johnson were trying to pass medicare, it said that it was socialist and would undermine health care the way we noted. the american people and members of congress understood better. they obviously did the right thing. for decades later, medicare is giving our senior citizens the care and security they deserve. with aarp standing on the side of reform, we can keep it strong for years to come. i hope that i can answer your questions you today. i am positive that we can make the health care system better for you, work better for your children, work better for your parents, work better for your families, work better for businesses, work better for

america. that is our job. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will start with the question that was the milk in before the program. -- that was e-mailed in before the program. one says that his brother is uninsurable. he has a pre-existing condition. in his state, there's not a high-risk pool. when the president's program starts, will insurance companies be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions? will he deal to get insurance in the first phase of the plan, even if he is hit with -- even if he is willing to pay the full amount? >> the answer is yes. let me talk a little bit about the kind of insurance reform that we're proposing as part of

the broader reform package. number one, if you have a pre- existing condition, insurance companies will still have to ensure you. this is something very personal for me. my mother, when she contracted cancer, insurance companies suggested that this was a pre- existing condition. maybe you could have died as it before you purchase your -- maybe you could have diagnosed did before you purchase your insurance. there were writing letters back -- they were writing letters back-and-forth on premiums if she had already paid for. they can just drop you if you get too sick. there will look able to drop you if you change jobs or lose your job as long as you're willing to pay your premiums. we're going to make sure that we

eliminate the lifetime cap that creates a situation where a lot of times people get sick and then they find out the fine print says that, at a certain point, they just stopped paying or they will pay for the hospitalization, but they don't pay for your doctor or the pill for the doctor, but not your hospitalization. we want more clear, easy to understand, straight for insurance for people to understand. no. 2, in addition to those reforms, we want to make sure that we set up what we call the health insurance exchange so that anybody who wants insurance but can i get it on the job right now, they can go to the exchange. they can select a plan that works for them or their families. these are private option plans, but we also want to have a public auctiooption. whenever you select, you will

get a high quality care for a reasonable cost, the same way members of congress can selected menu plans that they have available. if the plan the use select is still too expensive for your income, then we will provide a little bit of help so that you can a for the cabbage. number one, we will tell the insurance companies that they cannot take advantage of you. no. 2, we will provide a place to go to purchase insurance that is secure, that is not full of fine print, that is actually went to deliver on what you pay for. number three, we want to make sure that you're getting a good bargain for your health care by reducing some of the unnecessary tests and cost that have raised rates. even if you have insurance, your premiums have gone of three times faster than wages in the a past 10 years. you're out of pocket costs have

gone up by 62%. for people who are not on medicare right now, 50 years old to 64 years old, a lot of those folks are paying much higher premiums than they should be. hundreds or thousands of additional dollars that could be saved if we had a system that was more sensible than it is right now. >> we go to margaret in greeley, colorado. go ahead, margaret. margaret, are you there? let me ask margaret's question for her. she wants to keep her good coverage. would continue with the new plan? >> here is the guarantee that i have made. if you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep the insurance. if you have a doctor that you like, you'll be able to keep your doctor. nobody is trying to change what

works in the system. we are trying to change what does not work in the system. let me also address a misperception that has been out there that, somehow, there is any discussion on capitol hill about reducing medicare benefits. nobody is talking about reducing medicare benefits. medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system. it works. we do not want to change it. what we do want is to eliminate some of the waste that is being paid for out of the medicare trust fund that could be used more effectively to cover more people and to strengthen the system. for example, right now, we're paying about $377 billion over 10 years to insurance companies to subsidize them for participating in medicare a vintage.

insurance companies are already profitable. let's at least have some sort of competitive bidding process where these insurance companies who were participating and not getting subsidize on the taxpayer side. if they have better services that they can provide to seniors, rather than through the traditional medicare program, they're free to participate. but we should not be giving them billions of dollars worth of subsidies. that is the kind of change we want to see that will strengthen medicare, but nobody is talking about cutting medicare benefits. i just want to make that absolutely clear. we have received the mills and letters for people are concerned that that's -- we have received e-mails and letters for people who are concerned that that will happen. >> holly in texas, you have a concern on the other end. hi, holly. >> hello? >> go ahead.

>> master now? >> yes. >> yes, well, i am an aarp volunteers and an aarp member. i support aarp's position on health care reform. i appreciate the president making this a priority issue on his agenda. there are so many negative ads and articles about the tremendous cost for health care reform that is being proposed by different congressional committees. " we do not here is what the dollar amount would be if we did nothing -- what we do not hear is what the dollar amount would be if we did nothing. if we do nothing for the next 10 years, health care will still keep rising. i want to know if the president has any way of putting out some information as to what it would cost if we do nothing.

>> i think that is a good question, holly. let me try to be as specific as i can about the cost. i have already mentioned the that health-care costs are going up much faster than inflation. so your wages, your income, if you're lucky, right now, maybe they're going up 2% a year or maybe 3% a year. for a lot of people, they're not going up at all. but your health care costs are still going up 6% a year or 7% a year. some people are getting notices in the mail that their premium just went up 20%. on that trajectory, health care costs will probably double again. your premiums will probably double again of the next 10 years. they may even go up faster than that. the cost of medicare will keep on writing a lot faster than the

tax revenues coming in. that means that the trust fund has more money going out that is coming in. that will make that more unstable. we know that, if we do nothing, we will probably end up seeing more people and injured. we are already seeing 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day. that is 14,000 people. the cost of doing nothing is trillions of dollars in costs over the next couple of decades, trillions, not billions, but trillions of dollars in cost without anybody getting better care. if we can control health care inflation, how fast costs are going up, then not only can we save the medicare trust fund, and only can we help save families on their payments, but we can help provide coverage for

people who do not have health care. here's the problem. in order for us to save money, in some cases, we have to spend some money up front let me give you some very specific examples. healthcare i.t. -- health care is the only area where you still have to fill out five different forms. when you go to the bank, you do not have to do that. you have the atm. if you use your credit card, they will find it very fast. but when you go to health care, you fillthey give you pencil and paper. sometimes you see their files and they're so stuffed with papers. there's is cannot read the files because of the doctor's handwriting. i just visited the cleveland clinic where every medical record is privacy protected, but

everything is digits up -- is digitalized. if you take it to us, it goes to all of the doctors and specialists that you might deal with. you can go to the doctor again and again. but you have to get the computers in the first place. you have to spend money there. if you provide health care insurance for people would not have in charge right now, they will get preventive care. they will have screenings so they do not end up in the emergency room with really expensive care that all of us are paying for, even though we do not know it. the average family is spending about $900 a year in higher health care premiums because they are paying indirectly for and come to care. he says with, interest companies charge you a little more and hospitals and -- essentially,

insurance companies charge a little more and hospitals to charge a little more. over 10 years, the health care reform proposal should cover everybody and would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years. keep in mind, we spend two dollars trillion every year on health care. -- we spend $2 trillion every year on health care. the campaign for about 60%. we're talking about $30 billion or $40 billion to cover every year. we will get most of the money back if we're providing more prevention, more wellness, doctors and hospitals are being reimbursed more intelligently. over time, that investment will

more than pay for itself. but holly is exactly right. you get all of the stories about age windows year ended tooling dollars there. -- about a trillion dollars a year and a trillion dollars there. it is not that costly if we start making changes right now. the last point that would make, to give you a sense that i know we can get savings out of the system without spending more money over the long term, we spend about $6,000 per person more than in either industrialized nation on earth. that is $6,000 more than people in denmark or france or germany. everyone of these other countries spends at least 50% less than we do. and they are just as healthy. i have a doctor in the oval

office today who said it is not because they are healthy. they're generally older and the small get a higher rate. in fact, their costs should be higher -- and they smoke at a higher rate. in fact, their costs should be higher than ours and they pay $6,000 less than we do. but as money out of your perfecpocket. some of them a-gun into your retirement fund instead of paying for your health care. -- some of that money could have gone into your retirement fund instead of paying for your health care. it is money that is being given away. and we need to save it. >> i want to welcome you again to be a r.p. teletownhall. -- again to the aarp teletownhall.

let's go next to a ninth and talk with carolyn. >> thank you. hello, mr. president. >> tell everybody in juliet that i said hi. >> i will. there were two big issues that came out of their discussion. one has to do with the knowledge that there will be billions of dollars cut from medicare over the years to accommodate baby boomers. the question is does this translate into dictation of what can and cannot be given to senior as service.

for example, will there be fewer hip and knee replacements even if i decide, when i am 80, that i want one? columbia will to get that? would be able to see a cardiologist if i heard -- will i be able to sit cardiologists if i have a heart condition? i am calling it rationing of care. >> i think that is an excellent question. i appreciate it. that is the concern the people have generally. my interest is not in getting between you and your doctor. although, keep in mind, right now, insurance companies are often getting between you and your doctor. it is not as though the stresses are not already been made. they're just being made by private insurance companies without any real guidance as to whether the decisions that are being made our decisions to make

people healthier or not. what we have said is that we want to provide some guidelines to medicare and, by extension, the private sector as to what works and what does not. some of you heard that we wanted to set up an independent medical advisory group that would, on an annual basis, provide recommendations about what treatment worked best and what gives you the best value for your health care dollar. this is modeled on something called mid bacmedpack, which is something that danny is currently on. it gives recommendations every year about how we can improve care and reduce the number of tests and make sure that we're getting more generic drugs in the system that work and

cheaper. we're getting of the regular it -- recommendations like that. unfortunate, a lot of them are sitting on the shelf. the thing that i would be most worried about right now is that health-care inflation keeps on going up and the trust fund, in 10 years, is only in the red. now congress has to make some decisions. are they going to put more money into medicare especially given the deficit and the debt that will have? or are they going to start making decisions about cutting benefits but not based on any signs or what is making people healthier? they will just start making them on politics. we are saying that we can avoid that scenario by starting to make good decisions now about how we improve healthcare, make the system more rational, and make it better.

that los dulk -- that will stabilize health care in the long term. the only things that we are talking about has nothing to do with benefits. it has to do with subsidizing insurance companies or, for example, right now, we reimburse hospitals for the amount of time that you were there without checking to see if they're doing a good job in the first place. they have no penalty if you go into the hospital and they're supposed to fix it and suddenly you have to go back three weeks later. that hostile it's been all over again even though they did not get it right the first time. if you got your car fixed a mechanic and, three weeks there, you have to go back and you end up paying again to get your car fixed all over again, you would be pretty bad. would you not? >> yes. >> yet, when it comes to health care, that happens all the time. that happens all the time.

and the hospital gets reimbursed for the second time and the third time, even though they did not get it right the first time. we are saying let's incentivize the hospitals. we will pay you a bonus if the person is not readmitted when you got it right the first time. those the kinds of changes we are talking about. >> we have been geographically specific in our conversation. let's go to janine in our audience. she is from fairmont, nebraska. welcome to the town hall. >> hello, mr. president. i am concerned about affordability and pre-existing conditions. my family and live in rural nebraska. my husband and i are self- employed. he was originally denied because of a pre-existing condition. he is in a chip's pool. we are paying $900 a month and

we have an $8,000 deductible. >> that is tough progress we have done this for about a year- and-a-half. and we are not alone. there are a lot of people to do this. >> you are a prime candidate for the health care change that i just described. he says with, what you would be able to do is go on line. you'd be able to see a list of participating insurers, which, by the way, is very important because, in most its right now, insurance companies are dominated -- the insurance market is dominated by of one or two insurers. you don't have a lot of choice. this when you have a lot of choices. there would have to compete on the basis of price and they would have to abide by a certain set of rules. for example, you can exclude someone for a pre-existing condition. you could then select a plan that is good for you, do your

own comparison shopping, and, if you qualify, we would provide you with a little bit of help on your premium to reduce your cost. lead is what, he essentially, we could pay for if we take some of these inefficiencies and the ways that of the system right now. that will pay for you getting the kind of help you need and we would have insurance regulations in place that would protect to from being scammed in the insurance market, which is something that a lot of people suffer from. we couldn't derive your costs down. you would be part of a huge pool part of the reason why large companies are typically able to offer lower insurance premiums for their employees than smaller companies is that they have a big pool. the federal government is a classic example. the federal government employee program is a pretty good deal

because you have several million people who are reported it. that gives you a lot of bargaining power with the insurance. the exchange will provide that same market power. there will have to negotiate with insurers to drive costs down. this is controversial. i know people are worried about this. we do think that it makes sense to have a public auction along with the private option -- have a public option along with the private option. it could be more responsive to your needs at lower costs. that would help keep the insurance companies honest. they would have somebody to compete with. this has been can tertial because people have heard the

phrase socialized -- this has been controversial because people have heard the phrase socialized medicine. nobody is talking about that. we are saying, let's give you a choice. i got a letter the other day from a woman who said i do not want government-run health care. i do not want socialized medicine. and do not touch my medicare. [laughter] i wanted to say, you know, that is what medicare is. it is a government-run health care plan. people are happy with that. but people are accustomed to hearing those phrases. sometimes we cannot sort out the myth from the reality. >> next we're going to lawrence, kansas and talk to mitzi. >> mr. president, thank you for doing the hard work on health

care reform. historically, older americans, along with women of child- bearing age and persons with pre-existing conditions have paid more for health care coverage. i want to know if reform will eliminate the disparity for older americans. >> one thing that we strongly believe in is that you cannot discriminate in the insurance market. that it is is -- that is actually what is happening right now. if you're in the private marketplace right now, the essentials, insurance companies are cherry picking. they want young, healthy people because they can collect premiums and not have to pay out a lot. as people get older, they start to suddenly make it harder for those folks to get coverage. if they do get coverage, it is wildly expensive. part of the insurance reform that we want to institute is to make sure that there is what is

called a community rating principal that keeps every insureer operating fairly so tht they cannot select the help the young people if they want to participate, for example, in the health-care exchange. there to cover everybody. that will help reduce costs will level out costs for older americans. we also want to enshrine the principle in there that says no discrimination against women because there is still, oftentimes, a gender bias in terms of some of the coverage that people receive. >> we will go next to north carolina for a question that we had all week last week. go ahead ver, mary.

what happened to colin? [laughter] >> i am the one to talk to. >> that is how it is in my house, too. [laughter] >> i heard lots of rumors going around about this new plan. people who will bid on this will read every single page. i was told that everyone who is in medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wished to die. this bothers me greatly. i hope that is not in this bill. >> i guarantee you, first of all, we do not have enough of government workers to send to talk to everybody to find out how they want to die. i think that the only thing that may have been proposed and some of the bills -- and i actually

think this is a good thing -- is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will. mary, you may be familiar with the principle behind a living will. basically, it is something that my grandmother, the recently passed away, give her some control ahead of time so that she could say, for example, if she had a terminal illness, did she want extraordinary measures -- even if her brain waves were no longer functional -- or did she want to be left alone. that is her son decisionmaking power over the process. the problem is that, right now, most of us to not give direction to our family members. when we get really badly sick, sadly enough, nobody is there to make the decisions. then the doctor, who does not

know what you might have preferred, they are making decisions in consultation with your kids and grandkids and nobody knows what you would have preferred. i think the idea is to simply make sure that a living will process is easier for people and it does not require you to hire a lawyer or to take up a lot of time. everything is going to be up to you. if you do not want to fill out a living will, you do not have to. but it is actually a useful tool for a lot of families to make sure that, if, heaven forbid, you contracted terminal illness that you or somebody who is able to control this process in a dignified way that is true to your faith and true to have you think that and of what process should proceed. you do not want someone else

making those decisions for you. i actually think it is a good idea to have it, a living will. i have one. michelle has one. we hope we do not have to use it for a long time, but i think it is something that is sensible. mary, i just want to be clear. nobody's going to be knocking on your door. nobody is one to be telling you that you have to fill one out. certainly, nobody is one to be forcing you to make decisions on end of life care based on some bureaucratic law in washington. >> she mentioned in her preview that she was talking about section 1232. it is being read as mandatory and of life care. as i read the bill, it is saying that medicare, for the first time, cover consultation about end of life care and that they will not pay for such a consultation more than once every five years.

this is being read as saying that, every five years, you will be told how you will die. >> i think that is kind of market. [laughter] keep in mind, we are still having a whole series of negotiations. if this is something that really bothers people, i suspect that members of congress might take a second look at it. but understand what the intent is. the intent is to make sure that you have more information and that medicare will pay for it. for example, there are some people who get a terminal illness and they decide, at a certain point, that they want to get hospice care, but they may not know how to go about talking to a hospice, what does it mean, how does it work, and they don't -- and we do not want them to have to pay for that out of pocket.

so if medicare is saying that you have the option to consult with someone about hospice care, we will reimburse it. that is putting more power and choice in the hands of the american people. it strikes me that this is a sensible thing to do. . they will not force you to use of your retirement. when the original medicare part b was put forward, first of all,

it was not paid for. it automatically was on stable financially. -- unstable financial. then there is the agree with the cannot negotiate with the drug company. the american people pay 77 per more for drugs than any other country. 77%. that is almost twice as much as other countries. what we have said is, as part of reform, let's negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. we will cover more people and the pharmaceuticals will have more coverage. as part of the deal, they have to start providing much better discounts on their drugs. they have already committed

that if it is passed, and they would provide $80 billion worth of discount. that would be enough to cover about half of the doughnut hole. right of the badt, without further negotiations, they have committed that they would reduce -- they would cut in half the cost that folks have to go through when they are in the doughnut hole right now. that is money directly in their pocket. it could be in their retirement savings. i think we can get its to an even better deal the nep. -- deal than that. if we do not get health care reform, a pharmaceutical industries are going to fight for every dime of profits that they are currently making and filling that total is going to be very expensive, because when the medicare was passed, nobody

put in provisions to pay for it. putting even more money into it at a time medicare may go bankrupt, not go bankrupt, but in the red, that is a big problem. that is part of the reason why reform is so important, especially for aarp members. there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who would directly benefit from reduced prescription drug costs if we are able to pass this bill. >> the cost the program is a concern. the jane in our audience has a question about that from alexandria, virginia. >> my question is a concern we have about the possibility of cost to make. cost containment commission. could you comment on that? >> it is not cost containment that has been proposed. it has been what i just described -- and ended in a

medical advisory committee. it is modeled on the kind of committee that is called mudedipack right now. the idea is have you get the most value for your healthcare dollars? the objective is to control costs, but it is not cost containment by just denying people care that they need. instead it is reducing costs by changing the incentives and the delivery system in healthcare so that people are not paying for care that they do money. the more that we can reduce the unnecessary costs in health care, the more money we have to provide people with the necessary costs, the things that pay high dividends.

this is pretty straightforward. it is pretty logical. if you think about your own family budget, if you could figure out a way to reduce your heating bill by insulating your windows, then dow money that you say, you are still warm inside -- it is just that you are not wasting all that energy and sending it in the form of higher bills to the electric company. that is money that you can use to save for your retirement for your health care. it is the same principle in the health-care system. if we can do with insulating some windows and making the house more efficient, you are still going to be warm, you would appeal to save some money. in this case you'll still be

healthy coming eulogist able to save the money and the money we can use by lowering the prescription drug costs for example. >> we have an internet question. if a new health care reform bill is so great for all americans, where members of congress excluded from having to participate? >> i actually think that the health care exchange that exchange thatjanine be able to participate in would be very similar to the kind of program that we have from the health care employees. this is something that i cannot emphasize enough. you do not have to participate. you -- if you are happy with the health care that you got, then keep it. if you like your doctor, keep it. nobody is going to go out there and say, you have got to change your healthcare plan. this is not like canada where

suddenly we are dismantling the system and everybody is signed up under a government program. all we are doing it appears saying that if you already have health care, the only thing we will do is reform the insurance companies so that they can not cheat you and if you do not have health insurance, we are going to make it a little bit easier for you to stay covered. overall, we are going to change the delivery system so that we are saving money as a society over the long term. nobody's been forced to go under the system. frankly, if we do this right, then all we are actually doing is giving the american people the same option that members of congress have. they have a pretty good deal right now. the net worth of losing their health insurance. they have a bunch of options to collect from.

if they have a good deal, why should you not? [applause] >> we hope you have found this town hall with president obama and and aarp to be informative and stimulating. if the of a personal story you'd like to share with us about the impact of the higher cost of healthcare, please stay on the line to be the same message. be sure to leave your contact information so we can get back to you. now for some closing remarks, let's go back. >> i want to thank you again, mr. president, for joining in listening to our members whether they are here prisoner on the phone or on the internet. -- here in person, on the phone, or on the internet. thank you very much for that. [applause]

i just want to say thank you to all of you for taking the time to get informed on this issue. i want to think aarp for all the good that it has done to provide greater security and stability in the lives of people who are older. you know, this week celebrates the anniversary of medicare. when you look at the medicare debate, it is almost exactly the same as the debate we are having right now. everybody who was in favor of the status quo was trying to scare the american people, saying somehow that the government is good to take over your health care, you will not be able to choose your doctor, they are going to ration care, and they are going to tell you if you cannot give this or that come in you know what? medicare has been

extraordinarily popular. it has worked. it has made people a lot healthier and given in -- given them security. we can do the same this time. sometimes i get a little frustrated, because this is one of those situations where it is so obvious that the system we have is not working well for too many people. we could just be doing better. we are not want to have a perfect health care system. it is a complicated system. there will always be problems out there. but we to be doing a lot better than we are doing right now. we should not be paying 50% more, 75% more than other countries that are just as healthy as we are. we should not have prescription drugs 77% higher in cost than ours. we should not have people who are working really hard every day without health care for with

$8,000 of debt, which means they basically do not have health insurance unless they get really sick. that just does not make sense. the stories and get across the country are heartbreaking from people who are having a tough time. we have to have the courage to be willing to change things. i know that sometimes people have lost confidence in the country's ability to bring about change. i think this is one of those times were really have to step up to the plate. it will ultimately make medicare stronger as low as the whole health care system. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. >> won the most of the part of working on an effort like healthcare reform is to keep up- to-date. wheel subject reduce it -- we will suggest it would set, healthaction.org. it will tell you how to get in touch with their congressman and

the people who are debating this issue. they will tell you how to keep involved until the very end. we hope it is in. mr. president, mr. seo, madam president, and everybody here, we thank you very much for participating. keep up the good work. we will talk with you again. have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> john kerry will talk about the climate change summit in denmark. climate change was a major topic with the u.s./china talks. coverage begins to 1:00 p.m. eastern. after that, in the armed services committee discuss is the psychological stresses serving in the military. live coverage is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> the senate judiciary committee voted on the nomination of judge sonia

sotomayor they approved it 13- 6. the meeting is later here and sees them. up next, members of the u.s. house talk about health care legislation. this is just over an hour. gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and ask permission to minute and ask permission to address the house for one >> they have been demanding that we pass health care reform this week. that is very important. the bill does not take effect for five years. this is the bill. my constituents have been asking me to read the bill. i have been working on it. we now have three iterations of this bill. i would like to revise my senior friends at home to read it. page 331, read about medicare advantage forms and how they are quantitate $168 billion out of medicare advantage to pay for

some other people. read a little bit on page 425. start reading about how they are going to have a planning session with a health-care consultant on how you are going to die. please, read the bill. >> the gentlemen in yields back. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> 47 million uninsured in the wealthiest country is unconscionable. health care should not be a privilege, which is what it is right now. the average american pays $1,100 a year in premiums to support a broken system. premiums doubled in nine years, and pouring three times faster than wages. our reform plan does not call

for a government takeover. we intend to lower costs, have no more copays, and an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses. if you like your doctor or plan you can keep the. a robust public option keeps costs down for those who choose private insurance. it is time to take the profit- making industry out of making health care decisions. the medical decisions should be made between a patient and a doctor. medical decisions and not be made on who profits. it will not provide for affordable health care for every man, woman, and child. >> thank you. i rise today to ask why the obama administration and liberal democrats are playing russian roulette with the welfare of the american people.

this administration seem not to care about jobs but put all their time into spending as much as possible in as little amount as time as possible. the cap and trade bill is the equivalent of a three and a thousand dollar tax on every single american family. 2.3 million jobs are going to be lost because of it. it is not even russian roulette when it comes to government run health care. it is like jumping off a 20 story building in thinking it is not going to kill you. this is economic suicide. the health care bill will impose a 5.4% surtax on 1.2 million small businesses. it will increase the deficit by 21 to $39 billion over 10 years. if you want to get every american health care, they get every american back to work.

america runs on jobs and small business. less government and less americanism. >> there are some republicans and some blue dog democrats who care more about protecting the process of insurance companies than they do about bringing health care reform to the nation. healthcare premiums have doubled in nine years and a growing at three times the rate of wages. $46 million -- 46 million people remain uninsured. they cannot see a doctor to take care of their chronic conditions like breast cancer, light diabetes. what is more important, dollars and cents or life?

i am pro-life. that is why i support health- care reform. >> i agree to my colleague. i am pro-life to. that is why i oppose the health plan. in the middle of a major recession, they are considering health care legislation that will place punitive taxes on small businesses. we need job creation and not job description. small businesses are our best hope from getting out of this economic downturn. i have heard from small business owners in north carolina who are struggling to keep their businesses running and when nothing to do with the taxes and burdensome government mandates. we need health care reform in america. i support reform.

patient first. it will not destroy small businesses. we have a solution that will make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all americans and ensures affordable access for all americans and is pro-life. it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government. >> thank you. families in southern nevada have been hit hard during this economic recession. unemployment is at a 25 year high. our tourism industry has struggled as the economy has slowed. the economic recovery package that congress passed is beginning to provide assistance to 95% of people in nevada in the form of tax cuts.

the tax credit has put excellent money in the pockets of workers. they have received more than $75 million to extend unemployment benefits for those struggling to find work. seniors and veterans have received to benefit the dollar recovery payment and schools received three and a $40 million to keep teachers from being laid off -- $340 million to keep teachers from being laid off. they are trying to create a clean energy economy. yesterday, 13 $20 million was announced from the department of energy to help fund energy initiatives that will lead us to the next step to creating a clean energy jobs. the recovery act has helped the people in nevada. >> my constituents have been asking where the jobs?

take a look around. are they in the recently passed a national energy tax that devoted more than 50 of its 1300 pages to light of all regulation and two paragraphs on carvin three nuclear energy? are they in the thousand pages government sponsored health-care proposal without so much a mention about liability reform that will reduce premiums? maybe they are in the recently passed $700 million welfare program four wild horses. it is certainly knows how to create new burdens for our children and grandchildren. this week alone, our treasury is said to sell off a record $205 billion in debt. let's start working together to implement responsible solutions to the serious challenges facing

our nation. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, last week, the american people got a firsthand glimpse of the attitude they can expect if there is a federal takeover of health care. when the president made this incredible statement that some doctors will take out a child's tonsils because they make more money. if you go out and talk to any 100 people across this country and ask him a question would you trust more politicians or your doctor, my guess is that 100% would save their doctor. the president made that statement. what we need is a model that says you and your family and your doctor will make for health care system, not some federal bureaucrat.

>> where are the jobs? there -- they are not in the stimulus package that passed this congress and have not created any jobs. we have lost millions of jobs. they are certainly not in the cap and tax legislation that passed this congress six weeks ago. that legislation will cost millions of american jobs. they most certainly are not in the so-called health care bill that the democrats are offering today that will cost an estimated $4.7 million -- 4.7 million jobs. we see those jobs going overseas to countries where they can afford to do business. this is not the right way to preserve the choice for the american people and their health care. it is not the right way to make sure that our health care in

this country is available to the many, many, hundreds of millions of people who received it today. we need to reform our health- care system with legislation that deals with medical malpractice reform, association health plans, and things that cut down on the costs before we address this massive tax increase. >> in the debate the we have had over healthcare, the republicans have attempted to communicate our concerns the american people. we developed a chart that explains the bureaucratic path

analysis between you the individual, patient and your doctor. we have been told we cannot send this out because the majority party objects to it. they said they did not know if it was true. they said we did not sensate anything. it did not like -- they do not like the house democrats on it. i came with a disclaimer. the democratic party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the american people. maybe they will like that. the majority party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the american people. the house democrats assume no responsibility for providing this information to the american people. they know of the american people knew this is what would happen to them, this will be put between this and then dr..

[applause] we can argue over the details of health care reform legislation. we know one thing for sure. costs are guaranteed to increase if we do nothing the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. on fair trade deals have devastated manufacturing in my state of michigan over the past decade. i heard from a small manufacturer in my district in michigan. she told me that her manufacturing firm employees seven people and covers 100% of her employees health care costs. she said we are trying to do the right thing for our employees, but we have to compete with those who provide little or no health care. a quality health care system that covered every american

would not only provide needed care for the uninsured, but would also help level the playing field for small business owners like her. it is time to put partisan politics aside on this issue and could companies like rosch manufacturing first. we need and uniquely american health-care system that cost less and covers more. >> i was a small-business owner for 21 years. it is time to reform the health- care system. a government takeover is not the solution. putting a bureaucrat between your family and your doctor is not the solution. losing health plan to have today is not the solution, but this bill would do just that. it is not have real reform. two out of three americans will not be able to keep their plans.

it does nothing to break down the costs and instead tries of the deficit by $239 billion. if you are out of places like oregon, the ceo of a health system said the government option would be the death knell for hospitals -- deaf naith nair hospitals. it increases to 75% of their patients, the hospital will have to close its dooors. this does nothing to keep the doors open. let's do it in a way that put patients first.

>> when it comes to passing a health care bill, leadership insists that this will happen. speaker pelosi claims that it will pass on the floor. if that is true, please, show us the bill. they are planning to steamroll a $1 trillion health care experiment through this body before august, that is it. let's debate. the american people deserve to see a bill with plenty of time for an open and honest debate about exactly what it is for. the american people had seen enough smoke and mirrors about the washington bureaucrat. they had seen enough smoke and mirrors about how many people be forced all of their current health care plans. they have seen enough about the real cost of this plan.

clear out the smoke. show as the bill. finally, give hard-working americans into their questions. show us the bill. >> this congress is responsible for putting in place one of the largest tax cuts in american history. we can see this benefit of the planet they are out all communities in our country. because of this, 95% of working americans are receiving tax cut they are making work pay tax credits. it is a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker, a tenor dollars for couples filing jointly. this is a tax -- $800 for couples filing jointly.

this is a tax relief at the time they needed. families can also find tax relief through an expansion of the child-care tax credit to help send more of our children to college. the recovery plan has provided tens of billions of dollars of investment for improvement projects like the improvements that have been made into infrastructure and road throughout our country. thank you. i yield back. >> the democrats are proposing that they will take over 20% of our economy. they will spend at least $1 trillion in doing that. they are going to put bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions. this is not really a new idea. this has been tried a lot by

other countries. if you get sick, where do you want to be treated? do you want to travel to europe, canada, or you want to stay in the good u.s. a? i had that experience nine years ago. i was elected to congress. i got the first physical i have had. they said you are doing great except you have cancer. when you hear the word cancer, it causes you to stop and think. because of the american health- care system, i am standing here today. i will tell you this is six of what would happen if you were in the united kingdom. there is a 50% chance you would be dealt with the type of cancer i had. -- you would be dead with the type of cancer i have.

>> i'm here to talk about -- i talked about this last week. i talked about in the 1890's to recession may have levels of over a 11%. my father and lull lost his job. -- father lost his job. because of what happened in this house, cut spending. he went from one who lost his job to starting a business and becoming a job creator. what have we done by making it easier to sue businesses, rage energy rates, and they have made it mandated on businesses and 8% payroll tax. i believe need to cut taxes and spending. we need to create jobs to get people working again. thank you.

>> i have a news for the american public. the system is working. congress is working. the reason that the speaker and the president cannot get their health care bill through is because there is not a consensus on it. i want to congratulate the other 22 republicans on the energy and commerce committee that are united against his back piece of legislation. i want to congratulate the blue dog democrat on the same committee. the reason we are not supportive of the plants is because it is bad for america. it cost too much. it has too much bureaucracy. the word shall is almost mention 2000 times. it is a $1 trillion -- it is a $1 trillion hit on the economy. we have over 80 amendments that we wish to offer.

i asked the speaker to bring the bill of for markups and let it be an open and transparent markup. it is better to get it right then do it badly. the system is working. >> i am proud to be part of an effort to improve health care in this country. i have heard from many people in iowa of the need to change the current system. i have heard the we need to before. the university of iowa sent me a letter. they stated "we believe the primary focus for all policymakers should be improving the value of healthcare." i agree. last week, the delegation along with many others to reach a compromise with leadership that improves the guy you in healthcare. i want to thank leadership and

their work. we need to reward quality of care not squalid -- quality of care, not quantity. >> over the last few weeks, we have been flooded with letters and phone calls from all types of citizens thrilled in northwest florida. they all say the same thing. stop the government takeover of our health-care system. the majority party's legislation cost over $1 trillion and increases the deficit. it would raise the cost of health care for american families. this is not the way to reform the american health care system. americans want more choice for health care, not fewer choices.

they want to choose the doctor they see and when they want to see them. they do not want a medical decisions made by a faceless bureaucrat turn washing, d.c. -- the bureaucrats here in washington, d.c. >> when a member of congress is sworn in, you get a voting card and access to a healthcare purchasing exchange that is operative by the committee. every member of congress has the ability to buy into or choose a plan to the federal employee health plan. when you boil down the bill that is passed, it is exactly what is going to be before this house. the minority leader from ohio has the opportunity to choose 13

different plans under the federal employee health plan. that is what the bomb healthcare proposal plans to do for all americans. when the time comes for the boats, ask if they are prepared to give the people of american except the what they give to the member of congress. that the vote should be yes. >> thank you. the issue this week is health care and jobs, jobs, jobs. a friend of mine who employs many people in my district and provides great health benefits said to me that the policy proposals coming out of washington are in keeping job creation and caring people. he is right. there are five issues that are driving this concern. a stimulus bill that spend too much, barrault's to much, and delivers too few jobs.

a budget that doubles the national debt in five years intervals it in 10 years. a card to a bill that is undemocratic -- check the bill that is undemocratic. in national energy tax that will cost 66,000 jobs in pennsylvania and jack up the electric bills. a house health care bill with enormous tax increases and mandates on small businesses of all sizes. enough is enough. it is time for washington to get out of the way. >> the american people know something. that is premiums have doubled over the last nine years, growing three times faster than what we have seen in wages. the american families know they are spending more than $1,000 a month them what they've had to do in the past.

let's talk about with the american solution is. it is having lower-cost for consumers to no longer have copays and deductibles for preventive care, to have an annual cap to and that out of pocket expense, to end the rate increases for pre-existing conditions, looking at group rates. we are ready for action. we've had six decades of discussion. we have had 45-hours of bipartisan debate. it is time to move now. i yield back the balance of my time. >> last night i made thousands of phone calls across my district and i listen to my constituents. two phrases emerge. the first one was fair. they are afraid of the recklessness that would allow was due begin a new program. it will not reduce health-care

costs and will devastate the economy. they are afraid of the arrogance that lead some to conclude that a government committee would make a better decision about an individual's health care then that individual can make with their doctor. they are afraid of a plan that would result in rationing health care to seniors in creating longer lines. they are also grateful for those of us who listen to them and try to bring some common sense and balance to the health-care debate by stopping this race to a government takeover. i yield back. >> we must put the health back into health care. building a culture of wellness,

including good nutrition and incentivizing prevention, moving from system centered care to patients centered here. this is the right solution for strengthening america's health care. it should be the component of a honest and national debate. the current debate is frames incorrectly. this arrangement will transfer millions of americans against their will from their current insurance to a government plan and will add to our unsustainable fiscal conditions. it will not resolve the underlying driving costs for small businesses and families. we have the opportunity to do something right and good for the american people to strengthen our nation's health care by improving outcomes while reducing cost and protecting vulnerable persons. >> thank you.

on the heels of the failed stimulus bill that added another roughly $1 trillion of debt to our nation's debt and that cap and trade energy tax proposal that would run millions of jobs data for country, most americans are saying, where the jobs? instead, the latest proposal by proposed -- by president obama is in it and demanded a government takeover of our health-care system. he gives speeches and he says, under his plan if you like the plane you have you can keep it. i do not think the president has read his bill. if you look right here in section 1 02, it says that the government health care czar will be able to take away your plan, even if you like it.

another part is that anybody who makes under two and a $50,000 a year will not pay any more new taxes. -- 250,000 year will not pay any more new taxes. tax on individuals without success will health care, $29 billion in new taxes. >> i rise and strong opposition to the democratic majority's government run health care plan. that is a phrase that the speaker of the house is now one is to use. she is so we can i use it. we are supposed to use the public auction. to use the word that the president likes, the american people are not stupid. they do not want it. they know the democratic majority opposes the cost by rationing care. they decide whether or not to go

to the doctor, if what dr. you go to, what specialist you go to, when you get to go. end of life care -- the government wants to decide whether certain seniors will get the procedure they need to enhance the quality of life and whether not the computer model they use determines that it is not the highest and best use of their health care the american people do not want that. they want real reform. we want access. we want quality. thank you. i yield back. >> all persons in the gallery are here as guests and any manifestations of approval or disapproval or other audible conversations are in violation of the rules of the house.

>> we all agreed that real health care reform is a necessity, but in the case to get this done, the wrong approach to achieve this were the goal would be to increase taxes, especially on our small businesses. these are vital small business owners are already straining not to cut jobs and weighs it reduce wages. most business owners want to offer health insurance, but they simply cannot because they already have cost that increase. what we need is true health care reform that brings down the cost of care in our country. we find creative ways to hide the actual cost of taxes and mandates. it that makes no sense for americans, no sense for our small businesses, and certainly no sense for our future

generations who will be straddled with a lot of debt. thank you. i yield back. >> the american people have every right to ask for the jobs are. they know we are losing-1000's dollars -- 500,000 jobs each month. there is a bill that will raise utility rates for every american they see the white house pushing to drastically cut medicare and massively to raise taxes on small businesses to pay for their government takeover of health care. the people know that will mean millions more jobs lost. we need tax credit, mr. speaker. it will help make health care more affordable and a sensible, not massive tax hikes. we need job creation.

we need more jobs, not massive layoffs caused by massive tax increases. >> thank you. i agree that the costs of health care has become expensive for my constituents and to expand to for my constituents. we need to reform the current system and not turn it over to the government. letting patients choose the coverage that meet their health care should be the focus. this is not a one size fits all solution. just ask my constituents, brad and christie. they became the proud parents of a child and 2008. he appeared to be a healthy baby

boy, but during a routine exam a nurse discovered a heart murmur that was keeping blood from reaching his lower extremities. one week later, he underwent surgery to correct the problem. today he is a happy and healthy 1-year old. his parents a to think that if this proposed health care plan had been in place the decisions about him would have had to go through government bureaucracy and possibly would have taken too long to save his life. let's not put his life for anyone else's in the hands of the government bureaucrat. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the democrats' health care bill is a bad legislation. do not take my word for it. all you have to do is look at the chaos on the other side of the aisle. their leadership freely admit

august would be like kryptonite to their proposal. if they truly believe this legislation was a cure all for health care reform, they would relish the opportunity to send the members home to build public support for it. the democratic leadership is in desperation mo. and they know the bill will not hold up under public scrutiny. let us engage our constituents in this discussion about our goals for health care reform. all this can become healthcare month if only the democrat leadership will listen to reason. the goal should not be to get this done fast but to get it right. to get it right for the american people, that is what i am fighting for. that is what this debate should be all about. >> thank you.

i wanted to take a moment to speak about two very important element in the health reform initiative that we are considering in the house. both of these are things that will help to strengthen the relationship between the physician and their patients. the first is something called mccall bloodied medical loss ratio. how much is the insurance use of the premium you give them to actually spend on medical care? if they do not spend 85 cents on the dollar it is something they are giving the kind of care that they deserve. the second important thing is the investment in preventive care that we will make in this bill. a physician can spend more time with the patient, and their elderly patients, who was their position could spend more time with them to really understand the situation. we do not reimbursed for that right now. going forward, we can do that. it to promote the relationship between the physician and their

patients and lead to overall care for the patient in a better relationship with the family. i yield back my time. >> house republicans have a plan to make health care more affordable and promoting choice and competition among health plans. unfortunately, the house democrats' bill is light on help. cost control and tell the young government control. a recent editorial expressed support for the bill but describes the prospects for lower health care premiums as "unclear and distant." if that is the best they can say about it, it is time to start over. we need a bill that gets health-

care costs under control without bankrupting our country or setting the stage for a complete government takeover of our health-care system. >> the obama administration and democrats promised us that the trillion dollars stimulus would create jobs immediately. last month alone we lost 500,000 jobs and unemployment to 9.5%. the stimulus package did not work. the response has been fed a pass an energy tax that will make america less competitive and drives a job -- and drive the jobs of stores -- and drive jobs offshores. it will cost jobs and force people into government to run

rationed health care plans. all you have to do is the biggest hard to understand the complexities and inefficiencies they are going to put into the system. this is a chart they will not allow republicans to mail out to constituents to explain the and complexities -- to explain the complexities. they will not allow congress to be under the health care plan and is trying to pass. >> as the house majority presses hard to force congress a government takeover of health care, it to be instructed to answer the question, who are the uninsured. the most recent report of 2007 said there are roughly 46

million people in the country labeled as an interpretive 9.5 million were non-citizens. 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 30. 12 million people had household incomes less than 25,000. that means the party qualify for existing public health care programs. -- they already qualified for existing public health care programs 9.1 were uninsured for less than one year. half were getting their health insurance with them one month. that leaves 7.8 million who can be characterized as the long- term uninsured. the majority is promising a $1 trillion legislation that expands the federal responsibility. how do they pay for it? taxes and more taxes.

>> thank you. the democrat government takeover of health care might actually be humorous. it is laughable that their idea of cost-cutting reform is a bill that would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over 10 years and includes a $1.30 trillion spending increase. only in washington, d.c. does cutting costs mean spending more money. small businesses are going to be hit the hardest by this huge expansion of government to billions of dollars in new taxes and mandates. the bill does not address the work force that farmers rely on. small business and rural america are swept under the rug and forgotten, but not before they get a huge tax bill. the democrat public auction is a

sneaky plan to take over private healthcare. get me a doctor. the idea of government taking over health care is enough to make me sick. >> mr. speaker, they have been highlighting the problem of the proposed democrat health care bill. the chamber of commerce in fort bend county texas represents over 80 -- 800 businesses that have deep concerns with this massive intrusion a government- run health care. last week they passed resolution strongly opposing the current health care proposals. it highlighted the resolutions "a government-run plan will be unfair competitor with the

government acting as both the referee and player." "new taxes for businesses or individuals who cannot afford health insurance will be dramatically counterproductive." "taxation of benefits will lead to reduction in benefits offered by the employers and will be to higher taxes for individuals and businesses." local chambers of congress and small businesses understand better than most the problems with government run health care for the. i would like to include a copy of the resolution. >> without objection. >> thank you. we all know that the health care system that we have in america is the best of the world has to

offer. do we need to improve its? absolutely. the question is, how far do we go? do we tax the employer who is now struggling to make ends meet? increased payroll taxes by aides term? no, we keep them -- give them an incentive, a tax break. give them an incentive. if we pass this bill, we are going to break the backs of small businesses across this nation that are the backbones of this nation. then we will hear a crime, where are the jobs? -- a cry, where are the jobs?

>> the national debt has jumped to $11 trillion. unemployment has reached a 26 year high of 9.5% in june and some believe it may go as high as 11%. $56 trillion in unfunded obligations. saudi arabia and china are buying into the future of our children. $1.80 trillion deficit in one year. we may lose their aaa bond rating in 2012. the house democratic health care reform are moving through the process at a lightning speed. it does not include cbo says, the fundamental change of the necessary means to reduce it. . . to create jobs. this is going to lose jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, health care costs are increasing two even three times the rate of inflation. inflation. if this continue i obviously ultimately consume us so we have got to do something to reform health care. but the bill making its way through the according that economic modeling by the president's own chief economic at pfizer, the business tax hikes holon would destroy 4.7 million jobs. independent analysis by a nonpartisan group found that 114 million americans would lose their current health insurance. the cbo noted that this plan would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits. mr. speaker, this cannot be the right solution. we can do better. we need to keep working. and please include republican

ideas in this work product. thank you and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentle lady from kansas rise? the gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this recession has forced kansas families this change their ways. balks or cutting back just to make ends meet. -- alice -- folks are cutting back just to make ends meet. that is what we should be doing. what we need is to take responsibility for our actions. we need to rein in spending and reduce the deficit and stop legislation that will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the nation's debt. we need to empower families to purchase health care that is the best fit for them without

waiting lines and without mountains and mountains of debt. i will continue to fight for common sense solutions. americans deserve no less. i yield back the balance of my time. >> what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> as a nation we spend almost twice as much a person per health care as any other country. all the money that we are spending, our health care system does not produce the best outcomes. millions of americans have no health care insurance and receive their care at the emergency room. millions more must make the jet -- a difficult choice of paying their medical bills or their mortgage because they cannot do both. i support reforms that will bring down health-care costs by tying pay mr. outcomes rather than the quantity of test being run. by ending the government's overpayment by prescription

drugs. we want to put cost care -- cost in the hands of a government. one of the things that should be available in health insurance exchanges of public health insurance option. i strongly believe that the advent of a public plan would achieve a number of beneficial goals, providing a greater choice to families and much- needed competition with private insurers. it would use its inherent and manages to control cost of a long-term to lower administrative overhead and the ability to bargain for discounts. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this is the democrat health plan. and this, over 1000 pages of legal lisa, is that democrat health plan.

this thing has really bad for america but it is even worse for seniors. it is going to result in cuts in medicare benefits. it is going to destroy medicare advantage. it is a point in not rationing health care. and if you do not believe that, listen to what the president's that. "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there. they are going have to be some difficult democratic conversations to take place on this." he is talking about rationing health care and talking about how we're going to deal with these people who are getting a little bit older who need care. he let you know what they are going to do to make sure that the seniors are going to be happy? they are going to be getting in double life counseling. take away benefits but tell you how you are going to die. >> what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise?

>> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> 50% of americans receive their health insurance from his employers. from 2000 to 2007, the annual health insurance premium for employer and employee rose from 6000 $628,000 to $12,153. the average worker's share of premium growth by 116%. the average employer share chris 75%. wages only one up 4%. americans can no longer afford health insurance through the insurance companies. does is take an individual policy do not buy one either because they were turned down because of pre-existing conditions or premiums were unaffordable. all americans should be entitled health insurance. according to the sec filings

from 2000-2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health insurance companies rose an astonishing 428%. from 2.4%. >> the journalist time has expired. -- that gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rights? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, democrats in this body are negotiating behind closed doors the most sweeping changes to american health care since the 1960's. an article on cnn's web site today explains the dangers of what happened when one party negotiates with itself in secret. under the plan, drafted by house democrats, families will lose choice and control of their health care. according to the cnn story,

americans would lose that freedom to choose what is in their insurance plan. that would lose the freedom to be awarded for healthy living. that would lose the freedom to choose high deductible coverage. that would lose the freedom to keep their existing plan. and it would lose the freedom to choose their doctor. americans need more health care choices, not fewer. house democrats should scrap this plan and negotiate in a bipartisan effort to help increase choices and reduce costs. i yield back my time. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon arise? >> i would like to address the house for one minute. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> republicans are mounting a fabulous defense of the insurance industry. they talk about competition except they ignored the fact that the health insurance industry is exempt from

antitrust laws. they can and they did collude to jack up rates. two times the rate of inflation, profit at two under 50%, while wages and earnings are down for most americans and small businesses. they ignore that fact. we cannot have a public plan? that would hurt competition. no, it would bring competition for once to the health insurance industry. and then they talk about, a few other things. the collude also to exclude individuals from coverage. you had been sick or you might get sick, pre-existing condition, anything and insurance company does not like. even if you are willing to pay their old premium, they can and do deny people renewals because they have the temerity to get sec. after paying their premiums. they get one last.

they take away your health care on a technicality. they are not all -- they are wrong. we need reform. >> is the chair must ask all members to bear in mind that the principle of hitting back at all sounds the expiration of times. that is one of the most essential ingredients of the decorum of the proceedings of a house. do not think that means it can be a civil disobedience. it has been the object of a formal house order. the chair and less the understanding and cooperation of all members on this point. for what purpose does the gentleman from about arise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. august 17 is a very important day. it is my wife's birthday.

it is also the six month anniversary of the stimulus. let's go back six months. remember when the president promised that unemployment would not go above 8%? maybe that was held. remember when the speaker said, jobs, jobs, jobs? maybe that was held. we said that we would see an immediate results. there are hollow promises for bad legislation. my wife last word of the jobs. i am going ask where are the jobs. nevadans will ask where the jobs. americans will ask where are the jobs. happy birthday, sweetheart. was that? the oilers the chair will remember the members to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentle

lady from illinois rise? without objection. the general ideas represent -- recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to discuss the health care concerns my constituents shared with me last night at a town hall meeting. overwhelmingly i heard from those who legitimately worried that this proposal will force them from the private insurance they enjoy now. when collor told me that she was able to provide for her medically fragile child only because of her employer provided health care, which she described as expensive but worth every penny. she fears that this reform bill, her coverage options would be limited and her child would be denied the care that she needs. many of my constituents, who are remarkably well informed but this complex legislation, are also outraged by its cost. they question how $1.6 billion in new spending will help make

health care better. one caller was dismayed at dealing with the same sort of bureaucrats at his doctor's office that he dealt with that his job. my constituents have spoken. they want common sense solutions to lower costs, increase accessibility, and improve care. they know that this bill is not yet. >> the time has expired. for what person -- for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? he is recognized for one minute. >> i was at a famous cubs game and watched as the chicago cubs were leading up to this crescendo and i were playing the florida marlins. it actually looked for a minute as at the chicago cubs were going to go to the world series. the announcers began to say, there are five house left and the clubs will go to the world series. it got incredibly exciting. and then there was a bobble overran left field and the rest was history. the air when at wrigley field

like nothing i had ever seen before. that is exactly what happened in the ways and means committee when the director of cdo -- of cbo came and and i am paraphrasing appalling about the democrat majority plan. you are rushing his. you're not given us time to evaluate this. but number two, there is nothing that indicates that this will save money. it looks like a budget buster. all of the energy left the room. americans know that we can do better. americans know that this is a destroyer. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i imagine it codger doctor because you were very sick and immediately he write a prescription scheduled for surgery and send you for your way. you said that you had a medical file the was 3 inches thick. don't you want to examine me,

ask some questions? your doctor said, i do not have time for this because i am working on a deadline. we all need to agree and work together. our health-care system needs reform. let's work together to fix it. we did have a basic plan that covers what families really need and worry about. have transparency about quality and costs and provide financial assistance. let's make insurance personal, portable, and permanent. and i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. throughout the years there has been a relentless drumbeat of expensive stimulus packages, takeover of the car companies, financial bailouts, cap-and- trade, and the drumbeat continues today. more government control, more

government spending, higher taxes, fewer choices, especially for small business. now the democratic leadership wants to take over a sixth of our gdp, our health care. they want the government to take over health care. it is a recipe for economic disaster. even worse it is a disaster for patient. a government-run system will always rationed care, reduce quality, and raise costs. a lot but a federal bureaucrat between you and your doctor. let's put patients, not the government, first. as long as we continue this "government knows best" approach, we will not get health care reform or that kind of economic recovery that the american people need. we will get rationing and diminishing quality of care. stop the drumbeat of the government. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, members on both

sides of the aisle are in favor of health care delivery reformed. we want universal access. we want universal coverage. but what the democratic majority in their rush to get something through this body by the end of the week, what they have given us is 1100 pages of universal nightmare. this is not what the american people want. they do not want these long lines, it is long rationing of care, they do not want a non- elected government bureaucrat telling health-care providers what they can get and what they can offer and what they can prescribe to take care of their patients. mr. speaker, we can come together in a bipartisan way and rewrite this hr 3200, and do it for the american people, bring down the cost of health care, and promote universal access.

that's what we need to do. we need to do it in a bipartisan way and i recommend to the democratic leadership, let's go back to the drawing table. i yelled back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the latest numbers we have are for 2007. did it by the tall old number of households in america into the total amount of money spent on medicare and medicaid. $9,200 for every household in america. we are not getting our money's worth with this government-run health care and now the president wants to spend another $1 trillion? there is a republican plan we can get through legislative cancel to get to the floor, or even have the cbo scoring it. for the first time ever, we're going to give senior citizens complete control of their health care.

we're going to give them cash money in and help savings account. they control it. not the government, not an insurance company, and it will buy them that as private insurance you can have for everything above that. that gives them complete coverage. no rapper rounds that they have to buy, no surplus insurance, that is a plan that will not make america safe. >> for what purpose did the gentleman from texas rise? e. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i recently met with dozens of doctors and east house -- east texas to discuss health care. they had recommended to their children to not follow when their footsteps. health care is losing their best and brightest did to its takeover by the government. republicans have common-sense solutions to our health care challenges to ensure that all

americans have access to high- quality health care they need, when they needed, at a price that they can afford. when it comes to health care decisions, no health-care bureaucrats should ever become between you and your doctor. and if you are happy with your current plan, republicans wanted to be able to keep it. in contrast speaker policy has proposed a government-run health care rationing system paid for by higher taxes and borrowing more money from the chinese while sending the $1 trillion bill to our children and grandchildren. if you love the government takeover of our banks, of our autumn companies, and the aig, you'll love the takeover of your family's health care. >> the senate judiciary committee approved the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor, barack obama is the choice for the supreme court.

the vote was 13-6. lindsey graham was this fellow republican joining the democrats. her nomination goes to the full senate for it but next week. that judiciary hearing is next here on c-span. after that, president obama takes questions on health care. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," we will focus on health care legislation. our first guest is drumroll four -- is from roll call. later, an update on the next floozies and with the john hopkins school of public health. washington journal begins each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern with your calls in the day's news hear on c-span. during the conversation on

civil-rights and race relations with npr and boxed you analyst juan williams. that is live sunday noon eastern on c-span2. >> now the senate judiciary committee meets to discuss and vote on judge sonia sotomayor. pat leahy of vermont is the chairman of this to our hearing. -- two-hour hearing. >> we have a quorum. i won i think the members of the committee for their cooperation. want to thank all members of the committee for their cooperation. two weeks ago during our hearing on the nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court, we're not perfect, no hearing is, the hearing did provide us a chance to ask questions and also to raise concerns. it gave the nominee an attorney to respond to relentless critics, having had to remain

silent for the two months prior to the hearing. finally, her chance to have a public voice. it allowed the american people, most importantly, to see and hear judge sotomayor for themselves. it's interesting that during those four days, almost 2,000 people attended the hearing in person in this room. millions more saw it or heard it, read about it thanks to newspapers, blogs, television, cable and of course, in the judiciary committee, we have webcasting. i believe that president obama's right when he told the american people last may that judge sotomayor will bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey. a journey defined by hard work,

fierce intelligence, enduring faith in an america, america, all things are possible. so i thank judge sotomayor and her family for participating in the hearing with such intelligence and grace. i might say, and patience. now comes the moment when this committee is faced with the choice of whether to recommend this nomination favorably to the senate. each of us 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 careo 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 ag those are phrases and words that have meaning. i will agree that her testimony was i consistent with those repeated phrases and statements but i have to say her testimony to mean did not have the clarity and a compelling nature that would overcome those speeches. 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 inmerica 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 by condemnation by the city so that another private developer could build a walgreens pharmacy on

it. the developer who was pursuing a redevelopment supported by the city told the landowner he could keep the land and build that cvs as long as he forked over $800,000 to him and half ownership of his business. so in another two-page opinion, short, without much discussion, she rejected those claims. the constitution says private property can only be taken for public use. that was not followed in that case. so each of these three cases of importance, deserve to be treated with great thoughtfulness and care, yet in each instance, her decisions were unacceptably short and their only consistency was that the result favored a liberal pro government ideology against the individuals asserting their constitutional rights. so mr. chairman, i appreciate you and i know people will disagree on this and can disagree honestly, but after all

is said and done, my evaluation of the testimony at the hearing and the study of the cases i've mentioned, i've concluded that this nomination not be confirmed and will cast a no vote. >> thank you, senator. senator kohl? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to congratulate chairman leahy and senator sessions as wellsotomayor's confirmation hearings. the proceedings are fair to all members and most importantly, to the nominee. today, i am pleased to cast my vote for judge sotomayor, an individual whose life story is an inspiration to millions of americans. a child of immigrants with modest means, judge sotomayor has risen by 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 story 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 lues, 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 wishes 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 my judgment, she used inappropriate legal standards. her record regarding her approach to judging has too many unresolved controversies with the fundamental principles in which i deeply believe. as a result, i regret i cannot support her appointment to the supreme court. my extended statement will go into this in much more detail. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, chairman, and for conducting these hearings in the way in which they were held. it is very much appreciated. . 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, unquestioned integrity 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 judiciary. 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 it would be quote, a disservice both to the law and society for judges to disregard personal views shaped by one's quote differences as women or men of color, end of

quote. she proclaimed that the court of appeals is where quote, unquote, policy is made. she said that a wise quote, wise latina would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male, end of quote, and this agreed with the statement by justice o'connor where justice o'connor said quote, a wise old woman or a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case, end of quote. she said judges should look to foreign law so they can get quote, unquote, creative juices flowing. at her confirmation hearing, judge sotomayor attempted to explain these statements away. however, i had problems harmonizing her answers with the statements that she repeated over and over again throughout the years. the statements made at the hearing and in speeches and

articles made outside the hearing are, in my mind, polar opposites of each other. they're not compatible and cannot be reconciled. i also question the reliability of statements made at a formal hearing where the nominee is clearly prepared to answer questions as compared to statements that were made over the years in any unguarded manner without 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 hoped 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 there is no doubt of her intelligence, integrity, or distinguished legal background. we are proud of the accomplishments. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor will be able to set aside her personal biases and prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner, based on the constitution. i am not convinced that judge sotomayor will it protect important constitutional rights of nor am i convinced that she will be refrain from producing new rights from the constitution. i don't think she understands the proper role of a judge in our system of checks and balances. only time will tell wheer