decided this last year in the heller case that the the right to keep and bear arms of individuals in the district of columbia there are other cases that i believe senator hatch and sessions mentioned on their way to the united states supreme court so this is not a chance of all or rape issue. this is a real issue that will be addressed by this be one of the united states and sp 10 is confirmed with her part of that court, the concern i have is when given the opportunity to interpret the second amendment of the constitution should essentially denying the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was an individual right and was the fundamental right of americans and that was in the case that perhaps you are familiar with, the milan versus cuomo in case where she basically held that the right to keep and bear arms that amendment to them apply to cities and states that merely to the federal government. limiting in a way that really is impossible now safer in a law student much less a federal judge who 18 years to take that kind of cramp and restrictive view a basic civil libert

>> but she could -- but the heller case did say this is an individual right. and i think she should have to respond to the question, do you believe it's an individual right? because that should have not a heck of a lot to do with the future cases although in my eyes, it will have a lot to do with those future cases, but i think she can be asked that question with the appropriate result? >> have any of you asked her that question or senator demint specifically? >> i did not, no. >> senator sessions, in the beginning -- [inaudible] >> is this somehow more fertile territory for you to attack this -- or take a look at this nomination? >> well, i think there's been a lot of discussion about the speeches that she's made. the president has even said she misspoke, but if she did she misspoke about half a dozen times 'cause she repeated that statement. i don't think she will say she misspoke. so it will be interesting to see to see how she answers that, the question about whether the court of appeals are policy-making bodies. those are very, very important issues that

i mean, i'm obviously cognizant of the heller determination. heller decision. but i don't think the department has issued any rules, regulations, with regard to weapons. >> in terms of recommendation, though, basically you're on record wanting us to repropose an assault weapons ban and the comment you made during your confirmation hearing was in fact that you would do a rigorous review of heller before any he recommendations were made. my question simply is, did you do that and what were the results that have rigorous examination of hell that are caused to you propose a new assault weapons ban? >> well, i don't think that i have in fact said that we need a new assault weapons ban. what i've said is that we need to look at the situation that we have, look at the violence that we have that is gun-related and come up with measures that will effectively deal with that issue. >> actually, on february 25 at a news conference you said you endorsed reinstating the ban on assault weapons. february 25. and my question is, the commitment you made to this committee was tha

heller of nevada. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the heller case, [inaudible] because in heller they had not specifically said they were doing that, thiscourt was just following supreme court precedent. >> i would say that if, in fact, the rights of the stegeman and apply to every american and guarantee -- the rights of the second amendment apply to every american and guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, her position was inconsistent with that decision. we can talk about corporate doctrine and indeed, it takes a restricted view and an unnecessarily cramped view of an individual right to keep and bear arms. >> senator, as was mentioned, this has come up in trees tikrit and likely to come up in the supreme court. how can she -- this has come up in three circuit court and likely to come up in the supreme court. how can she addressed this issue has yet to rule on it? >> we have discussed that. as you know, justice roberts and justice alito were all asked about cases they had decided and their reasoning was examined in that, but i do not think is appropriate for us to try to insist that she stayed how she might rule on the case in the

madam president, i agree strongly with the supreme court's reasoning in the heller decision and i think that most americans accept that as the law of the land. judge sotomayor, on the other hand, as a member of the second circuit court of appeals, was one of the judges that was first given an opportunity to apply the supreme court case in heller to the states. and she concluded in that decision that the trite keep and bear arms was not a fundamental right and therefore was not enforceable against the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. her decision in that case was troubling in light of the heller decision, especially because her opinion included very little significant legal analysis. i would expect and hope judge sotomayor would elaborate on her thinking as well as the scope of the second amendment during the course of the confirmation hearings. americans need to know if we can count on judge sotomayor to uphold all of the bill of rights including the second amendment. the next subject i think will bear some discussion during the confirmation hearing is judge soto

i will take into account the heller decision. the administration does not take a position with regard to the instituting of the assault weapons ban. >> thank you. at a few additional questions i would like to submit to the record. >> thank you. >> we will keep the record open throughout this week. >> i understand you had exchanges with senator gramm, feinstein, and call about prolonged detention. i urge you and the department to consider the various legal and policy concerns that are involved. i would say even with the kind of due process protection that you discuss, i think this could be a very big mistake especially because of how its system could be perceived around the world and after the progress the administration is making. i wrote to the president about my continued concern that the administration is not withdrawing certain legal opinions including one that provided legal justifications for the bush and ministrations wired taping program. -- bush administration's wiretapping program. one person says the program was not il

>> but she could with the heller case did say this was an individual right. and i think she should have to respond to the question, do you believe it's an individual right. because that should have not a heck of a lot to do with your case, although, in my eyes, it will have a lot to do with this. i think i can croach it with more -- >> after that question you or senator -- did you answer it? >> i did not. >> senator,

heller decision, which was decided last year. what is most troubling to me, though, is that these second amendment cases point out a trend that legal experts have expressed about judge sotomayor. that she has a record of avoiding or casually dismissing difficult and important constitutional issues. it doesn't take an attorney to notice that judge sotomayor's discussion of incorporation, challenging a constitutionally significant issue, consists of just a few paragraphs. in contrast, the opinions for both the 9th circuit and the 7th circuit discuss the issue at length, and in doing, so give this important issue the attention and analysis that it deserves. now, while i understand that writing styles can and do vary, even in the writing of judicial opinions, i am still concerned about the apparent lack of thoughtfulness and thorough reasoning in her decisions. another example of a judge sotomayor opinion that appears to be unnecessarily short and inadequately reasoned is the ricci vs. dave stauffano case. in this case, a three-judge

heller: thank you very much. for the time -- thank you very much for the time and also for the opportunity to present this amendment on the floor today. my amendment prohibits the site-specific construction of the bureau of land management facility in a residential neighborhood in carson city, nevada. it is also of note that this amendment solely impacts my

heller: i ask for the yeas and nays. a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. jordan: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b, amendment number four printed in house report 111-184 offered by mr. jordan of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 578, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: thank you, madam chair. let me first thank ranking member from idaho for his work on this legislation and the chairman. the chairman and i spoke earlier about this amendment. and i joked around. i thought he might be for it but i doubt it. earlier this week, tuesday and wednesday and thursday of this week, the treasury auctioned off $104 billion of treasury bills, $104 billion of debt we sold this week, the largest amount ever sold by this country. and the ron we

that she made during your confirmation hearing was in fact that she would to a rigorous review of heller before recommendations were made. if you did that, what was your findings that cause you to propose a new assault weapons ban? >> i don't think i have said we need a new assault weapons ban. what i said is that we need to look at the situation we have, with the violence we have that is gun-related and, with measures that will effectively deal with that issue. >> on february 25 at a news conference, you said you are for reinstating the ban on assault weapons. my question is, the commitment to make to this committee, was that you do a rigorous analysis before you made any recommendations. i just want to know if you did this or if it was impromptu at a press conference. >> there is a firearms review that is ongoing and we will take into account the decision, but the administration has not taken a position with regard to reinstituting the assault weapons ban. >> thank you very much. i do have a few additional questions like to submit for the record. >> we will keep the record opened throu

. >> guest: and has been for a long, long time which is dean heller. >> host: dean heller is one of my colleagues, representative. now i do want the audience to know that if you have any sense of reading for fun or if you are a teacher or you have any interest in education or children or politics or government, you don't want to miss this book. now you just heard how cute it was to have these people who were your campaigners with you and people couldn't reassessed -- resist. i was impressed by the honesty of the book and this is also when you said later on in the book when your opponent, jim gibbons at the time, who is now the governor of the state? >> guest: yes, he is. >> host: -- was crafty enough not to attack ms. cahill and her cute little volunteers. and here is ms. cahill and frustration if i can read from you, ms. cahill. his gentle response was surely politically motivated, but while a campaign spearheaded by students made it very hard for people to attack me, it became a double-edged sword because it was also hard to get anyone to discuss the issues. i am a serious candidate,

it is a matter of some significance that in the heller case, they simply held that the second amendment applied to the federal government. the ft noted they were not saying whether or not it applied. the test is to whether it applies to the states and whether it is a fundamental right. >> it is a good point. i need to go back to law school. you raise a good point. >> the second amendment will be eviscerated if it is not considered to be a fundamental right and made applicable to the state. thank you. my time is up. i look forward to working with you. we will disagree on some things. you are a good advocate on your views. i congratulate you on that. this is a serious matter. we are dealing with national security. >> sure. you have been supportive of me when you thought that was appropriate. you have been a teacher for me today. thank you for that. >> i know you have to go to lunch and i appreciate your patience. you have done a good job of testifying. i talked with the white house a moment ago. rahm emanuel indicated that the president will not let these photos see the light of day, that

versus heller. that's quite a lit list of areas in which the court has invigorated or rediscovered constitutional protections. coy add to that list, but i think you get the point. we remember the warren court for activism. we should remember just how much has happened in the courts since that time, and the story, in many ways of the supreme court from 1969 to the present time, this 40-year period, one of the themes of that era has been the struggle between republican presidents, reagan, and nixon before him, and then the two bushes after him. to try to he reshape the face of the supreme court in light of what they thought was wrong with the warren court. nixon put four justices on the court. rehnquist among them. a solid conservative, but then you had some that drifted to the left wing of the court like justice blackmon. reagan, the justice that year was very concerned about judicial nominations. interestingly enough, that was the time that john roberts and samuel alito be began to cut their teeth i

vs heller so that is quite a list of areas in which the court has invigorated were rediscovered constitutional protections. now i can add to that list but i thank you get the point. we remember the warren court for activism and we should remember just how much has happened in the courts since that time. and the story in many ways of the supreme court from 1969 to the present time, this 40 years, one of the themes of that era has been a struggle between republican presidents, reagan and nixon before and then into bushes after him, to try to reshape the face of the supreme court in light of what they thought was wrong with the warren court. nixon put four justices on the court, renquist among them, solid conservative but then they've had some that drifted to the left wing of the court like justice blackmun. reagan, the justice department i think in that era was very concerned about judicial nominations. interestingly enough that was the time it went to very young lawyers joined the team named john roberts and sam neill alito. they began to cut their teeth in washington affairs at that time. you

heller: thank you, i appreciate the ranking member for yielding. here's the bill again. we have seen this a couple of times. here's the bill, it is 1,201. what does this cost the american taxpayer? $700 million a page for this bill. what does this bill do? every time you flip on your light switch, you're taxed. every time you drive your kids to school, you're taxed. every time you cook your family dinner, you're taxed. air travel, food prices, electricity costs, gas prices, transportation costs, all will skyrocket under this bill. this will cost my district half a billion dollars in economic activity. it will cost my district 5,500 jobs. it will cost my district 650 million in personal income loss in just the first year. nevada as a whole will lose 14,000 jobs, mining, housing, farming, ranching, tourism industries will be devastated at a time wen the people of nevada are hurting. the majority can't afford the time for hearings or debate, but americans can't afford this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp

dean koh went on to unequivocally state that he respects the supreme court's decision in heller which affirmed the right to bear arms under the second amendment as the law of the land. mr. president, there are other criticisms that have been made. i don't have time to go into all of them now. but the bottom line here is whether it's the convention against description against women or questions about -- against discrimination against women or questions about his beliefs about the war in iraq, the fact is that -- and i ask unanimous consent that the full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: as if read in full. dean koh has been questioned about supporting suits against the bush administration involved in abusive techniques. dean koh had no personal involvement in the law against john yuw. the state department's legal advisor is not charged with srelgs of allegations of war crimes. that's the job of the justice department and the defense department. finally we've heard questions about dean koh's respect for the role that congress has pai

heller: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend for yielding. i rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill which proposes a $300 million increase over last year for the operations of this house. that's a $-- that's a 6.3% increase at a time most americans' budgets are shrinking. 53% of this goes to allowances which we use for operating our offices and keeping in touch with constituents. i'll be the first to tell you my office could use an m.r.a. increase. my district is several hundred thousand miles. i fly thousands of mile and drive thousands of miles. keeping in touch with thousands of nevadans takes a significant amount of funds, but i am always mindful of the fact that m.r.a. funds are taxpayer dollars by another name and i have a responsibility to use them responsibly. many of my constituents and yours are making do with less. we have a responsibility to maim

> i'm sorry, i didn't -- >> actually they haven't, it's a matter of some significance that in the heller case they simply held that the second amendment applied to the federal government. they footnoted that they weren't saying whether or not it applied, and apparently the test as to whether it applies to the state is the a question of whether it's a fundamental right. >> that's a good point, and i need to go back to law school. you raise a very good point, mr. sessions. >> this is a big deal because the second amendment will be eviscerated if it's not considered to be a fundamental right and made applicable to the states. thank you. my time is up. i look forward to working with you. we'll disagree on some things. you're a good advocate for your views, i congratulate you on that, but this is a serious matter we're dealing with, national security. >> sure. and i, obviously, you know, we have worked together well, you've been supportive of me

it's a matter of some significance that in the heller case they simply held that the second amendment applied to the federal government. they footnoted that they weren't saying whether or not it applied and apparently the test is to whether it applies to the states is a question of whether it's a fundamental right. >> that's a good point. i need to go back to law school. you raise a very good point. >> second amendment will be eviscerated if it's not considered to be a fundamental right and made applicable to the states. thank you. my time is up. i look forward to working with you. we'll disagree on some things. you're a good advocate for your views. i congratulate you on that. this is a serious matter we are dealing with, national security. >> sure. and obviously we have worked together well. you have been supportive of me when you thought that was appropriate. you have taken me to task when you thought that was also appropriate. and you actually have been a teacher for me today. thank you for that. >> senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know you got to go to lunch. i appre

. >> guest: and has been for a long time with his team heller. >> host: one of my colleagues is the rep. i do what our audience to know if you have any sense of reading for fun or if you are a teacher or you have any interest in education or in children or politics and government, you won't want to miss this book. now you have just heard how q2 was two have people who were your campaigners and the people cannot resist, but ms. cahill, i was impressed by the honesty of this book and this is what you also said it later on in the book when your opponent, jim gibbons, at the time who is not a governor of the state. >> guest: yes he is a governor. >> host: was crafty enough not to attack ms. cahill and her cute little volunteers and here is ms. cahill in frustration if i can read from you, ms. cahill. his gentle response was surely politically motivated, but while a campaign spearheaded by students made it very hard for people to attack me, it became a double edged sword because it was also hard to get anyone to discuss the issues. i am a serious candidate and wanted to say. but it was hard

and a very important case, really as important as heller. judge sonia sotomayor's lack of attention and lack of analysis are troubling. these truncated preponderances also suggesopinions suggestcasug constitutional issue of exceptional importance. other examples might include the new haven firefighters case, richiricci v. destefano, which s currently pending before the supreme court on review. and the fifth amendment case of diedidden case dealing with the condemnation of a proift individual's property. so i'm not -- all of those were serious constitutional cases what had the brief of the analysis by the court which is odd, i think. so i don't think it's right for us to demand we know how a judge will rule on a case in a supreme court. i'm not going to ask her to make any assurances about how she might rule. but i do think it would be fair and reasonable to ask her how she reached the conclusions she reached and perhaps why she spent so little time discussing cases of fundamental constitutional importance. i'm not the only one troubled by th

militia being important to the security of the state but the supreme court has just ruled on that in heller and said that does not obviate the plain language that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that individual americans have -- at least vis-a-vis the united states government. not, not all the amendments, i would say, are so clearly a personal right as the second. the first amendment talks about restricting congress -- congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. so some could argue that does not apply to the states. it would apply only to the federal government because it explicitly referred to it. however, the supreme court has held it does apply to the states and the right of speech and press and religion are applicable to the states and bind the states, as