heller was just a 5-4 decision, amazingly. in its application to the states in whether or not there will be a meaningful strict, stringent review will remain with the high court. i will enter that letter and others that we have received into the record. i'll offer into the record a series of op-eds that i have written that i believe the analysis of a nominee should be conducted and what are the important principles. and i would offer to the record a statement thanking my staff for the fabulous work that they have undertaken to make this process go in a way that we can be proud of. i see my colleague is here and i would at this point yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: i rise today, fellow senators, to discuss the current appointment, nomination that is under consideration by the united states senate for the united states supreme court's seat. like every member of this body, i take this responsibility seriously. mr. risch: this gives each member of the body the

-- in effect, bob heller, the balance sheet has not grown in, what, seven months now? almost eight months? in other words, they put a trillion dollars of round numbers in the fourth quarter of last year. since that time, as some of the emergency programs are running off because the market demand is not there, they have bought the treasury that may end in september. it's a flat balance sheet. is it an exit strategy? that's what i'm asking. >> no, essentially these programs are designed to self-did he say instruct. 100 about him up for sale, only 43 were auctioned off. so automatically, these programs were shut down because they're at penalty rates. >> and is they're not replacing them. in other words, the replacement rate is neutral. that's the point i'm making. there is no new money creation going on since late december, early january. >> the market realized that -- >> part of the problem is that the talf program which is slated very slow, in terms of how much the market has embraced that program. >> $30 billion? >> right. commercial papers running off, swaps running o

heller, maloney v. cuomo, another was argued and in pro-consumer opinioin the opinion theysaid te federal government seeks to impose and they said "legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights or single out suspect classifications carry a strong constitutionality and must be held if related to state interest." in other words, the second amendment does not protect the fundamental right. i believe the second amendment protects the fundamental right just as the first amendment protects the fundamental right. the supreme court agrees it protects a fundamental right and the founders believed there's a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. in a high profile racial discrimination case judge sotomayor's panel issued an unpublished summary order denying a group of firefighters the promotion they earned because the promotion exam has a disparate impact on minorities. judge sotomayor and the colleagues' actions were troubling because but issuing pun published order they avoided bringing the ca

a question that was not before the heller court. and, yet, another unsigned opinion judge sotomayor and two other judges held that it was not a right enforceable against the states. what are the legal implications of this holding? state regulations limiting or prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms would be subject only to the rational basis review. as sandy froman, a respected lawyer and former president of the national rifle association said in her witness testimony, this is a very, very low threshold that can easily be met by a state or a city that wishs to prohibit all gun ownership even in a home. thus, if judge sotomayor's decision were allowed to stand as precedent, states will ironically be able to do what the federal district of columbia cannot, place a de facto prohibition on the ownership of guns and other arms. someone suggested that judge sotomayor's decision is not cause for alarm. they say she was simply following precedent and that maloney case is not necessarily indicative of what she would do if confirmed to

she decided that the maloney case, after the historic heller decision, specifically concluded withoutny explanation that the right to bear arms is in fact not a fundamental right, a conclusion that no other court has ever reached. as a matter of fact, i cosigned an amicus brief which supported the argument that the right to bear arms were a fundamental right and one that could not be taken away by government without the highest standard of review. this was the argument that ultimately favored the supreme court in their decision. to me, a lawyer, her decision in maloney stands directly contrary to what the supreme court had just concluded in the heller case. so not only did the supreme court set the precedent, she ignored the precedent of heller in the ruling of the maloney case. how could judge sotomayor so distinctly and so openly come to the conclusion that bearing arms was not in fact a fundamental right when the supreme court just months before ruled the opposite way? where did her reasoning come from? well, i'm troubled by the lack of deference and adherence to the high court's d

versus heller case, they struck down the no handguns case.hat it violated the situation. they ask the question, who has the right for self defense? the mayor says it crosses the line, and they expect to win the lawsuit. >> we believe the gun laws are important, there could be a case for having them in other place that is the supreme court ruled. but the d.c. area needs strong gun protection. and that is not just the opinion of myself, but the opinion of other law enforcement experts. >> reporter: the city has 20 days to respond to the lawsuit, and it is a case that many believe will end up before the supreme court again. in the news room, claudia coffee. >>> and mark sanford's wife moving out of the governor's mansion. the family returned from the vacation this week. jennifer sanford plans to spend the school year with the four sons on the coast. in a statement, sanford says he supports his wife's decision. >>> and mel martinez is resigning, time to return to his home state and family. he told the staff in d.c. this morning and flew to orland

even after the watershed decision by the supreme court and heller, she argued of the second amendment did not apply to the state, and the right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental. when asked about in the, she claims to have relied on precedent. but the supreme court has not looked at the clause and fall for over 100 years. instead, it has looked at the duke process clause. for her to fail to of knowledge that, and to fail to acknowledge the clear suggestion the hell in that footnote, that this matter is now open for consideration. again, it is not law. the ninth circuit reviewing the decision reached a different conclusion altogether. they said that the second amendment does not apply to the state supreme court opinion, and i think that that was a big error. i would note that if her decision is not overruled, by the supreme court on which she aspires to sit, than any city in any state in america is completely denied the rights provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms. they can deny the right of people in their cities and states to keep and bear arms. and a third case,

versus heller which affirmed an individual right to private gun ownership said look the second amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner and for whatever purpose. i think it's absurd we should have guns now as jewelry or as a political sign when we have a fundamental right like gun ownership in the united states as covered by the second amendment. the government is still able to make reasonable measures with regard to restricting it. i think for presidential protection, it is entirely reasonable to extend the perimeter that guns are not allowed. we have to do that because it's just too risky for our head of state, irrespective whether it's george bush or barack obama, the fact of the matter is the supreme court held 5-4 that private gun ownership is a fundamental right but by the same token, we can regulate it. i think in this regard, we must. and the gun owners of america has always taken extreme positions and used deception. they said recent measures by the administration were going to ban bb guns or toy guns or ban reloading. they engage in fear ta

one is called ayn rand and the world she made by anne heller. the other one is by jennifer burns and it's called goodes of the market, ayn rand and the american right. it's fascinating to see rand finally getting a serious evaluation from american intellectual. rand in the '50s -- i felt she was much more -- she always saw herself apart from the mainstreams of american society but she fits very well with an antiauthoritarian that you see from other writers or on the left of other intellectuals and people like the lonely crowd, david riceman's book or the man in the gray flannel suit. rand has been doing extremely well over the past couple of months partly because of things coming out of d.c. but she's a writer and a figure more importantly who we should all study with care if we want to have a roadmap to why people are feeling the way that they are right now. and then because it's summer and i'm going on vacation in august, i always try to take a couple of novels to read. and i go back almost every year to the great french novelist whose comedy

whatever the second amendment may have met before heller, it seems to me that you had an absolute rightf self-defense regardless of the second amendment. now the supreme court has stated as a matter of constitutional law, you have that right to own a handgun for self protection. i think in many ways, the debate in this country has moved far forward and it was back in the 1970's and the 1980's when we were debating whether handguns should be outlawed. that is an ancient debate now. we have moved on from that. there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. when you look at the demographics of that group, there are over 10 million self identified liberals to own guns in this country. it is not exactly a left and right issue. i think it is becoming even less of a roles in urban issue. -- rural/urban issue. they say, like you do, if my government basically trust me, with the guns that i have own and never misused, in general terms, perhaps they're move -- perhaps they are worthy of my trust. if they want to take away those guns that i never miss use, perhaps this government is no lon

position -- arthur burns, walter heller, marty feldstein, and obviously, ben bernanke was there, as well, and allen greep -- greenspan. dr. romer is one of the best known macro-economists in the country. she served 20 years in the faculty at the university of california at berkeley. she became an expert at that time in the depression. she also became a leading expert on fiscal policy and what kinds of effects this has had on the policy by changes in tax policy. she did a lot of this work with her husband, who is also an economist at the university of california, berkeley, and i would say that shows a lot of interpersonal skills. being married to someone is hard enough, but being married to someone in the same department, also writing articles with your spouse and raising three children is very difficult. she has three children, none of whom are likely to be economists she's told me, but there is a chance her eighth grader may go to economics. her others are in natural sciences. she actually has a unique role in this respect. historically president -- people who have been on the chair of

i agree with the heller case but the heller case specifically left open the question 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 come to when judge easterbrook and judge posner who were professors at the university of chicago where i went and house speaker not rabid liberals and i wonder if they would use that same case against them as was used against judge sotomayor. judge sotomayor also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judges and sentenced white collar criminals -- and in drug case 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' cases. 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 she considered as a district court judge and even though she ha

one is called ayn rand and the world she made by a ann heller, social biography, and the other is by jennifer burns and it is called a goddess of the market, ayn rand and the american right. it's fascinating to see ayn rand finally getting a serious evaluation from american intellectuals. ayn rand and 50's i always felt she was much more like -- she always saw herself apart from the mainstream of american society but she fits in very well with an antiauthoritarian primm individual strain from other writers such as j.d. salinger or on the left a number of intellectuals such as paul goodman growing up stirred, and people like the lonely crowd, david kriseman's book or the man in the gray flannel suit. ayn rand has been doing well the past couple of months partly because things coming out of d.c. but she is a writer and a figure more importantly we should study with care if we want a road map why people are feeling the way they are right now and because of the summer and i am going on vacation in august i try to take a couple of models to read and i go back almost every year to balzac,

whatever the second amendment may have met before heller, it seems to me that you had an absolute right of self-defense regardless of the second amendment. now the supreme court has stated as a matter of constitutional law, you have that right to own a handgun for self protection. i think in many ways, the debate in this country has moved far forward and it was back in the 1970's and the 1980's when we were debating whether handguns should be outlawed. that is an ancient debate now. we have moved on from that. there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. when you look at the demographics of that group, there are over 10 million self identified liberals to own guns in this country. it is not exactly a left and right issue. i think it is becoming even less of a roles in urban issue. -- rural/urban issue. they say, like you do, if my government basically trust me, with the guns that i have own and never misused, in general terms, perhaps they're move -- perhaps they are worthy of my trust. if they want to take away those guns that i never miss use, perhaps this government is no l

last year the district of columbia versus heller the supreme court clearly identified the proper analysis for deciding whether the second amendment bonds states as well as the federal government. several months leader judge sotomayor ignored the directive and it clung to her previous insistence following a different analysis, the supreme court had discarded that the right to bear arms does not apply to the states. she also held the right to bear arms is so insignificant that virtually any conceivable reason is sufficient to justify weapons restriction. when asked about this decisions upheaving she refused to acknowledge the supreme court's so-called rational basis test is its most permissive legal standard yet this is practically a self-evident truth into law one that judge sotomayor herself site and applied just last fall to uphold weapons restriction and maloney versus cuomo. she likewise gave short threat to them right to private property. this is an expressed right in the constitution. and didn't versus the village of port chester and judge sotomayor affirmed the dismissal of property

whatever the second amendment may have met before heller, it seems to me that you had an absolute rightlf-defense regardless of the second amendment. now the supreme court has stated as a matter of constitutional law, you have that right to own a handgun for self protection. i think in many ways, the debate in this country has moved far forward and it was back in the 1970's and the 1980's when we were debating whether handguns should be outlawed. that is an ancient debate now. we have moved on from that. there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. when you look at the demographics of that group, there are over 10 million self identified liberals to own guns in this country. it is not exactly a left and right issue. i think it is becoming even less of a roles in urban issue. -- rural/urban issue. they say, like you do, if my government basically trust me, with the guns that i have own and never misused, in general terms, perhaps they're move -- perhaps they are worthy of my trust. if they want to take away those guns that i never miss use, perhaps this government is no longer

congressman dean heller offed an amendment to correct that but it was defeated along party lines. senate legislation omits the same eligibility verification requirements that would ensure only lawful immigrants and u.s. citizen benefit under these programs. now let's turn to medicaid and schip provisions. title 7 under division b of the house bill hr3200 expands medicaid illegibility to those earning a third above the poverty level. the minimum income which is required of immigrant sponsors, which i mentioned is 1-75% of the poverty level, that falls below the sponsor's eligible for taxpayer-funded health care for the poor, at 1 1/3%. the health care bell expands eligibility to 50% above the official poverty rate. that leaves an even larger gap for immigrant sponsors who are on medicaid to still sponsor and bring in additional visa holders. this aspect of the legislation has an undermining effect on opublic charge doctrine. section 1702 of hr3200 explicitly prohibits states which administer method okayed and schip from making further determinations about new medicaid enrollees' el

significance of the case and her ruling, even after the watershed decision by the supreme court in heller, she held that it was saddled law, the second amendment could not apply to the states, the right to keep and bear arms is not, quote, if fundamental right. when asked about the maloney case, the precedent on which she relied considered the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. the supreme court has not looked at that clause in over a hundred years. instead look at the due process clause under the bill of rights. the law has changed how we do incorporation since the 1800'ss. for her to fail to acknowledge that and to fail to acknowledge the very clear suggestion in the hell , in that famous footnote, that this matter now open for consideration. the second amendment applies to the states based on the supreme court opinion, that was a big error. i would note that if her decision was not overruled by the supreme court, which she aspires to sit, then any city in any state in america could completely deny the rights provided in the constitution to keep and bear arms.

the in hell are offered an amendment that said if this public health -- dean heller offered an amendmenthat said if this health plan is so good, the members of congress should have to enroll in it with their families. that got defeated, too, because they said it is important that members of congress have choices when it comes to health care. . >> we have republicans and those who have worked on health care for a number of years have put together proposals. there are five of them in all. one offered by the head of our ways and means on the republican side, dave camp. representative paul ryan, congressman john shadegg and tom pryce, they go from mild steps to bold reform. i don't think we'll be able to offer them. 70-vote margin in the house and filibuster-proof in the senate, every republican can vote against this plan and still wouldn't stop it. if we get a chance, if the american public speaks out in august and says we want to hear other ideas on health care, i think rather than going back to the 1950's and 1960's, why don't we come up with a 21st century care in america. coverage is ke

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 de

center mcconnell has said -- i think congressman heller of nevada, they offered a plan and said, our plan -- if this plan you are offering to the public now is so good, let's put ourselves on it. that plan was defeated on a party-line vote. host: jim martin of the 60 plus association, on our line for democrats. >caller: good morning. i am over 60. i'm retired. i am on medicare. i therefore -- i pay for my medicare through a monthly deduction to my social security. i also pay for supplemental health care. my medicare deduction is $96 a month. i received $13,000 a year from medicare. i live on an additional $5,000. i am not a wealthy senior. i also happen to be retired. i am very familiar with the tragedy is that people go through by not receiving health care at all. i am for a public auction. i see it as bringing down the cost of health care. i would like to ask mr. martin, who funds your organization? other than donations? guest: i am surprised to get that question this early, but i'm glad to answer it. we have over a quarter million concerned citizens around the country that have do

arthur burns, water heller, marty feldstein, ben bernanke was there and alan greenspan.it has had a large history of distinguished economists and dr. romer is within that tradition. she is one of the best known economists in the country, one of the best known macro economists in the country, served for 20 years as a member of the faculty at university of california berkeley. in that position became an expert on the depression, the cause of the depression, the consequences of the depression and how the u.s. government responded. she became a leading expert on fiscal policy and what types of defects it had on the economy by changes in tax policy. she did a lot of this work with her husband who is also an economist at the university of california berkeley, that shows an enormous amount of interpersonal skills because being married is difficult enough, being married to somebody in the same department is difficult as well, i would imagine, but writing articles with somebody who is your spouse and still raising three children, very difficult and she pulled it off with aplomb.

actually began as a crass attempt to introduce my novel "vanished" and its hero, a guy named nick heller who is a private spy, has evolved into something a lot more interesting which is a way for me to display my ignorance of intelligence issues in front of people who know a lot more about it and some very, very accomplished people who i want to thank for showing up here. what i want to do is i want to -- i want to sort of moderate the first half and then open it up to questions. i would like to basically serves as not quite a moderator but as an enhanced interrogator you might say. so there's really two parts to this whole private spies issue. one is the outsourcing of intelligence operations and functions by our government to outside contractors and another one which is a lot less talked about is the evolution of this really interesting profession of private intelligence operatives, most of whom come out of our intelligence community. so what i want to do is start, address my first question to general hayden so as most of you know that there was this terrific front page piece in "the n

actually began as a crass attempt to introduce my novel "vanished" and its hero, a guy named nick heller who is a private spy, has evolved into something a lot more interesting which is a way for me to display my ignorance of intelligence issues in front of people who know a lot more about it and some very, very accomplished people who i want to thank for showing up here. what i want to do is i want to -- i want to sort of moderate the first half and then open it up to questions. i would like to basically serves as not quite a moderator but as an enhanced interrogator you might say. so there's really two parts to this whole private spies issue. one is the outsourcing of intelligence operations and functions by our government to outside contractors and another one which is a lot less talked about is the evolution of this really interesting profession of private intelligence operatives, most of whom come out of our intelligence community. so what i want to do is start, address my first question to general hayden so as most of you know that there was this terrific front page piece in "the n

actually began as a crass attempt to introduce my novel "vanished" and its hero, a guy named nick hellero is a private spy, has evolved into something a lot more interesting which is a way for me to display my ignorance of intelligence issues in front of people who know a lot more about it and some very, very accomplished people who i want to thank for showing up here. what i want to do is i want to -- i want to sort of moderate the first half and then open it up to questions. i would like to basically serves as not quite a moderator but as an enhanced interrogator you might say. so there's really two parts to this whole private spies issue. one is the outsourcing of intelligence operations and functions by our government to outside contractors and another one which is a lot less talked about is the evolution of this really interesting profession of private intelligence operatives, most of whom come out of our intelligence community. so what i want to do is start, address my first question to general hayden so as most of you know that there was this terrific front page piece in "the new

center mcconnell has said -- i think congressman heller of nevada, they offered a plan and said, our plan -- if this plan you are offering to the public now is so good, let's put ourselves on it. that plan was defeated on a party-line vote. host: jim martin of the 60 plus association, on our line for democrats. >caller: good morning. i am over 60. i'm retired. i am on medicare. i therefore -- i pay for my medicare through a monthly deduction to my social security. i also pay for supplemental health care. my medicare deduction is $96 a month. i received $13,000 a year from medicare. i live on an additional $5,000. i am not a wealthy senior. i also happen to be retired. i am very familiar with the tragedy is that people go through by not receiving health care at all. i am for a public auction. i see it as bringing down the cost of health care. i would like to ask mr. martin, who funds your organization? other than donations? guest: i am surprised to get that question this early, but i'm glad to answer it. we have over a quarter million concerned citizens around the country that have do