is that the judge that proclaims that the court of appeals is where policy is made, or is it the nominee who proclaimed fidelity ted a lot? is it the judge that disagreed with justice o'connor's statement that a wise man and a wise woman will reach the same decision, or will it be the nominee who wrecked -- rejected obama's and that the standard -- empathy standard? base of what i saw judge souter do and what i saw her say, i think i am right and boding no. >> mr. chairman, i will be brief. i wanna say a few words about judge sotomayor and hearing process that we have just been through. . your staff for a remarkably well-run proceeding. i think anyone who saw the four

days of hearings would agree that the process was scrupulously fair. everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they wanted to ask. they had the time they needed for follow-up questions and for follow-ups to those follow-ups and no stone was left unturned, even if the answers the judge gave weren't always what the questioner hoped to hear. what the public doesn't see is the work that is done behind the scenes to get us to that point. not just the setup of the room and all the complex preparations that go into the smooth running of the hearing itself, but also the enormous effort to make all the enormous effort to make all the background information t came to the committee available online virtually immediately, all of judge sotomayor's speeches and articles, over 100 letters and reports from people who know her, organizations that wish to express their views on her nomination, as well as all the materials received from the prldef organization in response to the committee's request. i think you set a new standard for transparency and public access to supreme court nomination proceedings and i

truly want to commend you for that, and thank you for all you and your staff have done. it's been tremendous work. the scrutiny to be applied to a president's nominee to the supreme court is the highest of any nomination. the supreme court alone among other courts has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents and so i believe that anyone who sits on that court must not have a preset agenda to reverse precedents with whi he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of our citizens and that is the same standard i applied to the nominations of both chief justice roberts and justice alito. what we saw over four days of hearings on the nomination of judge sotomayor was a thoughtful, intelligent, and careful judge. a person committed to her craft and to the law, someone whose remarkable life story and varied experience will add diversity

and perspective which the court sorely needs. not only will judge sotomayor become the first latina justice and only the third woman to serve on the court, but she will be the only justice who has served as a trial court judge and she will have more judicial experience at the outset of her service on the court than any of her colleagues did. there is no doubt she is highly qualified and i think we saw during those four days of hearings that she has an admirable judicial temperament and demeanor that will serve her well on the court. judge sotomayor's record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the important role of the court in protecting civil liberties, even in a time of war. she sat on a second circuit panel that struck down portions of the national security letter statute that was so dramatically expanded by the patriot act. when i asked her how september 11th changed her view of the law, she gave the following answer. the constitution is a timeless document. it was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation, to everything that would develop in our

country. it has protected us as a nation. it has inspired our survival. that doesn't change. and later when we discussed a case, she said a judge should never rule from fear. a judge should rule from the law and the constitution. those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the american people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch. at the same time, she appreciates the deference the judiciary must give to the legislature that seeks to solve the problems facing the american people. i don't see in her record or in her public statements a burning desire to overturn precedent or to remake constitutional law in the image of her own personal preference and i certainly don't see any bias of any kind. i was also impressed with her record in statements during the hearing on judicial ethics. judge sotomayor seems to understand that the extraordinary power she will wield as a justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest. mr. chairman, all that being said, i do want to express a

note of dissatisfaction not with you, certainly, or with my colleagues and not with judge sotomayor, but with a nominations process that i think fails to educate the senate or the public about the views of potential justices on the supreme court. in this regard, i completely associate myself with the remarks of my senior senator from wisconsin, senator kohl. i said before that i do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the supreme court has done in recent years is the person from whom the american public most needs to hear. makes no sense to me that the current justices can hear future cases, notwithstanding the fact that we know their views on a legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion in a previous case that raised a similar issue, but nominees for the court can refuse to tell us what they think about that previous case under the theory that doing so would compromise their independence or their ability to keep an open mind in a future case. i remain unconvinced that the dodge that all nominees now use, i can't answer that question because the issue might come before me on the court, is

justified. these hearings have become little more than theater, where senators try to ask clever questions and nominees try to come up with clever ways to respond without answering. this problem certainly did not start with these hearings or this nominee but perhaps it is inevitable. the chances of adopting a nominee who adopts this strategy is remote based on the history of nominations. nonetheless, i do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent. i cannot say that i learned everything about judge sonia sotomayor that i would have liked to have learned. what i did learn about her makes me believe that she will serve with distinction on the court and i should vote in favor of her confirmation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i thank the others for kind personal comments. senator kyl, the deputy republican, later told me his duties required him to be elsewhere, asked consent that he have a statement he wants placed in the record which senator sessions has his proxy and will

be able to vote when that time comes. so next, senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one, i would like to add my compliments to you and senator sessions for conducting the hearings with whatever shortcomings they may have in terms of finding out about the nominee. i think you did a good job of giving us a chance to ask and senator sessions did a very good job. i come to this a little bit differently. you can tell it in my vote. i'm going to vote for the nominee. and i cannot disassociate myself, being a second term senator from what almost happened three or four years ago. i really enjoy politics. it's been a great honor to represent the people of south carolina and to be able to have a say about things that matter in the country in a political forum. i enjoy traveling all around the country, trying to help senator mccain. i failed in that endeavor. everybody has, you know, they don't feel good about this or

that. i didn't feel good about the election. but we lost. i feel good about the country. i feel really good about the american people and quite frankly, i feel good about judge sotomayor. what i'm trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we became -- we came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times. the courts have been all over the place, like the american people have been all over the place. sometimes they have let our ideals down in some of their decisions, but more times than not, the courts were a little bit ahead of the public or politicians on some very important concepts as to who we are, and the filibusters that were going on a few years ago were historic in nature, and i think if carried out and keep repeating themselves, will, over time, drive good men and women away from wanting to become

judges. we asked for the scrutiny that we have as politicians, the ads we run against each other and all the things that we say about each other. we have a chance to respond. but to be a judge is different. you know, the theory senator sessions espouses is true, the law should be a quiet place where even the most unpopular can have a shot. no way could you win in the election but you might win in court, because there's something a little bit bigger going on in that courtroom than 50 plus 1. so this quiet place we call the law really concerns me that we're about to change it and make it just an extension of politics in another form. so that's why i'm happy with this hearing. there were no filibusters, and to my colleagues who voted no, i understand. i completely understand.

to my colleagues who voted for justice roberts, i'm better understanding what you went through. leahy, feingold, kohl. you decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen. i am deciding to vote for a woman that i would not have chosen. and as the went on it got easier not harder for me because all of us seem to have abandoned the senator obama test which would seem to be good for the judiciary and the country. can i no more understand her heart than she can understand mine and this empathy idea makes us all kind of dr. phils. i feel uncomfortable doing that. i really do. so i base my vote on qualifications, and i came away after the hearing believing that she was well qualified, that the american bar association gave her the highest rating anyone

could receive, and that meant a lot to me and alito and roberts and it means a lot to me now, that she was competent, not just qualified, and it's not me saying that. it's what everybody who has worked with her has said, and she's of good character, so when i rejected the empathy heart standard and went back to what we used to do around here, i found that she was extremely well qualified, 17 years on the bench, 12 years as a circuit court of appeals judge, left of center but certainly within the mainstream, and as to my good friend senator grassley she can be no worse than souter from our point of view, so there is not going to be a major shift in the balance of power here, but what she will do as a judge i think will be based on what she thinks is right and that's not me saying that or hoping that, that's based on a 12-year record where i haven't seen this activism that we all dread and should reject. and there's another story here.

the speeches, the speeches did bug the hell out of me, not because i disagreed with what she was saying. she was a judge at the time she was giving the speeches, and she embraced some concepts that just really were unnerving, but you know what? how many of my speeches would unnerve people on the other side? probably almost all of them. the speeches had to be put in context of her judicial record, and i do not want to set a standard here, mr. chairman, where people aspiring to be a judge will never have a thought, never take on an unpopular cause. the clients she represented i wouldn't have represented that side. would i have been on the other side, but that's okay, and i hope our democratic colleagues will remember that if a conservative republican gets back in the white house. it is okay to advocate a position that is different than we would advocate ourselves

because good lawyering is required for a good country, and you want to reward good lawyers when you find them, whether you agree with them or not. so i took the speeches and her advocacy role and i put it up against her record, and i leave believing that she is well qualified, of good character and her record over a long period of time is within the mainstream. and the last thing i would like to talk about is not the reason to vote for her or against her, but it is something to acknowledge. we're 200 something years old as a nation. this is the first latino woman in the history of the united states to be selected for the supreme court. now that is a big deal. i would not have chosen her, but i understand why president obama

did. i gladly give her my vote because i think she meets the qualifications test that was used in scalia and ginsberg, and if she by being on the court will inspire young women, particular particularly latina women to seek a career in the law, that would be a good thing, and i believe she will. i wish her well. america has changed for the better with her selection. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator graham, and senator i want to say to center sessions, i thought his questions were short but fair. to all of my colleagues, i want to thanks senator graham for the moving speech he just gave.

one final thing, i'm sorry to be coming and going here. we have a democratic meaning in the finance committee. i apologize to my colleagues for that. i am enormously proud to be able to cast my vote today in favor of the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor. this is a historic day for america. americans are familiar with the inspiring stories and abroad judge sonia sotomayor or from a housing project to a prestigious education to the highest court in the land. it is a great american story. it will aspire -- inspire americans everywhere of all colors and creeds to aim higher. for that, the country's already better off. to reach further and aim higher, and for that the country is already better off.

judge sotomayor is a gifted jurist and dedicated public servant, not just an inspiring story. she's a judge with a 17-year record on the bench, more than 380 opinions on the appellate court alone, and yet the words that she was asked about most often during the hearings were these three, quote wise latina woman. to take a 17-year judicial career and sum it up in three words is unfair. it's unfair to judge sotomayor. it's unfair to the supreme court. it's unfair to the american people. my colleagues did ask about a handful of cases, the new haven fire fighters case, the second amendment case, but they were unable to prove anything other than what we knew before the hearings. she follows precedent. in her courtroom, rule of law comes first. judge sotomayor's opinions speak much more clearly and loudly than snippets of speeches.

her speeches, as she said, were to inspire and motivate. her opinions are to instruct and guide. as chief justice marshall said, quote, to say what the law is, unquote. and when we have so many opinions to review, it is troubling that colleagues seem to be looking for reasons outside of her record to try and posit that she is outside of the mainstream. the court, even with such a large trove of opinions to examine hearings do matter. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were entitled to ask their questions. i was pleased to see that even the most difficult questions were asked and answered respectfully, but judge sotomayor's answers only emphasized what is abundantly clear from her lengthy record on the bench. she comes to the bench without arrogance and without an agenda. i have three tests for evaluating judicial nominees,

excellence, moderation and diversity. judge sotomayor passes all three with flying colors. no one can seriously doubt her legal excellence, and i don't think anyone here does. on moderation i have a hard time understanding how anyone concludes that she is anything but moderate. in cases ranging from business to criminal law to immigration, she's squarely within the mainstream. in her 17 years on the bench she has not produced even a stray thought that could be viewed as way outside the mainstream. finally, the diversity she will bring to the bench is not just cosmetic. it arises not only from her race and gender but also from her working class upbringing and her unique experiences, just as it did for other supreme court nominees such as justices alito and thomas who spoke movingly of their own backgrounds.

if my colleagues cannot support a moderate pick like judge sotomayor, it simply suggests they will never support anyone nominated to the supreme court by president obama. she is thoughtful. she is distinguished. she is moderate. elections do matter. to think that the president would nominate someone who mirrors the beliefs of an extreme conservative and that is the only person who some of may colleagues could vote for is perpl perplexing. so mr. chairman, the message from judge sotomayor's record comes through loud and clear. it's a message of supreme intelligence and moderation. there is no reason to look further than that, and that is why, among other reasons, i am so proud to vote for her today. >> thank you very much, senator schumer. thank you for introducing her

before the committee. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues and as others have thanked the chairman and the ranking member for the manner in which these hearings were conducted, judge sotomayor herself acknowledgesor nojd that she could not have received a fairer treatment before the committee, and it's my hope that that will set the tone for hearings in the future, that perhaps somehow we have established a new standard of fairness that will guide both republicans and democrats as we consider future nominees from the bench. last week i made my -- cleared my intention to vote no on the confirmation of judge sotomayor to the united states supreme court, and i will do so for several reasons. first of all, judge sotomayor's record as a judge on the

district court and court of appeals is generally in the mainstream. some of her decisions demonstrated the kind of result-oriented decision-making, one that suggests perhaps a liberal judicial activism that is too often steered the court in the wrong direction over the last years. these decisions relate to the second amendment. an important provision of the bill of rights, not a trivial matter. i think we would all agree. the takings clause of the five-day amendment, the right to private property rights and the right to just compensation and the assurance that private property will not be taken for anything by the government other than for public use, and then, of course, there is the troubling new haven fire fighters case that others have spoken about, and it's not just the decision that the judge made without substantial evidence of disparate impact liability.

it's also the manner in which almost dismissively the judge refused to give what i believe a fair consideration of the fire fighters' claims in a way that i would hope every judge, every federal judge would. second, many of judge sotomayor's public statements about judging include very radical ideas on the role of a judge in our society. some have said we can't consider those, but to consider only her judicial record and not consider other statements she has made about how judges should perform in office i think is an incomplete picture. she has said there is no neutrality in the law. she has said that legal uncertainty is a good thing because it allows judges to change the law and to make policy. she's said that foreign law can get the, quote, creative juices flowing, close quote, as judges interpret the united states

constitution and that ethnicity and gender can and even should have an impact on a judge's decision making. now i would concede that those are hard to square with her statement that her sole standard as a judge is fidelity to the law by that i think demonstrates the conundrum with which many of us are left. this committee gave judge sotomayor the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind some of her most controversial decisions as well as some of her public statements about judging and to allow her to put that into an appropriate context, but i don't believe she cleared up the confusion over what kind of justice she would be because i have no confidence which judge sonia sotomayor we will see on the supreme court i will vote against the nomination. the stakes are simply too high

to vote to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from the bench. i know many senators take the position that judge sotomayor will not address legal questions from a liberal activist perspective, and i hope they are right. i also hope that her testimony before this committee represents a teaching moment, a moment that defines our consensus on what the proper role of a judge should be. in the past we seem to have had very heated disagreements about judicial philosophy and judicial activism. we've debated original understanding versus an evolving constitution. yet i think a remarkable thing happened during the course of judge sotomayor's confirmation hearings. we seem to have agreed that judges should interpret the law, not make the law. we seem to agree that judges should rely upon the original intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution, not on foreign law or

international law. we seem to agree that judges should apply the law faithfully and not move the law in one direction or another based on their own policy preferences, and, yes, we agreed that judges should be impartial and not pick winners and losers based on some subjective empathy standard or whatever is in the judge's heart. mr. chairman, i think we've come remarkably close to embracing the hamiltonian standard in federalist 78 where he called the judiciary the least dangerous branch having neither force nor will, merely judgment. if that is in fact the case, then i think we will have accomplished much in the course of this confirmation process. i for one would find that consensus encouraging. we've defined where the judicial mainstream is, and we've made clear that radical views on judging have no place on the federal bench, and we've set

expectations i believe for future nominees. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. thank you, senator cornyn. and senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. a few weeks ago my colleague and friend senator al franken came to my office the day after he was sworn in. we talked about his new role in the united states senate and some of the challenges he'd already faced, and he talked about the first three votes that he cast as a united states senator. i tried to remember the first three votes i cast as a united states senator. i couldn't. after you've served in the house and senate for a period of time you come to realize that you have to be reminded on some of these votes, but there are some votes that you will remember for a lifetime. one of them is a vote on would our nation should go to war. that is a type of vote that you'll always remember. it's one of the most important decisions we make, and so is this decision because we're here

asked to judge whether a man or a woman should be appointed for life to sever on the united states supreme court. the court that defines our personal rights to privacy, decides the restrictions that can be placed on the most personal aspects of our lives and our freedom. the supreme court decides the rights of workers, consumers, immigrants and discrimination victims. the nine justices decide whether congress has the authority to pass laws, to protect our civil rights and our environment. they decide what checks will govern the executive branch in war and in peace. because these issues are so important, we obviously need justices with intelligence, knowledge of the law, proper judicial temperament and a commitment to impartial justice. in the 220-year history of the united states, 110 supreme court justices have served under our constitution. 106 of them have been white

males. we have had two women justices and two african-americans. that's why this is such an historic moment because president obama's nomination, sonia sotomayor, is indeed ground -- breaking. in life and in our nation, if you want to be the first, you have to be the best. sonia sotomayor's resume i think meets that standard. when you take a look at her life, her splendid life story, you may not be able to see it as some of us have seen it from this side of the table. we sat there during the course of this hearing as judge sotomayor told her life story, and i spent more time watching her mother than watching her. her mom who nodded as judge sotomayor told that story of growing up in public housing, losing her father when she was 9 years old, struggling to succeed against adversity and illness of reaching the pinnacle of success

and academic achievement rat princeton and the same at yale law school, the serving as a prosecutor, going on to be selected by president george herbert walker bush to serve in the federal judiciary and then promoted by president bill clinton, a rare occurrence that someone receives bipartisan support what a great story it is for america. what a great story it is the president obama would give us a chance to consider judge sotomayor to serve as the first hispanic woman on the united states supreme court. for many you upload -- who oppose her, after poring over 3000 court decisions and hundreds of first beaches, her critics focused their opposition primarily, not exclusively, on one case and on one sentence

from one speech. i hope so was keeping track of how many times those three words of include wise latino woman" were recorded during this meeting. the astor what did you really really need -- me with those three words? -- someone asked her what did you really mean with those three words? we understand our decisions are often pose in an unfair fashion. if we vote in which it is controversial, we as the people be fair and the judges on a single vote. the standard we as for ourselves but is not a standard we give her when it comes to decisions. we also live in a world where senators have extended remarks, and jokes that flop and verbal

gaps. revised and extended remarks, jokes that flop and verbal gaffs. many want to condemn sonia sotomayor for otherwise latina remark that she conceded was a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. i listened carefully to what she had to say, and i noted at the end of the day that she had received the highest possible rating from the american bar association which interviewed 500 judges and practitioners in order to assess her integrity, competence and temperament, the highest possible rating. in my state of illinois the conservative "shik trchicago tr said this of her testimony. in four days of testimony under often intense questioning, judge sotomayor handled herself with grace and patience. she displayed a thorough knowledge of case law and appreciation of her critics' concern. the result was to reinforce a strong case that she will make a

good supreme court justice and deserves senate approval. a lot has been said about the issue of empathy and this question of the wise latina woman. i pointed out when i asked judge sotomayor that the wise latina speech contains a line that her critics didn't often quote, a that line judge sotomayor noted in the same speech that it was nine white male justices on the supreme court who unanimously handed down "brown versus board of education" and other cases upholding sex and race discrimination. judge sotomayor made it clear at her hearing that she believes that no single race or gender has a monopoly on good judgment. for some of my colleagues sonia sotomayor's statements under oath are not good enough. i would hope that senators would be wise enough themselves to look at judge sotomayor's long record on the bench and not on

one line in one speech taken out of context. now let's be honest. a great deal of this debate is about diversity. why do we seek diversity when it comes to appointments to the federal bench? first, we are a diverse nation. second, we want every american to believe they have an equal opportunity to succeed and lead, but we also want every american, black, white and brown, male and female, to know that our system of government is fair. we want all americans to look at our congress and our courts and feel their leaders can identify with the diversity of life experience in this great diverse nation. does anyone really believe that there is a clear objective answer in every case that comes before the supreme court, that precedent is so clear and the law is so clear? well, if they do, try to explain why one-third of all the rules of that court in the past term

were decided by a 5-4 vote. does anyone really believe the supreme court's recent strip search case would have come out the same way if justice ginsberg, the only woman on the court at this moment, hadn't helped her eight male colleagues understand what it's like for a 13-year-old girl to be treated in such a humiliating fashion? does anyone really believe that women judges haven't helped their male colleagues understand the realities of sex discrimination and sex harassment in a workplace? study after study has shown that men and women on the bench sometimes rule differently in discrimination cases. this doesn't mean their rules are based on personal bias. it simply acknowledges that americans see the world through a prism of varied experiences and perspectives. our supreme court justices should possess an equally rich and wide field of vision as they interpret the facts and the law. criticizing judge sotomayor for recognizing this reality is unfair. mr. chairman, something has

happened since we concluded the hearings which is unusual. a major lobby group in washington, d.c., the national rifle association, has for the first time notified their members and colleagues that this is going to be on the scorecard. the gun lobby, the national rifle association, has come out in opposition to judge sotomayor. i believe it's the first time that they have ever taken a position on a supreme court justice. i listened to her testimony on the maloney case. most of the criticism of her on this issue has focused on that case, but in that case she came to the exact same conclusion as a three-judge panel of the seventh circuit based in my home state of illinois which featured two of our most conservative icons on the federal bench, frank easterbrook and richard posner. they concluded that only the supreme court, not appellate courts, can overrule century-old supreme court precedents on whether the second amendment right to bear arms applies to the cities. i realize the national rifle

association and senate allies don't like that ruling. they apparently wanted judge sotomayor to do what the ninth circuit did and overrule supreme court precedent but in the maloney case judge sotomayor did what an appellate court should do and she followed the law. the sotomayor nomination is the third supreme court nomination i voted on in 12 and a half years i've served in the senate because the stakes are so high i believe supreme court nominees carry the burden of proof when they come before the senate. they must prove they are worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. judge sotomayor has met and exceeded this burden. america will be well served when judge sotomayor becomes justice sotomayor and i enthusiastically support her nomination. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to figure out how to catch -- couch my words since i've just been condemned because

i'm the -- the basis of my vote might not be on something that senator durbin would think to be appropriate. i would mention that the ninth circuit ruled the opposite of your circuit, senator durbin on the second amendment, and i would also note for the record that the very person on our side that questioned surge sotomayor on otherwise latina comment was the very member that's going to be voting for her. he had more questions of her than anyone on our side on that regard, so i think it's somewhat unfair to characterize us with a broad brush. i'm proud that president obama has nominated such a distinguished woman. i identify with senator cole and senator feingold. the great disturbance that we have that we can't get real answers in these hearings. i believe what we say as judges

truly does come from our heart. most of her speeches were before teaching moments through either students or legal societies or others, and i believe she believed in what she was saying, and i also believe she has great credit that she -- a lot of times that she's not allowed her personal beliefs to influence her judgments, but the dissonance that i came away with is what you believe you ought to stand up for and defend and then defend your record to be able to say i can still be a great judge, but on the two questions, the two questions when she was asked, one, about foreign law and her outside very critical very negative statements about justices scaliand thomas and then -- and then to walk away from that saying that she didn't say that is just flat not accurate, and then also to

finally come to a point recognizing the supreme court justices' job is not to think about what the rest of the world thinks about us. their job is to interpret the constitution and to use the statutes and our constitution and the facts. i think she is one impressive individual, and i thoroughly enjoyed her. i like her a lot, but that's not good enough for me, and it doesn't have anything to do with other than whether or not i believe with confidence, with confidence, that she has an understanding of the second amendment, the five-day amendment, the 14th amendment and the 4th amendment, and although i will have a complete written statement for the record, she is going to be on the court for life.

they get to change it, and we all know the major instances and shifts in this country that have taken about when they have done so, so i go back to what senator cole said when we started out. we need to change the rules for the hearings. we need to let judges really know, let us know what they think but also sell us on the fact that they in fact are impartial dividers of the truth, regardless of what they think. that's the characteristic of a great judge is that their personal thoughts don't enter, that they take the facts, all of the facts and decide what the ruling will be on the basis of that and that only. to have something other than that on the supreme court, which i agree on both sides of the aisle has happened, hurts us in the long run, so i -- i align myself with the comments of senators feingold and cole in hoping that future hearings,

although i think it was a remarkable hearing. the chairman did a great job, and i think the american people got to see a great deal of this very fine woman. i regret that i cannot vote for her, and i can't vote for her not because she's a latina woman, and i can't vote for her because she has said all those things. i can't vote for her because she wouldn't defend what she said and stand up and say i really believe this, but i can still be a great judge anyway, because i will never let that interfere with my judgment, and that's what i was looking for, and it wasn't there. with that i yield. >> senator cardin. >> well, mr. chairman, first, let me observe, this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court justice, and i just want to thank you, mr. chairman, chairman leahy,

for the manner in which he has conducted this hearing. i want to thank senator sessions for the fairness in which he worked with our chairman so that each one of us would have the opportunity to ask as many questions as we want to get all the information. i might point out i've been told by staff that there were 17 questions asked on a wise latina, so we not only compliment judge sotomayor for her patience and i want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for their patience in allowing each of us to pursue the information we thought that was relevant in evaluating judge sotomayor's qualifications to serve on the supreme court of the united states. i believe judge sotomayor's background and her professional accomplishments will add strength, balance and leadership to the supreme court. her personal story that we've heard about being part of an immigrant family from puerto rico, the fact that she received a scholarship to be able to attend college is an

inspirational story about success in our country. we know of her professional background as a prosecutor, a trial judge and appellate judge, having more judicial experience than any nominee to the supreme court in 100 years. her command of legal precedent and her ability to challenge attorneys in their legal arguments will bode well to reach the right decisions in the supreme court of the united states. her leadership ability in forging consensus among the judges in the second circuit will be a talent that i think will be very helpful in the supreme court of the united states. she is mainstream in her judicial decisions and opinions. with a correct sense of the role of a judge to decide a case based on sound legal precedent and the facts of the case giving due deference to the congress of the united states.

she has a record of understanding the constitution and the bill of rights as a timeless document, able to protect individual rights against the abuses of power, applying these protections to contemporary challenges. she follows precedent to advance she entered every one of our questions, but in reviewing her decisions and opinions. that is where i think we should spend most of our attention. but me just mention a few. i have confidence that she will follow the guidelines that congress has passed. i have confidence that she understands the importance of freedom of speech and the decisions that she reaches about it. the speech there was repugnant. she understands the importance

of the constitutional protection. i have confidence that she will pursue freedom of religion. she protected the rights of religious freedom for a minority. the religious practice is not as well known by the majority in our population. she protected the civil rights of americans there is a case she did it in our schools, protecting the right of an african-american. she rejected the rights in housing matters. that is very important today. we know that there are predatory practices and our communities. i have confidence that she understands those concerns. i was impressed by her commitment on the voting rights. understands those concerns. i was particularly impressed by her commitment on voting rights in response to my question acknowledging that this is a fundamental right. she showed in the hayden case a

deference for following congress and protecting voting rights. it's going to be particularly important as we look at the voting rights act, and she has shown an understanding of privacy rights. now here we don't have court cases that we can look at, but her response to our questions and her background give me confidence that she will respect legal precedent and advance privacy in the 21st century. as i said in the beginning, mr. chairman, this is my first opportunity to participate in the confirmation process of a supreme court nominee. three years ago i told the people of maryland how i would judge judicial nominations, by their experience, their temperament and their understanding of the constitution of the united states. for all these reasons i will vote for the confirmation of judge sotomayor to be justice southior. >> thank you very much, senator cardin. i appreciate that. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman, and

thank you for your wise and fair leadership of these confirmation proceedings. i also thank the ranking member for his fairness and courtesy throughout the proceedings. i will be proud to vote in support of judge sotomayor's confirmation to the united states supreme court. i appreciate, as i know the chairman and others do, her background as a prosecutor, and i believe her non-conversion 17-year record as a federal judge makes clear that she's dedicated to the rule of law, has a proper judicial temperament and gives every party before her a fair hearing. i also believe the unequivocal pledge that judge sotomayor gave me, that she will respect the role of congress as representative of the american people, that she will decide cases based on the law and the facts, that she will not pre-judge any case but listen to every party that comes before her, and that she will respect precedent and limit herself to the issues that the court must

decide. in short, that she will use the broad discretion of a supreme court justice wisely. she promised that, and i take her at her word. mr. chairman, i think we are witness here to an effort to define justice in america in alignment with a particular point of view. my colleagues ren titled to their point of view. they are entitled to their point of view about guns. they are entitled to their point of view about property rights. they are entitled to their point of view about other issues. what i resist is any effort to define that point of view as a judicial norm against which any other point of view is to be seen as an aberration, as biases and prejudices to use one quotation. in this case i further believe that their definition of justice

in america, their definition, is just plain wrong, both as history and as justice. in particular i do not wish to force as the new judicial norm the sort of judges who, to paraphrase a recent article on the supreme court, in every major case vote for the corporation against the individual, for the government against the criminal defendant and for the executive branch against the legislature. i do not wish judges without empathy who will ignore the long and proud history of the courtroom as the last stand for many beleaguered americans where they can get fearless justice even when all of the forces of politics, of proper opinion and of corporate power may be a raid against them. with judges willing to provide that fearless justice, even if

it completely upsets the status quo. i would add that i find no fault in judges who won't as the price of entry to the court commit to expanding our newly minted individual right to own guns, a right that no supreme court for 220 years had previously noticed and that was created in a 5-4 decision by a divided court. so i will with pride support justice sotomayor's nomination. it is an honor to serve on this committee and to vote for such a talented and exceptional person. we all realize that judge sotomayor will be an historic justice, but i think we can also expect that most important she will be an excellent justice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. i appreciate the comments and senator kaufman.

no, senator klobuchar. i apologize, former prosecutor before she came here as was senator whitehouse. please go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. charges and i wanted to thank you and the ranking member for holding such a civil and dignified hearing. i had a few people say that it got boring at times, and maybe that is a tribute to the fact that it was a civil and dignified hearing. like many of my colleagues, i have been so impressed by judge sotomayor. like senator durbin i most remember her mother sitting behind her, that mother who when the father died at age 9, judge sotomayor was raised by that mother who had hardly any money and nurse, saved all the money just to buy their family incyclopedia britanicas and when you watch that family and brothers it reminded you that judge sotomayor knows the law and she knows the constitution, but she also knows america. one experience of hers in particular resonates with me, and that is that immediately

after graduating from law school that she became a prosecutor, and i believe that that experience in my discussions will her will forever shape how she views the law. as a prosecutor after you've interacted with victims of crime, after you've seen the damage that crime does to individual families and to communities, you know that the law is not just an abstract sun. it's not just a book in your basement. you see how the law has a real impact on the lives of real people. judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor tells me that she meetsz one of my criteria for the supreme court justice. i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that laws and the criminal justice system have on real people's lives. in addition to her work as a prosecutor, we learned a lot about judge sotomayor's long record as a judge. she came into this as a nominee with more federal trial judge, federal court experience than any nominee in 100 years.

now i believe that my colleagues on this committee ren titled to oppose judge sotomayor's nomination if they wish, but i do get concerned when people return again and again and again to a quote in so much speeches, and i was so pleased that senator graham, my colleague from south carolina, put those speeches in some context. you have to look at her whole experience. you have to look at her 17 years as a judge. you have to look at the fairness that she brings to this job. in the words of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but are you not entitled to your own facts, and in this case the facts are her judicial. the nominee was repeatedly questioned about whether she would let bias or prudice infect her judging. she was questioned for hours. she was questioned for days, but, again, the facts don't support this kind of bias. in race discrimination cases, for example, judge sotomayor

voted against plaintiffs 81% of the time. her decisions are supported by precedent. when she served on panels with republican-appointed judges, she agreed with them 95% of the time. i appreciated senator durbin's discussion of the maloney case as i agree with the hellor case but the heller case specifically left open the case that judge sotomayor was confronted with in the maloney case, and, in fact, the decision that she and her colleagues came to was the same decision that that three-judge panel on the seventh circuit came to which conclude judge eastabrook and the law professor at the university of chicago who was there when i was there and they are not rabid liberals and i'm just wondering if people would be using that same case against them if they were before us today as was used against judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor also handed out longer jail sentences than her

colleagues sass a district court judge and sentenced white collar criminals to six months in prison 48% of the time whereas her other colleagues did so 34%ves time and in drug cases 85.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence of at least six months from judge sotomayor compared with only 79% in her colleagues' case. the nominee was questioned repeatedly about issues ranging from the death penalty to use of foreign law, even though she rejected a defendant's challenge to the death penalty in the one death penalty case that she considered as a district court judge, and even though she has never cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the united states constitution. again, the facts are in her judicial. she received a unanimous positive rating from the aba? why, because she is a thorough judge who bases her decisions on the facts. she was supported by prosecutors across the country and by police across the country.

why? because they looked at her record, and they trusted her decision-making. i think just about everything in the nominee's professional record is a fair game to consider and that's why i believe that this was a civil and dignified hearing, but that said when people focus on a few items in a few speeches you have to wonder do a few statements that someone made in an entire career trump 17 years of modest, reasoned, careful judicial decision-makeing? there is one other point that i wanted to address that hasn't been addressed and that's because it irritated me, and that was the issues that were raised about the stories and comments mostly anonymous that questioned judge sotomayor's judicial temperament. according to one news story about this topic judge sotomayor developed a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments and for being sometimes brisk and kurt with lawyers who were were not prepared to answer them.

well, where i come from, asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. as a lawyer you owe it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you possibly can. when justice ginsberg was asked about these anonymous comments regarding judge sotoyor's temperament recently, she rhetorically asked has anybody watched scalia or breyer up on the bench? surely we've come to a point in this country where we can appoint as many rough to the point female judges as we've confirmed rough to the point male judges. in short, mr. chairman, i'm proud to support judge sotomayor's nomination, and i believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law, and she knows the constitution, but she knows america, too. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator klobuchar, and next senator kaufman. >> mr. chairman, i would like to

begin by others have commended you and the ranking member on running an excellent hearing, a fair hearing. >> thank you. >> and everyone had a chance to speak. everyone had a chance to ask questions, and it was just very, very well-run. >> thank you. >> judge sotomayor is an outstanding nom she. she has the superior intellect, broad experience, superb judge and unquestioned integrity. she would be a terrific choice at any time, but given our current economic crisis and the likely role of the court in reviewing legislative responses to that crisis i submit that she's the ideal nominee at this time. one thing we've learned over the last two years is that we must reform our financial markets. judge sotomayor's extensive experience as a commercial litigator, business lawyer, judge in base cases and the passion for the law that she has demonstrated throughout her career suggests that she will be a leader on the court in

business and regulatory issues at a time when such leadership is essential. as i said, she will be an excellent nominee and especially at this time. mr. chairman, would i also like to have my statement of july 24th i made on the floor entered into the record of this meeting. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will vote to confirm her. she brought to the confirmation proceeding an extraordinary record. none better than the 11 i participated in or better than any i have reviewed. it is pretty tough to be summa cum laude day at princeton. it is pretty tough to make a deal -- a yale law school admission and become a member of a yale law review.

investing prosecutor. she is the dean of american prosecutors. she has an extraordinary record in the private practice professionally. she has a distinguished record on the bench. those qualifications at the tomb about an a plus. the criticisms made of her i thought were not only ill founded but i appreciated the comments. when you consider that when we are not giving the right to vote until 1920 and when he consider a smile from the center. -- from the center. a smile from senator feinstein, when you consider -- when you

consider that there are still a tremendous glass ceiling, when you consider lily ledbetter and you go on and on and on about the appropriateness of women standing up for women. if a woman doesn't stand up for women i wouldn't think much of her, and -- and senator durbin had a poetic sequence of questions about women's insights that are sdincht from men's insights, and believe me as a senator who came here with one come senator, senator kassebaum and the second was added, it's a very different place today with 17 women and a much better place, and there was a book out "nine women and growing why the "and now it's 17 that will grow

even more to the benefit of this institution, and when she refers to being a latino, it's a little ethnic pride. i think that's a pretty healthy thing to have a little ethnic pride. so i not only found -- i didn't find fault with a wise latina woman i thought it was commendable, and then the business of empathy. there is no doubt about the history of the constitution in our country responding to empat empathy. the life of the law section appearance, not logic, core de la osa and palko, shifting values, plessy versus ferguson, 1896, separate but equal, warren versus board of education, shifting values at time and

that's what makes this country so great. one grave concern or the one regret i have about judge sotomayor's testimony was her extreme caution, just extreme caution, and i don't know if it was her decision or if it was -- if that attitude was promoted by her advisers, but there's no doubt well publicized that in the white house there are so-called murder boards where the nominees are prepared, and that's fine. they ought to be prepared, but the hearings did not produce a whole lot about what judge sotomayor's philosophy is or ideology. to pick a couple of words or her

approach, if you see me dab at my eyes, i'm not -- i'm not sad, it's chemotherapy and i've made the clean "x" industry wealthy. i'm glad to say i'm fit as a fiddle and ready for re-election, not infirmed in any way, just a little -- just a little consequence of chemotherapy, but i make that comment because people wonder about it. there has grown up a myth about judge bork's confirmation hearing, and the myth is that he was porked. they have turned into a verb or maybe it's a par tis pal, i'm not sure what form it is, except that i know it's not true. judge bork answered a great many questions because of his writings and because of his background.

he believed in original intent, and he did not believe that the equal protection clause applied beyond, as he put it, race and ethnicity, did not apply to women, did not apply to disabled, did not apply to a litany of supreme court decisions which have expanded equal protections to the benefit of this country. he did not believe in due process of law. he did not believe that it was appropriate to incorporate the ten amendments or a number of the ten amendments to apply to the states because of the due process clause. when i asked him how he would have desegregated the district of columbia schools in the context where equal protection applied only to states, "brown versus board of education, request" there was a champion

case "bowling versus sharp" of the d.c. schools and the supreme court had decided that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporated equal protection which then made it apply to d.c. when i asked him how he would desegregate the d.c. schools, you know what his answer was? i want a recess, and he came back and he talked about freedom of association, so judge bork wrote about "hess versus indiana" as an obscenity case and testified about it as a free speech case. judge bork didn't know his own record, and it would be my hope that we could structure some rules after justice scalia answered virtually no questions, after justice scalia answered no

questions, senator deconcini and i considered having a resolution in the senate to set a standard. well, you can't set a standard for senators on questions, and you can't set a standard for nominees to answer questions and they take their chances. if a nominee were to be rejected for not answering questions, it might set a standard, a tone, but that's not going to happen. when i asked judge sotomayor if she agreed with chief justice roberts that the supreme court could take more cases, it seemed to me that that was as soft a softball as you could find. of a i cited the statistics the supreme court decided 451 cases in 1886, century later in 1985, 161 written opinions, and in the 2007 term 67 written opinions. it's time we televised the

supreme court so the american people can see what they don't do. what they don't do on deciding circuit splits, but i won't elaborate upon that point now 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 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 comple 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.

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 the 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.

gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and ask permission to address the house for one minute my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. the democratic leadership has been demanding that we pass health care reform this week. that's very, very important, even though the bill doesn't take effect for five years. you know, this is the bill. my constituents have been asking me to read the bill. and i've been working on it. we now have three iterations of

this bill. i would like to advise my senior friends at home to read it. let me -- page 331. read about medicare advantage reform and how they're going to take $168 billion out of medicare advantage to help pay for some other people. read a little bit on page 425, 424, start reading how they are going to have you at 65, go in and have a planning session with a health care consultant on how you're going to die. please, read the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. 47 million uninsured and the wealthiest and the most powerful country in the world

is unconscionable. health care should not be a privilege, it should be a right. the average american pays an extra $1,100 in premiums to support a broken system. premiums have doubled in nine years, growing three times faster than wages. our health care reform plan does not, mind you, it does not call for a government takeover. we intend to lower costs, have no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care and an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses. if you like your doctor or your plan, you can keep it. and, yes, a real robust public option keeps health care costs down for those who choose private insurance. it's time to take the profit-making industry, insurance industry out of making health care decisions. medical decisions should be made between a patient and a doctor. medical decisions should not be made based on who profits. profit motives and making health decisions will not provide for affordable health care for every man, woman and child. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. hunter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to ask why the obama administration and the liberal democrats in this congress are playing russian roulette with the welfare of the american people. this administration and the democrats in this congress seem not to care about jobs but put all of their time into spending as much as possible and as little amount of time as possible. cap and trade or the national energy tax passed by democrats last month is the equivalent of a $3,000 annual tax on every single american family. and it's estimated over 2.3 million jobs are going to be lost because of it. and the liberal health care gamble. it's not even russian roulette when it comes to government-run health care. it's like jumping off a 20-story building and thinking it's not going to kill you. the democratic health care plan is economic suicide. the health care bill will impose a 5.4% surtax on 1.2 million small businesses and it

will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over 10 years, the most devastating, it's going to kill up to 4.7 million jobs because of the burdens it places on small business. if you want to get every american health care, then get every american back to work. america runs on jobs and small business. less government, more americanism. that's how we save this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, there are some republicans and some blue dog democrats who care more about protecting the profits of insurance companies than they do about bringing health care reform to the nation. health care premiums have doubled in nine years and growing at three times the rate of wages. meanwhile, 46 million people

remain uninsured and they can't see a doctor to take care of their chronic condition like breast cancer, like diabetes. so what's more important, dollars and cents or life? i am pro-life. and that's why i support health care reform, and i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: i agree with my colleague, i'm pro-life too. that's why i oppose the democrat health plan. mr. speaker, in the midst of a major recession, the house is considering health care legislation that will place new punitive taxes on small businesses. we need job creation, not job destruction. and small businesses are our best hope for emerging from this economic downturn. but not if we tax them out of their job-creating potential.

i've heard from scores of small business owners in north carolina who are struggling to keep their businesses running and who want nothing to do with the taxes and burdensome government mandates in the house health care legislation. mr. speaker, we need health care reform in america. i support reform that puts patients first and that won't destroy small businesses. republicans have a better solution that won't put the government in charge of their health care, that makes sure we bring down the cost of health care for all americans and that ensures affordable access for all americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. speaker. families in southern nevada have been hit hard during this economic recession. unemployment is at a 25-year high, and our tourism industry

has struggled as the national economy has slowed. but already the economic recovery package that congress passed is beginning to provide assistance to 95% of nevadans in the form of tax cuts. over the past few months, the making work pay tax credit has put extra money in the pocket of workers. nevada's also received more than $75 million to extend unemployment benefits for those struggling to find work. seniors and veterans have received a $250 recovery payment, and schools in nevada got $340 million to keep teachers from being laid off and to develop programs. funding through the recovery package is also -- has also helped nevada's efforts to create a clean energy economy. just yesterday, 13.8 million dollars was announced from the department of energy to help fund energy initiatives that will lead us to the next steps creating clean energy jobs. clearly, the recovery act has helped the people in nevada.

thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lee: for months now my constituents in western new york have been asking, where are the jobs? well, take a look around. are they in the recently passed national energy tax that devoted more than 50 of its 1,300 pages to light bulb regulation and just two paragraphs on carbon-free nuclear energy? or are they in the 1,000-page government sponsored health care proposal without so much a mention for malpractice liability reform to dramatically reduce premiums on struggling americans? or maybe they're in the recently passed $700 million welfare program for wild horses. the majority has shown it doesn't know how to create new jobs outside of -- for those of new federal bureaucrats, but it certainly knows how to create

new burdens for our children and grandchildren. this week alone, our treasury is set 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to -- i ask unanimous coent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, last week at the president's press conference, the american people got a firsthand glimpse of the attitude they can expect if there is in fact a federal takeover of health care when the president said this incredible statement. he said some doctors will take out a child's tonsils, not because it's in the best interest of the patient, but because they make more money. if you ask the american people the question, do you trust politicians or your doctor, i bet 100% said their doctor.

and yet the president made this statement. th what we need in this health care debate and this reform says you and your family and your doctor will make your health care decisions, not some federal board in washington who thinks they're all-knowing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, where are the jobs? they're certainly not in the so-called stimulus package that passed this congress and haven't created any jobs. in fact, we've lost millions of jobs since that package passed. they're certainly not in the cap and tax legislation that passed this congress six weeks ago. that legislation will cost millions of american jobs and mr. speaker, they most certainly are not in this so-called health care bill the democrats are offering today that will cost an estimated $4.7 million jobs as employers find they can't pay the tax

being imposed upon them and we see the 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 in 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, many hundreds of millions of people who receive it today. we need to reform our health care system with legislation that deals with medical malpractice reform work association health plans, with thing this is a cut down on the cost before we address this massive tax increase. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection.

mr. lungren: mr. speakering in the debate we've had over health care, we republicans have attempted to try and communicate our concerns to the american people and we developed a simple chart that explained the bureaucratic morass that will exist between you the individual patient, and your doctor. we've been told we can't send this out because the majority party objects to it. first all they said they didn't know whether it was true. second, they said we didn't somehow substantiate it and third they don't like house democrats' health plan. so they suggested we put on a disclaimer. i've come up with a disclaimer. the democrat party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the plern people maybe they don't like the majority party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the american people.

the house demples assume no responsibility. maybe this is what we ought to put up here, the president and the house democrats assume no responsibility for providing this information to the american people because they know if the american people knew, this is what happened to them, this is what would be put between them and their doctor they wouldn't support it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? >> without objection. >> we can argue over the details of health care reform legislation, we know one things for sure. costs are guaranteed to increase if we do nothing. the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. unfair trade deals and skyrocketing health care costs have devastated manufacturer manage my state of michigan over the past decade. last month, i heard from a small manufacturer in my district at a health care forum in michigan. karen told me her manufacturing firm employees seven people and

covered 100% of her employees' health care costs. she said, we're trying to do the right thing for our employees. yet we have to compete with those who provide little or no health care. the said that a quality, affordable 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. colleagues, it's time to put partisan politics aside on this issue and put companies like roche manufacturing first. we need a uniquely american health care system that costs less and covers more to help small businesses compete in our global economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask unanimous consent -- mr. walden: i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: wok. mr. walden: there's no question it's time to reform the health care system. but a government takeover is

not the solution. putting the government bureaucrat between your family and your from is not the solution. and losing the health plan you have today is not a solution. yet the democrats' bill would do just that it puts a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, doesn't have real reform two of three americans won't be able to keep their plans, according to independent analysis and it does nothing to bring down the costs and drives up the deficit by over $239 billion. meanwhile if you're out in places like oregon, rural oregon, the c.e.o. of asante health systems in oregon said the government option under the democrats place plan would be the death nell for hospitals since i pays medicare rate which pay 76% of his hospital costs yet 52% of his patients are out of medicare. if it increases to 75% of their patient the hospital has to close its doors that plan does nothing to rein in costs. let's reform health care in a

way that puts patients first and doesn't destroy small business. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and relt rhett my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wok. mr. broun: mr. speaker, when it comes to passing the health care bill, leadership insists that this will happen. speaker pelosi claims to have speaker pelosi claims to have th n this floor. if that's true, madam speaker, then show us the bill. if the rhetoric coming from the democrats is true, and they are planning to steam roll a trillion-dollar health care experiment through this body before august, let's see it. let's debate it. let's let the americans see it. the american people deserve to see a bill with plenty of time for an open and honest debate about exactly what's in store for them if this partisan experiment is passed. the american people have seen

enough smoke and mirrors about the washington bureaucrats. they'll be inserted directly between patients and and finally give hard-working americans answers to their questions. show us the bill. >> for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? without objection. >> this congress is responsible for putting in place one of the largest tax cuts in american history. very and reinvestment act. we can see this benefit of the plan throughout all communities in our country and because of this legislation, 95% of working americans are receiving tax cuts through making work

pay tax credit. which is a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker, $800 for couples filing jointly. this is an immediate tax relief for over 110 million working families at exactly the time they need it. because of this legislation, families can also find tax relief through an expansion of the child care tax credit, through a new $2,500 tax credit for families to help send more of our children to college. in addition to this tax relief, the recovery plan has provided tens of millions of dollars of investment to -- for improvement projects like the improvements that have been made to infrastructure and roads throut our country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. akin: thank you, mr.

speaker. the democrats are proposing to take over 20% of the economy. they're proposing to spend a couple trillion dollars in doing that and they're going to put bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions. now this is not really a new idea. this has been tried a lot by other countries. it's called socialized medicine. the question before us is this. it's a straightforward question. if you get sick, where do you want to be treated? do you want to travel to europe? do you want to travel to canada? or do you want to stay in the good old u.s.a.? i had that experience nine years ago here. i was elected newly as a congressman. goit the first physical i'd had in 10 years because i had lousy health care. they told me, yeah, you're doing great, congressman akin, except one thing. you have cancer. when you hear the word cancer, it causes you to stop and think. because of the american health care system, i'm standing here today. but i'll tell you the

statistics of what would happen if you were in the united kingdom. 50% chance you'd be dead with the type of cancer i had. that's the question. who is going to provide the health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> ski unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here today to talk about -- i mentioned this last week. last week i talked about, back in the 1982 recession, we had unemployment rates at the level in my state of kentucky of over 11%. my father lost his jobs. he was one of those. he worked for ford motor company and they closed the plant. my father, because of what happened in this house, back in 1982, they cut taxes and cut spending and put faith in the american people my father went from one who lost his job to starting a business and becoming a job creator. what has this house done in this democratic majority in the last six months? made it easier to sue businesses, raise energy rates on businesses if it passes the senate and made it -- made

mandates on business for health care coverage at an 8% payroll tax. i believe we need to cut taxes, cut spending, and put faith in the american and get people working again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i have news for the american public. the system is working. the congress is working, the energy and commerce committee is working, the reason that the speaker and the president can't get their health care bill through is because there's not consensus on it. i want to congratulate the other 22 republicans on the energy and commerce committee united against this bad piece of legislation. i want to also congratulate the seven to 10 blue dog democrats and conservative democrats on the same committee. the reason we're not supportive of the president and the speaker's plan is because it's bad for america. doesn't solve the problem. costs too much.

got too much bureaucracy. the word shall is mentioned almost 2,000 times tavepls trillion-dollar hit on the economy and it doesn't solve the problem. we have, we the republicans on the committee, have over 80 amendments we wish to offer. our blue dog friends have over 20. i ask the speaker and chairman waxman to bring the bill up for markup, let it be an open, transparnte markup. if it takes us until september or october to get it done right, it's better to get it right than do it badly. the system is working. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman tees -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i'm proud pob part of the effort to improve health care in this country. i have heard from countless iowans about the need to change the system. i have also heard we need due reform. the university of iowa, the health care collaborative and

the concord coalition sent me a letter. they stated, i quote, we believe the primary focus for lawmakers should be improving the value of health care, unquote. i agree. the iowa democratic delegation and others reached a compromise with leadership that improves the value of health care. i want to thank leadership and staff for those in favor say aye work. it will provide significant cost savings so we are rewarding quality of care, not quantity. iowa has been a lead for the quality care and i'm glad that iowa and other high-gault, low-cost regions will be rewarded for what's right for patients. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker over the last few week,000,000 office has been flooded with letters, faxes, phone calls and emails from all types of citizens throughout northwest florida. the messages all say the same thing. stop the government takeover of our health care system.

the majority party's proposed legislation cost over $1 trillion. it could cost the -- increase the deficit $240 billion and raise the cost of health care for an american family. mr. speaker, 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 don't want their medical decisions made by a faceless bureaucrat here in washington, d.c. floridians are not willing to have their health care rationed and they do not want the government takeover of health care that the majority in congress is proposing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? or the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> when a member of congress is sworn into office you get a pin, a voting card and access to a health care purchase exchange. every member of congress has the ability to choose a plan

through the federal employee health plan, which when you boil down the health care reform bill that's passed the ways and means committee and the education committee is exactly what is going to be before the house. for example, the minority leader from ohio has as a member of congress the opportunity to choose 13 different plans under the federal employee health plan. that's what the obama health care proposal plans to do for all americans. so when the time comes for the vote, ask your member of congress whether they're prepared to give to the people of america exactly what the people of america give to members of congress and that vote should be yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. the issue this week is health care and jobs, jobs, jobs. you know, a friend of mine who employs many people in my district and provides very good

health benefits said to me recently that the policy proposals coming out of washington are impeding job creation and scarring people. he's right and there are five issues that are driving his concern. first, a stimulus bill that spends too much, borrows too much and delivers too few job. two, a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in 10 years. three, a card check bill that's undemocratic and binds arbitration. four, a national energy tax, cap and trade that will cost 66,000 jobs in pennsylvania and jack up electric bills, natural gas bills and prices at the gasoline pump for consumers. five, and now a house health care bill with enorm tax increases and mandates on small businesses and businesses of all sizes. enough is enough. time for washington to get out of the way and let job creators do what they do best, create jobs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise >> request to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. richardson: the american people know something for sure, and that is premiums have doubled over the last nine years growing three times faster than what we've seen in wages. the american families know that they're spending more than $1,000 a month than what they've had to do in the best. so let's talk about what really the american solution is. it's having lower costs for consumers, to no longer have co-pays or deductibles for preventative care, to have an annual cap to end that cap on out-of-pocket expenses, to end the rate of increases for pre-existing conditions and, of course, looking at group rates. we're ready for action. we've had six decades of discussions. we've had 45 hours of bipartisan debate, and 79 house hearings. it's time and it's time to move now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last night i made thousands of phone calls across my district in a teletown hall meeting and i listened to my constituents and two phrases emerged. the first one was fear. they're afraid of the recklessness that would allow us to begin a massive new program, the experts agree will not reduce health care costs and will devastate the economy before we fix medicare which they know will be bankrupt in eight years. they're afraid of the arrogance that lead some to conclude that a government committee or a government bureaucrat will make a better decision about an individual's health care than that individual can make with their doctor. and they're also afraid of the short-sightedness of creating a plan that will result in rationing health care to seniors and creating longer lines and waits for the procedures they need. but they're also grateful. they're grateful for those of us that will 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 of their health care system and who will work instead for a system that finally puts our patients first.

mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. fortenberry: we must build a culture of wellness, including good incentivizing. move to patient-centered care. and creating models can help this goal. this is the right solutions for strengthening america's health care and they should be the basic components of a national debate. the current debate focuses loosely on a public option. this new option may transfer millions of americans against their will, mr. speaker, from their current insurance to a goost plan and will add to our unsustainable fiscal conditions. it will not resolve the underlying problems driving cost for small businesses and families.

we have the opportunity in the next few weeks to do something right and good for the american people. to strengthen our nation's health care by improving health outcomes while reducing cost and protecting vulnerable persons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. on the failed stimulus bill that added $1 trillion to our nation's debt, also leading to about another two million people losing their jobs in this country, and then that cap and trade energy tax proposal that literally would run millions of jobs out of our country, most americans across the nation are saying, where are the jobs? and instead, the latest proposal by president obama and speaker pelosi is this attempt to mandate a government takeover of our health care system. and you know, the president goes out and he gives these speeches and he says, under his plan if you like the plan that you have, you can keep it.

well, unfortunately i don't think the president has read his bill, because if you look right here in section 102 of the bill, it says that the government health care czar is going to be able to take away your health care plan even if you like it. it's right here in the bill, mr. president. another part of the -- mr. speaker, what the president says is anybody who makes under $250,000 a year won't pay any more in new taxes. once again, maybe the president hasn't read his own bill, but in his health care bill right here in section 401, tax on individuals without acceptable health care, $29 billion in new taxes. read the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from balm rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the democrat majority's government-run health care plan. that's a phrase that the speaker of the house does not

want us to use. she's told us we can't use it in our frank mail. in our frank mail. we have to use the public they know that the democratic majority is planning to cut costs by rationing care. by deciding whether or not you go to the doctor or witch doctor you get to go to, which specialists you get to go to. when you get to go, and most importantly, end of life care for our seniors. the government gets to decide whether or not they get to make the decisions later on in life, whether the computer model realizes that this is not a wise distribution of health care dollars. an people don't want that. they want real reform just like the republicans do. we want to have cost control, we want quality and we want access with real reforms like tort reform. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings or our audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentlelady from floridrise? ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. we all agree that real health care reform is a necessity. but in the haste to get this done, the wrong approach to achieve this worthy goal would be to increase taxes, especially on our small businesses. these vital small business owners are already straining not to cut jobs and wages. most small business owners want to offer health insurance to their employees, but they simply cannot because the already inflated costs just continue to 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 costs of taxes and mandates, 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 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentman from florida rise? mr. diaz-balart: perm is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. -- diaz-balart i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. diaz-balart: the american people know we are losing a half million jobs each month, and yet they saw this democratic majority pass an energy bill that will raise utility rates for every american. now they see the obama white house and the democrats pushing to drastically raise health care and 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 credits, mr. speaker, to help make health care more affordable and accessible, not massive tax hikes. we need job creation, we need more jobs, not massive layoffs caused by massive tax increases. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. boozman: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. speaker. i agree that the cost of health care has become expensive for my constituents, too expensive for my constituents and all americans. what we need is to reform the current system and not turn it over to the government. letting patients choose the coverage that meets their health care needs should be the

focus. this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. just ask my constituents, brad and christy norwood. they became the proud parents of brison in may of 2008. at birth he appeared to be a healthy baby boy, but during a routine exam, a nurse found a heart mr. murphy:. one week later he underwent surgery to correct the problem, and thankfully today he's a happy, healthy 1-year-old. his parents hate to think that if this proposed health care plan had been in place the decisions about brison would have to go through a government bureaucracy and possibly would have taken too long to save his life. let's not put brison's life or anyone else's in the hands of a government bureaucrat. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise?

mr. mchenry: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. the democrats' health care bill is bad legislation, but don't take my word for it. all you have to do is look at the chaos on the other side of the aisle. as their leadership freely admits, 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 their members home to build public support for it. but, no, the democrat leadership is in desperation mode because they know their bill will not hold up under public scrutiny. so let's tap the brakes. let's engage our constituents and the american people about this discussion about our goals for health care reform. august can become health care month in america if only the democrat leadership will listen to reason, and we can engage our constituents in this debate. the democrats' goal should not be to get this done fast but to get it right, to get it right for the american people. that's what i'm fighting for,

and that's what this debate should be all about. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to take a moment and speak about two very important elements 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 patient. the first is something called medical loss ratio. that's a technical term. it basically means how much does that insurance company use of the premium you give them to actually spend on medical care. if they don't spend at least 85 cents on the dollar, it means they're not giving the kind of care to the patient that they deserve. the second important thing is the investment in preventative care that we're going to make in this bill. so that a physician can spend more time with the patient,

their elderly patients all across the country who wish that their physician could spend a little bit more time with them to really understand their situation. we don't reimburse that for right now, but going forward we can do that and that will promote the relationship between the physician and their patient and lead to overall better care for that patient and a better relationship with that patient's family. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise mr. herger: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. herger: house democrats plan to -- republicans want to have competition among health plans. unfortunately, the house democrats' health care bill is light on cost control and heavy on government control. a recent "new york times" editorial expressed support for the house bill but described

the prospects for lower health care premiums as, quote, unclear, end quote, distant. mr. speaker, if that's the -- -- if that's the best they can say about it, we need 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 speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, the obama administration, congressional democrats promised us that the trillion dollar stimulus they passed and put into law would create jobs immediately. last month alone we lost almost half a million jobs. unemployment stands at 9.5% and going higher. it's clear that the stimulus package didn't work. and the response has been, first they passed an energy tax that's going to make america less competitive, drive american jobs

offshore. they are now in the process of spending on appropriations process, increasing spending, by 12%. now this week we are trying to ram down a health care plan that's going to raise tkses -- taxes on american business, cost jobs, and force people into government-run rationed health care plan. all one has to do is look at this chart to understand the complexities and inefficiencies they are going to put into this system. i might add this is a chart they won't allow republicans to mail out to our constituents to try to explain the complexities they are going to put into health care. and the height of hypocrisy is committee republicans offered an amendment that would force all members of congress to participate in their health care plan. what did they do? they voted it down. they won't allow the congress to be under the health care plan that they are trying to pass. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the house majority presses

hard to force-feed congress a government takeover of health care the next few days, it would be very instructive to answer the question just who are the uninsured? the most recent census bureau report of 2,000 stayed there are roughly 46 million people in the country labeled as uninsured. 9.5 million were noncitizens. 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 30. 12 million people had household incomes less than $25,000 which means they already qualify for existing public health care programs. 7.3 million had annual incomes higher than $84,000 putting health coverage within their own financial reach. and 9.1 million were uninsured for less than one year. and half of these people regained their health coverage within four months. this leaves 7.8 million lower income americans who can be characterized as the long-term uninsured. yet the majority is promising a

trillion dollar legislation that significantly expands the federal responsibility. how do they pay for it? taxes, more taxes, more taxes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if the need to reform our health care system wasn't so serious, the democrat government takeover of health care might actually be humorous. it's laughable that their idea of cost cutting reform is a bill that will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over 10 years, and includes a $1.3 trillion spending increase. only in washington, d.c. does cutting cost mean spending more money. america's small businesses, including our nation's farmers, are going to be hit the hardest by this huge expansion of government. throh billions of dollars in new taxes and mandates. and yet the bill doesn't even address the seasonal work force

that farmers rely on to harvest their crops. once again small business and rural america are swept under the rug and forgotten. not before they get a huge tax bill. the bottom line is that the democrats' public option is a sneaky plan to take over private health care. mr. speaker, get me a doctor. the idea of government taking over health care is enough to make you sick. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: mr. speaker, house republican and some democrats have been highlighting the problems with the proposed democrat health care bills. the rosenberg richmond chamber of congress in texas represents over 800 businesses that have deep concerns with this massive intrusion of government-run

health care. last week they passed a resolution strongly opposing the current health care proposals. highlights of the resolution include, quote, a government-run plan would be unfair -- would be an unfair competitor with the government acting as both the team owner and referee, unquote. another quote, new taxes and fees for businesses and/or individuals that cannot afford health insurance would be dramatically counterproductive, end quote. one final one, taxation of benefits will lead to reduction in benefits offered by employers and will lead to higher taxes for individuals and businesses. local chambers of commerce and small businesses understand better than most the problems with government-run health care. the rosenberg richmond chamber of commerce gets it. i wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did. i ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we all know that the health care system that we have in america is the best that the world has to offer. do we need to improve it? absolutely. but the question is, how far do we go? do we tax the employer who is now struggling to make ends meets? increase payroll taxes by 8%? no. we give that employer an advantage, an incentive to provide health care, give them a tax break. give the employee a tax break so they can go out and buy their own insurance. give them a incentive. but if we go and pass this bill, the government-run health care plan, we are going to break the backs of small businesses across this nation that are the back bones of this nation. then we will hear a cry, where

then we will hear a cry, where are the jobs? >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the announcement that this is $11 trillion, unemployment reached 11.5% -- 10.5% in june, there are countries like china and saudi arabia that are buying up the future of our children. in one year this may go to $2 trillion, we may lose our aaa bond rating in 2012. this will move through at lightning speed -- this does not include the kind of fundamental

changes that would be necessary to reduce the skyrocketing cost of health care spending. this will not create jobs, this will lose jobs. what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the use 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. if this continue it is will obviously ultimately consume us so we have got to do something to reform health care. but the bill making its way through the committee process can't be right solution. according to economic modeling by the president's own chief economic advisor, the business tax hikes alone would destroy up to 4.7 million jobs. an independent analysis by the nonpartisan luen group found 114 million americans would lose their current health insurance. and the c.b.o. recently noted this health care plan would, and i quote, probably generate

substantial increases in federal budget deficits. mr. speaker, this can't be the right solution. we can do better. we need to keep working. and please include republican ideas in this work product. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, this recession has forced kansas families to change their ways. folks are cutting back just to make ends meet. now that's what congress should be be doing here in washington. but we aren't cutting back. in fact, the majority says we need a health care plan that will cost us jobs. when actually what we need is to take responsibility for our actions. we need to rein in spending. we need to reduce the deficit.

we need to 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 bit for them without waiting lines and without mountains and mountains of debt. i will continue to fight for commonsense solutions. americans deserve no less. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, as a nation we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country. or about 16% of our gross domestic product. and for all the money 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 difficult choice of whether to pay their medical bills or pay their mortgage because they can't afford to do both.

i support reforms in the health care package that will bring down health care costs by tying payments to outcomes rather than the quantity of tests being run. by ending the government's overpaymenter for prescription drugs. by empowering independent commission to put health care cost reductions before the congress for up or down votes. and by investing in prevention and primary care. one of the choices that should be made available in the health insurance exchange is a public health insurance option. i strongly believe that the advent of a public plan alongside private insurance coverage would achieve a number of beneficial goals providing a greater choice to families and much needed competition with private insurers. the new plan would also use its inherent advantages to control costs over the long term through lower administrative overhead and ability to bargain for volume discounts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: mr. speaker, this is

the democrat health plan. and this, over 1,000 pages of legalese, is the democrat health plan. this thing is really bad for america, but it's even worse for seniors. it's going to result in cuts in medicare benefits. it's going to destroy medicare advantage. it's going to end up rationing health care. and if you don't believe that, listen to what the president said, quote. the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there. there's going to have to be some very difficult democratic conversation to take place on this. he's talking about rationing health care and talking about how we are going to deal with these people who are getting a little bit older who need care. but you know what they are going to do to make sure that the seniors are going to be happy?

they are going to give them end of life counseling. take away benefits, but tell you how you're going to die. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. stupak: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stupak: thank you, mr. speaker. right now just about 60% of americans receive their health insurance from their employer. but from 2000 to 2007 the annual health insurance premium for employers and employees rose from $6,628, to $12,153. the average worker share of premiums grew by 116%. and the average employer's share rose by 75% while wages only went up 4%. americans can no longer afford health insurance through the insurance company. in fact a recent study found that 73% of all americans who seek an individual insurance policy do not end up purchasing

one. either because they were turned down due to pre-existing conditions or their premiums were unaffordable. mr. speaker, all americans should be be entitled to health insurance. but according to the s.e.c., security exchange commission filings, from 2000 to 2007, profits at the top 10 publicly traded health care companies rose an aston ining 428%. get the excess profit out of health care. provide health care for all americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, democrats in this body are negotiating behind closed doors the most sweeping changes to american health care since the 1960's. .

in secret. title 5 freedoms you lose in health care reform, it explains that under the plan drafted by house democrats families will lose choices and control of their health care. according to the cnn story, americans would, one, lose the freedom to choose what's in their insurance plan, two, lose the freedom to be awarded for healthy living or pay their real cost, three, lose the freedom to choose high deductible coverage, four, lose the freedom to choose their doctors. 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. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: well, the republicans are mounting a fabulous defense of the health insurance industry. the party of do nothing is saying reform in health care is not needed. they ignore the fact that the health insurance industry is exempt from antitrust law so they can and they do collude to jaung the rates two times the rate of inflakes. profits up 250% in the last 10 years while wages and earnings are down for most americans and small businesses. but they ignore that little fact and they talk about we can't a have a public plan. that would hurt competition. no, it will bring competition for once to the health insurance industry. then, they talk about, well, you know, they forget about a few other things. they collude also to exclude individuals from coverage because you've been sick or you might get sick, pre-existing conditions or anything the insurance company doesn't like, they can deny you coverage even

if you're willing to pay the full premium. they can and do, the insurance companies, deny people renewals because they have the at the matter to get sick after -- because they have the temerity to get sick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio: they're wrong. we need reform. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must ask all members to bear in mind that the principle that hitting the gavel is one of the most essential ingredients of the decorum that dignify -- no member should ignore the gavel at the expiration of one's time can have a civil disobedience. such an act is a stark instability and has been the object of a formal call to order. the chair enlists the understanding of cooperation of all the members, mr. speaker.

for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? mr. heller: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. heller: thank you very much, mr. speaker. august 17 is an important date. yes, it is my wife's birthday. thanks for remembering that. but it's also the six-month anniversary of the stimulus. let's go back six months. mr. speaker, when the president promised that unemployment, if this bill passed, would not go above %? maybe that was hope. remember when the speaker said jobs, jobs, jobs? maybe that was hope. remember when the majority leader said we'd see hope. they were all a hall of promises for bad legislation. this august 17 my wife's going to ask, where are the jobs? i am going to ask, where are the jobs? nevadans are going to ask, where are the jobs? americans are going to ask, where are the jobs? happy birthday, sweetheart.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. biggert: i thank you, mr. speaker. 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 worry that this proposal will force them from the private insurance they enjoy now. one caller told me that she was able to provide for r medically fragile child only because of her employer-provided health care, which she described as expensive but worth every penny. she fears that this so-called 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 about this complex legislation are also outraged by its cost. they question how $1.6 trillion in new spending and 53 new bureaucracies will make health care better. one caller, a federal employee, was unhappy. mr. speaker, my constituents have spoken. they want commonsense solutions to lower costs, increase accessibility and improve care. and they know that this bill is not it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minut mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. a few years ago i was at a cubs game and watched as the chicago cubs was leading up to this crescendo and they were playing the florida marlins and it actually looked for a minute as if the chicago cubs were going

to go to the world series. and the announcer began to say, well, there's five outs left. and the cubs are going to go to the world series. and it got incredibly exciting. and then there was a bobble over in left field and the rest is history, and i mean the air went out of wrigley field like nothing i'd ever seen before. just whoosh. well, that is exactly what happened in the ways and means committee when the directorf c.b.o., the congressional budget office, came in and said, and i'm paraphrasing the following about the democrat majority's plan. number one, you're rushing this. you haven't given us time to evaluate it. but, number two, there's nothing that indicates that this is going to save money. in fact, it looks like a budget buster. again, whoosh, all the energy left the room. americans know that we can do better. americans know this is a job destroyer. let's do the right thing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one gentleman is recognized for one minute. you said i have a medical file that is 3 inches thick and 1200 pages long. do you want to ask some questions? the doctor says he does not have time because he is working on a deadline. we all need to work together, we all need to work together to fix this. we have to offer insurance from everyone in america, to provide some financial assistance to those who need this, and let's make insurance permanent and affordable. >> to what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? he is recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, throughout the year, there's been a drumbeat, 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 g.d.p., our health care. they want government to take over health care. it's a recipe for economic disaster. even worse, it's a disaster for patients because a government-run system will always ration care, reduce quality and raise costs. it will put 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're not going to get health care reform or the kind of economic recovery the american people need.

we'll only get bigger government, rationing and diminished quality of care. stop the drumbeat of more government, stop the takeover of government health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, members on both sides of the aisle are in favor of health care delivery reform. we want universal access. we want universal coverage. but what the democratic majority and their rush to get something through this body by the end of the week, what they have given us is 1,100 pages of universal nightmare. and this is not what the american people want. they don't want these long lines, these long cues, this rationing of care. they don't want nonelected government bureaucrats telling health care providers what they can give 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 h.r. 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. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. the latest numbers we have are for 2007. you divide the total number of households in america and the total amount of money spent on medicare and medicaid, it's $9,200 for every household in america. we're not getting our money's worth with this government-run health care, and now the president wants to spend another $1 trillion. well, there's a republican plan

we can't get from legislative counsel to bring to the floor or even have c.b.o. score it to say, you know what, 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 a health savings amount they control with a debit card, not the government, not the insurance company. and then we'll buy them the best private insurance you can have for everything above that. that gives them complete coverage. no wrabarounds they have to buy. that's a plan that won't make america sick. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, recently i met with dozens of doctors in east texas to discuss health care, and with only one exception, every one

of them said that they had recommended to their children that they not follow in their footsteps and practice medicine. health care is losing our best and our brightest due to its threatened takeover by the federal government. republicans have commonsense solutions to our health care challenges to ensure that all americans have access to the high quality health care they need when they need it at a price they can afford. when it comes to health care decisions, no government bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor. and if you're happy with your current plan, republicans want you to be able to keep it. in contrast, speaker pelosi has proposed a government-run health care rationing system paid for by higher taxes on small businesses and borrowing yet more money from the chinese while sending the trillion dollar billion to our children and grandchildren. mr. speaker, if you love the government takeover of our government takeover of our banks, of our auto companies, later this morning on "

washington journal" we will focus on health care legislation. we will speak to jackie kucinich, then roy blunt and frank pallone. and then we will speak to andrew pekosz from the journal of national health. >> house c-span funded? >> publicly funded. >> donations? >> they get their funding through the taxes? >> public funding? >> maybe, i do not know. >> c-span is funded by the american cable companies, as a private business initiatives. no government money. >> and now an event with tim

geithner, hillary clinton and two representatives of the chinese government. they have been speaking about climate change and trade. the u.s. business council hosts this event. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> my compliments to the host, this is a pleasure to be here, with all of the great statesmen, of the u.s. business and financial community, people who have spent their lives creating a strong connection between two countries. i was able to study in china, when china was on the edge of one of the most powerful transformations to the most powerful that we have seen in our history.

when they set out the path to reform, they have the capacity to work on those objectives. commitments. henry kissinger gave me my first job out of graduate school. he did not pay me that while, but he gave me the enormous privilege of the chance to work with him. he occasionally listened to me and he has been enormously grateful, legal and supportive to me. [laughter] ever since and i listened carefully to him every time i have the chance. secretary clinton and i spent a remarkable couple of days. we understand that the world is going to want to know -- they will want to watch will we do not just what we say. but if you look what china and the united states accomplished

in the economic field the last six months it's remarkable. in the face without a doubt the worst most challenging economic financial crisis the world has seen in generations china and the united states, two different countries, different traditions and different histories came together working with countries around the world and put in place a very powerful set of programs to support demand and bring groesbeck and repair the damage to the financial systems and i believe the strength of those actions, the power of the signal sent by these two important countries coming together with countries around the world and making it clear that we will do what is necessary to bring the world back to the path of growth was very important in helping sew the seeds for the stabilization in the markets that is now today. the most important thing that we

accomplish today apart from reinforcing the basic commitment to build the kind of strategic mutual trust any good relationship depends on is to sit out these two countries to set out a path to a more balanced and more sustainable global recovery in the future. we want to be careful as we emerge from this crisis, which we will, that we do not sew the seeds for future crises, that we put the economy on a foundation that will provide a credible path to more stable more sustainable growth and that is going to require things in both countries. in the united states we are going to have to go back to living within our means. we have to make substantial to the part of in the future in education, health care, energy efficiency and public infrastructure. i think china understands the basic pragmatic reality those changes in the united states have to be complemented by changes around the world and

china has laid out a remarkably ambitious set of reforms to move its economy onto a path where future growth comes from consumption and services, domestic demand and i think that basic reality and shared. i have the great privilege of having as my counterpart the vice premier of china, wang qishan and want to say a few things about him before he comes to speak to you. those of you that know him know that he is remarkably direct. he is a remarkably pragmatic person. he's intellectually challenging, engaging, funny, a deep sense of irony to use bob's words. and i think those of you that met him and work with him understand this. but you just look what he's been

asked to do for his country these last decades and i think he has been asked to take on donner hardest problems that remarkable economy has faced. he is the definitive printable shooter, firefighter, problem solver, and he is remarkably well in that context and he is a man they return to in moments of crisis and that makes him for the united states and countries around the world a remarkably counterpart. i think we made a very good start these last couple of days. i think this relationship between the united states and china is in a very strong position. i think we have a very good basis of mutual understanding on the challenges we face and pressures we are undertaking and we are treen to get the strategic things right at an early stage in this administration, early stage in

the relationship and by focusing on the big strategic questions by recognizing the common stake in reform by working closely with china to help build a stronger and more resilient financial system we will have a better chance of getting the strategic things right and the will provide a better basis for dealing with the full range of problem. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you come psychiatry geithner, for those great remarks and 40 prioritizing the u.s.-china relationship so early in the government and this administration's tenure in understanding the importance of the mutual economic future and as is well city in china from crisis comes opportunity and your remarks comment on the need for change in both of these great nations, change and dealing with economic issues, change in dealing with energy policy and climate change, health care and related issues

are not security regional and global. in short the issues that touch the lives of everyone and everywhere are in the hands of people in this room so permit me to speak on behalf of the dow chemical company, china business council, all the associations and organizations in the room as well as governments and businesses represented here by their st and leadership this is the most important issue before both nations and it couldn't be in better hands and of course tim did a great job of beginning to introduce the leader from china who is playing such an instrumental role of the economic side of the strategic economic dialogue, which is of course vice premier wang qishan and his presence speaks for itself but the only part i would like to dwell on what speaks to what secretary geithner said this gentleman is beyond being a firefighter and a problem solver, has apparently a wicked sense of humor so we hope he wial