APTN 2330 PRIME NEWS AMERICAS
AP-APTN-2330 Americas L Prime News-Final Friday, 9 April 2010 Americas L Prime News +Brazil Landslides 4 03:33 See Script WRAP Death toll reaches 192 as searches for bodies continued ADDS Search Brazil Chile 01:05 AP Clients Only REPLAY President Sebastian Pinera on 1st official visit to the country ++Argentina Dirty War 02:27 AP Clients Only NEW Dirty War court case involving Clarin Tycoon Enrestina De Noble continues Mexico Murder 02:32 AP Clients Only REPLAY TV producer is under investigation after wife's body was found ++Haiti Security 02:46 AP Clients Only NEW Police raid notorious slum searching for weapons, escaped convicts US Church Abuse 2 04:16 See Script WRAP AP EXCL Letter shows future pope didn't defrock abusive priest; Bishop US Mine 2 04:01 AP Clients Only REPLAY Crews prepare to go back into the mine, funerals, Obama sot Iran Nuclear 02:07 NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN/VOA PERSIAN REPLAY Ceremony to mark National Day of Nuclear Technology B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 2330 GMT. APEX 04-09-10 1956EDT -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-2330: +Brazil Landslides 4 Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:+Brazil Landslides 4- WRAP Death toll reaches 192 as searches for bodies continued ADDS Search LENGTH: 03:33 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: Pt No Access Brazil TYPE: Portuguese/Commentary/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/TV GLOBO STORY NUMBER: 642534 DATELINE: Various - 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 03:33 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY TV GLOBO - NO ACCESS BRAZIL SHOTLIST ++NEW (FIRST RUN 2330 AMERICAS PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Niteroi 1 Tilt down of church shelter for landslide victims 2. Mid of women looking through bags of clothing 3. Mid of woman looking through clothes 4. Pan of mattresses and bedding inside shelter 5. Mid of people consoling Angela de Oliveira, who lost her daughter and granddaughter in landslide 6. SOUNDBITE: (Portuguese) Angela de Oliveira, resident who lost her daughter and granddaughter in landslide: "By the time I arrived, my niece told me it had all collapsed (homes in Morro Bumba). My son-in-law managed to escape with the two little ones through the window, by the time he went back to get his wife and daughter he was too late to save them." 7. Pan of milk, donated for victims 8. Various of volunteers cooking for landslide victims 9. Wide of shelter (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Niteroi 10. Wide of Morro Bumba, where massive landslide occurred 11. Wide of search and rescue crews searching through mud and trash 12. Various of firefighters removing bodies of landslide victims in body bags 13. Various of damaged homes following landslide 14. Mid of man leaving his house with belongings 15. Wide of man closing door while dirt is cleared 16. Various of people standing in the street with furniture and other belongings 17. SOUNDBITE: (Portuguese) Aparecida Martins, Morro Bumba resident: "I have nowhere to go for now. I will have to stay in other people's homes for now. But, living in a shantytown on the mountain, never again. This is the second time this has happened to me." 18. Mid of evacuated survivors being registered by city government 19. Mid of evacuated survivor during registration ++NEW (FIRST RUN 2330 AMERICAS PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) TV GLOBO - NO ACCESS BRAZIL Seropedica ++COMMENTARY OVERLAID AT SOURCE++ 20. Tracking shot of flooded streets 21. Mid of people walking in knee-high flood waters 22. Mid of firefighters with boats 23. Mid of woman standing in flood waters coming up to her waist 24. Mid of pregnant woman pushed along in boat by firefighters 25. Mid of people in shelter 26. SOUNDBITE: (Portuguese) Unidentified flood victim: "(The water) destroyed everything. Within ten, fifteen minutes, everything was destroyed." 27. Tilt up from flood waters to house (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Rio de Janeiro 28. Mid of city government registering survivors at tent in Pleasure Hill shantytown 29. Close of people in line 30. Various of landslide in Pleasure Hill area 31. Wide of officials clearing dirt 32. Various of firefighters raking through dirt 33. Wide of Pleasure Hill after mudslide 34. Various of strong waves at Ipanema STORYLINE Nearly two hundred people were confirmed dead on Friday in Rio de Janeiro state and thousands more were left homeless, after massive floods and landslides caused by heavy rains left many neighbourhoods throughout the state destroyed. The area which was hit worst was the Morro Bumba shantytown in Niteroi, built on top of a former garbage dump, now buried by the landslide. Authorities fear the death toll from the Niteroi slide alone could be as many as 200, though it was not clear exactly how many people were buried beneath the mud. Volunteers throughout the state have created makeshift shelters near the shantytown, where thousands of people have arrived in search of food, water, clothing and a place to sleep. One woman, taking refuge at a local shelter, lost her daughter and granddaughter in the disaster. Although the rains have ceased in many cities throughout the state, Seropedica in the Baixada Fluminense region was suffering from the severe flooding, with many areas still under water. Firefighters used boats to evacuate stranded residents from their homes, with TV Globo showing images of a pregnant woman being evacuated in a canoe. One flood victim said that within ten or fifteen minutes "everything was destroyed." In Niteroi and Rio de Janeiro the state government began evacuating survivors from their unstable homes and registering them in an effort to relieve their suffering. Rio state Civil Defence department said at least 11-thousand people were forced from their homes. Many of them have been taken to local shelters, while others have relied on the help of friends and family. The toll in Rio has already surpassed that of 2008 flooding and mudslides in the southern state of Santa Catarina that killed nearly 130 people and displaced about 80-thousand. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 2029EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Brazil Chile Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:Brazil Chile- REPLAY President Sebastian Pinera on 1st official visit to the country LENGTH: 01:05 FIRST RUN: 2130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Portuguese/Nat SOURCE: Government TV STORY NUMBER: 642529 DATELINE: Brasilia - 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 01:05 GOVERNMENT TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Wide of Brazilian and Chilean delegation at event 2. Mid (from left) of Chilean President Sebastian Pinera and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva 3. Wide of foreign ministers about to sign agreements 4. Mid (from left) of Chilean Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno and Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim signing bilateral agreement 5. Wide of Pinera and Silva walking towards each other 6. Mid of Silva placing Ordem Cruzeiro do Sul medal on Pinera 7. Close of Chile's First Lady Cecilia Morel 8. Wide of Pinera and Silva at podiums 9. Close of Pinera 10. SOUNDBITE (Portuguese) Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazilian President: "During last February's earthquake, Chile lost hundreds of lives and suffered countless amounts of damage. During this period of recovery, Brazil will be by your side." 11. Wide of Pinera and Silva shaking hands 12. Mid of Pinera and Silva shaking hands STORYLINE Chile's new president is looking to Brazil for help rebuilding his country after a massive earthquake that killed nearly 500 people. Sebastian Pinera was in the Brazilian capital Brasilia on his first foreign tour since taking office. Pinera said he also met with business people in Sao Paulo and asked them to participate in reconstructing homes, schools, hospitals and highways. Pinera said he hoped to establish a "strategic relationship" with Brazil in areas such as renewable fuels, the environment and technology. During the meeting, Chile's Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno and his Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim signed a bilateral agreement, which will strengthen the cooperation of both countries in all aspects of sports and sports education. Brazil, which will be the future host of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games, has said it would support Chile in its bid to host the region's Copa America championship. Silva also presented Pinera with the Ordem Nacional Cruzeiro do Sul on Friday, a medal presented by the president to honour foreign dignitaries. Silva also said Brazil would remain by Chile's side during the reconstruction period. The two also spoke about the construction of a highway from southern Brazil to the Chilean port of Iquique. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 1941EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Mexico Murder Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:Mexico Murder- REPLAY TV producer is under investigation after wife's body was found LENGTH: 02:32 FIRST RUN: 2030 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound/ Spanish SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642518 DATELINE: Cancun, 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 02:32 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Various shots exterior of Moon Palace Hotel 2. Exterior of attorney general's office 3. Wide of press interviewing state prosecutor Francisco Alor 4. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Francisco Alor, Quintana Roo state prosecutor (on the results of the autopsy): "It was obviously asphyxiation. It took place with some kind of pressure that could have been created by some instrument that cut off her air supply, and afterwards she was moved to the place where she was found. This obviously opens up another line of investigation for us. In the beginning, we though it was some kind of blunt trauma injury, but this hit could have happened when her body was being moved after she was killed." 5. Cutaway press 6. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Francisco Alor, Quintana Roo state prosecutor: "This situation of conflicts in the first testimonials has obligated us, in which apparently she is said to have last been seen on Monday at 10am, but there are accounts that they were together in the afternoon or evening of that same Monday, and the autopsy is telling us that the death could have been around 11pm or 11:30pm at night. So we have to continue with the investigation." 7. Cutaway press 8. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Francisco Alor, Quintana Roo state prosecutor: "I mean, in the end he's got his lawyers and they're doing their job. But without a doubt, there are contradictions in the first declarations." 9. Various shots of morgue where body of Monica Beresford-Redman is being kept AP Photos - No Access Canada/For Broadcast use only - Strictly No Access Online or Mobile ++MUST COURTESY BRAZIL EXPLORE MAGAZINE++ Date and location unknown, made available 9 April 2010 10. STILL: Victim Monica Beresford-Redman STORYLINE: The producer of US TV shows "Pimp My Ride" and formerly of "Survivor" was released from Mexican custody early on Friday but remains under investigation after his wife's body was found in the sewer of a Cancun resort, a state official said. Bruce Beresford-Redman is still a suspect and is barred from leaving Mexico, said Francisco Alor, the attorney general in Quintana Roo state, where Cancun is located. He was released just after midnight into the custody of US consulate officials and taken to an undisclosed hotel. Police detained the 38-year-old producer on Thursday after finding the body of Monica Beresford-Redman in a sewer at the Moon Palace resort, where the family was on vacation. Her body had scratches on the neck, signs of asphyxiation and evidence of a heavy blow to the right temple, Alor said. Investigators believe she was suffocated on Monday night before being dumped in the sewer about 80 metres (yards) from her hotel room, he said. Her husband had scratches on his face and arms, he said, and several guests heard an argument in the couple's room on Monday night. Bruce Beresford-Redman told a hotel employee sent to check on them that they were fighting over their two children, Alor added. The hotel's electronic lock system showed the couple's room was opened and closed at least 11 times that night, he said. The producer told police on Tuesday that his wife had left the hotel to go shopping the previous day and never returned. A lawyer for Bruce Beresford-Redman could not be located. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 1942EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: ++Haiti Security Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:++Haiti Security- NEW Police raid notorious slum searching for weapons, escaped convicts LENGTH: 02:46 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Creole/English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642533 DATELINE: Port-Au-Prince - 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 02:46 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Pan up from weapon to policeman standing on street corner 2. Tracking shot of police running through alleyways in shantytown of Matissan 3. Close of armed policeman 4. Tracking shot of police running through alleyways during raid 5. Close of policeman standing guard with weapon ready 6. Mid of children watching police walk by 7. Tracking shot of armed police 8. Close of policeman, pull in to elderly woman watching in background 9. Mid of resident Jean St. Fort 10. SOUNDBITE: (Creole) Jean St. Fort, stone mason and resident of Matissan: "These guys they came out and they shoot around, it makes us all very nervous." (Translator repeating (English): "He says sometimes guys will shoot right in the middle, with everybody running.") Qu. In the day or night? "They come out at any time." (Translator repeating: "They don't have a special time, they just come out and shoot.") 11. Mid of police chief Mario Andersol 12. SOUNDBITE: (English) Mario Andersol, Haitian police chief: (Qu: Do you think they may have had help?) "You know, I don't want to anticipate the result of the investigation. So I think to me it is very suspicious." 13. Various of UN Minustah troops guarding the Champ de Mars, camp for earthquake survivors 14. UN and Haitian police arresting man inside camp 15. UN and Haitian police leaving camp STORYLINE Haitian police hunted gang members and escaped convicts in the notorious shantytown of Matissan on Friday, as part of a crackdown on violent crime in the capital which has led to dozens of arrests in recent days. A Haitian police anti-gang unit raced through labyrinthine alleyways in the neighbourhood, which residents say is frequently rattled by gunfire, causing them to hunker down in their homes, emptying the streets. Jean St. Fort, a 41-year-old stone mason and resident of Matissan, says residents are fearful to work on their damaged homes amid the gunfire. "These guys, they came out and they shoot around, it makes us all very nervous," he said. Port-au-Prince has experienced an upsurge in violent crime over the last two months, including carjackings, murder and kidnappings, according to local police sources. The US Embassy and diplomatic missions as well as the United Nations, have imposed curfews and restricted the movement of personnel as a result of the crime wave. Much of the crime, according to police and United Nations security staff, is a result of the escape of more than 4-thousand prisoners from the Central Penitentiary after January's earthquake. While some 200 have been recaptured, police say an approximately one-thousand gang members are roaming the streets of the capital. Police chief Mario Andersol said his forces were swamped as a result of the increase in criminals on the streets, but vowed to recapture all of the escapees. The heavily armed gangs present a special challenge now that tens of thousands of people are living in tent city's in open areas around the city, making them particularly vulnerable to predatory gangs. On Friday, UN police searched a sprawling tent city located in the Champ de Mars, a large open plaza in front of the destroyed presidential palace in downtown Port-au-Prince, arresting several men for theft, intimidation and assault. Minustah, the military peace-keeping force, UN police, and Haitian police forces have notably increased patrolling in hotspots around the city. They have also raised their profile in the tent camps and the sprawling shantytowns in the hillsides, all in an effort to dampen violent crime and suppress the activities of the gangs. Haitian government sources say 50 murders were recorded last month within the city limits, not including other violent crime like assaults, carjackings and kidnappings. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 2057EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: US Church Abuse 2 Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:US Church Abuse 2- WRAP AP EXCL Letter shows future pope didn't defrock abusive priest; Bishop LENGTH: 04:16 FIRST RUN: 2030 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: Various STORY NUMBER: 642528 DATELINE: Various - 4/8/9 April 2010/File LENGTH: 04:16 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY CTV - AP CLIENTS ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY AP PHOTOS - NO ACCESS CANADA/ FOR BROADCAST USE ONLY - STRICTLY NO ACCESS ONLINE OR MOBILE AP PHOTOS/BAY AREA NEWS GROUP - MANDATORY COURTESY BAY AREA NEWS GROUP / NO ACCESS CANADA/ FOR BROADCAST USE ONLY - STRICTLY NO ACCESS ONLINE OR MOBILE SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) CTV - AP CLIENTS ONLY Vatican City - 4 April 2010 1. Pope Benedict XVI emerging on balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on Easter Sunday; he waves to pilgrims (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Los Angeles, California, USA - 9 April 2010 2. 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the Diocese of Oakland, scroll down to see Ratzinger's signature 3. Close up of Ratzinger's signature (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) LAW ENFORCEMENT HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE - Date/Location Unknown 4. STILL of defrocked priest Rev. Stephen Kiesle (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Vatican City - 4 April 2010 5. Pan left from Apostolic Palace to St. Peter's Basilica (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP PHOTOS - NO ACCESS CANADA/ FOR BROADCAST USE ONLY - STRICTLY NO ACCESS ONLINE OR MOBILE FILE: Vatican City - 12 December 1985 6. STILL of Ratzinger holding up book at news conference at the Vatican (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Los Angeles, California, USA - 9 April 2010 7. GRAPHIC showing letter written by Ratzinger; words on side read "grave significance" 8. GRAPHIC of same letter; words read "good of the universal church" 9. GRAPHIC of same letter; words read "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within" 10. GRAPHIC of same letter; words read "the community of Christ's faithful" (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP PHOTOS/BAY AREA NEWS GROUP - MANDATORY COURTESY BAY AREA NEWS GROUP / NO ACCESS CANADA/ FOR BROADCAST USE ONLY - STRICTLY NO ACCESS ONLINE OR MOBILE FILE: Martinez, California, USA - 24 July 2003 11. STILL of Stephen Kiesle during a court hearing (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Union City, California, USA - 8 April 2010 12. Exteriors of Our Lady of the Rosary parish school, where Kiesle pleaded no contest to molesting two boys 13. Mid of cross on top of the school (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) CTV - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: Vatican City - 2002 (Exact date unknown) 14. Ratzinger beside Pope John Paul II during Mass in final year's of his life (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Oakland, California, USA - 8 April 2010 15. Former Bishop John Cummins sitting at his table, looking over letter from Ratzinger 16. Close of stamp on letter reading "Bishop's Office" 17. SOUNDBITE: (English) John Cummins, Former Bishop: "It was all moving slowly, yeah. Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger, I guess when we first started moving on Kiesle, he wasn't on the scene at all. And then when he took over, I think he was following what was the practice at the time that the Pope John Paul was slowing these things down. You didn't just walk out of the priesthood then." (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Los Angeles, California, USA - 8 April 2010 18. Attorney Irwin Zalkin sitting at his desk, tilt down to see him flipping through a book 19. SOUNDBITE: (English) Irwin Zalkin, lawyer for Kiesle Victims: "Their biggest concern was how to protect the universal church from any scandal. Scandal was considered a sin and if evidence or information were to get out and become public about the depth and the breath and the insidious nature of the problem of priests and other religious committing these crimes, it would for sure provoke scandal." (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Pinole, California, USA - 9 April 2010 20. Exteriors of St. Joseph's Church, where Kiesle volunteered as a youth minister 21. Statue of Joseph holding baby Jesus (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY San Ramon, California, USA - 9 April 2010 22. Cutaway Maurine Behrend, who worked with the Youth Ministry with Kiesle at St Joseph Church 23. Cutaway Behrend pointing to letter written to church officials (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY San Ramon, California, USA - 9 April 2010 24. Close of letter to church officials, push into words "reporting sexual abuse." 25. SOUNDBITE: (English) Maurine Behrend, worked with the Youth Ministry with Kiesle at St Joseph Church: "I said to Bishop, 'Steve Kiesle is still working as a youth minister.' And Bishop Cummins said, 'We'll take care of it.' (she mouths 'but he didn't.') They should have had a process in place. Now, they really do have a good process in place, but it took a while and it took lawsuits and things to kind of wake people up, I think." 26. Cutaway of Behrend (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP PHOTOS/BAY AREA NEWS GROUP - MANDATORY COURTESY BAY AREA NEWS GROUP / NO ACCESS CANADA/ FOR BROADCAST USE ONLY - STRICTLY NO ACCESS ONLINE OR MOBILE FILE: Martinez, California, USA - 26 June 2003 27. STILL of Stephen Kiesle at a court hearing (FIRST RUN 2030 LATAM PRIME NEWS - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Walnut Creek, California, USA - 9 April 2010 28. Shot of the front gate at the gated community in which Stephen Kiesle now lives 29. Close of the words "Rossmoor" on the building of the front gate 30. Cars driving through security checkpoint (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Vatican City - 4 April 2010 31. Bells tolling at St. Peter's Basilica (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 9 APRIL 2010) CTV - AP CLIENTS ONLY Vatican City - 4 April 2010 32. High angle shot St. Peter's square filled with pilgrims STORYLINE: Church files obtained exclusively by the Associated Press show that before becoming Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger resisted defrocking a San Francisco Bay-area priest who molested children. A 1985 letter signed by Ratzinger cited concerns about the effect that removing the priest would have on "the good of the universal church." The correspondence is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Pope Benedict XVI played no role in blocking the removal of paedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office. The letter, signed by Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland in California and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Reverend Stephen Kiesle. The Vatican refused to comment on the contents of the letter on Friday, but a spokesman confirmed it bore Ratzinger's signature. The diocese recommended removing Kiesle from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office which shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests. The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was still two more years before Kiesle was removed. In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger said the arguments for removing Kiesle were of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the Bishop Cummins to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision. But the future Pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful." Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanour charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory. As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him. In his earliest letter to Ratzinger, Bishop Cummins warned that returning Kiesle to ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers. California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file may have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials. "It was all moving slowly," explained Cummins, adding, "When we first started moving on Kiesle, (Ratzinger) wasn't on the scene at all. And then when he took over, I think he was following what was the practice at the time that the Pope John Paul was slowing these things down." "You didn't just walk out of the priesthood then," Cummins said. Attorney Irwin Zalkin, who sued the diocese on behalf of some of Kiesle's victims provided this explanation for the delay: "Their biggest concern was how to protect the Universal Church from any scandal. Scandal was considered a sin and if evidence or information were to get out and become public about the depth and the breath and the insidious nature of the problem of priests and other religious committing these crimes, it would for sure provoke scandal." As Kiesle's fate was being weighed in Rome, the priest returned to suburban Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, where he had served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975. Kiesle was ultimately stripped of his priestly powers in 1987, though the documents do not indicate how or why. They also don't indicate what role, if any, Ratzinger had in the decision. Kiesle continued to volunteer with children, according to Maurine Behrend, who worked in the Oakland diocese's youth ministry office in the 1980s. After learning of his history, Behrend complained to church officials. When nothing was done she wrote a letter, which she showed to the Associated Press. Behrend said she eventually confronted Cummins, the now retired bishop, at a confirmation and Kiesle was gone a short time later. "I said to Bishop, 'Steve Kiesle is still working as a youth minister.' And Bishop Cummins said, 'We'll take care of it,'" Behrend said on Friday. "They should have had a process in place. Now, they really do have a good process in place, but it took awhile and it took lawsuits and things to kind of wake people up, I think," she said. Kiesle was arrested and charged in 2002 on 13 counts of child molestation from the 1970s. All but two counts were thrown out after the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations. He pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee, California home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison. Kiesle, now 63 and a registered sex offender, lives in a Walnut Creek gated community, according to his address listed on the US Megan's Law sex registry. An Associated Press reporter was turned away when attempting to reach him for comment. William Gagen, an attorney who represented Kiesle in 2002, did not return a call for comment. More than a half-dozen victims reached a settlement in 2005 with the Oakland diocese alleging Kiesle had molested them as young children. These latest documents follow similar documents released last week, which revealed instances of the Vatican stalling in cases involving two Arizona clergy. The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 1942EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: US Mine 2 Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:US Mine 2- REPLAY Crews prepare to go back into the mine, funerals, Obama sot LENGTH: 04:01 FIRST RUN: 1930 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642519 DATELINE: Various - 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 04:01 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: Washington DC, 9 April 2010 1. Mid of US President Barack Obama walking out of the Oval Office and out to Rose Garden 2. Cutaway of Obama 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "This has been an unimaginably difficult week for the people who live near Montcoal. Thirty-one workers were inside the Upper Big Branch mine when an explosion ripped through its walls on Monday afternoon. Two were saved. Twenty-five were lost. And for the four who remain missing, we are praying for a miracle. I want to offer my deepest condolences to the friends and the families of the fathers and the husbands and brothers, nephews and sons who were killed in this accident. I'm also in awe of the courage and selflessness shown by the rescue teams who've risked their lives over and over and over this week for the chance to save another. They've worked around the clock, with little sleep, for the past few days, and this nation owes them a debt of gratitude." Montcoal, West Virginia, 9 April 2010 4. Cutaway of Kevin Stricklin, US Mine Safety and Health Administration official at news conference 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kevin Stricklin, Mine Safety and Health Administration: "Based on the nitrogen inerting the 22 longwall area, a decision has been made again to send rescue teams underground. They are gearing up or going underground, basically as we speak. 6. Cutaway of Stricklin 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kevin Stricklin, Mine Safety and Health Administration: "We're right now at 95 hours. So, we're confident that if they got in there (the rescue chamber which they have not searched yet) and they were alive that we would be able to still rescue them. Probably, we're somewhere in the vicinity right now hopefully getting in there within three and a half to four hours to that refuge chamber." 8. Wide of people outside mine holding banners supporting miners 9. Pan of girl holding sign reading: "My daddy is a miner" 10. SOUNDBITE: (English), Brittany, Local Resident: "It really hurts my feelings because I wish they'd find them. I mean, I can just keep praying, that's all I can do. So I hope that they find them in the other chamber and I hope they are okay and have been...++INAUDIBLE++ That's all I can pray for." 11. Mid of Theresa Davidson, local resident holding sign reading: "We need 4 miracles" 12. SOUNDBITE: (English) Theresa Davidson, Local Resident: "Devastated. We're wanting our miners out and we pray and hope that we can bring everybody out, give the family closure." 13. Wide of mine entrance 14. Close up of mine entrance Mullens, West Virginia, 9 April 2010 15. Wide of church, where funeral was held for Benny Willingham 16. Mid of church sign reading :"In loving memory of benny Willlingham and all who perished with him." 17. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kay Fulford, Friend of Willingham: "And if someone did not know him, they missed out on a lot. They missed out on a lot not knowing Benny." 18. Mid of Fulford walking towards church 19. SOUNDBITE: (English) Ronnie Thompson, Friend of Willingham: "On Tuesday morning is when we found out that Benny did not make it. And so we started making our plans whenever the service was going to be, that we knew we would be coming. We were going to be here for Benny? (Reporter: Why is it so important for you to be here for this service?) "He was so much part of us, the seven of us." 20. Mid of Thompson and other friends of Willingham walking into church 21. Wide of church service 22. Mid of Edith Willingham in middle, wife of Willingham, and others in front of casket 23. Mid of mourners with photo of Willingham and family 24. Close up of Edith Willigham being comforted 25. Various of funeral service STORYLINE: As grieving relatives began burying some of the 25 coal miners killed in a massive underground explosion, crews prepared to go back into the mine on Friday despite increasingly slim odds of finding survivors. Rescuers pulled seven bodies from the mine just after Monday's blast, the worst US mining disaster in two decades, but were forced out by poisonous gas before they could remove the rest or check for four missing miners who might have been able to hole up in refuge chambers. Rescue teams have been trying ever since to get back inside the Upper Big Branch mine about 30 miles (50 kilometres) south of Charleston but had to turn back for a third time on Friday when they encountered smoke about 1,000 feet below the surface and five miles in. "We are praying for a miracle," President Barack Obama said as he offered his condolences to the victims' families in Washington on Friday. "I'm also in awe of the courage and selflessness shown by the rescue teams who've risked their lives over and over and over this week for the chance to save another," Obama added. Kevin Stricklin, coal administrator from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, said on Friday afternoon that 16 rescuers would go back in for a fourth try and they hoped to get near the refuge chamber, which has not been searched yet, within three or four hours. Crews drilled a hole and had hoped to drop a camera in to check if the refuge chamber had been used, but they later determined that would not work. Officials have not said what caused the blast, but they believe high levels of methane gas may have played a role. They also were not sure what was causing the smoke but said they pumped enough nitrogen into the mine to make it safe for crews to try again in the afternoon. Rescuers got far enough on Friday to see that no one was in one of two chambers that had not been checked. But as they tried to get to the last chamber in the morning, they found signs of fire and smoke and had to retreat before they could determine if any miners were inside. Of the 25 confirmed dead, 18 bodies remain inside. Seven bodies were removed earlier in the week. Two other miners survived, and one of them remains hospitalised. As crews prepared to go back in, more than 300 people packed the Mullens Pentacostal Holiness Church for the funeral of Benny Willingham, a 61-year-old miner who was five weeks from retiring when he died. He was remembered as a devout and generous man who recently gave a used car to a stranger. He had been a miner for more than 30 years. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 1942EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Iran Nuclear Friday, 9 April 2010 STORY:Iran Nuclear- REPLAY Ceremony to mark National Day of Nuclear Technology LENGTH: 02:07 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN/VOA PERSIAN TYPE: Farsi/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 642462 DATELINE: Tehran - 9 April 2010 LENGTH: 02:07 NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN / NO ACCESS VOA PERSIAN ++AP Television is adhering to Iranian law that stipulates all media are banned from providing BBC Persian or VOA Persian any coverage from Iran, and under this law if any media violate this ban the Iranian authorities can immediately shut down that organisation in Tehran.++ SHOTLIST: 1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walking on stage to unveil centrifuges 2. Wide of audience and stage/ UPSOUND: Applause 3. Ahmadinejad unveiling centrifuge 4. Ahmadinejad walking towards podium for speech 5. Wide interior of hall 6. SOUNDBITE (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President: "By the instalment of this centrifuge, which is completely made by Iran, as a replacement for the first-generation centrifuges, we can supply fuel for six power plants by the instalment of 60-thousand of them." 7. Wide of conference hall 8. SOUNDBITE (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President: "Today, Iranian scientists have mastered the entire nuclear technology domain. It does not mean that we are at the peak, but there is no obstacle ahead of our scientists when it comes to (nuclear) science." 9. Pan of audience 10. SOUNDBITE (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President: "In fact, you (US and West) are encouraging nations to achieve this tool (nuclear weapon). So it is a big lie when you say that you are after preventing proliferation (of nuclear weapons)." 11. Wide of audience chanting slogans 12. SOUNDBITE (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President: "They (Iran's enemies) all know and are certain today that any hand from any point in the world will be cut before extending against the Iranian nation." 13. Wide interior of hall STORYLINE: Iran's president unveiled a third generation of domestically built centrifuges on Friday, declaring there was no way back from the country's nuclear programme despite opposition from the United States and its allies. Enrichment technology is of concern to the international community because it can be used to generate fuel for power stations or material for nuclear bombs. The new generation of centrifuges, which spin uranium gas at extremely high speeds to purify it, will allow Iran to produce fuel for as many as six nuclear power plants, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. During a ceremony marking Iran's National Day of Nuclear Technology, Ahmadinejad pulled back a white curtain to reveal one of the tall, cylindrical machines to a crowd of assembled dignitaries. "Today, Iranian scientists have mastered the entire nuclear technology domain. It does not mean that we are at the peak, but there is no obstacle ahead of our scientists when it comes to (nuclear) science," Ahmadinejad said. The display capped months of announcements about the development of the new machines. Iranian officials praised the advancement as a step toward greater self-sufficiency in the face of international sanctions. US President Barack Obama's announcement on Tuesday of a new American nuclear policy enraged Iran's leaders because the guidelines classify Iran as a potential target for a nuclear attack. Obama's policy included pledges to reduce America's nuclear arsenal, refrain from nuclear tests and not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Iran and North Korea were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on non-proliferation standards. Ahmadinejad called the promised arsenal reduction "a big lie" aimed at allowing Washington to keep the bulk of its weapons. The policy would only encourage nations to seek a nuclear military option, he said. The head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, said the new machines were 10 times more powerful than ones now in use and had passed all necessary mechanical tests. The machines are at the core of Iran's disputed nuclear programme. The United States and its allies suspect Iran's civilian work is a cover for developing a weapons capability. Iran argues that its nuclear programme is aimed at creating a peaceful nuclear energy network to serve its growing population. Iran's first nuclear power plant is to be inaugurated later this year in the southern port of Bushehr with the help of Russia. Iran says it plans to build some 20 nuclear power plants. The US and Israel have not ruled out a military option for stopping Iran's nuclear programme if diplomacy and sanctions fail. "They (Iran's enemies) all know and are certain today that any hand from any point in the world will be cut before extending against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad warned on Friday. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 04-09-10 1944EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------
HOLDER ANNOUNCES JOHNSON & JOHNSON SETTLEMENT
Monday, November 04, 2013 Attorney General Eric Holder announces action against Johnson & Johnson SLUG: 1115 HOLDER HEALTHCARE RS6 76 AR: 16X9 DISC# 541 NYRS: 5120 11:17:35 ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I am joined by the associate attorney general, Tony West, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, Stuart Delery, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz, First Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch and the deputy inspector general for investigations at the Department of Health and Human Services, Gary Cantrell. 11:18:05 We are here today to announce that Johnson & Johnson and three of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal as well as civil claims that they marketed prescription drugs for uses that were never approved as safe and effective and that they paid kickbacks to both physicians and pharmacies for prescribing and promoting these drugs. Through these alleged actions, these companies lined their pockets at the expense of American taxpayers, patients and the private insurance industry. They drove up costs for everyone in the health care system and negatively impacted the long-term solvency of essential health care programs like Medicare. This global settlement resolves multiple investigations involving the antipsychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega as well as the heart drug Natrecor and other Johnson & Johnson products. Now, the settlement also addresses allegations of conduct that recklessly put at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, including young children, the elderly and the disabled. In the criminal information filed today, we allege that Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Incorporated violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by introducing Risperdal into the market for unapproved uses. Now, in its plea agreement, Janssen admits that it promoted this drug to health care providers for the treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behaviors exhibited by elderly nonschizophrenic patients who suffered from dementia, even though the drug was approved only -- only -- to treat schizophrenia. 11:19:46 In separately filed civil complaints, we further allege that both Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals promoted Risperdal and Invega to doctors and to nursing homes as a way to control behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients, in children, as well as the mentally disabled. Now, the companies allegedly downplayed the serious health risks that were associated with Risperdal, including the risk of stroke in elderly patients, and even paid doctors to induce them to prescribe these drugs. As part of the scheme, the companies allegedly paid kickbacks to the nation's largest long-term care pharmacy, whose pharmacists were supposed to be the gatekeepers to provide an independent review of patient medications. 11:20:33 Instead, at the companies' behest, the pharmacists allegedly recommended Risperdal for nursing home patients who exhibited behavioral symptoms associated with Alzheimer's Disease as well as with dementia. Now, this alleged conduct resulted in government health care programs paying millions of dollars -- millions of dollars -- in false claims for these drugs. 11:20:56 Now, to resolve allegations stemming from the improper promotion of Risperdal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals will plead guilty to misbranding Risperdal, and has agreed to pay $400 million in criminal fines as well as forfeitures. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals have further agreed to pay over $1.2 billion to resolve their civil liability under the False Claims Act. And Johnson & Johnson will pay an additional $149 million to resolve claims relating to alleged kickbacks to a long-term care pharmacy. Now, in addition to these claims, we allege that Johnson & Johnson as well as its subsidiary, Scios Incorporated, promoted the heart failure drug Natrecor for off-label uses that caused patients to submit to costly infusions of the drug, without -- without -- credible scientific evidence that it would have any health benefit for those patients. In a separate matter that was resolved in 2009, Scios pleaded guilty to misbranding Natrecor and paid a criminal fine of $85 million. To resolve current allegations associated with the settlement that we announce today, the companies have agreed to pay an additional $184 million. 11:22:14 Now this significant settlement was made possible by the relentless investigative and enforcement efforts of dedicated men and women serving as part of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, or HEAT, which Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and I launched more than four years ago to recover taxpayer dollars, to keep the American people safe and to aggressively pursue fraud and misconduct whenever and wherever it is found. 11:22:43 Put simply, the alleged conduct is shameful, and it is unacceptable. It displayed a reckless indifference to the safety of the American people, and it constituted a clear abuse of the public trust, showing a blatant disregard for systems and laws designed to protect public health. 11:23:02 As our filings make clear, these are not victimless crimes. Americans trust that the medications prescribed for their parents and grandparents, for their children and for themselves are selected because they are in the patient's best interest. Laws enacted by Congress and the enforcement efforts of the Food and Drug Administration provide important safeguards to ensure that drugs are approved for uses that have been demonstrated as safe, as well as effective. Efforts by drug companies to introduce their drugs into interstate commerce for unapproved uses subvert those laws. Likewise, the payment of kickbacks undermines the independent medical judgment of health care providers. It creates financial incentives to increase the use of certain drugs, potentially putting the health of some patients at risk. Every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by health care providers, they jeopardize the public health, and they take money out of taxpayers' pockets. 11:24:09 This settlement demonstrates that the departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, working alongside a variety of federal, state and local partners, will simply not tolerate such activities. No company is above the law, and my colleagues and I are determined -- determined to keep moving forward, guided by the facts and the law; using every tool, resource and authority at our disposal -- to hold these corporations accountable, to safeguard the American people and to prevent this conduct from occurring in the future. 11:24:42 You know, this announcement marks another step forward in our strategic, comprehensive and effective approach to fraud prevention. We can all be encouraged by the actions that we have taken and by the results that we have obtained in recent years. But we cannot yet be satisfied, and that's why, here in Washington and across this country, this critical work will continue. 11:25:07 Now I'd like to thank everyone who made this settlement possible. In particular, I want to recognize the leaders, prosecutors, trial attorneys, the investigators and the staff at the Civil Division here in Washington, as well as our United States attorneys' offices in Philadelphia, in Boston and in San Francisco. I'm grateful for the committed efforts of our partners at the Department of Health and Human Services, particularly in the Office of the Inspector General, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and many other federal agencies that contributed to this outcome. And I want to thank each of the state attorneys general and Medicaid Fraud Control units across this country who contributed to this investigation. We'd be happy to take a few questions at this time. And I guess what I'd like to ask is maybe direct the -- at least the initial questions at the announcement that we have just made. Q: Over what period of time were these drugs improperly administered? And how many patients received them, took them? 11:26:08 MR. : With regard to the number of patients, I don't have that figure. With regard to the False Claims Act allegations with regard to Risperdal, it covers a 10-year period from 1999 to 2009. With regard to the criminal misdemeanor charge, it covers a little over a one-year period, which starts in March of about 2002 and carries on until December of 2003. It covers a time period where the Risperdal label was limited to schizophrenia. Q: Were there any cases where the risk actually turned into actual harm, so it wasn't just that these patients were put at risk, but that they actually had some sort of harmful effect? 11:26:52 MR. : With regard to the evidence in this case, we don't have evidence of actual patient harm. What we do have are statements and representations that indicate that risk was being minimized with regard to the use of the product in the elderly, especially with regard to the risk of stroke, also with regard to diabetes, things of that nature. And it's incumbent on the government to take a look at these type of behaviors to make sure that we're prosecuting these cases appropriately to ensure patient safety. STUART DELERY (assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Division): Just to add to that, one thing that ties the pieces of this case together, the fact that all of that relates to conduct that undermines the regulatory system that's been set up to protect the safety of the medicines that we take. And so part of it relates to activities of the company in marketing efforts, but also the Omnicare portion of the case relates to kickbacks that were paid which have the potential to undermine the medical judgment of medical professionals making decisions about individual patients. And we think it's important that we enforce this program that the federal Food and Drug Administration administers to safeguard medical judgments that are made across the country. Q: Are there any remaining claims that the government has against Johnson & Johnson related to these -- related to these drugs? Or does this settle all the claims that the government has against the company? 11:28:25 MR. : This is a global resolution with regard to the drugs that are announced. This resolves the matter based upon the evidence that we evaluated and made significant determination as to what the appropriate result would be. And we've now reached a global resolution so that we can move on to other cases. Q: How many physicians were involved in taking kickbacks and how much was taken? 11:28:57 CARMEN ORTIZ: We do not have that specific number. And a lot of the -- what had occurred was that J & J, as well as Janssen paid the kickbacks to Omnicare. And Omnicare, actually in 2009, settled charges against it in which it had accepted kickbacks from J & J and it had also paid kickbacks to lodging -- to nursing homes that were utilizing Omnicare, the pharmacy, for its prescription drugs. And the kickbacks were really in the form of rebates that went to Omnicare as well as fees that were supposedly to pay for data and to -- also payments were disguised to look like educational funding, in particular for pharmacists who were used to induce doctors to prescribe certain medications, and in particular respitrol (sp) to seniors in nursing homes. Q: (Off mic) -- payments were made to doctors, they were made with sort of a blanket payment -- (off mic)? 11:30:03 MS. ORTIZ: I believe that payments went to the doctors in this -- in the basis of, like, speaking fees for certain presentation that were made and certain meetings that were attended. Q: Just to reiterate the question that was already asked, if we're looking for a case where someone has either died or an elderly patient has been injured because this, you don't know of one; is that accurate? MS. ORTIZ: I believe that's correct. Yes, that is. Sir? Q: There was a decision from the 2nd Circuit last December, in a case called U.S. versus Karonia (sp), that held that the First Amendment basically protected off-label marketing by drug companies. Can you explain to us, if you think that decision was wrong, why didn't the department try to pursue that elsewhere? And are you pursuing these cases, you know, like that, or do you still think those laws should be enforced anyway? MS. ORTIZ: Well, I believe that in that particular case, the conduct that was looked at, the court determined that, you know, it could violative of First Amendment speech. That's not what we are behind here. And certainly under the facts of this case, we're not looking at off-label marketing in terms of alleging certain factors that are accurate. In particular, one of the key drugs that were highlighted in this case, Risperdal, it had been approved for uses for schizophrenia by the FDA, and only that use, and yet the company promoted it and sold it and induced others to buy it through kickback schemes and other inducements to treat the elderly who were suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, to treat children and also to treat the disabled. And when you promote drugs for purposes that they are not intended and have not been approved by the FDA, we don't believe that's a violation of the First Amendment. Q: (Off mic) -- off-labeling marketing. That's exactly what it is, isn't it? 11:31:52 MS. This is promoting drugs -- what we're prosecuting is promoting drugs for purposes that have not been approved, that have not been shown to be safe or even effective. And that's what this case is about. Q: Thank you. MR. : The statute requires that for intended uses the labeling for the drug provide directions for use and reflect any restrictions that the FDA requires. And what we're talking about in this case involved promotion for intended uses without the required instructions for use that the statute mandates. And so that's the nature of the claim here. Q: Mr. Attorney General, there are obviously lots of questions about the shooting at LAX on Friday. Just wondering what the latest -- your understanding is of the investigation, and do you think there were any things that could have been done to stop this? And how do we stop this in the future? 11:32:51 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, the investigation's obviously underway, and a part of that investigation will be a review of the security measures that were in place not only at LAX but, I think, a review of the security arrangements that exist in other airports as well. Function of the TSA is to ensure that people can board planes safely, take flights safely. The responsibility for protecting airport security is not a TSA function, but something that I think we need to certainly examine, given what happened in Los Angeles. Q: Do you think it's fair to say that a sort of anger at the government was behind this attack? 11:33:28 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I mean, these -- this is one of the things that we'll have to try to determine as part of the investigation. There have been some preliminary things that we are learning and that have been reported, but in -- we have to have a -- get a fuller understanding of the person who we now have in custody to understand what his motives -- what his motives might have been. Whatever those motives, it certainly doesn't justify what occurred -- the brave TSA agent who was killed, others who were injured. No feelings about the government can possibly justify those kinds of actions. Q: Your department's scheduled to go trial in three weeks over the merger of American Airlines and U.S. Airways. Can you give us a sense of how likely it is that you will settle those -- that case before trial, and what's the status of negotiations? 11:34:17 ATTY. GEN. HOLDER: Well, this is a matter that we have been in touch with the industry -- the airlines that we have sued. We've expressed concerns about the potential reduction in competition that the merger would potentially impose. I'm not going to go into any detail with regard to the discussions that we are engaging in, but I will say that they are -- they are ongoing. But what we have tried to focus on is to make sure that any resolution in this case necessarily includes divestitures of facilities at key, constrained airports throughout the United States. That, for us, is something that has to be a part of any resolution. So as I said, the conversations are ongoing, and we hope that we will be able to resolve this short of trial. But if we do not meet those demands that we have, we are fully prepared to take this case to trial. Q: The complaint that was brought listed more than a thousand different city pair (routes ?) -- you're saying that you'd be willing to accept a settlement that had, I guess, a substantially lower number of city pairs that were part of the settlement where that -- (inaudible) -- 11:35:32 ATTY. GEN. HOLDER: Well, our concern is making sure that we look at, as we do have in all cases that the Antitrust Division brings, to make sure that we bring benefit to consumers. We certainly alleged in the complaint the concerns that we have had, and there are a number of ways, I think, that we can deal with those concerns. We'll see what the conversations that we have with the other parties bring, but we will not agree to something that does not fundamentally resolve the concerns that were expressed in the complaint and do not substantially bring relief to consumers. Q: The last question is, is there, like, a magic number of slots that you need from different airports like JFK or LaGuardia or D.C.? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. (Laughter.) Q: Attorney General, a quick question on surveillance issues. You know there's been a flap over the week or two -- a very significant furor overseas about U.S. surveillance practices. As I understand it, about 80 percent of the work agencies like the NSA does is actually outside the U.S. and is basically ungoverned by statute. It's governed largely by guidelines that either you or your predecessors put in place. Are you looking at whether those guidelines provide any protection for foreign nationals or whether there are sufficient protections -- if any assurances can be given to people abroad that the government -- this government isn't just willy-nilly rummaging through their communications? 11:36:53 ATTY. GEN. HOLDER: Well, as the president has indicated -- and I think he's totally right -- we are in the process of conducting a review of these surveillance activities to make sure that we're striking an appropriate balance between keeping the American people safe and our allies safe, and also guarding the civil liberties and the privacy of those -- those same people. So we're in conversations with our partners in Europe and other parts of the world to make sure that we strike that appropriate balance. There are some fundamental questions I think we have to ask ourselves. Simply because we can do certain things doesn't necessarily mean that we should do these things. That are -- those -- that's, I think in some ways, the chief question that has to -- has to be resolved, almost a cost-benefit: What is the benefit that we are receiving, what are the protections that we are generating, against the privacy that we necessarily have to -- have to give up. That review is underway. It's a thorough review. The president is fully engaged in that review, as are other members of the National Security team, the intelligence community. And I would expect that in a relatively short period of time, we will have announcements to make in that regard. Q: (Off mic.) 11:38:09 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I'll just emphasize one thing. The concerns that we have here are not only with American citizens. I hope that people in Europe will hear this -- people who are members of the EU, the nations that are members of the EU. Our concerns go to their privacy considerations as well. So we're looking at this in a -- in a very holistic way. Q: Can you help the average taxpayer understand why a healthcare fraud investigation as long as -- and also a banking investigation might take so many years? As Dave (sp) mentioned, the complaint in this case was back in 2002, it's been 10 years. And can you help the average person understand why it takes so long to get to here? 11:38:50 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I'll let them maybe speak specifically about this one, but my own experience is that these are complex investigations that require huge amounts of research, lots of documents that have to be reviewed and great numbers of people who have to be interviewed. They frequently cross jurisdictions -- (inaudible) -- state lines, even federal jurisdictions. And one of the things that you want to make sure is that you investigate these things as thoroughly as you can to make sure that you understand in its totality the harms or the potential harms that have occurred and hold accountable the corporations, the institutions and all of the individuals that you possibly can. I don't know if you'll want to -- Q: But is there -- is there -- (inaudible) -- unless someone goes to jail, particularly a leader or CEO, that this will be just be viewed as the cost of doing business, as Mr. Dillery (sp) and others have testified? 11:39:42 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: No, I think that given the magnitude of the -- of the settlements that we extract and also the ongoing nature of the monitoring that is done that is a part typically of these -- of these resolutions, that conduct and cultures tend to change in these -- in these companies. And we -- as I said, we work through these to make sure that that which happened in the past does not happen in the future. I don't know if you'll want to add anything. MR. WEST: Maybe. I mean, I think the only thing I'd is I think what you've seen in the last four and a half years increasingly from this Department of Justice and from this attorney general, is in settlements like this, in resolutions like this, nonmonetary provisions which seek to change corporate behavior. So, you know, you have some very specific provisions here that talk about changing the compensation models for the sales force, about changing some of those incentives and to actually try to change behavior. Obviously, the magnitude of the fine and the penalty sort of speaks for itself. But in addition to accountability, I think we are looking for (deterrents/deterrence ?) -- factual statements, oftentimes. Here you have a guilty plea, of course, but in those fully civil-only kinds of settlements, you'll have an acknowledgement of facts, oftentimes. And so I think as we think about how best to resolve these types of case, we are looking for ways that will change behavior as well as demand accountability. MS. : One more question. Q: Would you -- would you give us an update on the discussions with JP Morgan Chase? You know, we were expecting a settlement perhaps to be announced very quickly, but it appears there are some sticking points. Can you tell us what those are and what the process of resolving those is? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: What time frame were you expecting? Q: Soon. 11:41:41 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Soon? Soon. Well, that's still an operative phrase. The associate attorney general, Tony West, has been leading our side in connection with these conversations. They are ongoing. I think they have been productive. I don't want to get into the nature of what we have been talking about, other than to say that I expect one way or the other we will resolve this soon. We'll either have an agreement or we will be filing a lawsuit. Q (?): Perhaps Tony can elaborate. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Tony, you want to elaborate? MR. WEST: We're not in a position to announce anything today. MS. : Thank you. Thank you very much. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Are there other questions? Q: Yes, Mr. Attorney General. I can't help but note that it was almost four years ago to the day that you were at this podium and announced your decision in the KSM case. Four years now. Obviously, a military prosecution has taken place. Do you still stand by your decision then? And do you think that the prosecution would have been over by now if this was in a civilian court? 11:42:40 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I think that's actually a good question to ask. And I think that what we have seen over these past four years -- not to be egocentric about this, but that I was right. I had access to documents, files, recommendations by the military, U.S. Attorney's Offices in the Eastern District of Virginia as well as the Southern District of New York. And I think the decision that I announced on that date was the right one. And I think that the facts and events that have occurred since then demonstrate that. I think that had we gone along the path that I announced at that time, we would not have had to close down half of Manhattan, it wouldn't have costed $200 million a year, and the defendants would be on death row as we speak. We, unfortunately, did not go down that road, I think for reasons other than those connected to the litigation, I think largely political; the opposition was largely political in nature. And I think this is an example of what happens when politics gets into matters that ought to be simply decided by lawyers and by national security experts. Q: Which brings me to al-Libi, who is being tried in the federal court. How long do you expect that trial to last? And what are your expectations for the case, and can you -- anything you can share about it? 11:44:13 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: That's a pending matter, so I want to be careful about any comments that I might make. Obviously, charges have been filed, very serious charges. The defendant has been charged with participation in a worldwide conspiracy that has a number of separate acts, including the bombings of our embassies. It is our intention to hold him totally accountable, as we have others who were parts of that -- were part of that conspiracy. And I think that the process that we used there, where we were able to get intelligence from him and still have a viable Article 3 case, is an indication that the Article 3 system is a very effective tool at holding people accountable and at the same time getting intelligence from people who possess it. Q: How long do you expect that -- this process to last? (Inaudible) -- four years if not even longer. Do you expect this to be just as long, or half the time, or -- ATTY GEN. HOLDER: (Off mic) -- just as long as. Q: (Inaudible.) 11:45:18 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: No, I think my -- I mean, if you look at the history of Article 3 prosecutions, you will see that they don't take nearly as long as those that occur in the military system, which is not to say that some cases should not be brought in the military system. As I indicated on the day that I announced the KSM determination, we (referred some ?) to the military commission process. But I think if you look at the hundreds of cases that we have brought in the Article 3 courts, we've shown that we can be effective, we can do them relatively quickly and that we can get the results that are consistent with the facts. We hold people accountable. We hold people accountable. Q: Since you're taking questions on a wide range of topics, on the Boston Marathon case, is the Justice Department going to go for the death penalty in that case? 11:46:08 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have an ongoing -- we have a process that we have to follow in that. We have the United States attorney from Boston who is a part of that process. A recommendation will come from the U.S. attorney, will go through our capital case review committee, will go through the deputy attorney general and finally will come to me before I make a determination as to whether or not we would seek the death penalty. And that process is ongoing. Q: Have you made a recommendation, Ms. Ortiz? 11:46:34 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: The process, as I said, is ongoing. Q: Mr. Attorney General, why haven't civil charges been filed against George Zimmerman yet, and what is the timeframe for an announcement or a decision? 11:46:48 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, the case of George Zimmerman and what happens there, I mean, I think in substantial part was resolved in the case that was tried. The investigation or the inquiry, the review that we are doing is still under way. I'm not sure exactly how much longer that will take, but we will -- when we get to a point where we are able to make a determination -- we've tried to construct the case in such a way that we'll be able to share as much information, not just make an announcement but to share as much information as we can with regard to that determination. Q: OK. One more? ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Oh, OK, one more. (Laughter.) Q: There's a -- there's a Senate hearing this week on prison reform. What would you like to see the Senate -- what would you like to see Congress pass to change the way the U.S. prison system operates? 11:47:42 ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I talked about this, I guess, at an ABA speech in San Francisco in August, and I said that the system, I thought, was broken. I didn't mean to imply that I was only talking about the federal system. I think the problems that we have go much further than that. And I think we need to come up with ways in which we hold people accountable, but we also need to come up with ways in which we prevent people from becoming involved in the criminal justice system, deal with people who have deficits and who are in the system, so that they can be made better and then ultimately released and to become productive citizens. And that's why I think we need to focus on re-entry efforts as well. We also need to have sentences that are, I think, consistent with the conduct that a particular defendant is convicted of. I think there's been a tendency in the past to mete out sentences that frankly are excessive. And at this point, given the resource constraints that we have, and as I look just at the Justice Department and the amount of money that the Bureau of Prisons consumes, we have to really rethink our priorities. We never want to put at risk the safety of the American people, and some states have shown that you can come up with, I think, pretty substantial reform, keep the American people safe and do things in a way that's different. And I would hope that Congress would look at the experience of the states, look at the proposals that we have made and make those 21st century changes that I think are really needed. STAFF: Thank you very much. ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Thank you.
CAMPAIGN 2012 / GINGRICH TOWN HALL MASON CITY IA
FTG REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NEWT GINGRICH SPEAKING AT EVENT IN MASON CITY, IOWA 11:46:20 Gingrich makes his way to podium with Callista. 11:47:23 Gingrich: "Well, thank you all for coming out today, and I wanna thank Linda Upmire in particular. She has been absolutely the heart of our campaign here in Iowa and we're very proud of her. The first women ever to be the majority leader of the State House, she did a great job, and if you look at the budget they worked out, without tax increases, and the way they worked very hard and diligently. Washington could learn a lot of lessons from Linda Upmire and the Republicans in the legislature and the governor, and how to get things that would make Washington a whole lot better, so I guess a part of my campaign is to try to figure out how to educate Washington to be more like Iowa, rather than having Iowa become more like Washington." (applause) ***11:48:11 "We are delighted to be here in the closing days of the campaign here in Iowa, and let me just ask a question, b because I'm curious. How many of you have received enough negative ads and mailers and what have you? I mean. I wanna make two commitments to you, You're gonna see ads from us for the next six days, and they're gonna be positive. You're gonna see ads from a so-called Super PAC that favors me, and they're gonna be posiitive. I think that we have enough trouble in this country that we oughtta have a campaign of positive ideas and positive solutions, because the only person helped by negative ads is Barack Obama, and our business is to defeat him, not help him, and I'm gonna stay positive for that purpose." (applause) 11:49:06 "I am gonna talk briefly and take questions, and if you wanna ask any questions about the negative ads, I'll be glad to answer them, because I think you have a right to know the facts, and I'm perfectly happy to do that. We've also been doingf telephone town hall meetings. In fact, State Rep. JoshBurns is here somewhere, and he actually got a call the other night as part fo a town hall meeting, and he and his daughter, Alexandria, joined in and participated in the call, and we had 9,700 peoplethe oteh night in one of our telephone town hall meetings, and I'm happy to answer any question about some of these totally false charges and exaggerations, but I really wanna focus on jobs and the economy, and tehre's a very powerful, practical reason. You have a relatively good economy in Iowa compared to some parts of the country. But the US is the economic engine which pulls the world economy, and there are very grave, troubling signs out there in Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East, and I think there's a very real tdanger that the world economy could take another step downward in 2012, and having a healthy, vibrant American economy is a key part of us getting ahead." 11:50:13 "NJow, I'm gonna taljk to you about what I would do as president, but let me say, in opassing, I thionk the disaster of the President and the Congress passing a two-month extensipn and going home as if they had accomplished something is really embarrassing. I don't think I've ever seen Washington more dysfunctional on a bi-partisan b asis than it is right now. (applause) And I think this very serious for the counrty , because it's a mess. No business now knows how to plan, no family knows how to plan. You know theyr'e going to have another crisis in February. To kick the ball down the road two months to have another crisis, probably, in May. To kick the ball down the road. I mean, this is an absurd way to govern. I say this with experience. I was a junior member when Ronald Reagan was elected. Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House. E had to g et 1/3 of the Democartys in order to pass anything, and we did. When I became Speaker of the House, we had a Democratic president. E had to get his signature to get things into law. And we worked and we got Bill Clinton sign welfare reform. We got him to sign the first tax cut in 16 years, the largest capital gains tax cut in history, and, in fact, when we passed welfare reform, 2/3 peoplewent to work or went to school, child poverty in America to the lowest point ever because parents were working, and the result was the Democrats split. 101 votes yes, 101 voted no. When we passed the tax cuts and the largest capital g ains tax cut in history, unemployment dropped to 4.2%. Can you imagine how healthy we'd b e at 4.2% unemployment right now? In that process we were able to balance the budget for four straight years, so I 've twice participated in serious bi-partisan reforms where you had to be able to reach the American people with an idea, and g et the American people to reach therir congressman and senators in order to get things done, and I watch what's currently going on, and I'll tell you. It's the cost of amateurism. Barack Obama doesn't have any idea how to be president, he doesn't know how to negotiate. The leader of the Democrats in the Senate is deeply partisan, and so you have a log jam, and I ghave no ideawhat I would do if I were in John Boehner's shoes, because I was very fortunate, both in the Reagan years and in the Clinton years, to have somebody rational to work with, and you could actally negotiate. I mean, we fought pretty hard, as you can remember, but we fought with an understanding that the country's biger than our partisanship. The country is b igger than our idealgy, and we have to find a way to get the country to work in order for America to succeed. Ameica only works when American are working, and that's a key principle of this campaign." 11:53:02 "We're focusing on jobs and the economy and economic growth, and I'm deligted that Art Laffer is coming in to campaign with me t omorrow. I first worked with Laffer in the late 1970s when Laffer, Wanniski, Larry Kudlow, Richard Ron, Jack Kemp, and a group of us were working on what's called supply-side economics. It's a v ery simple model. If you increase the number of jobs and you increase the amount of production, you solve problems by having more things, more oil, more gas, more ethanol, more corn production, you know, more manufacturing, and that mops up money, and that mops up unemployment. And so, it was a fundamental intellectual argument with Keynesian economics, which basially focused on the demand side. Many people thought we'd won the argument, between Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, and Ronald Reagan in the US. In fact, Daniel Yergin wrote a fascinating book called 'The Commanding Heights,' in which he described how Hayek and the Austrian economist had won and Keyenes and the demand guys had lost. Wasn't true. The reason the estabnlishmnet in both parties likes Keynesian economics is it puts control with the politicians. The reason they don't like the Ronald Reagan Jack Kemp Newt Gingrich supply-side approach is it puts power in the hands of the people." 11:54:25 "If you believe in markets, you have to make decisions. It means you have to be in charge. If you believe that entrepreneurs create jobs, it means you, in fact, are going to be in charge. The president deosn't create jobs. The president can create conditions that facvor jobs, or they can creat conditions that hurt jobs. But in the end you have to arouse the American people, because it's the Amerian people who create jobs. It's the hard work of Americans that creates jobs. So, we're back in exactly the same competition between a populaist supply-side apprcoh that Reagan and Kemp and I popul;arized 30 years ago and the much more timid, Washingtoni-centered approach, which will not create jobs, and of coruse Obama represents the extreme v ersion, wh ich is a Saul Alinsky radicalism, which actually kills jobs. Consider the Reagan model. Cut taxes, cut regulations, strengthen American energy production, and praise the people who create jobs. Say it's important go out and open up a small business. It's important to show up for work on Monday. It's important to save and invest. Then look at the Obama model. HJigehr taxces, more eregulations, anti-American energy, and class warfare t o attack the people who create jobs. I don't think the White House has a clue. I mean. I don't think they get up ion the morning and say, 'How many jobs can we kill today.' I just don't think they realize that their idealogy kills jobs. So you take the XL Keystone pipeline. 20,000 jobs immediately, billions of dollars of oil going to Houston, which is the largest pil refinery complex in the world, a generation of money coming to the US from Canadian oil on the way to worldwide distribution. The president postpones it, doesn't want to make a decision, because extremists are against building a pipeline for a very abvstract reason. It's not because they worry about pipelines. We build pipelines all the time. They don't want Canadian oil in the world market because of the indirect by-product that they see in terms of global warming, therefor they're trying to find a way to keep Canadian oil in Canada. Now, here's the problem. It's on ething if you have an administration that can't play chess. It's another thing if you have an administration that can't play checkers. But it you have an administration that can't play tic-tac-toe, you're in deep trouble. The Canadians are not trapped by Barack Obama. The Canadians can take Chinese money to build the very same pipeline straight west across the rockies, put it in Vancouver, not a penny will come to the US, n ot a job will be created in the US, the environmentalists wil lose because the oil's gonna be used by the Chinese, and that's what the president's faced with, and I don't think he understands it." 11:57:25 "So, he goes to Brazil, and he says to the Brazilians, 'I really want to be your best customer. He praises the Brazilians for drilling offshore, which he stops us from doing. He tells them how glad he is we can guarantee them two billion dollars in equipment for a George Soros-invested company, and then he praises them and says, 'I'd like to be your best customer.' That's exactly backwards, and every Iowa farmer know this. We do not want the POTUS to be a purchasing agent for foreign countries. We want the POTUS to be a salesman for American products. If we don't sell American agricultural products worldwide, we will havea depression in farm country, So, we need a president who goes out and opens up markets for American agricultural products, because it is the. We produce more than we're going to absorb here at home. And I think Obama has it exactly backwards. We have an economic growth plan, which you can see at newt.org. It's very straight forward. Remember I said cut taxes, cut regulations, strengthen American energy, favor people who actually create jobs." 11:58:27 "On taxes, we have zero capital gains so that hundreds of billions of dollars will pour into the US to create factories and firms and give us an enormous economic advantage. We go to 12.5% corp. tax rate, which is the Irish tax level. That guarantees that, first of all, 700 billion dollars will come back home in profits that are currently locked up overseas that they won't bring back home at a 35% rate. It means, second, that our companies will compete worldwide. This will give us a lower corp tax rate than Canada. And so we'll be very competitive worldwide. And third, it means GE will actually pay taxes because it'll be cheaper to pay taxes than pay tax lawyers at 12.5%. We have 100% expensing. What that means is if you're a farm or factory or a business, all new equipment gets written off in one year, and the purpose is very direct. If we're going to compete with China and India, we have to have the most modern equipment in the world in order for our works to be the most productive in the world, and because we need productivity, I've also favored changing unemployment compensation so that if you sign up for unemployment compensation, you have to sign up for a training program by a business so we are investing in creating better human capital, better skills, and a better workforce. We are not paying people for 99 weeks for doing nothing. (applause) 11:59:50 "So, the new equipment combined with the better trained workforce means we'll be the most competitive manufacturing company in the world. We also permanently abolish the death tax because it is fundamentally immoral to say to peple if you work and save your entire lifetime and do the right thing your entire lifetime, some politican can take half of it away from your family when you die. You should not have to visit the IRS and the undertaker in the sme week. Period. And so we abolish the death tax." (applause) 12:00:20 "Finally, we provide for individuals a 15% flat tax option. This is something they do in Hong Kong. You can keep the current code with all of its deductions, or you can fill out a single page, luist how much you've earned, how many dependents you have, pay 15%. And that way people have the option to eioter keep records or not keep records, but youhave the choice, not the politician. Part one is taxes. Part two, regulation. I will ask the Congress on Jan. 3 beofre I am sworn in, to stay in office andf repeal Obamacare, repeal Dodd-Frank. (applause) They should repeal Obamacare, which is a job-killing anti-smal business bill, they should repeal Dodd-Frank because it is killing snmall, independent banks, crippling small business and driving down the price of housing, which dropped again yesterday, by the way, which means the m idle class inverstment in their homes lost value again yesterday, and so if you repeal Dodd-Frank, you help small business, you help the value of housing, and you help independent small banks, who are currently being crushed by red tape. I would also ask them to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which is a bill which has huge red tape and had produced no information of any value during the last three years. Those three things will start to liberate American business. I would replace. And I would like those three done before I'm sworn in, so that the day after I'm sworn in I could sign them and we'd have that part of it done in January and we could go about passing good reforms to replace the bad reforms that we've repealed. On the day I;m inaugurated we'll have a day one plan which we'll publish by oct. 1 of next year. I will sign, about two hours after I'm sworn in, I wil sign between 100-200 executive orders. The very first executive order will abolish all of the White House czars as of that moment." (applause) 12:02:25 "In addition to repealing those three bills, I would ask the Congress to replace the EPA with a brand new ESA, and I mean replace. The current bureaucracy at the EPA is so radical, so anti-jobs, and so anti-local community, and so lacking in common sense that you cannot transform it. Everywhere I go, whether it's in SC, NH, here in Iowa, small towns tell me they are being crushed by EPA bureaucrats in Washongton whop have never visted their town, have no idea what they're demanding, and the economic cost of the EPA in small towns in America is extraordinary. When you go out and talk to businesses. I mean, they have a proposal on electricity, which will almost certainly lead to brownouts, and in a time when we're trying to compete in the world market, will dramatically raise the cost of electricity. Many of you know Sen. Grassly spent a year fighting their dust provisions. An agency which takes the general ability to look at particulate matter in clean air and turns that into a bureaucratic study of whether or not when you plow the dirt from your field will drift into the neighboring field, and tehrefor is the wind is high enough that the dust from your plowing will go into the neighboring field, then you should not plow that day. I mean, this is. Do you know how hard you have to work to be this stupid? This is some guy in th e Washington area who lives in a high-rise apartment with A/C, g oes downstairs to get on a Metro, which has A/C, to ride to his high-rise office where he has no windows, and he sits and he contemplates dust. It makes no sense at all. I was in AZ talking about what Sen. Grassly. He said it's worse in AZ. He said, 'You know, AZ is a desert, and so we get natural dust storms. We had somebody out here from the EPA and he said to us, you know, "maybe what you should do is water-down the dirt so you don't get these dust storms."' And he said we were trying to expain to him t he reason it's called a desert is we don't have any water. Now this is. So, I would like to replace the EPA with an ESA based on common sense and practicality. I would like to modernize the FDA so that its new job bcomes to be in the laboratory, understand science , and accelerating getting it to the patient, so we could be the leading the developer of new medicine, new technology, because as the world market grows, health is going t o be the best new producer of high-value jobs, and we want an FDA that helps us be at the top of that market and doesn't hurt us." 12:05:03 "Finally, we get to energy. Let me say unequivocally, with Ronald Reagan in 1984, and some of you are old enough to remember this, I actually voted for a thing called gasohol, and he signed it, because it was part of our getting away from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East. In 1986 I voted to renew what then became ethanol. In 1998, when big oil tried to kill ethanol, Sen. Grassly said I was the person who saved it, and there was a practical reason. If I have to choose between a billion dollars going to Iran or goint to Iowa, I prefer Iowa. If I have to choose a billion dollars going to Saudi Arabia or going to South Dakota, I prefer South Dakota. When you watch the Iranians, the news this morning, they are practicing how to close the Straits of Hormuz. Now, Callista and I had lunch with Sec of State George Schultz, who had been Reagan's Sec. of State at the Reagan Library on Pres. Reagan's 100th birthday. And Sec. of State Schultz said to me, he said, 'How often do we have to get hit over the head with a 2x4 to realize we need a national energy policy that maximizes American energy production. If the Straits of Hormz are closed, you will see a catastrophe in the world market. You will see a depression in t he industrial world, and it will be a nightmare. We've had thirty years to prepare for this. We know exactly what the danger is, and we know exactly what the requirement is. If you look at ND, where the federal government couldn't stop it because it was on private land, the Bachen Field in ND has 25 times, that's 2500% more oil and gas than the US Geological Sruvery thought six years ago, and we're developing it because it's on provate land. If we had a president who was pro-American energy, we would develop oil and gas, we would devleope shale oil, w would develop ethanol and soy diesel and next generation biofuels. We would develop wind. We now rival, I think only Denmark produces more wind than Iowa. We would devel;op all the different aspects, including coal, nuclear power, and solar, but our goal would be to produce a surplus of American energy so in a cris y ou could wave at the Middle East. My goal is to be able as President, to never bow to a Suadi king or walk arma dn arm. I want to explain to the Saudis we don't need your oild and we Re no gonna tolerate your support of terrorism." (applause) 12:07:33 "So, let me say one last thing then I'm gonna throw it open to questions. I'm not here to ask you to be for me, because if you're for me you're gonna vote and go h ome and say you hope that I'll fix it. I don't think even the POTUS can get this country back on the right track by himself. I'm here to ask you to be with me. We need you, Callista and I need you to be with us for the next eight years, to stand side by side. We need you to remind the Congress what we're trying to get done. We need you to remind the governor and the state legislature, the city council, the county commission, the school board. In addition, we need your help. If we do all the things that we need to do to get America back on track, we're gonna make mistakes, and whn we make mistakes, we need to hjave social media where you can say, 'That ain't working. The world has changed. Here's a better idea.' Because we together. I don't think 537 elected officials can fix this, but I think 305 million Ameicans can fix it easily. But lastly, if we apply the 10th amendment and we shrink government in Washington, we have to grow citizenship in Mason City. It's that straight forward, and clearly we have to be in a podition where everybody understands that citizenship has to rise as bureaucracy shrinks. And so I will ask y ou to be with me, I'd love your help next week. I believe we can win the general election decisively, and I will challenege the president to seven three-hour debates in a Lincoln-Douglas tradition with a timekeeper but no moderator, and I will concede in advance that he can use a teleprompter. I mean, after all, if you had to defend Obamacare, wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? I think we have to be fair about this. I would love to have your help, and what I'd like to do now is just toss it open to questions if that's alright." 12:09:25 Given the recent potential for instability in the Korean peninsula with Kim Jong-Il's death, how would your position with regards to North korea be different than Obama's?" Gingrich: "Well, first of all, you need to rapidly finish developing a ballistic missile defense, because you cannot afford any risk of a North Korean nuclear missile reaching the US, so I think we need to move activel;y to defending ourselves. We need to rebuild our intelligence capabilities. It is amazing to me.. Callista and I met recently in Los Angeles with Korean Americans. There are 600,000 korean Americans in Los Angeles alone, y et our intelligence community's ability to understand North Korea is very limited, and I think you have to have a much better understanding of what's going on up there. You want to avoid getting into a fight. This regime is going to be very shaky for a while, because ethe son that's taking over is very young, and it's a regime which values age, so all the old general s are going to be very suspicious of this very young leader, and I thionk we should be careful about what we should do. What we don't wanna do is to cause them to react out of fear, but I think that we should constantly pressure them, I think the goal is to ultimately replace the dictatorship, but even the South Koreans, frankly, they waiver between whether thtey're more frightened of a North Korean military, or they're more frightened If North Korea will collapse. I mean, the South Koreans looked at how expensive it was for the germans to absorb East Germany, and they know that North Korea would be vastly more expensive, so it'sa balancing act in the region, but I think on balance we have to have a strong national defense, and we need a ballistic missile defense that could make4 it impossible fopr the North Koreans to attack us directly." 12:11:15 Question: Mr. Speaker, what do you perceive to be the roll of the national government as we seek to improve our educational system in the country?" Gingrich: "I think that's a very good question. I think we should dramatically shrink the Dept. of Educ., eliminate the federal effort to regulate education, eliminate the testing mdoel, which I think is gonna have everyone teaching, taught to the test, and return power to the states, but I'm gonna mettle for a second. I think we oughtta have a lot less power in the state Dept. of Educ. I'd like to see us get back to where parents were the primary implementers of education, and where parents talked to the local school bhoard, and parents and the local school board developed education, but I also wanna say one other thing. As president, you're both leader of the country and manager of the federal government, so Ican say things that are about America that we're not gonna do out of Washington. I think every state should readopt the idea that you need discipline in the classroom, and back, you know, when I was young, if you got in trouble with the teacher, you got in trouble at home for getting in trouble with the teacher. Then we went through this cycle where parents came in and said, 'How can you say that to Johnny or Sally? I'm gonna sue you.' And I think you have to say get serious. The reason they're called the teacher is they're suppose dto be in charge, and the reason you're called the student is you're supposed to learn from them, and we need to reassert discipline in th e classroom if we're gonna have any oppoprtunity to have the kind of education we need to have in this country." (applause) 12:12:45 Question: ". As president I just want to know what you would do to support God in America, and to definitely promote our heritage." 12:13:07 Gingrich: "I think that's a very good question. As you may know, Callista and I have written a book called "Rediscovering God in America," and made a movie about the same topic. There's a paper, which is a little controversial, if you go to newt.org on rebalancing the judiciary, because the primary threat to our belief in God has come from judges who are secular and behave as though they are dictators. I got drawn into this is 2002 when the 9th Circuit Court ruled that 'one nation under God' was unconstitutional in th Pledge of Allegience, and I thought that ws such a radically anti-American position that I got ingtirgued at how the courts got so radical. And so, if you go to newt.org there's a very complicated paper. We spent nine years working on it, Vince Haley and I, and Vicne is the primary author. If you look at the Consitution, this is one of the great examples of how big the change has to be.the Constitution says that tehre's a balance of power ebwteen the three co-equal branches. So you have the judicial, the executive, and the legislative, except the way they wrote it the legislative comes first, the executive comes second, and the judicial comes third. The Federalist Papers, explaining the judicial branch, and Alexander writes it will always be the weakest of the three branches, and it would never pick a fight with the president and with Congress because it would inevitably lose the fight. Now, in 1958, the Earl Warren court totally subverted the American Constitution and said the Supreme Court is the final decider of the Constitution. Well, by definition, that sets the Supreme Court above the legislative and executive branches, and politicians have tolerated, and what that has done. Lord Acton wrote in the 19th century that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and he took out the word 'tends' in the second half. You have judges today who are drunk on power. Judge Biery in San Antonia, on June 1, said not only could high school students not pray at their graduiation, they could not use the word invocation, they could not use the word benediction, they could not ask for silence, they could not ask the audience to stand, and they could not mention God. And he went on to say if any of these five were violated, I will put the superintendednt in jail. Now, I believe that that is a bigoted, anti-religious dictate by a speech dictator, which is not a appropriate for the federal bench, and I think he should be taken off the bench." (applause) So the first step would be to ask the Conghress for impeachment of Judge Biery, which would require him to come to Congress, totally under the Constitution, and defend his position, and explain why he would issue such a radical statement, and I think that just the act of getting him to defend it would be very, very helpful in resetting it. You cann;t explain America without the Dec. of Indep., which is a political document. You cannot explain the Dec. of Indep. Without understanding that it says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. We're the only country in history which says power come from God to each one of you personally, and therefore I think we have to have a position which says we are gonna defend in the public square, and we are gonna rebalance the public courts so that they are one of three public branches, theyr'e not the dictator to the other two branches." (applause) 12:16:53 Question: "Considering we have a fairly dysfunctional Congress, what is your stand on an amendment to the Constitution to limit Congressional terms?" Gingrich: "I am actually less favorable to term limits than I was in the 1990s, and the reason is the experience of states like California wheren term-limited state legislators never quite figure out what's going on, so the lobbyists and the bureaucrats now run the states. I am in favor of very dramatic election law reform. I would make it legal for anybody to g ive any amount of after-tax personal income if they reported it every night on the internet so you knew who was backing who, and overnight you would have challengers springing up all over the country, and you'd have a much more competitive environment. As late as 1890, half of every Conghress was brand new, and it was because ethe telections were starightr forward, and what we've now done is we've built these incumbency castles where the first thing an incumbent does is raise money to try to be so invulnerable that nobody can run against him, and the corollary of that is we now get millionaires who buy seats., and I think that's very dangerous for the future of American democracy. My dad served in the Army for 27 years, I was a college teacher, I'm a middle class person, Callista's middle class. We don't come out of a background where we can buy a seat or, as Mayor Bloomberg did, buy the mayorship of new York. Look at how much he sent. He just wrote a check and bought it. I think that's wrong. It eliminated self-government and make sit money government, and so I think finding a way fro middle class Americans to raise the money to challenge incumbents, you'll beat a lot of these guys every two years or every six years in the Senate if they have to face real challenges and real organization." **12:18:44 Question: "Given the reaction that you've drawn, would you revisit your comment about poor kids working in public schools, and please don't skip over child labor laws and work ethic." Gingrich: "Ok. I'm glad to. Sure. My newsletter today. You happened to touch on a good topic. My newsletter, which is at gingrich productions and at human events today is about NYC janitors, who are paid more than NYC teachers, and it'sabout the fact you can make well over $100,000 a year as a janitor with a contract that doesn't require you to mop the floor more than once a week,. And I suggested that, in fact, if you took about half the janitors, for a $100,000, you could hire30 kids at $3,000 a year to work part time at the school. They could dop everything from working at the library to work in the cafeteria, to work in th e front office, and I'll be bold. They could mop the floor. Now, I've had liberals jump up in horror and suggest I'm trapping them into being janitors. My younger daughter, who's written two books and writes a wekly column, reminded me her first paying job was at the First Baptist Church in Carolton where she was, in fact, cleaning out the toilets and being a janitor. I m entioned this he other day to an editotail board who were in a state of schock. They said, 'You would have children actually deal with things like that?' and I said, well, I think if you talk with most Iowa farm families, they will explain to you what they have their kids do, and it turns out they encounter real work. Some of them actually get dirty, they sometimes encounter dealing with things with animals. It's amaziong what on farms you encounter, and nobody seems to be horrified except now the EPA is proposing a rule that you can't allow children to work on the farm unless they're an immediate part of the family, so you can't have your cousin or your niece or you nephew come in. This is the kind of mindless, left-wing thinking. Now, let me tell you how it started. Liberals used to say you don't wanna get a hamburger-flipping job, and I was working with the McDonald's people studying McDonald's, which is the most successful franchise system in the world, and they have an entire training program for new entries. They're the largest trainer of new workers in the world. And guess what's the first thing they need to train people. Show up. The second thing they have to train people, you can't leave. Now, to people who grew up in middle class families, this all makes sense. But if you grew up in a very, very poor neighborhood, 2/3 children in the poorest neuighborghoods have nobody in their family working. They're not acquiring themost basic habits. The goal's not to get them trapped at a job like that, the goal is to hjave them start rising by larning the habits of work. So I'm in the middle of this. and I don't know if this is in response to you or not, but I just find it absolutely fascinating, because the left just went crazy." 12:21:50 "So we were in New Hampshire last week, in Manchester, and a young man walks up to me, who's 16 years old, who owns his own doughnut company, which he started at 11, because his father, who's an investment advisor on 401ks and thigs like that, was trying to get him to understand free enterprise, so his father's thrilled, by the way, because he now for the fiorst time can deliver his own doughnuts without his dad having to drive the car, but he has two restaurants that serve his doughnuts every morning, and he's out there baking, you know, 40 doughnuts at a time, packaging them. He's now been in business for five years. I think this is wonderful Gallop reports that 50% of the kids in the US would like to won their own business. I would like to say that in the poorest neighborhoods, if we had one less janitor and 30 kids working, which would also lower the dropout rate because they'd have a reason to go to school, you'd have better kids, with a better pride, with a better work ethic, and they would rise in life from having learned at an early stage that you can earn money, you can budget money, it's your money, it's nt the government's money, and no politicians can tell you what to do with it. So, I'm gonna defend my belief that if we had more work, we would actually have earned self esteem. You can't give self esteem. You have to earn it, and that's wh the left is profoundly wrong about how America works." (applause) 12:23:37 Question: ". I would like to see a very classy lady be the first lady." (applause) Gingrich: "I agree with you." Question: "I think she's somewhat homegrown here, and she will definitely add some flavor to Washington. My second issue is I believe it aappars to me the Arab Spring is going to turn into a Muslim Brotherhood Summer. Where can the US position itself and be led if and or this does happen? It's just a fear or a concern of mine." 12:24:33 Gingrich: "Let me. On your first very nice, positive comment, let just mention on being homegrown, that last night we were at Mabe's Pizza, in Decorah, which some of you will remember when Callista was in Luther, and it turns out the room we had met in was the room she had had her graduation party in, and spent her senior year living above Mabe's Pizza, so she had pizza smell 24 hours a day, but she was really in terms of being homegrown. She was really happy to be back at Mabe's. I have to confess the pizza was pretty darn good. I think there's every reason to worry if you watch what's happening in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia, in Libya.. I'll just give you two quick examples. We have to liberate out intelligfence community from all the restrictions Congress has put on it over the last 36 years. We today don't know enough. We don't have real spies. We rely on local governmnmets to tell us things, and this is enormously dangerous, because we don't know, for example, on the Libyans from bin Gazi, which was a primary supplier of anti-American fighters for Iraq, are these anti-American Libyans who have now taken over Libya? And if so, who are they? What are their relationships? We don't really know the relationships in the Muslim Brotherhood, and by the way, you can extend this all the way down to Nigeria, wher there's a war against Christians in norther Nigeria. In Iraq there a 1.2 million Christians when the Americans arrived. There are 500 thousand today. Seven hundred thousand Christians have left Iraq because of the failure of the Americans. You just look around at the things that are going on. We do not today have a strategy large enough and comprehensive enough to deal with the scale of the problem. This is not a military problem. This is a strategic thinking problem first. Gen. Abizaid, who used to be the head of the Central Command, said to metwo months ago our strategic deficit is bigger than our fiscal deficit, and we strart therein 1947 we intervened covertly and we saved France and Italy from going communist in an election by pouring money in to help the anti-communist side. We have no understanding today, no mechanisms, and no capacity to help those who would like to be martyred Muslims, and as a result there's a great danger they will be drowned by the forces of radicalism, and I think that's a danger in every single country where this is going on, and we are simply on probe to pay for it. " 12:27:15 Question: "What is your stand on the UN stand on wanting our guns?" Gingrich: "I believe that the 2nd amendment, which is worded very carefully. The 2nd amenmnet does not give you the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Very important. Remember, I'm wearing George washington's command flag. The Founding Fathers believed that your right to bear arms was endowed by your creator as an ability to defend your political rights, and the Founding Fathers all knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, the British army would have crushed them. I believe that the US should actually go on offense workldwide. I think we should be explaining why the right to bear arm would lead to a better world. We should beactive;y fighting the UN's efforts. Again, this goes back to who controls. The eleites would like to take aay our guns, because the elites would like to control us with no recourse. Having a free America made up of free people just drives the elites crazy, because we don't fit our model. They would like us to be subjects to gvernmnet. We are citizens, and government should be subject to us, and that is a fundamental fight with elites aroudns the world, and we should have the courage to go out and take the 2nd amendment everywhere in the world. Let me close with this one. First of all. Let me thank you for coming out and spending so m uch time with us. Callista and I are both delighted to be with you We look forward to getting pictures and seeing each of you, but let me ask each of you as you go to the caucus and you talk to your friends across the state, this is still wide open. ****Iowa has an opportunity to say to the rest fo the country the era of the negative consultant running false ads is over, and I would ask you when you gfo to the caucus to remind uor friends and neighbors, do you realy want to reward somebody who's done nothing but run negative ads, or do you want to elect somebody who has big, positive solutions, runs positive ads, and has a track record of actually getting it done?**** I'd love to have you support, we'd love to work with you. Thank you very. Very much." 12:29:30 Gingrich and Callista walk off stage. Gingrich meets and greets the crowd. 12:40:19 Gingrich: "Let me just say, as I mentioned earlier, we're very excited to have Art Laffer come out tomorrow to continue our focus on jobs and economic growth, and to remind people of the fundamental choice between a supply-side approach that encourages the creation of jobs and economic growth, and a more establishment-based model that actually limits the likelihood of jobs and economic growth, so I think Art will be a great asset in his ability to explain things. He has been one of the great pioneers of developing. Will be useful, so our focus is gonna be for the whole closing days of the caucus to focus on the economy, on jobs, on economic growth, on the fact that twice, I helped do it once with Reagan in 80s, and once as Speaker of the House with Bill Clinton in the 90s, and I think we have approaches and policies and principles that'll g et this country growing again and will create the economic dynamic that we need if we're gonna help the pull the world past a very real danger of an even deeper recession given the problems in Europe and the threats in the Middle East. So, I'd be glad to take questions." ****12:41:26 Question on PAC's "Mitt Romney: Second Most Dangerous Man in America" ad. Isn't the negative? Gingrich: "Yeah, I would encourage them not to do that anymrope, and I think that's not right, and I don't. You know, again, I don't control them, but I would discourage them from sending out that kind of negative information. I think that's wrong." 12:41:48 Question: "Isn'y your inconsistency in saying you would not support Ron Paul as the nominee and also saying posiotive campaign." Gingrich: "the questions's very direct question. Do you feel comfortable, in terms of my two grandchildren, and everybody in this city, in somebody that believes that an Iranian nuclear weapon is irrelevant? Now that. It's one thing to stick to a policy position that he has said in debates. It's another thing to go out and run ads that are dishonest and misleading. I answered a question. We're not running any ads attacking anybody, which is what I've said all along, but I was asked a direct question. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the Commander in Chief would think that it was irrelevant to have an Iranian nuclear weapon, because I regard an Iranian nuclear weapon as very dangerous." 12:42:39 Question: ". come out fighting for this nomination." Gingrich: "I think, if you saw the crowd here, I know this hard for some of you to cover. You can fight in a positive way. You can be very strong in a positive way. You can talk about positive ideas. It's ok. You don't have to have a nasty, negative, mud-slinging, consultant-driven campaign, and I refuse to engage in that kind of politics, and I think it's good for America to see somebody fight in a positive way and not degenerate into the kind of junk you've seen on tv lately." ***12:43:09 Question about ballot situation in Virginia. Will you join lawsuit? Gingrich: "We haven't looked at that yet, but I thought it was interesting for everybody who thought it was my problem, you know have Gov. Perry also pointing out that Virginia is a very difficult ballot to get on. Five of the seven candidate were blocked from getting on it. I would like t o0 be on the ballot, or I would like the legislature to give us the ability to have a write-in campaign. Every poll in Virginia shows me beating Romney in Virginia, so I would love to be able to at least have a write-in campaign. It's the people of Virginia who lose when you are restricted to only two candidates out of seven, so, you know. But Gov. Perry did the right thing. I haven't talked to our attorneys. I have no idea what they're doing." ***12:43:47 Question: NYT piece said you went to Greece last spring to intentionally invoke a confrontation with staff, and it worked because they all left. Can y ou talk about that? Gingrich: "All I can say is I was very struck when Callista and I did the film on Ronald Reagan, going to the ranch, the he was an extraordinary president who spent one year out of eight at the ranch, and I relly tried to understand what was he accomplishing? And he was achieveing a sense of balance and a sense of distance. He wasn't sucked into Washington bologna, and we had planned for a long time to stop. We had been campaigning very hard. And we had planned for a long time to stop for ten days to think. Again, I know this doesn't fit the normal media model of how candidates operate." **12:44:40 Question: "This was the first week of your rollout of your campaign." Gingrich: "But we had been working ever since January to get everything lined up and organized, and we'd been working very, very hard, and it wouldn't have mattered if we'd done it the first week or we did it the first week of July. The fact is, I think you need to pace yourself, you need to get a sense of distance. Ironically, being in Greece during the Greek crisis was very helpful. It gave me a much deeper perspective of how hard this is going to be, but I also wanted to say to consultants, I'm a different kind of candidate. I'm determined to be positive. I'm determined to talk about big ideas. I wrote books. We have made movies. We think ideas matters. The consultants found us very mystifying, we're very strange. And so I wanted to force, either they would like to be the advisors to my campaign, or they needed to leave, because I couldn't be the candidate for their campaign, and I think it worked pretty well. Within two h ours of their leaving we were back on track, and growing ever since. I mean, we're ahead of where I thought we'd be at this stage, but I'm pretty happy with the campaign overall nationally." ***12:45:46 Question on lobbying for medicare extension in 2003. How was that not lobbying? Gingrich: "No. As a citizen who said publicly I'd like to see this passed, I'm allowed to ay as a citizen I'd like to see this passed. That's not lobbying. I wasn't paid by anybody to say that. It was a public position I'd taken for a practical reason. We had a medical program which said, 'We will not pay for you to have Lipitor, but we'll be glad to give you open heart surgery. We will not pay for insulin, but we'll be able to give you kidney dialysis.' This was my public position. I've been taking it for months, so when members of Congress said to me, 'Gee, what do you think I ought to do?' I said, frankly it's a lot better health system if you help people have preventive care than if you wait for the more expensive solution. But that was a public positin taken publicily. It was literally, by definition, not lobbying. **You can be an advocate without being a lobbyist."** Gingrich takes pictures with supporters.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA REMARKS AT REPUBLICAN RETREAT
President Barack Obama is taking a trip to the Republican side of the aisle when he visits the Republican Retreat in Baltimore. He plans to make a pitch for a retooled business tax credit. The credit would go to companies that hire new workers. Obama is offering an olive branch in hopes of finding areas the two sides can agree on. PRESIDENT BARACK Obama remarks at GOP House Issues Conference Baltimore, MD - STIX & CUTS 12:00:30 MS of Boehner Cantor and Pence walk out 12:00:43 WS of Obama walking out 12:01:09 WS of Obama, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence 12:01:59 Push to MS of Obama praying with head down eyes closed JOHN BOEHNER 12:03:52 this is a serious time for our nation. A time for anxiety for millions of our fellow citizens.they believe the gov has stopped listening to them. We share the responsibility of listening to the American people 12:04:24 in addition to listening to the people we also need to listen to each other. In January of 2009 I promised that the Republicans would stand with you when the.a teacher quality we did just that. And I said when we disagreed republicans would not just be the party of opposition so we formed solutions groups. 12:05:14 throughout the last year to you and your administration we have compiled the summaries of these alternatives. 12:05:33 and the gov spending and transparency. I am pleased to present you with a copy of our better solutions. 12:05:52 pull out to WS clapping 12:05:57 and for those .we really are grateful that you have come 12:06:43 MS of Obama walking out shaking hands with Boehner accepts better solutions 12:07:06 OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Thank you so much. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us who are in elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that's tough. (APPLAUSE) 12:07:39 I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months." (LAUGHTER) 12:07:58 Now, part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn't end here, that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It's important to me that we do so; it's important to you, I think, that we do so. But, most importantly, it's 12:08:26 important to the American people that we do so. I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security; that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential. It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back-and-forth, that imperfect, but well-founded process, messy as it often is, is at the heart of our democracy. It's what makes us the greatest nation in the world. 12:09:13 So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas. And I guarantee you that, after reading this, I may challenge a few of yours. (LAUGHTER) I want you to stand up for your beliefs. And knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want 12:09:36 either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks when we're in -- in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession. 12:10:04 And I'm not a pundit; I'm just a president. So take it for what it's worth. But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel cage match to see who comes out alive. That's not what they want. 12:10:45 They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're grappling with every single day. And I think your constituents would want to know that, despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we've acted in a bipartisan fashion, and I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny Al Qaida safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaida. And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops. (APPLAUSE) So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand, and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt, whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country. (APPLAUSE) It's that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform 12:12:16 bill that was co-sponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We've stood together on behalf of our nation's veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the V.A.'s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform. Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a credit card bill of rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who were out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes. 12:13:04 So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things we've seen party- line votes that -- I'm just going to be honest -- were disappointing. OBAMA: Let's start with our efforts to jump-start the economy last winter when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people or COBRA coverage to help Americans who'd lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects. 12:14:06 There was an interesting headline in -- in CNN today: Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it. And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed. Well, that's what the Recovery Act was, and I -- you know, let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences, perhaps, on just the concept of government spending, but as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet 12:14:52 and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity. Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent. That's the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year we weren't seeing positive job. We were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So we've seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades, and it didn't happen by accident. It happened, as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest, because of some of the steps that we took. 12:15:35 OBAMA: And, by the way, you know, you mentioned the Web site out here, John. If you want to look at what's going on in the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov, a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor's idea. Now, here's the point: These are serious times. And what's required by all of us, Democrats and Republicans, is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (LAUGHTER) A middle class that's back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that's ascendant in the world: That's more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn't be shaped by what's best for our politics. Our politics should be shaped by what's best for our future. But, no matter what's happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. 12:16:46 We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree because, as successful as we've been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that's predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator. But that's no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we've got to do everything we can to accelerate. So, today, in line with what I stated in the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They'd get a tax break for increases in wages as well. So if you raise wages for employees making 12:17:40 under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses. So I hope you join me. Let's get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and used it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there's nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is, what's going to keep us from getting this done. 12:18:29 OBAMA: I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they'll tell you they want their money back. Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats. I've proposed that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home -- right here at home. Surely that's something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats. We know that we've got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a 12:19:20 decade and threaten our future. That's why I've proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending, other than what we need for national security. That's something we should do together. That's consistent with a lot of the talk, both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job. At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the '90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do 12:19:58 every day. Twenty-four of voted for that, and I appreciate it, and were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday. But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day, so I'm going to establish such a commission by executive order. And I hope that you participate fully and genuinely in that effort. Because if we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It's going to require all of us doing what's right for the American people. And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there's not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there's a deficit of trust. So I hope you'll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let's require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress. OBAMA: Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats. I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become, and I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree and neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today, or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance, and for too many people, they're not getting it. I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged, and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day, when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again. I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget. 12:22:26 It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it. And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles. Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people. A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. 12:23:34 Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I'm sure from some of you as well. OBAMA: So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let's be clear: I have. Bipartisanship, not for its own sake, but to solve problems, that's what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us, then, have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we're going to be politicians first or partners for progress, whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. 12:24:32 Just think about it for a while. We don't have to put it up for a vote today. Let me close by saying this: I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American 12:24:41 people. That's especially true because the fastest-growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in the spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past the politics of no, if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as president. I've got to act for the greater good, because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that, too, is what the 12:25:22 American people sent me to Washington to do. So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it's represented. But we've gotten caught up in the political game in a way that's just not healthy. It's dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I'm hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that. So thank you very much. 12:26:03 Thank you, John. (APPLAUSE) Now I'd like to open it up for questions. PENCE: The president has agreed to take questions, and members will be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. (LAUGHTER) The chair will take the prerogative to make a brief remark and pose the first question. Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican Conference. OBAMA: Thank you. 12:27:25 PENCE: We are pleased to have you return (inaudible) a year ago. House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the four years. I want to assure you we're keeping that promise. OBAMA: I appreciate that. PENCE: Number two, (inaudible) to you, Mr. President, was that door (ph) was always open. And we hope that by evidence of our invitation to you that we can demonstrate that (inaudible). Mr. President, (inaudible) us in this conference yesterday, on the way into Baltimore, stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore yesterday. PENCE: I met a little boy, an African-American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter Jr. When he heard that I would be seeing you today, his eyes lit up like I haven't seen. And I told him if he wrote you a letter, I'd give it to you. And I have. But I had a conversation with little David Jr. and David Sr. And their families are struggling in this economy. His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I'll never forget. About my age, and he said -- he said, "Congressman, it's not like it was when we were coming up." He said, "There's just no jobs." Now, last year, about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration and your party in Congress told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which we were told had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said. Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President. Here in Baltimore, it's considerably higher. Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress. And using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President. Now, we know you've come to Baltimore today and you've -- you've raised this -- a tax credit which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter. But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing, in the name of little David Carter Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country, the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated, and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth? 12:30:04 OBAMA: Well, the -- there was a lot packed into that question there. (LAUGHTER) 12:30:14 First of all, let me -- let me say I already promised that I'll be writing back to that young man and his family... PENCE: Thank you. OBAMA: ... and I appreciate you passing on the letter. OBAMA: Let's talk about just the jobs environment generally. You're absolutely right than when I was sworn in, the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 -- or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists because at that point not all the data had trickled in. 12:30:52 We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone in to effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies. That doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. 12:31:35 The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year than anybody anticipated. So, I mean, I think we -- we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be, but those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken to effect. Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. I -- you could not find an economist who would dispute that. Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists, Republican and Democrat, liberal and 12:32:31 conservative, would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the unemployment -- in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people. The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is should have reflected, and I 12:33:22 believe reflected what most of you would say are common-sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts. And they weren't -- when you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. Small businesses got tax cuts. Large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. OBAMA: I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets. There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. 12:34:19 A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them -- and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers. You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who would think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT -- right? -- the alternative minimum tax. Not a proposal of mine. That's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion. And then the last portion of it was infrastructure, which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. Now, I say all this not to relitigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do: rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were 12:35:38 providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in. And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great." OBAMA: The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made. 12:36:29 Now, we -- we can -- here's what I know going forward, though. I mean, we're talking -- you know, we're talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward. I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that's already taken place. The jobs credit that I'm discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring. There may be other ideas that you guys have. I am happy to look at them and I'm happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I've already embraced. But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, 12:37:36 what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, "The other party, it's their fault"? If we take the latter approach, then we're probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap. All right? PENCE: Mr. President, would -- will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did? OBAMA: Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason -- the reason I say this, you know, before you say OK, I think it is -- I think is important to note, you know, what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett. You may be calling for a (sic) across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that. So, you know, I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward. 12:39:03 And -- this is the last point I'll make -- if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that -- how that works. Because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How's that? All right? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. PENCE: Paul Ryan from Wisconsin? 12:39:34 RYAN: Thank you. Mr. President, first of all, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today. OBAMA: Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way? RYAN: Yes, this is my daughter Liza, my sons Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna. OBAMA: Hey, guys. RYAN: Say "hi" to everybody. (LAUGHTER) I serve as the ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I want to talk a little budget, if you don't mind. OBAMA: Yes. RYAN: The spending bills that you have signed into law, the domestic and discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 300ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now. You've also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, a bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line- item veto. (APPLAUSE) The problem is we can't even get a vote on the proposal. So my question is, why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House? OBAMA: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise, about us increasing spending by 84 percent. Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this -- I'd be hearing this argument. 12:41:28 The fact of the matter is is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul -- and I don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happen automatically. Now the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year -- we prepared a budget for 2010; it's now going forward -- is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among peoplewho know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or 12:42:39 significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.That's why I've proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that's point number two. With respect to the line-item veto, I actually -- I think there's not a president out there that wouldn't love to have it. And, you know, I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold. 12:43:25 I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful, that I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill and I've got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need. I will tell you I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that, you know, you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you have studied this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party; and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts. Because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in YOUR district tends to seem pretty sensible. 12:44:30 So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I'd like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue. REP. RYAN: Okay. I'd like to walk you through that, because we have a version we think is constitutional -- (inaudible). PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me take a look at it. REP. RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress has signed that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. So. PRESIDENT OBAMA: All right. We'll-- we'll have a -- we'll have a longer debate on -- on the budget numbers (then/there ?). All right. MODERATOR: Thanks, Paul. Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia. REP. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President -- OBAMA: Thank you. CAPITO: As you said on your -- in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that. I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. But our -- my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap-and-trade, an aggressive EPA and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies. So I'm asking in -- in to -- if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with the high unemployment and unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening. OBAMA: Well, I -- look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who's somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I'm president. And I know that West Virginia struggles with unemployment. And I know how important coal is to West Virginia and a lot of the natural resources there. That's part of the reason why I've said that we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets us up for a long-term future. For example, nobody's been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. In testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly. I've said that I'm a promoter of nuclear energy, something that, you know, I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don't think it makes sense. I think that that has to be part of our energy mix. 12:47:08 I've said that I am supportive -- and I said this two nights ago at the State of the Union -- that I'm in favor of increased production. So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again, with respect to energy, I'm for a lot of what you said you are for. The one thing that I've also said, though -- and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is we can work through this agreement -- these disagreements; there's be effort on the Senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis -- is that we have to plan for the future. And the future is that clean energy -- cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important. Because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world's not skeptical about it. If we're going to be going after some of these big markets, they're going to be looking to see is the United States the one that's developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars? Because if we're not leading, those other countries are going to be leading. 12:48:39 OBAMA: So what I want to do with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. We can't operate the coal industry in the United States as if we're still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We've got to be thinking, what does that industry look like in the next hundred years? 12:49:23 And it's going to be different. And that means there's going to be some transition, and that's where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while, you know, recognizing that there's going to be a transition process and we're not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away. That has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace. PENCE: Jason Chaffetz, Utah? Right behind you, Jason. CHAFFETZ: Thank you, Mr. President. It's truly an honor. OBAMA: It's great to be here. CHAFFETZ: And I appreciate you being here. I -- I'm one of 22 House freshmen. We didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. And (inaudible) talk a lot about this deficit of trust. There's some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you, we have not been obstructionist. The Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency. And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed. You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it, and disappointed when you didn't. You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, "We would like to take you up on that offer. We'd like to come." We never heard a letter. We never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions. And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks, and, in fact, you didn't want to have any earmarks in any of your bills, I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn't happen. More importantly, I want to talk about moving forward, but if we can address... OBAMA: Well, how about -- yes... (CROSSTALK) CHAFFETZ: I'd certainly appreciate it. OBAMA: That was a long list. So the... (LAUGHTER) Let me -- let me respond. 12:51:24 Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process -- just over the course of the year -- overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which guys were participating. OBAMA: I mean, the -- how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place. Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership. What is true, there's no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed. 12:52:17 How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as -- as it sounds because you're shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it's a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility. With respect to earmarks, we didn't have earmarks in the Recovery Act. You know, we didn't get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that. 12:52:57 I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was, was I going to have a big budget fight at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let's keep them to a minimum, but I couldn't excise them all. Now, the challenge, I guess, I would have for you as a freshman is what are you doing inside your caucus to make sure that I'm not the only guy who's responsible for this stuff, so that we're working together. Because this is going to be a process. You know, when we talk about earmarks, I think all of us are willing to acknowledge that some of them are perfectly defensible, good projects. It's just they haven't gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day. So one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent; that everybody knows what's there before we -- we move forward. In terms of lobbyists, I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren't participating in the administration than any administration that's come before us. Now, what we did was if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn't completed, we didn't kick them off. OBAMA: We simply said that moving forward, any time a new slot opens, they're being replaced. So we've actually been very consistent in making sure that we are eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in-day out, on how this administration operates. 12:55:05 There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled; for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist, on the other hand, has more expertise than anybody in figuring out how kids don't get hooked on cigarettes. So there have been a couple of instances like that, but generally we've been very consistent on that front. OK? CHAFFETZ: Thank you. PENCE: Marcia Blackburn, Tennessee? OBAMA: Hey. BLACKBURN: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care. Because, indeed, we do have ideas. We have plans. We have over 50 bills. We have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront. 12:55:55 We would -- we've got plans to lower cost, to change purchasing models, address medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and preexisting conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access, but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy and more cost for the American taxpayer. And we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. We want to work with you on health reform and making certain that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers. And if those good ideas aren't making it to you, maybe it's the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit. OBAMA: Well, no... (CROSSTALK) BLACKBURN: But we're concerned also that there are lessons learned from public option health care plans that maybe are not being heeded. And certainly in my state of Tennessee, we were the test case for public option health care in 1994. And our Democrat government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded and would provide guidance for us to go forward. BLACKBURN: And as you said, what we should be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward and refining good ideas. And certainly we would welcome that opportunity. So my question to you is, when will we look forward to starting anew and sitting down with you to put all of these ideas on the table, to look at these lessons learned, to benefit from that experience, and to produce a product that is going to reduce government interference, reduce cost and be fair to the American taxpayer? (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: Actually, I've gotten many of your ideas. I've taken a look at them, even before I was handed this. 12:58:19 Some of the ideas we have embraced and are in our package. Some of them are embraced with caveats. So let me give you an example. I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is we've got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about, you know, basic benefits or what have you; making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example. Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums who weren't healthy, right? 12:59:36 So it's not that many of these ideas aren't workable, but we have to refine them to make sure that they don't just end up worsening the situation for folks rather than making it better. Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe. If you can show me and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses, ways of reducing people's premiums, covering those who do not have insurance, making it more affordable for small businesses, having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance -- if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game. OBAMA: And I've got -- and I've got a lot of these ideas. The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. 13:01:03 If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating -- we were in the process of eliminating. For example -- for example, you know, we said from the start that -- that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you've got, you can keep it; that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decisionmaking. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. And so we were -- we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it's tight. But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we put forward, it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do, the insurance reforms that I've already discussed, making sure that there's choice and competition for those who don't have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year. Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom -- and certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much... (LAUGHTER) ... but that's not a radical bunch. 13:02:50 But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. (LAUGHTER) No, I mean, that's how you guys -- that's how you guys presented it. (APPLAUSE) And so I'm thinking to myself, "Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist..." (LAUGHTER) No, look, I mean, I'm just saying -- I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans -- it -- it's similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care. 13:03:45 So all I'm saying is we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me. I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. 13:04:39 You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America." OBAMA: And I -- I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's not just on your side, by the way. It's -- it's on our side as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do. Mike? PENCE: Dr. Tom Price from Georgia? And then we'll have one more after that, if your time permits, Mr. President. OBAMA: You know, I'm having fun. (LAUGHTER) This is great. (APPLAUSE) PENCE: So are we. Tom Price, Georgia? PRICE: Thank you. I want to stick on -- on the general topic of health care, but ask a very specific question. You have repeatedly said, most recently at -- at the State of the Union, that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact... OBAMA: I don't think I said that. What I said was within the context of health care -- I remember that speech pretty well. It was only two days ago. (LAUGHTER) I said I'd welcome ideas that you might provide. I didn't say that you haven't provided ideas. I said I'd welcome those ideas that you'll provide. PRICE: Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of that fact that we've offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care. Specifically, in the area of health care, this bill, H.R. 3400, that has more cosponsors than any health care bill in the House. It is a bill that would provide health coverage for all Americans, would correct the significant insurance challenges of portability and preexisting, would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which isn't addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the House and the Senate, would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and families and doctors, and does all of that without raising taxes by a penny. But my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing? 13:07:09 OBAMA: Tell them I -- look, I have to say, that on the -- let's just take the health care debate. And it's probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill. This isn't the venue to do it. But if you say that we can offer coverage for all Americans and it won't cost a penny, that's just not true. You can't structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing. If... (CROSSTALK) PRICE: ... and I understand that we're not interested in debating this bill. OBAMA: Sir... PRICE: But what should we tell our constituents, who know that we've offered these solutions, and yet hear from the administration that -- that we have offered nothing? 13:08:05 OBAMA: Let me -- I'm using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question, I want to answer it. OBAMA: It's not enough, if you say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan and I look up -- this is just under the section that you've just provided me -- or the book that you've just provided me, "Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill." "The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform." I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work. I mean, there's got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, "Is this something that will actually work or is it boilerplate?" You know, if I'm told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I've said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, you know, "At best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they're growing by a couple of percentage points or save $5 billion a year, that's what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly," then you can't make the claim that that's the only thing that we have to do. If we're going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I've got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won't result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off. 13:10:24 So I am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues. But it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we're going to be selling the American people a bill of goods. I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, "What you're going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won't cost anybody anything." That's great politics. It's just not true. OBAMA: So there's got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. I've got to hold myself accountable, and I guarantee the American people will hold themselves -- will hold me accountable if what I'm selling doesn't actually deliver. PENCE: Mr. President, a point of clarification. What's in the "Better Solutions" book are all the legislative proposals that were offered... OBAMA: Oh, I understand. I've actually read your bills. PENCE: ... throughout 2009. OBAMA: I understand. PENCE: And so rest assured the summary document that you received is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months. OBAMA: Well, Mike, hold on, hold on a second. (APPLAUSE) No, no, no, no, no. Hold on a second guys. (APPLAUSE) 13:12:04 You know, Mike, I've read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff. And the good ideas we take. But here -- here's the thing, here's the thing, I guess, that all of us have to be mindful of. It can't be all-or-nothing one way or the other, all right? You -- you -- and what I mean by that is this. If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support, Democrat or Republican. 13:12:50 And then you've got some infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion, or there's this provision or that provision that you don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works. So my hope would be that we can look at some of these components parts of what we're doing, and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not be able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything, but there may be some component parts that we can work on. 13:13:57 OBAMA: You may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that we're proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it's my administration that's proposing it shouldn't prevent you from supporting it. That's my point. PENCE: Thank you, Mr. President. Peter Roskam from the great state of Illinois? OBAMA: Oh, Peter's an old friend of mine. ROSKAM: Hey, Mr. President. OBAMA: Peter and I have had many debates. (LAUGHTER) ROSKAM: Well, this won't be one. Mr. President, I heard echoes today of the state senator that I served with in Springfield, and there was an attribute and a characteristic that you had that I think served you well there. You took on some very controversial subjects: death penalty reform. I -- you and I... OBAMA: We worked on it together. ROSKAM: ... negotiated on. OBAMA: Yes. ROSKAM: You took on ethics reform. You took on some big things. One of the keys was you rolled your sleeves up, you worked with the other party, and ultimately you were able to make the deal. Now, here's an observation. Over the past year, in my view, that attribute hasn't been in full bloom. And by that I mean, you've gotten the subtext of House Republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national conversation toward solutions, but they've really been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi. Now, I know you're not in charge of that chamber, but there really is this dynamic of, frankly, being shut out. When John Boehner and Eric Cantor presented last February to you some substantive job creation, our stimulus alternative, the attack machine began to marginalize Eric -- and we can all look at the articles -- as Mr. No. And there was this pretty dark story, ultimately, that wasn't productive and wasn't within this sort of framework that you're articulating today. So here's the question: Moving forward -- I think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009, how do we move forward? And on the job creation piece in particular, you mentioned Colombia, you mentioned Panama, you mentioned South Korea. Are you willing to work with us, for example, to make sure those FTAs get called? That's no-cost job creation. And ultimately, as you're interacting with world leaders, that's got to put more arrows in your quiver, and that's a very, very powerful tool for us. But the obstacle is, frankly, the politics within the Democratic Caucus. 13:16:42 OBAMA: Well, the -- first of all, Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor on the Republican side in Illinois. OBAMA: In the Republican primary, of course, they're running ads of him saying nice things about me. (LAUGHTER) Poor guy. (LAUGHTER) Although, that's the -- that's one of the points that I made earlier. I mean, we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together because our constituents start believing us. They don't know sometimes this is just politics, what you guys, you know, or folks on my side do sometimes. So just a tone of civility instead of slash-and-burn would be helpful. The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash- and-burn-style politics. You don't get a lot of credit if I say, "You know, I think Paul Ryan's a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family." Nobody's going to run that in the newspapers, right? (LAUGHTER) And by the way, in case he's going to get a Republican challenge, I didn't mean it. (LAUGHTER) I don't want to -- don't want to hurt you, man. (LAUGHTER) But, the -- on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That's, I think, a failure on my part is to try to foster better communications, even if there's disagreement. And -- and I will try to see if we can do more of that this year. That's on the -- sort of, the general issue. On the specific issue of trade, you're right. There are conflicts within and fissures within the Democratic Party. I suspect there probably are going to be some fissures within the Republican Party as well. I mean, you know, if you went to some of your constituencies, they'd be pretty suspicious about it -- new trade agreements, because the suspicion is somehow they're all one-way. So part of what we've been trying to do is make sure that we're getting the enforcement side of this tight; make sure that if we've got a trade agreement with China or other countries, that they are abiding with it, they're not stealing our intellectual property, we're making sure that their non-tariff barriers are lowered, even as ours are opened up. 13:19:49 OBAMA: And my hope is is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements, having built some confidence, not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people, that trade is going to be reciprocal, that it's not just going to be a one- way street. You are absolutely right, though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there's no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea. What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do. So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right? Is that it? PENCE: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and that'll be it, Mr. President. OBAMA: Jim's (sic) going to wrap things up? PENCE: Yes, sir. OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President. OBAMA: How are you? HENSARLING: I'm doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government -- the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law. And unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent. Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and I understand the argument; I respect the view -- that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view. OBAMA: And my hope is is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements, having built some confidence, not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people, that trade is going to be reciprocal, that it's not just going to be a one- way street. You are absolutely right, though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there's no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea. What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do. So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right? Is that it? PENCE: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and that'll be it, Mr. President. OBAMA: Jim's (sic) going to wrap things up? PENCE: Yes, sir. OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President. OBAMA: How are you? HENSARLING: I'm doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government -- the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law. And unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent. Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and I understand the argument; I respect the view -- that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view. HENSARLING: But this is what I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. Surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession. It proposed new entitlement spending and moved the -- the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy. Now, very soon, Mr. President, you're due to submit a new budget and my question... OBAMA: Jim (sic), I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with. (LAUGHTER) And I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point, I know you're going to let me answer. HENSARLING: That's... OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: That's the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President. 13:24:02 OBAMA: All right. Jim (sic), with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running -- running a campaign..... get in there before we do. So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right? Is that it? PENCE: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and that'll be it, Mr. President. OBAMA: Jim's (sic) going to wrap things up? PENCE: Yes, sir. OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President. OBAMA: How are you? HENSARLING: I'm doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government -- the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law. And unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent. Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and I understand the argument; I respect the view -- that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view. OBAMA: And my hope is is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements, having built some confidence, not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people, that trade is going to be reciprocal, that it's not just going to be a one- way street. You are absolutely right, though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there's no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea. What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do. So we've got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It's going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that's something that all of us would agree on. Let's see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right? Is that it? PENCE: Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and that'll be it, Mr. President. OBAMA: Jim's (sic) going to wrap things up? PENCE: Yes, sir. OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President. OBAMA: How are you? HENSARLING: I'm doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children. And I left that conversation really feeling you're sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation's children do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law that government -- the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job. Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law. And unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent. Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and I understand the argument; I respect the view -- that the spending is necessary due to the recession. Many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not part of the solution, but I understand and I respect your view. HENSARLING: But this is what I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. Surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession. It proposed new entitlement spending and moved the -- the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy. Now, very soon, Mr. President, you're due to submit a new budget and my question... OBAMA: Jim (sic), I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with. (LAUGHTER) And I'm having to sit here listening to them. At some point, I know you're going to let me answer. HENSARLING: That's... OBAMA: All right. HENSARLING: That's the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's the question, Mr. President. 13:24:02 OBAMA: All right. Jim (sic), with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for ******DISC ENDS**** running -- running a campaign. Now, look, let's talk about the budget, once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So -- so when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual -- or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. Had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. OBAMA: That's $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. 13:26:12 I am happy to have any independent factchecker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said. (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: Now, going forward, here's the deal. I think Paul, for example, head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I've read it. I can tell you what's in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about, because I don't agree with them. The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable. Medicare and Medicaid, massive problem down the road. That's where -- that's -- that's going to be what our children have to worry about. Now, Paul's approach, and I don't -- I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you've got -- you've got a lot of detail in your plan -- but, if I understand it correctly, would say we're going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level. No? (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: 55 and -- well, no, I understand. I mean, there's a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries. Right? That's why I said I didn't want to -- I want to make sure that I'm not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I've -- I've read it. And the basic idea would be that at some point, we hold Medicare costs per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn't go way out of -- way out of whack. And I'm sure there are some details that... RYAN: (inaudible) a blend of inflation and health inflation. The point of our plan is because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability... OBAMA: Right. RYAN: ... it has to be reformed for younger generations, because it won't exist because it's going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That's the kind of reform we're proposing for Medicare. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: Well, look, as I've said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is two-fold. 13:28:56 One is that, depending on how it's structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we're saving money is essentially by capping what they are getting relative to their costs. OBAMA: Now, I just want to point out -- and this brings me to the second problem -- when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package -- our health care reform package to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board by many on your aisle for slashing Medicare. You remember? "We're going to start cutting benefits for seniors." That was -- that was the story that was perpetrated out there; scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors. (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: No -- no, but here's my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted factually from the perspective of those who disagree with it as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don't think you disagree with that -- that -- that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that's probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul's plan. And I raise that not because we shouldn't have a serious discussion about it. I raise that because we're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, "Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z." That's why I say if we're going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can't start off by figuring out, A, who's to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that's how our politics works right now, and that's how a lot of our discussion works. That's how we start off. Every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points -- I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. OBAMA: He's -- he's already polled it... (LAUGHTER) ... and he said, you know, "The way you're really going to -- I've done a focus group, and, you know, the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one" -- I know -- I like Frank. We've had conversations between Frank and I. 13:31:58 But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems. And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about -- a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically. That's what I'm committed to doing. We won't agree all the time in getting it done, but I'm committed to doing it. (UNKNOWN): Mr. President, take one more? OBAMA: I've already gone over time. PENCE: He's gone way over... (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: I'll be happy to take your question, Congressman, off- line. You can give me a call, all right? Thank you, everybody. God bless you. 13:32:51 God bless the United States of America. Thank you, everybody. (APPLAUSE) END OBAMA GLADHANDS WITH POLITICIANS AND CROWD MEMBERS AFTER SPEECH CUTS 13:45:30 John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence walk out 13:45:38 Obama enters room 13:45:49 Obama gladhands with Boehner, Cantor and Pence 13:46:33 Obama's head bowed in prayer 13:47:40 cuts of audience members sitting at tables 13:47:56 two shot Cantor and Pence 13:48:10 Obama shakes Boehner's hand and approaches podium 13:48:27 low shot Obama at podium 13:48:44 cu Boehner laughing 13:48:52 three shot Boehner, Cantor and Pence 13:49:08 Obama at podium 13:49:18 pan from Boehner, Cantor and Pence to Obama at podium 13:49:32 push in to Obama 13:50:01 audience standing ovation 13:50:12 Obama at podium with Boehner, Cantor and Pence looking on 13:50:19 ms Obama at podium 13:50:40 pull out from Obama at podium to four-shot with Boehner, Cantor, and Pence 13:51:00 push into ms Obama 13:51:17 cu man in audience listening 13:51:26 pan of audience listening 13:51:47 cuts of audience members 13:52:21 cu Obama 13:53:39 ws Obama on stage 13:53:50 cu of audience members listening 13:55:02 Mike Pence talks while Obama listens 13:56:54 cu Obama listening 13:58:37 ms Obama at podium responding to Mike Pence 14:04:35 cuts of audience members asking questions 14:09:09 audience reaction shots 14:09:21 woman shakes her head 14:10:05 cu Tom Price from Georgia asking question 14:12:02 two shot of Obama and Mike Pence 14:12:11 WS pan of room 14:12:14 low angle MS of Obama 14:13:15 MS of ROSKAM asking question 14:14:53 ROSKAM LISTENING 14:15:00 MS of Rep Paul Ryan sitting with kids 14:15:12 MS of HENSARLING asking question 14:18:21 Ms of Rep Paul Ryan listening 14:18:30 MS of Rep Paul Ryan asking a question
APTN 1830 PRIME NEWS NORTH AMERICA
AP-APTN-1830 North America Prime News -Final Saturday, 1 May 2010 North America Prime News ++Cuba May Day 02:04 Part No Access Cuba NEW May Day protests in Havana Europe May Day Wrap 05:24 AP Clients Only WRAP May Day demonstrations held in cities across Europe China Macau 01:57 No Access Hong Kong REPLAY Protesters clash with police during May Day demo ++US Oil Spill 4 02:58 AP Clients Only NEW Clean-up pix, business reax, satellite images, Obama sbite US Oil Spill 3 01:51 AP Television Clients Only REPLAY US fisherman discusses oil spill's effect on workers Somalia Blast 01:24 AP Clients Only REPLAY Two bombs explode inside mosque, killing at least 30 Mideast Talks Reax 01:29 AP Clients Only REPLAY Reaction to the latest US brokered talks UK Brown 01:10 AP Clients Only REPLAY UK PM Brown heckled at campaign appearance Italy Pope Shroud 02:03 AP Clients Only REPLAY Preview as thousands expected for Pope's visit to the Holy Shroud Poland Guitars 02:29 NO ACCESS POLAND REPLAY Thousands of guitarists attempt to break record for playing classic Hendrix song B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 1830 GMT. APEX 05-01-10 1456EDT -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-1830: ++Cuba May Day Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:++Cuba May Day- NEW Thousands attend May Day event in Havana LENGTH: 02:04 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Cuba TYPE: Spa/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/Cubavision STORY NUMBER: 644459 DATELINE: Havana, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:04 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY CUBAVISION - NO ACCESS CUBA SHOTLIST CUBAVISION - NO ACCESS CUBA 1. Wide top shot of Revolution Square with people march 2. Various of marchers AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 3. Wide of Revolution Square with public in front of Jose Marti monument 4. Wide of Revolution Square with people marching waving flags in front of Che Guevara monument 5. Marchers carrying picture of Che Guevara 6. Medium shot Cuban President Raul Castro (centre) talking with Vice President Jose Machado and waving at crowd CUBAVISION - NO ACCESS CUBA 7. Wide top shot of Revolution Square with march 8. Pan top shot of the march AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY 9. Wide of marchers carrying banners 10. Wide of marchers in front of Che Guevara monument 11. Zoom out of marchers holding photo of Fidel Castro 12. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Ovidio Almendral, 82-year-old Havana resident: "Some people say we're forced to march. Look at all this happiness! This is terrific! I've been looking for those Ladies in Green, those with the dollars, so I can raspberry them." (note: raspberry is sound made with mouth mimicking flatulence) 13. Wide of crowd with Cuban flags passing in front of Che Guevara monument CUBAVISION - NO ACCESS CUBA 14. Top shot of marchers 15. Medium of demonstrators carrying banners and flags, zoom out 16. Medium of banners and flags 17. Wide of marchers passing the Jose Marti monument STORYLINE Hundreds of thousands of Cubans marched through the Revolution Plaza in Havana on Saturday to mark the annual May Day celebrations. The government said the large turnout proves the island supports its communist system even amid mounting international criticism over human rights. The turnout has always been large for International Workers' Day, but this year officials assigned the celebration with a special meaning. The government told the country that by supporting the marches, it was Cuba's response to the US, the European Union and international journalists who have conspired to tarnish it after the February death of a jailed, dissident hunger striker and a protest by another opposition activist who has refused food for weeks. Pro-government crowds dispatched in well-organised shifts also blocked a small, weekly march by a women's group supporting political prisoners for three weeks running in Havana. But there was no sign of discontent among the islanders who crowded the plaza, with lead demonstrators carrying a giant banner reading "Unified in Duty." Some marchers sang, others waved cardboard signs declaring: "We are the people of Fidel and Raul" or decrying the United States. A few screamed "Long Live Fidel!" until they lost their voices. President Raul Castro grinned and waved from a high wooden podium as marchers streamed past. His older brother Fidel has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery nearly four years ago and it was no surprise he didn't show, though organisers used loudspeakers to blast past recordings from him. He also failed to issue a written statement in the pre-dawn hours before this year's march, as he had done the three previous May Days. Only Salvador Valdes Mesa, secretary-general of the nearly three (m) million-strong Cuban Workers Confederation, spoke urging Cubans to be more productive despite average state salaries worth only about 20 US dollars per month. Officials at government schools, offices and factories that employ that vast majority of Cuban workers strongly urge everyone to attend the yearly rallies and organise transportation. Special attention has been focused on human rights in Cuba since the February 23 death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the first island opposition figure to die after a hunger strike in nearly 40 years, sparking outcry in the U.S. and Europe. Another dissident, Guillermo Farinas is not in prison but says he will keep refusing food and water until he dies, though he has received nutrients intravenously at a hospital near his home in the central city of Santa Clara. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1554EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Europe May Day Wrap Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:Europe May Day Wrap- WRAP May Day demonstrations held in cities across Europe LENGTH: 05:24 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Turkish/Nats SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 644462 DATELINE: Various, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 05:24 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1030 NEWS UPDATE - 1 MAY 2010) Athens, Greece 1. Wide of demonstrators gathered outside Greek Parliament 2. Police chasing demonstrators 3. Demonstrators march towards police holding banner and clash 4. Protesters throwing a Molotov cocktail at police; zoom into fire from explosion; police fire smoke bomb back at the crowd and one demonstrator is hit (FIRST RUN 1130 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY 2010) Athens, Greece 5. Long shot of protestors throwing second Molotov cocktail at police 6. Various shots of police putting out television van torched by rioters 7. Wide of march (FIRST RUN 1530 NEWS UPDATE - 1 MAY, 2010) Athens, Greece 8. Damaged glass on bank door 9. Damaged bank sign 10. Shattered window 11. Workers cleaning up glass (FIRST RUN 1130 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY 2010) Berlin, Germany 12. Police climbing over fence and clashing with a couple of protesters 13. Police detaining a protestor 14. Police and demonstrators marching down the street (FIRST RUN 1430 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY, 2010) Berlin, Germany 15. Wide of Neo-Nazis supporters walking through police cordon 16. Close of man with tattoo on the side of his shaved head reading (English) "Skinhead" 17. Protesters with flags 18. Close of poster reading (German) "Berlin against Nazis" 19. Various of riot police dragging away demonstrators protesting against the Neo-Nazi presence 20. Wide of protester at a separate location waving flags at police and being sprayed with pepper spray 21. Wide of demonstrators and police (FIRST RUN 1530 NEWS UPDATE - 1 MAY, 2010) Berlin, Germany 22. Wide of protest by left-wing supporters zoom into flames and smoke from fire in background 23. Rubbish bin set on fire by left-wing protesters close to where right wing demonstration was held 24. Wide of protest and police standing guard (FIRST RUN 1130 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY 2010) Istanbul, Turkey 25. Various of protestors gathering in the streets holding banners 26. SOUNDBITE (Turkish): Suna Kurkcuoglu, daughter of a victim of 1977 May Day clashes: "They have taken our father as well as some parts of our lives from us. They stole this. Just because of those reasons it is great to be here in Taksim (Square) today. I hope those responsible for 1977 (clashes) will be found. Then we can breath a sigh of relief." 27. Protestors marching with banners 28. Pan of Taksim Square (FIRST RUN 1430 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY, 2010) Moscow, Russia 29. Russian Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov (centre with red flowers) leading May Day march 30. Close up of Communist Party flags with portrait of former Communist Leader Vladimir Lenin 31. Portrait of former Communist Leader Josef Stalin being carried by demonstrator 32. Wide of march 33. Wide pull out exterior of Kremlin building, zoom out to opposition rally 34. Chess grandmaster and "Solidarity" opposition movement leader Garry Kasparov playing chess against a number of opposition supporters simultaneously 35. Various of protest march by Moscow Federation of Labour unions and the pro-Kremlin United Russia Party members in central Moscow (FIRST RUN 1430 ME EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY, 2010) Madrid, Spain 36. Pan of demonstration near the Cibeles fountain 37. Wide of demonstrators holding flags and banners 38. Close of protest banner reading (Spanish) "For the rights of the workers and the protection of the pensions" 39. Wide reverse shot of demonstrators marching (FIRST RUN 1630 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 1 MAY 2010) Lisbon, Portugal 40. Wide of May Day march 41. Pan of demonstrators holding flags 42. Low shot of demonstrators marching 43. Dancing giant puppet and drummers 44. Wide of demonstrators 45. Tilt down from drummer to drum 46. Zoom out from marchers to wide of demonstration STORYLINE Tens of thousands of workers marched in European capitals on Saturday to mark international worker's day, demanding more jobs, better work conditions and higher wages. Most of Saturday's marches were peaceful, but Athens witnessed riots, with police using tear gas to disperse demonstrators who threw firebombs in a large rally against austerity measures. Thousands gathered at the May Day rally in front of the Greek Parliament, fuelled by anger at expected harsh austerity measures needed to secure rescue loans for near-bankrupt Greece. Greece is considering drastic austerity measures to gain financial support from European partners and the International Monetary Fund to avoid defaulting on its sovereign debt. The government is set to announce more sweeping spending cuts through 2012 to win support for an international loan package worth euro 45 (b) billion euros (60 (b) billion US dollars) this year alone. The rallies left a trail of destruction behind them with several smashed windows and broken marble evident across the city. A television van was also completely burnt out by protestors who also threw Molotov cocktails at police in front of the Greek parliament. Some 17-thousand people took part in the march, according to police estimates. Police made at least nine arrests, including six people suspected of looting a shop. Seven officers were injured along with two demonstrators. German police, meanwhile, detained 250 neo-Nazis who attempted to attack them in downtown Berlin. A spokeswoman for Berlin police, said 7-thousand officers were scattered throughout the city in an effort to ensure peaceful demonstrations. Extremists from the left- and right-wing fringes came out for May Day marches that have ended in past years with violence, injuries and arrests. About 140-thousand jubilant workers gathered in Istanbul's Taksim Square in the first celebrations at the site since dozens of people died there in a May 1 gathering more than three decades ago. The demonstrations in Istanbul, which sits on both European and Asian continents, marked a special victory for the Turkish unions, which had been denied access to the Taksim Square since 1977, when 34 people died after shooting triggered a stampede. The culprits were never found and workers on Saturday demanded an inquiry into the deaths of the demonstrators. Thousands of Communist demonstrators, carrying red balloons, red Soviet flags and portraits of former Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, called for the Russian government's resignation over rising prices and unemployment in Moscow. Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov led hundreds of opposition activists in a separate rally. They also called for the ouster of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whom they accuse of stamping out democracy. Meanwhile in Spain, some 15-thousand demonstrators turned out in bright sunshine at a demonstration in Madrid. The event, organised by the country's two main unions, saw demonstrators march through the centre of the city to call for greater protection for workers rights. Spain has one of Europe's highest number of unemployed, with government figures showing that over 20 percent of the working population was without a job. Thousands of people also took to the streets of Lisbon, as Portugal's trade unions fumed over new austerity measures. In colourful scenes, demonstrators marched along, waving union flags, to the beat of drums and a melody of accordions as they made their way through the capital. Portugal is desperately trying to avoid the fate of Greece, which is facing a full-blown debt crisis as markets fear Athens may have to restructure its heavy debt load. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1526EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: China Macau Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:China Macau- REPLAY Protesters clash with police during May Day demo LENGTH: 01:57 FIRST RUN: 1330 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Hong Kong TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: Cable TV Hong Kong STORY NUMBER: 644449 DATELINE: Macau, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:57 CABLE TV HONG KONG - NO ACCESS HONG KONG SHOTLIST 1. Wide of protesters carrying Chinese flag marching down street as part of May Day protests 2. Wide of protesters approaching police barricade 3. Various of protesters with flags and sticks confronting police in riot gear 4. Wide of protesters overturning police barrier 5. Wide of protesters pushing back barrier against riot police 6. Mid of police spraying pepper spray towards protesters 7. Water cannon truck arriving 8. Water cannon being fired at protesters 9. Various of water cannon and protesters 10. Wide of riot police detaining man during protest as water cannon fires 11. Injured person being carried away by protesters 12. Various of injured person being carried away by emergency services 13. Zoom in of protest STORYLINE Police in the Chinese territory of Macau used water cannons and pepper spray against rowdy protesters who tried to break away from the approved route during a May Day protest. Hong Kong radio RTHK reported at least eight people injured, including a photographer. Cable TV Hong Kong showed protesters overturning a police barricade, followed by police using pepper spray and water cannons to disperse the crowd. Police also detained protesters, Cable TV Hong Kong showed. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1438EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: ++US Oil Spill 4 Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:++US Oil Spill 4- NEW Clean-up pix, business reax, satellite images, Obama sbite LENGTH: 02:58 FIRST RUN: 1830 RESTRICTIONS: No Access NAmerica/Int TYPE: Eng/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/CSTARS/ABC STORY NUMBER: 644463 DATELINE: Various, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:58 AP TELEVISION/CSTARS - AP CLIENTS ONLY ABC - NO ACCESS NAMERICA/INTERNET SHOTLIST: AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Pass Christian, Mississippi - 01 May 2010 1. Pan of shrimp and fishing boats tied up in marina harbour 2. Fisherman boards his boat 3. Pan from bow of boat to fisherman at at the helm 4. Mid shot of fisherman's hands on engine throttle 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) J.C. Necaise, fisherman: "We survived the oyster season. It just ended, and now we're concerned about the oil spill and how it's going to affect us. If it comes in, are we going to be able to work? Or, is there going to be a shrimp season? We don't know, but what we're concerned about now is if there is a cleanup to be done on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, will we be involved in it?" 6. Fishermen load equipment from boat onto truck 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Jimmy Rowell, fisherman: " We had a couple bad years here, and we were counting on this year to get us back on our feet." 8. Fishermen load equipment from boat onto truck 9. Pan of docked boats 10. SOUNDBITE: (English) Darlene Kimball, Kimball Fishing: "I'm going to pray and put it in God's hands, and hopefully he'll take care of me." 11. Pan from marina to seafood restaurant 12. Mid of restaurant sign (English) "French Charley's Caf? and Wine Bar" AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Pass Christian, Mississippi - 30 April 2010 13. SOUNDBITE: (English) Thomas Genin, Restaurant Owner: "The oyster reefs were shut down today at twelve o'clock (1800GMT), as far as Mississippi and Louisiana oysters, but the prices are already just skyrocketing." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Pass Christian, Mississippi - 01 May 2010 14. Pan interior of caf? and wine bar AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Pass Christian, Mississippi - 30 April 2010 15. SOUNDBITE: (English) Thomas Genin, Restaurant Owner: "I'm hoping that this does not affect tourism. If it affects tourism, then my business will suffer tremendously." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Long Beach, Mississippi - 01 May 2010 16. Various of harbour workers laying out booms to be deployed in the water 17. SOUNDBITE: (English) Michael White, Harbour Master, Long Beach Small Craft Harbour: "We're getting ready to deploy our oil booms, two particular barriers that we're going to set across, the primary and a secondary barrier, to keep the oil from gaining entrance into the harbour." 18. Small boat dragging oil boom into water 19. Various of oil boom in water CSTARS/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY (Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing) Taken from space, directly above the Gulf of Mexico - 23 April 2010 20. Black and white satellite image of oil spill, a black patch in the water CSTARS/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY (Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing) Taken from space, directly above the Gulf of Mexico - 25 April 2010 21. Colour satellite image of oil spill, a gray streak in the water CSTARS/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY (Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing) Taken from space, directly above the Gulf of Mexico - 29 April 2010 22. Colour satellite image of oil spill, a gray/white swirl in the water CSTARS/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HANDOUT - AP CLIENTS ONLY (Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing) Taken from space, directly above the Gulf of Mexico - 30 April 2010 23. Black and white satellite image oil spill, a black splotch in the water ABC - NO ACCESS N.AMERICA/INTERNET Ann Arbor, Michigan - 30 April 2010 24. Wide of US President Barack Obama giving commencement address at the University of Michigan 25. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them." 26. Wide of Obama walking away from podium STORYLINE: The surface area of a catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill quickly tripled in size amid growing fears among experts that the slick could become vastly more devastating than it seemed just two days ago. Frustrated fishermen eager to help contain the spill from a ruptured underwater well had to keep their boats idle on Saturday as another day of rough seas kept crews away from the slick. US President Barack Obama planned a Sunday trip to the Gulf Coast to see the damage himself. Documents also emerged showing BP downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at the offshore rig that exploded. How far the spill will reach is unknown, but the sheen already has reached into precious shoreline habitat and remains unstopped, raising fears that the ruptured well could be pouring more oil into the gulf than estimated. The Coast Guard has estimated that about 200-thousand gallons (757,060 litres) of oil are spewing out each day, which would mean 1.6 (m) million gallons (6.06 (m) million litres) of oil have spilled since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers. The environmental mess could eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster, when an oil tanker spilled 11 (m) million gallons (42 (m) million litres) off Alaska's shores in 1989. The oil threat has fishermen, restaurant owners, and operators of tourist destinations in a panic, wondering what will become of their livelihoods. Fisherman in Pass Christian, Mississippi said they already lived through a couple of bad fishing seasons, but all signs had pointed to a robust season this year. "We were counting on this year to get us back on our feet," said Jimmy Rowell, a shrimp boat operator. Now that the shrimp season may be ruined, fishermen are hoping to be paid to contribute to the Gulf Coast cleanup effort. Seafood purveyors and local restaurants are already feeling the ill effects of a shortened oyster season. "The prices are already just skyrocketing," said Thomas Genin, the owner of two restaurants along the shore in Pass Christian. Oyster fishing was completely shut down on Friday afternoon in Louisiana and Mississippi. The slick nearly tripled in just a day or so, growing from a spill the size of Rhode Island to something closer to the size of Puerto Rico, according to images collected from mostly European satellites and analyzed by the University of Miami. On Thursday, the size of the slick was about 1,150 square miles (nearly 3,000 square kilometres), but by Friday's end it was in the range of 3,850 square miles (9,900 square kilometres), said Hans Graber, executive director of the university's Centre for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing. Louisiana State University professor Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, cautioned that the satellite imagery could be deceiving. Obama made plans to visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday for a firsthand update on the oil spill. The White House announced Obama's trip as he headed to the University of Michigan to give a commencement address, during which he reinforced the federal government's commitment to the gulf coast region. "Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them," said Obama, referring to the recent mine explosion in Montcoal, West Virginia that killed 29 miners. BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill, and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals, was unlikely, or virtually impossible. The plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the federal Minerals Management Service, said repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities." The company conceded a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, but argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles, or 77 kilometres) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected." The spill threatens hundreds of species of wildlife, including birds, dolphins, and the fish, shrimp, oysters and crabs that make the Gulf Coast one of the nation's most abundant sources of seafood. Although the cause of the explosion was under investigation, many of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in the wake of the explosion claim it was caused when workers for oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. improperly capped the well, a process known as cementing. Halliburton denied this claim. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1620EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: US Oil Spill 3 Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:US Oil Spill 3- REPLAY US fisherman discusses oil spill's effect on workers LENGTH: 01:51 FIRST RUN: 1530 RESTRICTIONS: AP Television Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 644456 DATELINE: Louisiana, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:51 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Wide of boat owner at the dock getting petrol 2. Boat pulling up to the dock 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Raymond Schmitt, fisherman and guide: "People are getting frustrated because they don't know. They don't know what's going to happen, their livelihoods. You know, I'm sitting in a 55-thousand-dollar boat I've got to pay for. You know, I've got a wife and children. I have expenses and the uncertainty is what is getting them frustrated." 4. Schmitt walking toward dock 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Raymond Raymond Schmitt, fisherman and guide: "I'm in a 24-foot (seven metre) Skeeter (boat) right here and I admit this is a fine boat. Why can't the workers get out? There's no way in the world I would jeopardise anybodies life in any way. But what they are doing is they're letting an oil company tell a state what to do." 6. Schmitt walking onto boat 7. SOUNDBITE (English) Raymond Schmitt, fisherman and guide: "I took my life savings to get into this business. If I lose it then, you know, I'll work until I'm 65 on the road and just, then what? You know? " 8. Various of man cleaning and scaling fish STORYLINE Frustrated fishermen eager to help contain a catastrophic oil spill along the Gulf Coast had to keep their boats idle on Saturday as another day of rough seas kept crews away from the slick that may be even more devastating than first feared. Documents also emerged showing BP Plc downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at the offshore rig that exploded. Meanwhile, the White House announced that US President Barack Obama would head to the Gulf Coast on May 2 to get an update on efforts to contain the massive spill. The sheen already has stretched into shoreline habitat and remains unstopped and impossible to measure, raising fears that the ruptured well could be pouring more oil into the Gulf than estimated. The Coast Guard has estimated that at least 1.6 (m) million gallons (about six (m) million litres) of oil have spilled since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers. The environmental mess could eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster, when an oil tanker spilled 11 (m) million gallons (42 (m) million litres) off Alaska's shores in 1989. Raymond Schmitt, a fisherman and guide in Venice, Louisiana, said the uncertainty around the 2010 disaster was frustrating as he has a family to support. Schmitt, who put his life savings into buying his 24-foot (seven metre) Skeeter, was frustrated that the Louisiana government was stopping workers from taking their boats out and allowing BP to dictate the terms. " There's no way in the world I would jeopardise anybodies life in any way. But what they are doing is they're letting an oil company tell a state what to do," he added. The slick nearly tripled in just a day or so, growing from a spill the size of Rhode Island to something closer to the size of Puerto Rico, according to images collected from mostly European satellites and analyzed by the University of Miami. Alabama's governor said his state was preparing for a worst-case scenario of 150-thousand barrels, or more than six (m) million gallons (22 (m) million litres) per day. At that rate the spill would amount to a Valdez-sized spill every two days, and the situation could last for months. BP suggested in a 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well that an accident leading to a giant crude oil spill - and serious damage to beaches, fish and mammals - was unlikely, or virtually impossible. A sheen of oil from the edges of the slick was washing up at Venice, Louisiana, and other extreme south eastern areas of Louisiana. The Coast Guard also said on Saturday it had shut down two offshore platforms and evacuated one of them near the spill as a safety precaution. Several miles out, the normally blue-green gulf waters were dotted with sticky, pea- to quarter-sized brown beads the consistency of tar. High seas were forecast through Sunday and could push oil deep into the inlets, ponds, creeks and lakes that line the boot of south eastern Louisiana. With the wind blowing from the south, the mess could reach the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coasts by Monday. Amid increased finger pointing, the government desperately cast about for new ideas for dealing with the growing environmental crisis. Obama halted any new offshore drilling projects unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent another disaster. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1443EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Somalia Blast Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:Somalia Blast- REPLAY Two bombs explode inside mosque, killing at least 30 LENGTH: 01:24 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 644452 DATELINE: Mogadishu, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:24 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Crowds gathered outside entrance to mosque building 2. Crowds covering body inside mosque 3. Blood stained floor, abandoned shoes, bystanders 4. People standing in mosque, covered bodies 5. Crowd surrounding body 6. Tilt up from abandoned shoes to people in mosque 7. People preparing cloth and cardboard for body 8. People outside mosque carrying away body wrapped in blanket 9. Crowds stood by covered bodies on steps of mosque 10. Covered body on steps 11. Tilt down of mosque to entrance 12. Various of crowds in the street at Bakara market STORYLINE: Two bombs exploded inside a mosque in the main market of the Somali capital Mogadishu on Saturday, the first bombing of a house of worship that the country has seen. The head of Mogadishu's ambulance service, Ali Muse, said at least 30 people were killed and 70 wounded. Abdullahi Haji Ilmi, a witness, said he counted 32 bodies. The blasts, in the Bakara market, went off as people were sitting inside the Abdala Shideye mosque, waiting for noon prayers to start. No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but the bombings pointed to Somali militants who are using increasingly violent methods, following an influx of insurgents into the country from Afghanistan, battle-hardened fighters who are now training Somali militants. Most of the victims were worshippers, said businessman Ahmed Abdulle, a witness. A high-ranking member of Somalia's powerful al-Shabab militia - Fuad Mohamed Qalaf - was said to be inside the mosque during the explosions, but it was not immediately known whether he survived the bombings. Qalaf is among 11 people whose assets were recently frozen by the United States for alleged involvement in terrorism. An al-Shabab spokesman, Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, blamed the attack on the work of "foreign security companies" whose aim, he said, was to massacre Muslims, but he offered no proof for his allegation. Earlier in the week, a bombings also took place in Bakara, outside a mosque, killing two people. Bakara is the country's main market, and despite tensions in the country, it is bustling with business. The area is controlled by the rebel groups al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam. The U.N.-backed Somali government views the market as a rebel stronghold. Over the last three years the market has seen near-daily shelling between militants and African Union and Somali soldiers. Hundreds of people have been killed in the violence. Islamic insurgents control much of Mogadishu and have been trying to topple the fragile government for three years. Somalia has not had an effective government for nearly 20 years. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1444EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Mideast Talks Reax Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:Mideast Talks Reax- REPLAY Reaction to the latest US brokered talks LENGTH: 01:29 FIRST RUN: 1130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nats SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 644438 DATELINE: Ramallah/Rafah - 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:29 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST Ramallah, West Bank 1. Set-up shot of Hanan Ashrawi, Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) executive committee member, entering office 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Hanan Ashrawi, PLO executive committee member: "It is very clear that this is a sort of a hopeful statement, rather than a descriptive statement of fact. And if it is to succeed then there are requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to give the (US mediator George) Mitchell shuttle diplomacy, or what they call indirect talks or what they call proximity talks, to give them some credibility and substance. Of course we need to see on the ground that Israel has stopped settlement activities in Jerusalem, around Jerusalem and everywhere else." 3. Ashrawi leaving Rafah, Gaza Strip 4. Set-up shot of Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Ghazi Hamad 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Ghazi Hamad, Hamas spokesman in Gaza: "I am sure that Israel is not interested in peace or negotiations because what is going on the ground, especially the settlements and building the wall, and the discrimination policy, and also the deportation of the Palestinian people to Gaza Strip. All of this proves that Israel is not interested in peace. They just believe how they can build more settlements, how can they take more actions and aggression against the Palestinian people. So I think that the Palestinian Authority should make a kind of serious evaluation for the whole situation and focus more and more in the reconciliation and the unity of the Palestinian people." 6. Hamad leaving STORYLINE Palestinians on Saturday cautioned they would still be waiting to see stronger Israeli compromises on settlement construction before deciding to resume indirect peace talks through US mediator George Mitchell. A first attempt to get indirect talks going collapsed last month when Israel announced a new Jewish housing project in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as a future capital. That drew fierce criticism from the United States and led to the worst rift in decades between Washington and its chief Mideast ally, Israel. Foreign ministers from several top Arab League member nations will meet in Cairo on Saturday to decide whether to endorse the indirect talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signalled earlier in the week that he would be willing to resume negotiations, telling an Israeli television station that he would present the US proposal to the Arab League. The talks, however, will not be the face-to-face meetings that the Obama administration had hoped to put in place more than a year after peace efforts broke down amid Israel's military offensive on Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Palestinians have refused to sit down at the same table with Israel until it agrees to freeze all construction in West Bank settlements and in east Jerusalem, two areas that the Palestinians want for an independent state along with the Gaza Strip. The indirect talks, with US envoy George Mitchell shuttling between the two sides, were meant as a compromise. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Friday that the talks would get started next week. The Palestinians, however, were still waiting for backing from the 22-member Arab League. Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) executive committee member, Hanan Ashrawi, spoke in Ramallah in the West Bank, cautioned that the Palestinians would still be waiting to see stronger Israeli compromises on settlement construction. "If it is to succeed then there are requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to give Mitchell's shuttle diplomacy... some credibility and substance," she said. "Of course we need to see on the ground that Israel has stopped settlement activities in Jerusalem, around Jerusalem and everywhere else." A Hamas official Ghazi Hamad on Gaza echoed a similar sentiment, saying Israel's refusal to halt construction "proves that Israel is not interested in peace." "They just believe how they can build more settlements, how can they take more actions and aggression against the Palestinian people," he added. Hamad said the Palestinian Authority, headed by Abbas, should instead focus on unifying Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1444EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: UK Brown Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:UK Brown- REPLAY UK PM Brown heckled at campaign appearance LENGTH: 01:10 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: POOL STORY NUMBER: 644451 DATELINE: Sunderland, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 01:10 POOL - AP TELEVISION CLIENTS ONLY ++VIDEO AND AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING++ SHOTLIST 1. Gordon Brown addressing audience during election campaign event, includes cutaway shots of heckler who is shouting (comments unheard), and is eventually bundled away out of room, followed by media cameras, UPSOUND: (English) Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister: ".... we fall back into recession... He'll have plenty of chance to answer his questions later; I'm going to speak now. Questions later... because the Conservative plans for an emergency budget to make immediate, wide and indiscriminate cuts within 50 days, if they take office on May the 6th, should mean alarm bells ringing for every single user of the health service, everyone who has ever needed the police, and every single parent for whom tax credits and the child trust fund are the difference between going on and coming under. So I have come here to a region of fighters, to talk about the fight ahead, not Labour's fight in this election, but our country's fight for recovery, because I fight every minute of the day for my future, the future of Britain's hard-working families. And I fight not for my job but for you to get a better deal in your job with a rising minimum wage and more flexibility for parents than ever." (APPLAUSE) 2. Pan across audience 3. Brown looking down as audience applauds STORYLINE: A heckler attempted to disrupt a campaign stop by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Saturday, before he was hustled out of the door. Brown was addressing an audience of Labour supporters at the National Glass Centre in the city of Sunderland in northeastern England, days before Britain's general election on 6 May. Oxford University law graduate Julian Borthwick, 38, reportedly shouted: "We're broke" and "What about that bigoted woman?" - a reference to the broadcast by the media of private remarks made by Brown after accidentally leaving his television microphone switched on after meeting voters in the northern town of Rochdale. Brown referred to voter Gillian Duffy as "that bigoted woman" after she challenged him on immigration. In the face of the shouted remarks, Brown interrupted his campaign speech to tell Borthwick there would be time to answer questions later. Brown then continued his speech, criticising the Conservative party's plans for an emergency budget and cutbacks if they were to win the election. Police, arms around Borthwick, then escorted him from the venue in Sunderland, on the northeast coast of England, as Brown supporters applauded his speech. Borthwick, who comes from Sunderland but lives in London, told reporters afterwards that he was angry that Brown had had limited contact with voters during the election campaign. He had not been invited to the event, and happened to wander in while he was in the building for another purpose. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1444EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Italy Pope Shroud Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:Italy Pope Shroud- REPLAY Preview as thousands expected for Pope's visit to the Holy Shroud LENGTH: 02:03 FIRST RUN: 1530 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Italian/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 644457 DATELINE: Turin, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:03 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Wide of Turin Cathedral with Vatican flags in front 2. Mid of domes of Cathedral, where Holy Shroud is kept 3. Pan right from framed pictures of Holy Shroud to Vatican flags on sale 4. Pan of Holy Shroud souvenirs 5. Souvenir picture of Pope Benedict XVI 6. Wide of Cathedral 7. Holy Shroud on display inside Cathedral 8. Close pan shot of Holy Shroud 9. People entering Cathedral 10. SOUNDBITE (Italian) Diego Desi, Catholic visiting from Brescia: "The Pope is the fundamental guide of the Church, even when we witness all these negative facts which the press tends to place excessive attention on. Even in the Church there are men who do wrong, and they will have to be punished and pay for those mistakes. But for me this does not stain the church. For me it remains a great institution." 11. Various people walking towards Turin Cathedral 12. SOUNDBITE (Italian) Maria Luisa Golinelli, Catholic visiting from Bologna: "A growing forest does not make a noise. All the people who work to help other people remain unknown, while the only stories we are told are the negative ones. Negative stories certainly exist and they should not be hidden, and the church does bear a great responsibility by having hidden them." 13. Flag with picture of Pope Benedict waving 14. People walking in front of Turin Cathedral STORYLINE Pope Benedict XVI, troubled in recent months by paedophile priest scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church across the world, was expected in Turin on Sunday, where Catholic faithful were already gathering on Saturday in the hope of seeing him. The Italian city is famous for its cathedral housing the Holy Shroud, a cloth which according to the Catholic Church bears the faint imprint of Christ's face and body, having been used to wrap his body when he was taken down from the cross after his crucifixion. The Pope's appearance was expected to attract hundreds of thousands of pilgrims to Turin, which is already a place of Catholic pilgrimage because of the shroud. Catholics and tourists were flocking into the cathedral as usual on Saturday. Some were adamant in their support of the church and Benedict XVI. "Even in the Church there are men that do wrong, and they will have to be punished and pay for those mistakes. But for me this does not stain the church," said Diego Desi, a pilgrim from Brescia. A woman from Bologna said that the Church's good work remained unnoticed, but admitted the Church bore a heavy responsibility for hiding wrongdoing by clergy. "All the people who work to help other people remain unknown, while the only stories we are told are the negative ones. Negative stories certainly exist and they should not be hidden, and the church does bear a great responsibility by having hidden them," said Maria Luisa Golinelli. During Sunday's ceremonies in Turin, Benedict is expected to preside over a meeting with the youth of the local parishes to whom he will deliver a message. Meanwhile, the Vatican on Saturday appeared to be once more mired in controversy. On Saturday, the Vatican denounced the immoral double life led by the late founder of the conservative Catholic order, the Legion of Christ, and said a papal envoy and special commission would be named to overhaul the order, following revelations that its founder sexually abused seminarians and fathered at least one child. In a statement, the Vatican excoriated the Reverend Marciel Maciel for creating a system of power built on silence and obedience that enabled him to lead a double life devoid of scruples and authentic religious sentiment, and allowed him to abuse young boys for decades unchecked. The Vatican issued the statement after Pope Benedict XVI met with five bishops who had investigated the Legion for the past eight months, meeting over 1,000 members around the world to determine its future after its founder was so thoroughly discredited. The Pope's response is being closely watched because the Vatican is facing mounting pressure to aggressively confront abuse and provide pastoral care to victims. The Maciel case has long been seen as emblematic of Vatican inaction on abuse complaints, since Maciel's victims had tried in the 1990s to bring a canonical trial against Maciel but were shut down by his supporters at the Vatican. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1444EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Poland Guitars Saturday, 1 May 2010 STORY:Poland Guitars- REPLAY Thousands of guitarists attempt to break record for playing classic Hendrix song LENGTH: 02:29 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS POLAND TYPE: Pol/Natsot SOURCE: TVN STORY NUMBER: 644461 DATELINE: Southern Wroclaw, 1 May 2010 LENGTH: 02:29 TVN - NO ACCESS POLAND SHOTLIST 1. People attending Thanks Jimi Festival, sitting in front of stage 2. Group of people sitting in a row, all with their guitars at the ready 3. Close up of a young man playing the guitar 4. Group of young people playing their guitars 5. SOUNDBITE: (Polish) Oliwia, attending Thanks Jimi Festival in Wroclaw "I think that this is a great occasion to learn how to play the guitar...." 6. SOUNDBITE: (Polish) Arek, attending Thanks Jimi Festival in Wroclaw ".... and spend a very nice 1st of May, because it is generally a great idea." 7. Wide shot people, stage 8. A young boy playing the guitar 9. SOUNDBITE: (Polish) Ewa, attending Thanks Jimi Festival in Wroclaw "I think that this is a great idea, because guitarists from all over Poland can meet in one place. We can play together, and you can see that there are lots of guitarists. And in addition to that, there are concerts, you can have fun." 10. Man in blue tartan hat playing the guitar on a bench 11. Small boy carrying his guitar 12. Girls with guitars standing 13. Wide of crowd in city square 14. Mid shot of crowds and guitarists 15. Pan of crowds all playing "Hey Joe" 16. Small boy playing his guitar 17. Mid shot of crowds playing "Hey Joe" on their guitars 19. Close up of hand strumming guitar inscribed with the words "Hey Joe" 20. Wide of crowds 21. Boy with a red bandana playing the guitar 22. SOUNDBITE: (Polish) Michal, attending Thanks Jimi Festival in Wroclaw "I came here last year and I liked it very much, that's why I wanted to come this year as well. Despite the heavy rain, we made it, because it was raining a lot, but now it is very nice." 23. Crowds playing "Hey Joe" on their guitars 24. Wide view of crowd in the city square playing 25. Girls playing their guitars 26. People sitting on the ground playing "Hey Joe" their guitars 27. Close of people playing 28. People holding their guitars in the air and clapping after playing "Hey Joe" 29. SOUNDBITE: (Polish) Leszek Cichonski, organiser of Thanks Jimi Festival "It is unusual event in the world. You never see this type of scene anywhere, like guitars raised up in the air, and in such numbers and in such a beautiful place like Wroclaw market." 30. People raising their guitars in the air and clapping 32. Message on public screen (Polish): "Wroclaw challenges the world" STORYLINE Thousands of guitarists, professional and amateur, gathered in the southern Polish city of Wroclaw on Saturday to attempt a new world record with a mass strum of a well-known Jimi Hendrix song, "Hey Joe". The Thanks Jimi Festival is an annual event held in Wroclaw's historic Old Town Square. It is also a unique tribute to the American guitarist Jimi Hendrix - a singer and songwriter who many consider to have been one of the greatest electric guitarists in the history of rock music. Organisers first staged the festival in Wroclaw in 2003 and it has since attracted huge numbers. But Saturday's turnout of 4,500 fell short of the numbers needed to beat the world record for the largest guitar ensemble ever, which was set at the same event last year when 6,346 guitar players took part. Guitarist and music teacher Leszek Cichonski said the festival was originally just an idea that came up in a small music workshop in the town of Zakiew, southwest Poland, where 16 guitar players performed together, and it has now grown into this massive event. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 05-01-10 1444EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------
John Roberts Confirmation Hearing / Senate Judiciary Committee / COMMITTEE 1800 - 1900
JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS HEARING The Senate Judiciary Committee continues its 4th day of hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts / Outside witnesses Senate Judiciary continues with Roberts hearing--- begins with twenty minutes from Senator Patrick Leahy, then Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Russell Feingold, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Richard Durbin, then a closed session from 11a-11:30am. Roberts is excused and the hearing reconvenes at 11:30am for 6 panels of outside witnesses. (1p-2p break scheduled) 18:00:02.8 title ix guidelines aren't for judges but members of congress. it is members of congress bo who decide on the law and give the executive branch the authority implement he regulations. 18:00:17.6 should he be confirmed as chief justice, judge roberts' role would be the interpret the law and aused indicate disputes containing the laws that you are going to pass. thank you very much. >> mr. specter: thank you. our next witness is professor robert reich. 18:00:37.4 had been prove of social and economic policy at brandeis until he joined the university of california. he served as secretary of labor during president clinton's first administration. subsequently published a book 18:00:53.6 entitled locked in the cabinet. before taking office during the clinton administration was a member of the faculty of harvard's kennedy school of government. ba from dartmouth, master's tram from -- law degree from 18:01:12.7 yale law school. name pleased to see you again, professor lish, i have -- i have questions left over which you didn't answer when i questioned you when you were secretary of health and human 18:01:27.2 services which we will get to promptly. mike mike that's because i was secretary of labor. mr. chairman and members of the committee. >> mr. specter: no one der i couldn't understand what you were doing. >> mr. reich: i have prepared 18:01:42.0 testimony. with permission i'll submit it for the record. there's been much discussion in these hearings about social values, and i want to put on the table something that maybe has not received quite the attention it should, and that is economic values. 18:02:00.1 and i don't think i have to tell the committee what almost 18:02:03.8 everybody knows, and that is that wealth and income and the power that come from wealth and income are more concentrated in fewer hands as proportion of the population today than we have seen since them 1920s. by some measures since the 18:02:19.9 guilded age of the 1890s. now if this doesn't present issues of economic morality, i don't know what does. and it comes to the forewith regard to congress and the supreme court and a whole series of protections. 18:02:34.3 some of them very old, some of them going back to the 1920s and 30s and 40s. having to do with workplace protections. unemployment insurance, interpretations of social security, interpretations of minimum wage. 18:02:51.3 the ways in which we treat our working people in this country. now, i heard, judge roberts, at least to the best of my memory, in the last couple of days, tell this committee that he would rule on the side of the 18:03:07.9 little guy when the constitution told him to and he would rule on the side of the big guy when the constitution was on the side of the big guy. now i assume he's talking about little guy and big guy in figurative terms, in terms of economic power and wealth and 18:03:22.9 status in society. but last time i looked at my constitution, it doesn't say anything about average working people or big guys or little guys at all. in fact there have been times in our history where the supreme court came down consistently on the side of 18:03:39.5 wealth and power and against little guys. against average working people. up until 1937, for example, the supreme court threw out a lot of state and federal regulation that was intended to help average working people. 18:03:59.7 judge roberts has a record, not much of a record, something of a gamble for all of us, but let me reveal a little bit of auto by graph cal detail we didn't 18:04:15.3 know, but do i not to burnish my republican credentials, but to tell you that i know something about a particular institution. i started out my life in government as assistant to the solicitor general, i had a chance to brief and argue supreme court cases. 18:04:29.2 and my first boss was robert bork. and in those days, the solicitor general's office regarded its primary client as the supreme court, not the administration. 18:04:44.2 it wasn't until the mid-1980s that there was a new position created in the solicitor general's office called the special deputy. it was a political position, political deputy and it was about values. that political deputy was there for a very simple reason, to 18:05:00.7 make sure that the solicitor general's office had briefs and argues before the supreme court were in consistent the values of the president in terms of social values, economic values, whatever have you. i read justice -- judge 18:05:20.1 roberts' memoranda and there's no question in my mind, having had that experience in the solicitor general's office, that he came down consistently, uniformly on the side of very 18:05:33.7 conservative economic and social values. i'm not criticizing him for it, but i think it's very important you know that. here in this hearing he said for example he refused to affirm wickert against fill 18:05:52.8 ore. you know as well as do i over the last ten years, more than 30 times the supreme court has stuck down in whole or in part 18:06:03.7 laws of this congress. ten of those, at least, have been based on the commerce clause. wickert against fillborn in my knowledge and experience is a cornerstone of building the protections of a strong federal 18:06:19.0 government for average working people. his refusal to affirm that, i find, personally, quite troubling. there has been reference also to the hap hapless toad. well, we know he was looking 18:06:35.8 for other ways to find perhaps that endangered species act constitutional, but look at that logic in that particular case. when he says congress didn't really have authority under the commerce clause to protect the 18:06:52.4 life of a hapless toad that for reasons of its own lives its entire life in california, obviously people are not toads, at least the last time i looked, but what about 18:07:05.9 protecting the job safety of a hapless retail worker who for reasons of her own lives her entire life in pennsylvania or a hapless coal miner who lives his entire life in west 18:07:20.0 virginia. let me finally say this. one justice can make all the difference to our entire system of federal protections. one justice. the court did change its mind in 1937, as i said before, and it stopped striking down laws 18:07:36.4 that protected people, average working people, not because as popularly understood fdr threatened to pack the court. the court made that switch before it even new fdr had a court packing scheme. >> mr. specter: could you 18:07:51.9 summarize your testimony in at this point. >> mr. reich: the justice who made that switch was justice roberts. just owen roberts. it would be a cruel joke of history if a namesake almost 60 years later turned the court 18:08:12.1 backward. thank you. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, professor reich. our next witness is ran a dale polakoff, president of the rabb inickal council of america 18:08:27.5 whose membership consists of more than 1,000 ordained rabbis. faculty member of the northshore hebrew academy, graduate of yeshiva where he majored in psychology. 18:08:41.0 testimony. >> mr. polakoff: thank you mr. chairman and other distinguished members of the committee. good afternoon or perhaps good evening. thank you for inviting me to participate in these hearings. rabin cal council of america includes congressional ran 18:09:00.1 buys, teachers, military chaplains, some of whom serve today in iraq, afghanistan and other areas of the world, health care chaplains, organizational professionals and others. i'm here this afternoon to offer a statement of support 18:09:14.8 for the nomination of judge roberts to be chief justice of the united states. my remarks about judge roberts begin this afternoon with broad brush strokes because the desired qualities of judges within the jewish tradition are defined in just such broad 18:09:32.5 brush strokes. we are enenjoined to use principled judges who refrain from showing favoritism to individuals and causes. we seek judges who are people of truth, whose words and decisions inspire confidence in 18:09:48.1 those who rely upon them. our tradition recognizes the tremendous responsibility born by those who judge others and season their dispensing of truth and justice a divine partnership enjoying the 18:10:05.2 continuation of a moral society. at a time when many in our society seek spiritual strength, i am certain these broad values are also the values embraced by this great country in which we are privileged to live. values principle, values of 18:10:22.8 truth and values of responsibility are part of the foundation of religious ethics upon which our nation has been built. and i am confident judge roberts represents the embodiment of such values. within these broad brush strokes, though are many hues 18:10:42.2 of color. it is the responsibility of this committee to try to determine how judge roberts sees those colors. as a represent of of the clergy of a minority faith community, i and my colleagues are also interested in an area of 18:10:57.6 sellinal importance to us, namely the relationship between religion and state in society. in an effort to gain insight into junction' understanding of that relationship as defined by the free exercise and first 18:11:14.0 amendment, we were encouraged by a men randa written to fred fielding on august 20, 1984 regarding remarks to be made by president reagan to a prayer breakfast then counsel roberts 18:11:31.0 suggested that the references to church or churches be changed to references to religion or religions. he noted that, and i quote, many of our citizens do not worship in churches, but in 18:11:46.2 temples and mosques, end quote. we believe that this comment demonstrates a sensitivity and appreciation for the diversity of religious faith in america, and we hope is a harbinger such judge roberts view in this crucial area. 18:12:01.0 there are those who suggest 18:12:02.8 that mr. roberts subsequent participation in presenting the view of the united states in several religion clauses cases should be of concern. in this matter, we rely on the guidance of the institute of public affairs of the union of orthodox jewish congregations 18:12:18.9 of america. a sister nonpartisan organization. their research indicates in each of the cases the positions advocated by united states were neither extreme nor even unreasonable interpretations of the religion clause's requirements. 18:12:35.0 as members of this committee are well aware, the contours of religious liberty in this nation are still being shaped by the supreme court. should the senate confirm judge roberts, it will be on the court this term when the case of gonzalez, it will again 18:12:54.1 examine the extent to which minority religions will have their religious liberty protected against government interference, and congress' ability to protect that liberty through laws like the religious 18:13:07.6 freedom restoration act which many of you championed a decade ago. while we cannot be certain we are optimistic a justice roberts will be supportive and solicitous of religious liberty in america. his answers this week to 18:13:21.3 questions you and your colleagues have asked him about the constitution's religion clauses were indeed reassuring. the rabbinical council of america has taken the public position of support for judge roberts in the spirit of this 18:13:39.0 year's celebration of 350 years of american jewish history. the jewish community like so many other faith communities has greatly benefitted from the religious liberty guaranteed by our constitution. we have been able to build houses of worship and study and 18:13:55.9 to create communities reflective of our values and traditions. we believe it thus appropriate through our active participate in this process that we acknowledge our debt of gratitude to america to a 18:14:09.2 nation that has pledged to uphold the conviction that liberty and equal justice under law are for all. thank you very much. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, rabbi. our next witness is dr. suess anthesel this wait, president 18:14:24.6 of the chicago theological seminary. ph.d. from duke university. master's divinity summa cum laud a. the author of several books. and op ed pieces in various 18:14:45.8 newspapers. thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony. >> ms. thistlethwaite: thank you, chairman specter and members of the committee. i'm susan thistlethwaite i'm professor of theology at chicago theological seminary. 18:15:01.8 my academic training is in historical theology. my teaching and writing has emphasized religious life. it's an honor to be asked to give testimony before the senate judiciary committee and with your permission, i would submit it for the record. 18:15:18.0 our constitution's promises such as the right to live free of tyranny and be able to worship freely are generous, even extravagant promises. they are promises made after freedom had been won from tyranny, a tyranny both 18:15:35.3 political and ecleesey asty cal. promises made to the best of the human spirit as created by god. in the limited documents available to discern jobs' 18:15:50.4 views, that his judicial posture is more toward permissiveness in religious establishment and less than vigorous in the defense of religious minorities. he refers to the so-called right to privacy. as objected to affirmative 18:16:05.8 action, but has favored expanding both the authority of law law enforcement and presidential authority. very disturbing to me is the view, and i quote, the geneva convention is unenforceable in u.s. courts and does not apply 18:16:20.6 to detainees labeled enemy combat apts. i submit to you the threat to the moral health of the nation of this view is extremely grave. a supreme court justice entrusted to interpret the constitution must embrace the fundamental element of our 18:16:36.0 democracy, we will strife to be a body politic rooted in justice and fairness to all citizens. a justice trusted to interpret the constitution must understand that the protection of the free exercise of religion is a prohibition of any establishment of religion 18:16:52.1 are particularly critdal to the way this constitution promises to establish justice. few americans have understood the promises in our 18:17:02.0 constitution better than dr. martin looferter king junior. dr. king in his i have a dream speech was able as few before or since to reach into our constitutional past and proclaim the deep sense of the words that the constitution was a promissory note to which 18:17:17.6 every american was to fall heir. king argued that so far this promise sorry note to african-americans had been returned, insufficient funds, but the promise held, the promise for king was a dream, but not a fantasy. dr. king's vision is well known 18:17:35.0 was a deeply theological vision. it is probably less well known that the framers of the constitution also drew on a theological vision and that their prohibition of the establishment of any religion and their insistence on the protection of the free exercise of religion was made for 18:17:50.6 religious reasons. the thought of john lott ons who work the founding fathers such as thomas jefferson drew is instructive. locke, like others in the 17th century had seen a terrible result of religious wars, as catholics and 18:18:05.7 protestants struggled for power in england. his own faith finally led him to believe that it is only in the absolute protection of human civil society from any control by religious authorities that people are enabled to come to have faith in god. 18:18:20.3 it was for theological reason, not a secular one that both locke and thomas jefferson separated church and state and prohibited establishing one religion over any other. in that way they protected religious freedom. in jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom, 18:18:36.5 he argues the plan of our holy author of our religion is not to prop gate it by coercion, they made the simple point, god does not need the help of the state for there to be faith. from our vantage point in the 21st century, we can see the framers were right. 18:18:53.2 they did not just protect political freedom, they protected religious freedom. it is no accident the united states through all of its history so far has been free from the terrible effects of religious war. the framers of the constitution knew what they were about, as 18:19:09.4 retiring justice sandra day o'connor wrote in an opinion last term, those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question, why would we trade assistance that has served us so well from one that has served us so poorly. 18:19:26.1 would it become evident in the last half of the 21st century century is our society is becoming more genuinely religiously diverse. the harvard plural improject has documented the united states is rapidly becoming the most religiously diverse nation 18:19:41.3 in the world. such increasing religious plural imcalls for even greater vigilance both in protecting religious minorities and clearly avoiding even the appearance of the establishment of any particular religion. the constitution is a document 18:19:56.6 that seeks implement a vision of fundamental human rights, just a vision of the society such as none in history has seen before. a vision that would establish justice, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. i have been impressed with the 18:20:13.4 insizive mind of john roberts. that a necessary but not a sufficient credential for chief justice. i am not as insided that he believes in the dream that is the united states of america. thank you. >> mr. specter: thank you very 18:20:28.3 much, dr. thistlethwaite. we now turn to governor john engler, president of the national association of manufacturers. the largest trade group, industry trade group in the united states. 18:20:45.1 served ads governor of michigan for three terms and before that had extensive experience in the michigan state legislature. chairman of the national governors association, a graduate of michigan state, and a law degree from the cooley school of law. 18:20:59.8 thank you for coming in today, governor engler and the floor is yours. >> mr. engler: i am pleased to be here today to testify in support of the nomination of judge roberts for the next chief justice of the united 18:21:17.5 states supreme court. this is an important moment for the national association of manufacturers because it is the first time that we participated in a proceeding of this type. i would like to take a minute just to explain why we have taken this historic step. when i joined the nam on 18:21:33.2 october 1 of last year, i did bring that experience you referenced, 20 years in the michigan legislature, 12 years as governor of michigan from '91 to 2003. during that time as governor, i found michigan businesses were facing crushing legal costs and 18:21:49.2 barriers, i also learned and saw firsthand laws that i had helped write in the state senate signed as a governor were in many instance's ignored, rewritten or set aside by judges unclear about or 18:22:01.1 dismissive of their sworn duties. in part because of this, the legal environment for doing business in michigan has become unpredictable, unfavorable, and unacceptable. as governor, i set out to change this by recruiting to 18:22:16.4 the judiciary individuals who were committed to uphold the law and not legislate from the bench. during 12 years as a governor i appointed more than 200 judges to the michigan courts and that included three state supreme court justices. each of whom has a record of 18:22:33.2 faithfully interpreting and applying the law. now, as a result of these appointments, coupled with equally needed and important tort reform legislation, cases filed in the michigan circuit courts dropped by some 17 percent between 1997 and 18:22:50.8 2004. the legal costs of doing business in michigan declined. people of michigan through this debate and period of time came to understand the certainty and predictability the judges help 18:23:03.3 foster when they follow the law not only can lead to a better business climate, but they are key to jobs and prosperity. the same can be true at the national level. nationally our legal system today consumes some 2.3 percent of gdp. 18:23:20.8 its cost is actually about 7 1/2 times as high of that of any of our key trading partners. the high cost of lawsuit abuse continues to be an impediment to our ability to compete in the global economy. now, of course, much of this 18:23:36.0 solution to this doesn't lie with the federal courts. but state legislatures, the congress, which must write clear laws that recognize these realities and that's why the nam continues to advocate asbestos reform that's been the 18:23:51.6 subject of much hard work by this very committee and further tort reform in areas like products liability. now, that said, to achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable, and where the rooms are clearly spelled out and adhered to, it's essential to have judgees who 18:24:08.6 will apply the rules, the legislature or the congress establishes in a fair and predictable manner. the united states supreme court must set the example. the need for this fundamental fairness and predictability is why the nam decided the time 18:24:25.2 had come to take positions on judicial nominations. after reviewing judge roberts' record, we are insided he's eminently qualified to lead the court. judge roberts has the intellect and the experience needed to understood and address 18:24:40.1 complicated transactions and difficult legal problems. the same time, he's committed to applying the law rather than applying his own personal views. this philosophy is essential if we are to remain a nation guided by the rule of law. 18:24:56.4 john roberts understands the importance of clarity when deciding cases and practical conconvention for businesses. really none of the current members of the court come from a recent private sector kind of 18:25:12.2 background, judge roberts does. he brings that. accordingly, if confirmed, justice roberts will add an important voice the the court's deliberations because of his strong experience in commercial 18:25:26.3 transaction. it will allow though court to assist the court ral to identify cases that present business issues of national importance and also in understanding the practical ramifications of rules set out through its decisions. as i close, let me make it clear the nam also didn't seek 18:25:42.5 to determine if judge roberts will reach or is likely to reach a particular outcome favorable to business. the principle difficulty with an outcome-based approach, which the outcome the justice should reach ought to depend on what the law is. 18:25:58.8 in many areas, different companies and businesses will disagree on what though pro business result actually is. therefore, the national association of manufacturers is not looking for justice in favor of or against business or whose decisions reflect or are likely to reflect a pro 18:26:15.6 business outlook, but rather for a justice who will properly and impartially apply the law. we are convinced judge roberts is such a justice, and i respectfully urge this committee to confirm his nomination before the full senate 123-4689 thank you very 18:26:31.8 much. our final witness is miss karen pearl. interim president of planned parenthood federation of america, for ten years prior to becoming the interim president, she was the president and ceo of planned parenthood of nassau county. 18:26:47.9 she has been a preschoolteacher, working with children, with disabilities and has a master's degree in counselling from new york university. thank you for coming in today, miss pearl, and the floor is 18:27:01.8 yours. >> ms. pearl: mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i am karen pearl, interim president of planned parenthood federation of america. i am honored to be here today to express the concerns and hopes of our patients and america's pro-choice majority. 18:27:16.4 i come before you not as an individual but as a representative of millions, through planned parenthood's 850 health centers, we provide health services to nearly 5 million women, men and young people every year. 18:27:33.6 one in four american women will visit a planned parenthood center in her lifetime. these women represent americans from every walk of life and from every part of the country. what is at stake in these hearings is nothing less than 18:27:48.9 women's lives and women's health. americans deserve a supreme court that will, not take away our basic freedoms. the record of john roberts reveals a nominee who as chief 18:28:04.2 justice is not likely to uphold constitutional protections for the right to choose abortions. and while we have fought hard for that right, and will fight just as hard to protect it, planned parenthood does everything in our power to reduce the need for abortions. 18:28:20.2 yet there are forces at work in this nation who seek to restrict comprehensive sex education, contraception and emergency contraception. the very things that would decrease the number of abortions in this country. 18:28:36.4 in his response to questions from some of the members of this committee, judge roberts has refused to state that he accepts and will protect a woman's constitutional right to choose, a right that has been part of the fabric of our 18:28:50.5 society for nearly two generations. we ask that you oppose his nomination to the lifetime position of chief justice of the united states supreme court. five years ago, four of the nine justices made it clear 18:29:07.9 that they support either overturning roe v. wade or significantly gutting it. to do so would seriously threaten constitutional protections against government regulations that threaten women's health and safety. to do so would send us back to 18:29:24.4 a pre-roe era where women did not have an equal place at life's table and when making child-bearing decisions was a perilous enterprise. the american people deserve a chief justice who will uphold 18:29:40.3 roe and yet judge roberts coauthored a brief filed on behalf of the government that stated roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. it is hard for me to understand, senators, how a decision that for the past 18:29:55.6 three decades has helped women participate equally in society could have been wrongly decided. it is hard for me to understand why a decision that allowed women to realize their dreams should be overruled. we at planned parenthood are 18:30:13.3 faced with the prospect of violence and intimidation every day of our lives. my first day on the job at planned parenthood, a sign was posted on the front door that threatened anyone who enters will be killed. 18:30:29.5 and as i volunteer as a clinic escort, violent protestors hit us with their signs. in the bray case, judge roberts is one of the authors of a brief arguening in support of veinspection of violent 18:30:45.5 clinical protestors. no y in the brief d-c the government disavow the actions or tactics of the violent demonstrators, not even in a footnote. when women's health centers in wichita, kansas, were being blockaded in 1991, a district court issued an injunction 18:31:04.2 against the protestors to protect women who were attempting to enter the centers. judge roberts was involved in a highly unusual intervention that sought to lift the injunction even though the 18:31:18.3 injunction was preventing violence and safeguarding women. this week, judge roberts repeatedly refused to answer whether he will protect the basic rights and freedoms of all americans, senator specter himself pointed out roe has been reaffirmed by the supreme 18:31:35.2 court multiple times. notably, judge roberts has acknowledged there is a right to contraception. he is comfortable making these statements, but he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the same about the right to abortion. as a legal matter, we believe 18:31:51.7 that the right to choose abortion is as settled a fundamental right as the right to contraception. 18:31:59.4 no one should be confirmed to a lifetime position with the power to take away the right to choose who does not accept that proposition. when judge roberts answers questions about griswold and isan stat and refuses when it 18:32:15.6 comes to roe and casey, judge roberts is drawing lines of convenience, not rules of law. no matter how remarkable the personory impressive the resume, a nominee for chief justice ought to be able to 18:32:31.1 tell the american people whether the constitution allowed states to ban abortion. judge roberts has refused to do so even when pressed by you. we still do not know whether a roberts court would preside over the creation of two americas. 18:32:47.4 one where women with means can obtain abortions even if they are not legal and one where women without resources cannot. when our patients ' safety is at stake, when the ability of families. >> mr. specter: would you 18:33:04.7 summarize. >> ms. pearl: private decisions about their lives are at stake. women's status in our society is at stake. accepting anything less than clarity would simply be irresponsible. you all know that justice harry blackmun wrote the majority 18:33:19.1 opinion in the roe v. wade decision. in the decades following that decision, as more justices on the court ruled to overturn roe, blackmun wrote a chill wind blows. his words echo hauntingly today. 18:33:34.6 senators, i urge you to not confirm judge john roberts as chief justice and i thank you so much for the honor and privilege of addressing you today. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, miss pearl. just a few questions. the hour is growing late. miss pearl, the hearing has 18:33:54.0 dealt extensively with the concerns that you have addressed, a woman's right to choose, and it boiled down really to judge roberts' statement that he felt he could not speak to that issue as a 18:34:11.5 matter of judicial independence in the context where there are cases on the docket which raise the issue unlike griswold which has been pretty well established as a right to privacy, something i asked him about and others did. 18:34:27.6 do you think that -- i know you'd like to have an answer, people who want to overrule roe would also like to have an answer, but do you think there's any basis for judge roberts' statement he simply 18:34:42.5 cannot prejudge the matter before it comes before him as a matter of independence, judicial independence and that he can't sell his vote to one way or another, there are people on this panel on both sides of the issue i think we 18:34:57.4 are divided among the 18, 9-9. doesn't he have a point that he can't prejudge the case. >> ms. pearl: thank you. i don't think that is -- that is correct. we are not asking him to prejudge any case. 18:35:12.3 we have not presented him with any facts of any particular case. >> mr. specter: you are asking him to say he would sustain roe v. wade. >> ms. pearl: we are asking him whether the precedent established and as you said reaffirmed 38 times, is settled law of this land, established rights. 18:35:29.5 women have counted on that right for almost two generations for 32 years. it's hard to believe that is not something that ought to be considered settled law. it was the roe decision that was only one year after the isanstat decision. 18:35:45.0 the time frame shouldn't matter. it has been looked at so many more times. the decision -- the question of whether and when to become a parent is such a fundamental right that it is hard to believe that it is even open for any kind of questions. if judge roberts is willing to 18:36:01.7 talk about the right to privacy as it relates to contraception, he ought to have been able to talk about it as it relates to abortion. reproductive rights are simply not to be negotiated. >> mr. specter: professor reich, going back to your jd from yale, what is your evaluation of the issue of 18:36:22.2 judicial independence and not soliciting votes on this committee or in the senate by a promise one way or the other on roe v. wade when the issue is on the docket for the supreme court in the next term. >> mr. reich: i think it's 18:36:38.3 entirely dependent, mr. chairman on how settled the case is if you have something that is a superprecedent, as you repeatedly talk about, it would seem to me entirely appropriate for a candidate to 18:36:53.6 say i would follow a super-duper precedent. 18:36:57.9 on the other hand, if it's up in the air, if it really is up in the air, there are a lot of 5-4 decisions, he doesn't want to reveal his cards right now because it would be inappropriate, then it's a different story. in this case, it seems to me that roe v. wade is the law of 18:37:14.0 the land, it's been there for many years, why can't a nominee say clearly, i support roe v. wade as the law of the land. >> mr. specter: unlike me right to privacy or craexceptsives for marriage, single people, there is a great debate, i 18:37:31.2 don't have to describe it for you, a great debate in this country about the subject. if the definition -- if it's up in the air or settled, i don't think, as you heard me say, that we could ask him about his decision. 18:37:47.0 but on the factors which miss pearl articulates, he testified he would give them great weight. it's really unpredictable as to what any nominee is going to do. who would have predicted justice kennedy would have 18:38:03.1 supported roe v. wade. the cases are legion in the history of the court. the only consistency is one of surprise. rabbi polakoff, has your organization taken a position on any supreme court nominees 18:38:19.5 in the past? >> mr. polakoff: we haven't. but we feel in a generation and certainly in today's society, with traditional values and religious ethics threatened there is important for there to 18:38:34.3 be a spiritual voice added to the hearings by this distinguished group. that's why we are here today. >> mr. specter: my time's almost expired but i have time for a question. does this mean the national association for manufacturers is going to become more politically active like 18:38:50.8 supporting asbestos reform? >> mr. engler: you can count on that, senator. >> mr. specter: thank you very much. thank you very -- very much. thank you super-duper much. >> mr. engler: i'm hoping the expedition conclusion of this 18:39:08.1 matter will allow for a little bit of glory time for that topic. >> mr. specter: this committee has done its job. now it's up to the floor time of the leader. senator leahy. >> mr. leahy: i am so tempted, 18:39:24.0 but i will with hold. >> mr. specter: senator hatch. >> mr. hatch: let me ask miss pearl, let me ask you the same question i asked marcia greenberger, for whom i have 18:39:42.2 great respect as well. since justice rehnquist or even before has planned parenthood has ever approved or endorsed or accepted or been favorably disposed towards any republican nominee to the united states 18:39:57.7 supreme court? >> ms. pearl: thank you, senator. i would like to start by saying that planned parenthood does not make these kinds of decisions on any kind of partisan basis, it's not that we approve or disapprove of republican nominees, approve or disapprove of democratic 18:40:14.5 nominees. to your specific point, however, i am mostly certain, and i am very happy to go back and check and send you a letter to confirm, that planned parenthood did not take a position on justice sandra day o'connor's nomination to the 18:40:30.6 supreme court. >> mr. hatch: that's the only one yeah can recall. >> ms. pearl: em. >> mr. hatch: i know your group is a close ally of the national organization for women who has -- they have testified in almost every one except this one, both of your groups, for 18:40:45.7 example, i think are members of the leadership conference on civil rights. >> ms. pearl: we are not. we actually have an application pending. >> mr. hatch: now oppose justice john paul stevens nomination in 1975. 18:41:02.6 saying his records show he would bend over backwards to limit the right to abortion. we all know that didn't happen. now opposed justice anthony kennedy's nomination saying his record shows a, quote, total lack of commitment to equality 18:41:17.8 and justice under law, unquote. i had a flyer that i saw circulated in 1990 by the national organization for women opposing the nomination of david souter. it says stop souter or women will die. 18:41:35.0 now, the reason i raise this is because as we all know, these justices have supported abortion rights. issue, and i don't think you do, nor do i think anybody else does because he has never 18:41:51.3 really opined on it. you cite cases where he was working for the reagan 18:41:59.1 administration which clearly was against roe v. wade. but he was a staff attorney making the legal arguments that they wanted him to make, which 18:42:12.4 is quite a bit different from settling -- saddling him with that particular philosophy. now it turns out the absolute and cat goral certainties positions of those against stevens, kennedy and souter were just plain wrong, and 18:42:29.3 that's where i'm having some difficulty here, did your group participate in the stop souter rally that advertised on that flyer that went out, did you participate in that? >> ms. pearl: i do not know the 18:42:44.6 answer that. >> mr. hatch: i don't either. i seem to recall planned parenthood did. they had a right to. that was wrong. and so what i'm saying, it's one thing to say they think a 18:43:01.5 person may vote one way on the court, but you don't know how justice roberts will vote. i don't know how he will vote. you may be right. you may be wrong, as planned parenthood -- i think planned 18:43:16.0 parenthood was part of it. now the alliance for justice, naral, the leadership conference on civil rights, they were all wrong, on those three justices. now, if we -- if we make these decisions solely because 18:43:31.1 somebody thinks somebody might not live up to what they think is the -- the law should be, there would be very few people ever privileged to serve on the united states supreme court if both sides started to play that game. 18:43:46.2 so all i can say is this your organization is a great organization, i don't agree with some of the policies, but i've supported you with regard to some aspects of the work that you're trying to do, but not on the abortion side of it. but it seems to me that there's 18:44:02.9 a responsibility to not prejudge people who have the eminent qualifications that judge roberts has. and that's -- that worries me just a wee bit, but i've been interested in your testimony 18:44:17.7 and certainly have listened to it, and as i have to all of you. i welcome my old friend robert reich here. he's a controversial person that makes us all think more all the time. 18:44:32.4 you have done it here today deliberately, i know. do i respect you and appreciate you, but -- and i like alternative points of view, i think that's a good thing for our society. you certainly present plenty of them for us to think about up here, both democrats and 18:44:48.9 republicans. thank you, mr. chairman 124-6789 thank you. senator kennedy. >> mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome the panel and particularly welcome bob reich. a long time friend, i've been a great admirer to his commitment 18:45:05.6 to public policy and public life generally. it's been an extraordinary career for he and his wife as well who shared a strong commitment to public service. dr. reich, let me ask you. 18:45:25.2 the -- judge roberts in one of his statements said the courts are passive institutions. is that -- how do you react to that as a concept. 18:45:36.9 is that your view about where -- what the courts are, what the courts can be, what the courts should be in trying -- in particular to help the country respond to this extraordinary challenge which 18:45:52.1 all americans are reminded of, this past couple of weeks with katrina when we sort of tore back the fabric of america in the gulf states, and saw so many people that have been left out and left behind. we are not talking about 18:46:10.8 handouts, but talking about a hand up. and shouldn't the courts be a part of a process where the executive and the congress and the courts are moving in harmony to try to make this a fairer country and more equitable land and if that is 18:46:27.2 so, what's your reaction to the comment that the courts are passive institutions? >> mr. reich: senator, the courts are not passive. anybody who watches carefully, reads supreme court opinions, looks at the history of the 18:46:42.8 supreme court, understands they are far from passive institutions. interpretations of the 14th amendment, equal protection clause, have historically changed the face of this nation in terms of bringing minorities and women 18:46:56.7 into the mainstream. when i was secretary of labor, one of my duties was implement the family medical leave act. that was hard-fought piece of legislation. you were actively involved, first piece of legislation passed by the clinton administration we got through, 18:47:11.9 at least signed into law by bill clinton. well, we did some regulations pursuant to that. some common-sense regulations struck down by this supreme court in a very close 5-4 decision, i believe i'm right, said that particular regulation 18:47:28.6 simply required that an employer notify an employee of his or her family medical leave rights, was inconsistent with the purpose of the act. well, a judgment that a 18:47:43.3 particular regulation is inconsistent with the purpose of an act is not a neutral, passive decision. the court is an active instrument of public policy. it has values, social policy, economic policy, and look at -- senator, all of you, i 18:48:00.8 understand this is of ton woman there's not a lot -- there are not a lot of decisions, court decisions, there's memoranda, had difficulty getting from the administration, lot of pieces of information, but, and it's presumptuous of me to tell you 18:48:16.1 what to do, but the stakes are so huge here for the country, i don't -- i don't see how you can in good faith, given that the court is not a passive institution, turn the country over to a court, and it will be 18:48:32.4 turning the country over to a court where you don't know what's going to happen. >> mr. kennedy: i was somewhat disappointed that in the various areas of public policy where judge roberts had been so 18:48:47.6 active, i mean he had obviously solicited the job to serve in the administration, selected by the administration, do serve in the justice department and felt very comfortable, idea 18:49:05.0 logically being there. his commitment to public service, he wanted to be in there and felt very comfortable and was promoted all the way through there. he had the series of memorandas, stating administration position, and it 18:49:19.5 was always a question whether this was just stating a position or what percent of this was his own views. the point that i thought was somewhat disappointing was when asked given that was 20 years ago, would you -- what was your 18:49:36.1 position today on these issues. it seemed to me to be pretty ordinary that people would say, look, those are my views then, those are the administration today, i look at x, y and z, whether it is on the issues of 18:49:51.0 civil rights, whether it is on women's rights, whether it was on the issues and grove city which is always amazing to me after we had thought through all of the civil rights act, that an individual could feel 18:50:05.8 and with all the money that was going to universities with tuition, which was keeping them running. that you would have an individual that would say, well, we wanted just program specific, so if they don't discriminate in the admissions -- the financial 18:50:22.4 office, admissions office, they can discriminate wherever they want at the university. i mean, after we had gone through so much in terms of the battle to end discrimination, and the american people were t 18:50:37.8 a position where they felt we shouldn't permit taxpayers to be funded for discriminatory purposes. i think my time is over. i think the chairman might give you 15 seconds or something to respond, if you can. >> mr. reich: what's come out 18:50:55.3 so far, this man is a nice fellow, people like him, he's a very, very bright if not brilliant jurist and extremely thoughtful lawyer, but he has certain idealogical predispositions. 18:51:11.6 he has values, those values are way to the right of the mainstream in america. i don't think there's any question about it. and so it is up to all of you to decide whether you want to put somebody in as chief justice who is that far the right. 18:51:28.3 i think it's as simple and direct as that. >> mr. specter: thank you, senator kennedy. senator sessions. >> mr. sessions: senator hatch left, but here's the stop souter or women will die i just found, i guess that did not prove to be a good prediction except a lot of women partially 18:51:46.3 born have died since justice souter went on the court. >> mr. specter: make that part of the record. >> mr. sessions: i would offer that for the record. 18:51:56.3 i think, mr. reich, that judge roberts has a value that he's expressed articulately, beautifully, repeatedly. that he loves the law. he loves the court. 18:52:12.0 and he believes a court has a rule, has a role to be a neutral arbiter, and not to impose his personal views, and i don't think that's a -- i don't think he brings that because he may be politically conservative and believes in 18:52:27.7 lower taxes and whatever he believes in politically. i think that's his deepest and highest value that was repeatedly stated here many times. i think that's exactly what we need in the courts of america today. i think the people of this country will be mores areful of 18:52:45.8 the court --ful of the court if they return to that role. >> ms. thistlethwaite: el this wait, i've tried to think over the years about appropriate approaches to the church/state issue i'm methodist myself and 18:53:02.0 been involved in these things. i see you're liberation theologist. let me say this, you've expressed some pretty strong views about the need for a wall between church and state and just yesterday, the supreme 18:53:20.0 court -- a district court, following what it thought was the command of the 9th circuit ruled that the pledge of allegiance which has under god in it, is unconstitutional. do you have an opinion about 18:53:34.7 that. >> ms. thistlethwaite: -- exception session i think it's in which ways consistent with some rulings in the supreme court as i schaefered with judge roberts and i think it's perhaps inconsistent with others. how do you feel about the wisdom of having those words in the pledge of allegiance. 18:53:48.9 >> ms. thistlethwaite: i'm very interested, senator sessions to know whether you think people will be increased in their faith if they just say those words repetitively. i don't know what the goal is if it is not to establish a 18:54:07.0 theistic religion. if it is to include the words so that they can be historical, as i'm citing from the founders, god doesn't need your help. so if it's historical, that was 18:54:21.8 added to the pledge of allegiance. it was not even original in the pledge. i look at the people out on the street demonstrating. they seem to feel the people in favor after the -- after the press show us the pictures of 18:54:39.1 people demonstrating after this decision was made, and the people seemed to feel it is prayer, and if it is prayer, then i think it's unconstitutional. >> mr. sessions: well, what about i guess you would 18:54:53.2 share -- you would further say that we should take in god we trust off the coins. >> ms. thistlethwaite: do i think it's a good idea to confuse caesar and god? no, i don't. render unto caesar what is 18:55:11.0 caesar's and what is god. >> mr. sessions: you would oppose the chaplain of the united states senate. would you oppose the position of chaplain in the united states senate? >> ms. thistlethwaite: do i think you all need spiritual guidance? 18:55:29.2 >> mr. sessions: that's part of it, perhaps. >> ms. thistlethwaite: i think it's okay if you rotate it around. but i'm not the constitutional lawyer. i'm a pastor. i'm kind of in favor of pastoral care. >> mr. sessions: i would say this, i think that it is an 18:55:46.9 absolute truth that our government was founded on a principle that we are created beings with certain inalienable rights, and when you get in a secular like the marxist 18:56:04.1 ideologies that they have no respect for life, not the same degree of it, i think it's a unique portion of our great american spirit that every human being is respected specially because we believe they were created and such 18:56:20.5 words as under god or in god we trust, i think are not sectarian, i do not believe they establish a religion, but it's simply reflects a consensus view of probably 18:56:33.2 90 percent of americans that there is a higher being and i think that the supreme court authorities on these matters are somewhat strained and confusing and perhaps judge roberts can improve that. 18:56:48.5 i certainly hope so. i think my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. specter: senator coburn, 18:56:55.6 you have the last word. >> mr. coburn: thank you, mr. chairman. since i do, i would just like to compliment you and senator leahy. >> mr. specter: we can't hear you. >> mr. coburn: i'll say it again and again if my budget's increased. 18:57:10.6 i'd be happy to say it. but as a freshman senator, the way this hearing's been conducted, the leadership that you, mr. chairman and you, mr. leahy, have conducted it under, i think is reflective of good qualities of the united 18:57:29.1 states senate and the country. and it kind of leads me to the questions that i had especially for dr. thistlethwaite, the last statement you said, you're not convinced that john roberts believes in the dream of 18:57:45.3 america. and i'm just wondering could anybody of conservative values believe in that dream? is it possible because -- i don't know john roberts' actual. i go to bed at night worrying if he is on the supreme court, 18:58:02.4 i have completely opposite views about reproduction and other issues, but the question is, can somebody have values different conservative values and believe in the dream of america, be a good judge. is that possible. 18:58:17.6 >> ms. thistlethwaite: i was very impressed by the gentleman who spoke last on the left panel who was testifying to the fact that the definition of the word conservative has changed. >> ms. thistlethwaite: -- 18:58:34.8 >> mr. coburn: i'm a known quantity, all right. i'm a known quantity. people know my opinions, i'm not very quiet about them, sometimes to my own ill benefit. but the fact is, is it talks about what senator kennedy talked about, and senator feinstein, do they have a heart 18:58:52.1 and the question is, can somebody have a set of values that are different than what you perceive to be okay for the american dream and still have the heart of a senator kennedy and make a good judge? i'm very confused about what i 18:59:08.8 consider a very inflammatory statement about judge roberts in your closing. because what it does, it castigates people into categories, the very thing jesus said we don't do. and to me, it's concerning that 18:59:26.4 we have this decision that we have already decided how he's going to decide. i spent two hours with him, and i'm as pro life as they come and i can't tell you where he's going to be, and i tried to 18:59:40.0 find out, and if i spent two hours with him, how do you all know he's not going to be and how do you know based on the history of the judges that have come before this committee before who the same claims were made about and the opposite 18:59:56.0 results came about. and i think it undermines the testimony, and i think it lends for us to go back and reconsider as a nation, all of us, the people i represent, the viewpoints i represent, and the viewpoints you represent, that
John Roberts Confirmation Hearing / Senate Judiciary Committee / WITNESS 1800 -1900
JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS HEARING The Senate Judiciary Committee continues its 4th day of hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts Hearing / Outside witnesses Senate Judiciary continues with Roberts hearing--- begins with twenty minutes from Senator Patrick Leahy, then Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Russell Feingold, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Richard Durbin, then a closed session from 11a-11:30am. Roberts is excused and the hearing reconvenes at 11:30am for 6 panels of outside witnesses. (1p-2p break scheduled) 18:00:02.8 title ix guidelines aren't for judges but members of congress. it is members of congress bo who decide on the law and give the executive branch the authority implement he regulations. 18:00:17.6 should he be confirmed as chief justice, judge roberts' role would be the interpret the law and aused indicate disputes containing the laws that you are going to pass. thank you very much. >> mr. specter: thank you. our next witness is professor robert reich. 18:00:37.4 had been prove of social and economic policy at brandeis until he joined the university of california. he served as secretary of labor during president clinton's first administration. subsequently published a book 18:00:53.6 entitled locked in the cabinet. before taking office during the clinton administration was a member of the faculty of harvard's kennedy school of government. ba from dartmouth, master's tram from -- law degree from 18:01:12.7 yale law school. name pleased to see you again, professor lish, i have -- i have questions left over which you didn't answer when i questioned you when you were secretary of health and human 18:01:27.2 services which we will get to promptly. mike mike that's because i was secretary of labor. mr. chairman and members of the committee. >> mr. specter: no one der i couldn't understand what you were doing. >> mr. reich: i have prepared 18:01:42.0 testimony. with permission i'll submit it for the record. there's been much discussion in these hearings about social values, and i want to put on the table something that maybe has not received quite the attention it should, and that is economic values. 18:02:00.1 and i don't think i have to tell the committee what almost 18:02:03.8 everybody knows, and that is that wealth and income and the power that come from wealth and income are more concentrated in fewer hands as proportion of the population today than we have seen since them 1920s. by some measures since the 18:02:19.9 guilded age of the 1890s. now if this doesn't present issues of economic morality, i don't know what does. and it comes to the forewith regard to congress and the supreme court and a whole series of protections. 18:02:34.3 some of them very old, some of them going back to the 1920s and 30s and 40s. having to do with workplace protections. unemployment insurance, interpretations of social security, interpretations of minimum wage. 18:02:51.3 the ways in which we treat our working people in this country. now, i heard, judge roberts, at least to the best of my memory, in the last couple of days, tell this committee that he would rule on the side of the 18:03:07.9 little guy when the constitution told him to and he would rule on the side of the big guy when the constitution was on the side of the big guy. now i assume he's talking about little guy and big guy in figurative terms, in terms of economic power and wealth and 18:03:22.9 status in society. but last time i looked at my constitution, it doesn't say anything about average working people or big guys or little guys at all. in fact there have been times in our history where the supreme court came down consistently on the side of 18:03:39.5 wealth and power and against little guys. against average working people. up until 1937, for example, the supreme court threw out a lot of state and federal regulation that was intended to help average working people. 18:03:59.7 judge roberts has a record, not much of a record, something of a gamble for all of us, but let me reveal a little bit of auto by graph cal detail we didn't 18:04:15.3 know, but do i not to burnish my republican credentials, but to tell you that i know something about a particular institution. i started out my life in government as assistant to the solicitor general, i had a chance to brief and argue supreme court cases. 18:04:29.2 and my first boss was robert bork. and in those days, the solicitor general's office regarded its primary client as the supreme court, not the administration. 18:04:44.2 it wasn't until the mid-1980s that there was a new position created in the solicitor general's office called the special deputy. it was a political position, political deputy and it was about values. that political deputy was there for a very simple reason, to 18:05:00.7 make sure that the solicitor general's office had briefs and argues before the supreme court were in consistent the values of the president in terms of social values, economic values, whatever have you. i read justice -- judge 18:05:20.1 roberts' memoranda and there's no question in my mind, having had that experience in the solicitor general's office, that he came down consistently, uniformly on the side of very 18:05:33.7 conservative economic and social values. i'm not criticizing him for it, but i think it's very important you know that. here in this hearing he said for example he refused to affirm wickert against fill 18:05:52.8 ore. you know as well as do i over the last ten years, more than 30 times the supreme court has stuck down in whole or in part 18:06:03.7 laws of this congress. ten of those, at least, have been based on the commerce clause. wickert against fillborn in my knowledge and experience is a cornerstone of building the protections of a strong federal 18:06:19.0 government for average working people. his refusal to affirm that, i find, personally, quite troubling. there has been reference also to the hap hapless toad. well, we know he was looking 18:06:35.8 for other ways to find perhaps that endangered species act constitutional, but look at that logic in that particular case. when he says congress didn't really have authority under the commerce clause to protect the 18:06:52.4 life of a hapless toad that for reasons of its own lives its entire life in california, obviously people are not toads, at least the last time i looked, but what about 18:07:05.9 protecting the job safety of a hapless retail worker who for reasons of her own lives her entire life in pennsylvania or a hapless coal miner who lives his entire life in west 18:07:20.0 virginia. let me finally say this. one justice can make all the difference to our entire system of federal protections. one justice. the court did change its mind in 1937, as i said before, and it stopped striking down laws 18:07:36.4 that protected people, average working people, not because as popularly understood fdr threatened to pack the court. the court made that switch before it even new fdr had a court packing scheme. >> mr. specter: could you 18:07:51.9 summarize your testimony in at this point. >> mr. reich: the justice who made that switch was justice roberts. just owen roberts. it would be a cruel joke of history if a namesake almost 60 years later turned the court 18:08:12.1 backward. thank you. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, professor reich. our next witness is ran a dale polakoff, president of the rabb inickal council of america 18:08:27.5 whose membership consists of more than 1,000 ordained rabbis. faculty member of the northshore hebrew academy, graduate of yeshiva where he majored in psychology. 18:08:41.0 testimony. >> mr. polakoff: thank you mr. chairman and other distinguished members of the committee. good afternoon or perhaps good evening. thank you for inviting me to participate in these hearings. rabin cal council of america includes congressional ran 18:09:00.1 buys, teachers, military chaplains, some of whom serve today in iraq, afghanistan and other areas of the world, health care chaplains, organizational professionals and others. i'm here this afternoon to offer a statement of support 18:09:14.8 for the nomination of judge roberts to be chief justice of the united states. my remarks about judge roberts begin this afternoon with broad brush strokes because the desired qualities of judges within the jewish tradition are defined in just such broad 18:09:32.5 brush strokes. we are enenjoined to use principled judges who refrain from showing favoritism to individuals and causes. we seek judges who are people of truth, whose words and decisions inspire confidence in 18:09:48.1 those who rely upon them. our tradition recognizes the tremendous responsibility born by those who judge others and season their dispensing of truth and justice a divine partnership enjoying the 18:10:05.2 continuation of a moral society. at a time when many in our society seek spiritual strength, i am certain these broad values are also the values embraced by this great country in which we are privileged to live. values principle, values of 18:10:22.8 truth and values of responsibility are part of the foundation of religious ethics upon which our nation has been built. and i am confident judge roberts represents the embodiment of such values. within these broad brush strokes, though are many hues 18:10:42.2 of color. it is the responsibility of this committee to try to determine how judge roberts sees those colors. as a represent of of the clergy of a minority faith community, i and my colleagues are also interested in an area of 18:10:57.6 sellinal importance to us, namely the relationship between religion and state in society. in an effort to gain insight into junction' understanding of that relationship as defined by the free exercise and first 18:11:14.0 amendment, we were encouraged by a men randa written to fred fielding on august 20, 1984 regarding remarks to be made by president reagan to a prayer breakfast then counsel roberts 18:11:31.0 suggested that the references to church or churches be changed to references to religion or religions. he noted that, and i quote, many of our citizens do not worship in churches, but in 18:11:46.2 temples and mosques, end quote. we believe that this comment demonstrates a sensitivity and appreciation for the diversity of religious faith in america, and we hope is a harbinger such judge roberts view in this crucial area. 18:12:01.0 there are those who suggest 18:12:02.8 that mr. roberts subsequent participation in presenting the view of the united states in several religion clauses cases should be of concern. in this matter, we rely on the guidance of the institute of public affairs of the union of orthodox jewish congregations 18:12:18.9 of america. a sister nonpartisan organization. their research indicates in each of the cases the positions advocated by united states were neither extreme nor even unreasonable interpretations of the religion clause's requirements. 18:12:35.0 as members of this committee are well aware, the contours of religious liberty in this nation are still being shaped by the supreme court. should the senate confirm judge roberts, it will be on the court this term when the case of gonzalez, it will again 18:12:54.1 examine the extent to which minority religions will have their religious liberty protected against government interference, and congress' ability to protect that liberty through laws like the religious 18:13:07.6 freedom restoration act which many of you championed a decade ago. while we cannot be certain we are optimistic a justice roberts will be supportive and solicitous of religious liberty in america. his answers this week to 18:13:21.3 questions you and your colleagues have asked him about the constitution's religion clauses were indeed reassuring. the rabbinical council of america has taken the public position of support for judge roberts in the spirit of this 18:13:39.0 year's celebration of 350 years of american jewish history. the jewish community like so many other faith communities has greatly benefitted from the religious liberty guaranteed by our constitution. we have been able to build houses of worship and study and 18:13:55.9 to create communities reflective of our values and traditions. we believe it thus appropriate through our active participate in this process that we acknowledge our debt of gratitude to america to a 18:14:09.2 nation that has pledged to uphold the conviction that liberty and equal justice under law are for all. thank you very much. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, rabbi. our next witness is dr. suess anthesel this wait, president 18:14:24.6 of the chicago theological seminary. ph.d. from duke university. master's divinity summa cum laud a. the author of several books. and op ed pieces in various 18:14:45.8 newspapers. thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony. >> ms. thistlethwaite: thank you, chairman specter and members of the committee. i'm susan thistlethwaite i'm professor of theology at chicago theological seminary. 18:15:01.8 my academic training is in historical theology. my teaching and writing has emphasized religious life. it's an honor to be asked to give testimony before the senate judiciary committee and with your permission, i would submit it for the record. 18:15:18.0 our constitution's promises such as the right to live free of tyranny and be able to worship freely are generous, even extravagant promises. they are promises made after freedom had been won from tyranny, a tyranny both 18:15:35.3 political and ecleesey asty cal. promises made to the best of the human spirit as created by god. in the limited documents available to discern jobs' 18:15:50.4 views, that his judicial posture is more toward permissiveness in religious establishment and less than vigorous in the defense of religious minorities. he refers to the so-called right to privacy. as objected to affirmative 18:16:05.8 action, but has favored expanding both the authority of law law enforcement and presidential authority. very disturbing to me is the view, and i quote, the geneva convention is unenforceable in u.s. courts and does not apply 18:16:20.6 to detainees labeled enemy combat apts. i submit to you the threat to the moral health of the nation of this view is extremely grave. a supreme court justice entrusted to interpret the constitution must embrace the fundamental element of our 18:16:36.0 democracy, we will strife to be a body politic rooted in justice and fairness to all citizens. a justice trusted to interpret the constitution must understand that the protection of the free exercise of religion is a prohibition of any establishment of religion 18:16:52.1 are particularly critdal to the way this constitution promises to establish justice. few americans have understood the promises in our 18:17:02.0 constitution better than dr. martin looferter king junior. dr. king in his i have a dream speech was able as few before or since to reach into our constitutional past and proclaim the deep sense of the words that the constitution was a promissory note to which 18:17:17.6 every american was to fall heir. king argued that so far this promise sorry note to african-americans had been returned, insufficient funds, but the promise held, the promise for king was a dream, but not a fantasy. dr. king's vision is well known 18:17:35.0 was a deeply theological vision. it is probably less well known that the framers of the constitution also drew on a theological vision and that their prohibition of the establishment of any religion and their insistence on the protection of the free exercise of religion was made for 18:17:50.6 religious reasons. the thought of john lott ons who work the founding fathers such as thomas jefferson drew is instructive. locke, like others in the 17th century had seen a terrible result of religious wars, as catholics and 18:18:05.7 protestants struggled for power in england. his own faith finally led him to believe that it is only in the absolute protection of human civil society from any control by religious authorities that people are enabled to come to have faith in god. 18:18:20.3 it was for theological reason, not a secular one that both locke and thomas jefferson separated church and state and prohibited establishing one religion over any other. in that way they protected religious freedom. in jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom, 18:18:36.5 he argues the plan of our holy author of our religion is not to prop gate it by coercion, they made the simple point, god does not need the help of the state for there to be faith. from our vantage point in the 21st century, we can see the framers were right. 18:18:53.2 they did not just protect political freedom, they protected religious freedom. it is no accident the united states through all of its history so far has been free from the terrible effects of religious war. the framers of the constitution knew what they were about, as 18:19:09.4 retiring justice sandra day o'connor wrote in an opinion last term, those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question, why would we trade assistance that has served us so well from one that has served us so poorly. 18:19:26.1 would it become evident in the last half of the 21st century century is our society is becoming more genuinely religiously diverse. the harvard plural improject has documented the united states is rapidly becoming the most religiously diverse nation 18:19:41.3 in the world. such increasing religious plural imcalls for even greater vigilance both in protecting religious minorities and clearly avoiding even the appearance of the establishment of any particular religion. the constitution is a document 18:19:56.6 that seeks implement a vision of fundamental human rights, just a vision of the society such as none in history has seen before. a vision that would establish justice, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. i have been impressed with the 18:20:13.4 insizive mind of john roberts. that a necessary but not a sufficient credential for chief justice. i am not as insided that he believes in the dream that is the united states of america. thank you. >> mr. specter: thank you very 18:20:28.3 much, dr. thistlethwaite. we now turn to governor john engler, president of the national association of manufacturers. the largest trade group, industry trade group in the united states. 18:20:45.1 served ads governor of michigan for three terms and before that had extensive experience in the michigan state legislature. chairman of the national governors association, a graduate of michigan state, and a law degree from the cooley school of law. 18:20:59.8 thank you for coming in today, governor engler and the floor is yours. >> mr. engler: i am pleased to be here today to testify in support of the nomination of judge roberts for the next chief justice of the united 18:21:17.5 states supreme court. this is an important moment for the national association of manufacturers because it is the first time that we participated in a proceeding of this type. i would like to take a minute just to explain why we have taken this historic step. when i joined the nam on 18:21:33.2 october 1 of last year, i did bring that experience you referenced, 20 years in the michigan legislature, 12 years as governor of michigan from '91 to 2003. during that time as governor, i found michigan businesses were facing crushing legal costs and 18:21:49.2 barriers, i also learned and saw firsthand laws that i had helped write in the state senate signed as a governor were in many instance's ignored, rewritten or set aside by judges unclear about or 18:22:01.1 dismissive of their sworn duties. in part because of this, the legal environment for doing business in michigan has become unpredictable, unfavorable, and unacceptable. as governor, i set out to change this by recruiting to 18:22:16.4 the judiciary individuals who were committed to uphold the law and not legislate from the bench. during 12 years as a governor i appointed more than 200 judges to the michigan courts and that included three state supreme court justices. each of whom has a record of 18:22:33.2 faithfully interpreting and applying the law. now, as a result of these appointments, coupled with equally needed and important tort reform legislation, cases filed in the michigan circuit courts dropped by some 17 percent between 1997 and 18:22:50.8 2004. the legal costs of doing business in michigan declined. people of michigan through this debate and period of time came to understand the certainty and predictability the judges help 18:23:03.3 foster when they follow the law not only can lead to a better business climate, but they are key to jobs and prosperity. the same can be true at the national level. nationally our legal system today consumes some 2.3 percent of gdp. 18:23:20.8 its cost is actually about 7 1/2 times as high of that of any of our key trading partners. the high cost of lawsuit abuse continues to be an impediment to our ability to compete in the global economy. now, of course, much of this 18:23:36.0 solution to this doesn't lie with the federal courts. but state legislatures, the congress, which must write clear laws that recognize these realities and that's why the nam continues to advocate asbestos reform that's been the 18:23:51.6 subject of much hard work by this very committee and further tort reform in areas like products liability. now, that said, to achieve a business environment that is fair and predictable, and where the rooms are clearly spelled out and adhered to, it's essential to have judgees who 18:24:08.6 will apply the rules, the legislature or the congress establishes in a fair and predictable manner. the united states supreme court must set the example. the need for this fundamental fairness and predictability is why the nam decided the time 18:24:25.2 had come to take positions on judicial nominations. after reviewing judge roberts' record, we are insided he's eminently qualified to lead the court. judge roberts has the intellect and the experience needed to understood and address 18:24:40.1 complicated transactions and difficult legal problems. the same time, he's committed to applying the law rather than applying his own personal views. this philosophy is essential if we are to remain a nation guided by the rule of law. 18:24:56.4 john roberts understands the importance of clarity when deciding cases and practical conconvention for businesses. really none of the current members of the court come from a recent private sector kind of 18:25:12.2 background, judge roberts does. he brings that. accordingly, if confirmed, justice roberts will add an important voice the the court's deliberations because of his strong experience in commercial 18:25:26.3 transaction. it will allow though court to assist the court ral to identify cases that present business issues of national importance and also in understanding the practical ramifications of rules set out through its decisions. as i close, let me make it clear the nam also didn't seek 18:25:42.5 to determine if judge roberts will reach or is likely to reach a particular outcome favorable to business. the principle difficulty with an outcome-based approach, which the outcome the justice should reach ought to depend on what the law is. 18:25:58.8 in many areas, different companies and businesses will disagree on what though pro business result actually is. therefore, the national association of manufacturers is not looking for justice in favor of or against business or whose decisions reflect or are likely to reflect a pro 18:26:15.6 business outlook, but rather for a justice who will properly and impartially apply the law. we are convinced judge roberts is such a justice, and i respectfully urge this committee to confirm his nomination before the full senate 123-4689 thank you very 18:26:31.8 much. our final witness is miss karen pearl. interim president of planned parenthood federation of america, for ten years prior to becoming the interim president, she was the president and ceo of planned parenthood of nassau county. 18:26:47.9 she has been a preschoolteacher, working with children, with disabilities and has a master's degree in counselling from new york university. thank you for coming in today, miss pearl, and the floor is 18:27:01.8 yours. >> ms. pearl: mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i am karen pearl, interim president of planned parenthood federation of america. i am honored to be here today to express the concerns and hopes of our patients and america's pro-choice majority. 18:27:16.4 i come before you not as an individual but as a representative of millions, through planned parenthood's 850 health centers, we provide health services to nearly 5 million women, men and young people every year. 18:27:33.6 one in four american women will visit a planned parenthood center in her lifetime. these women represent americans from every walk of life and from every part of the country. what is at stake in these hearings is nothing less than 18:27:48.9 women's lives and women's health. americans deserve a supreme court that will, not take away our basic freedoms. the record of john roberts reveals a nominee who as chief 18:28:04.2 justice is not likely to uphold constitutional protections for the right to choose abortions. and while we have fought hard for that right, and will fight just as hard to protect it, planned parenthood does everything in our power to reduce the need for abortions. 18:28:20.2 yet there are forces at work in this nation who seek to restrict comprehensive sex education, contraception and emergency contraception. the very things that would decrease the number of abortions in this country. 18:28:36.4 in his response to questions from some of the members of this committee, judge roberts has refused to state that he accepts and will protect a woman's constitutional right to choose, a right that has been part of the fabric of our 18:28:50.5 society for nearly two generations. we ask that you oppose his nomination to the lifetime position of chief justice of the united states supreme court. five years ago, four of the nine justices made it clear 18:29:07.9 that they support either overturning roe v. wade or significantly gutting it. to do so would seriously threaten constitutional protections against government regulations that threaten women's health and safety. to do so would send us back to 18:29:24.4 a pre-roe era where women did not have an equal place at life's table and when making child-bearing decisions was a perilous enterprise. the american people deserve a chief justice who will uphold 18:29:40.3 roe and yet judge roberts coauthored a brief filed on behalf of the government that stated roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. it is hard for me to understand, senators, how a decision that for the past 18:29:55.6 three decades has helped women participate equally in society could have been wrongly decided. it is hard for me to understand why a decision that allowed women to realize their dreams should be overruled. we at planned parenthood are 18:30:13.3 faced with the prospect of violence and intimidation every day of our lives. my first day on the job at planned parenthood, a sign was posted on the front door that threatened anyone who enters will be killed. 18:30:29.5 and as i volunteer as a clinic escort, violent protestors hit us with their signs. in the bray case, judge roberts is one of the authors of a brief arguening in support of veinspection of violent 18:30:45.5 clinical protestors. no y in the brief d-c the government disavow the actions or tactics of the violent demonstrators, not even in a footnote. when women's health centers in wichita, kansas, were being blockaded in 1991, a district court issued an injunction 18:31:04.2 against the protestors to protect women who were attempting to enter the centers. judge roberts was involved in a highly unusual intervention that sought to lift the injunction even though the 18:31:18.3 injunction was preventing violence and safeguarding women. this week, judge roberts repeatedly refused to answer whether he will protect the basic rights and freedoms of all americans, senator specter himself pointed out roe has been reaffirmed by the supreme 18:31:35.2 court multiple times. notably, judge roberts has acknowledged there is a right to contraception. he is comfortable making these statements, but he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the same about the right to abortion. as a legal matter, we believe 18:31:51.7 that the right to choose abortion is as settled a fundamental right as the right to contraception. 18:31:59.4 no one should be confirmed to a lifetime position with the power to take away the right to choose who does not accept that proposition. when judge roberts answers questions about griswold and isan stat and refuses when it 18:32:15.6 comes to roe and casey, judge roberts is drawing lines of convenience, not rules of law. no matter how remarkable the personory impressive the resume, a nominee for chief justice ought to be able to 18:32:31.1 tell the american people whether the constitution allowed states to ban abortion. judge roberts has refused to do so even when pressed by you. we still do not know whether a roberts court would preside over the creation of two americas. 18:32:47.4 one where women with means can obtain abortions even if they are not legal and one where women without resources cannot. when our patients ' safety is at stake, when the ability of families. >> mr. specter: would you 18:33:04.7 summarize. >> ms. pearl: private decisions about their lives are at stake. women's status in our society is at stake. accepting anything less than clarity would simply be irresponsible. you all know that justice harry blackmun wrote the majority 18:33:19.1 opinion in the roe v. wade decision. in the decades following that decision, as more justices on the court ruled to overturn roe, blackmun wrote a chill wind blows. his words echo hauntingly today. 18:33:34.6 senators, i urge you to not confirm judge john roberts as chief justice and i thank you so much for the honor and privilege of addressing you today. >> mr. specter: thank you very much, miss pearl. just a few questions. the hour is growing late. miss pearl, the hearing has 18:33:54.0 dealt extensively with the concerns that you have addressed, a woman's right to choose, and it boiled down really to judge roberts' statement that he felt he could not speak to that issue as a 18:34:11.5 matter of judicial independence in the context where there are cases on the docket which raise the issue unlike griswold which has been pretty well established as a right to privacy, something i asked him about and others did. 18:34:27.6 do you think that -- i know you'd like to have an answer, people who want to overrule roe would also like to have an answer, but do you think there's any basis for judge roberts' statement he simply 18:34:42.5 cannot prejudge the matter before it comes before him as a matter of independence, judicial independence and that he can't sell his vote to one way or another, there are people on this panel on both sides of the issue i think we 18:34:57.4 are divided among the 18, 9-9. doesn't he have a point that he can't prejudge the case. >> ms. pearl: thank you. i don't think that is -- that is correct. we are not asking him to prejudge any case. 18:35:12.3 we have not presented him with any facts of any particular case. >> mr. specter: you are asking him to say he would sustain roe v. wade. >> ms. pearl: we are asking him whether the precedent established and as you said reaffirmed 38 times, is settled law of this land, established rights. 18:35:29.5 women have counted on that right for almost two generations for 32 years. it's hard to believe that is not something that ought to be considered settled law. it was the roe decision that was only one year after the isanstat decision. 18:35:45.0 the time frame shouldn't matter. it has been looked at so many more times. the decision -- the question of whether and when to become a parent is such a fundamental right that it is hard to believe that it is even open for any kind of questions. if judge roberts is willing to 18:36:01.7 talk about the right to privacy as it relates to contraception, he ought to have been able to talk about it as it relates to abortion. reproductive rights are simply not to be negotiated. >> mr. specter: professor reich, going back to your jd from yale, what is your evaluation of the issue of 18:36:22.2 judicial independence and not soliciting votes on this committee or in the senate by a promise one way or the other on roe v. wade when the issue is on the docket for the supreme court in the next term. >> mr. reich: i think it's 18:36:38.3 entirely dependent, mr. chairman on how settled the case is if you have something that is a superprecedent, as you repeatedly talk about, it would seem to me entirely appropriate for a candidate to 18:36:53.6 say i would follow a super-duper precedent. 18:36:57.9 on the other hand, if it's up in the air, if it really is up in the air, there are a lot of 5-4 decisions, he doesn't want to reveal his cards right now because it would be inappropriate, then it's a different story. in this case, it seems to me that roe v. wade is the law of 18:37:14.0 the land, it's been there for many years, why can't a nominee say clearly, i support roe v. wade as the law of the land. >> mr. specter: unlike me right to privacy or craexceptsives for marriage, single people, there is a great debate, i 18:37:31.2 don't have to describe it for you, a great debate in this country about the subject. if the definition -- if it's up in the air or settled, i don't think, as you heard me say, that we could ask him about his decision. 18:37:47.0 but on the factors which miss pearl articulates, he testified he would give them great weight. it's really unpredictable as to what any nominee is going to do. who would have predicted justice kennedy would have 18:38:03.1 supported roe v. wade. the cases are legion in the history of the court. the only consistency is one of surprise. rabbi polakoff, has your organization taken a position on any supreme court nominees 18:38:19.5 in the past? >> mr. polakoff: we haven't. but we feel in a generation and certainly in today's society, with traditional values and religious ethics threatened there is important for there to 18:38:34.3 be a spiritual voice added to the hearings by this distinguished group. that's why we are here today. >> mr. specter: my time's almost expired but i have time for a question. does this mean the national association for manufacturers is going to become more politically active like 18:38:50.8 supporting asbestos reform? >> mr. engler: you can count on that, senator. >> mr. specter: thank you very much. thank you very -- very much. thank you super-duper much. >> mr. engler: i'm hoping the expedition conclusion of this 18:39:08.1 matter will allow for a little bit of glory time for that topic. >> mr. specter: this committee has done its job. now it's up to the floor time of the leader. senator leahy. >> mr. leahy: i am so tempted, 18:39:24.0 but i will with hold. >> mr. specter: senator hatch. >> mr. hatch: let me ask miss pearl, let me ask you the same question i asked marcia greenberger, for whom i have 18:39:42.2 great respect as well. since justice rehnquist or even before has planned parenthood has ever approved or endorsed or accepted or been favorably disposed towards any republican nominee to the united states 18:39:57.7 supreme court? >> ms. pearl: thank you, senator. i would like to start by saying that planned parenthood does not make these kinds of decisions on any kind of partisan basis, it's not that we approve or disapprove of republican nominees, approve or disapprove of democratic 18:40:14.5 nominees. to your specific point, however, i am mostly certain, and i am very happy to go back and check and send you a letter to confirm, that planned parenthood did not take a position on justice sandra day o'connor's nomination to the 18:40:30.6 supreme court. >> mr. hatch: that's the only one yeah can recall. >> ms. pearl: em. >> mr. hatch: i know your group is a close ally of the national organization for women who has -- they have testified in almost every one except this one, both of your groups, for 18:40:45.7 example, i think are members of the leadership conference on civil rights. >> ms. pearl: we are not. we actually have an application pending. >> mr. hatch: now oppose justice john paul stevens nomination in 1975. 18:41:02.6 saying his records show he would bend over backwards to limit the right to abortion. we all know that didn't happen. now opposed justice anthony kennedy's nomination saying his record shows a, quote, total lack of commitment to equality 18:41:17.8 and justice under law, unquote. i had a flyer that i saw circulated in 1990 by the national organization for women opposing the nomination of david souter. it says stop souter or women will die. 18:41:35.0 now, the reason i raise this is because as we all know, these justices have supported abortion rights. issue, and i don't think you do, nor do i think anybody else does because he has never 18:41:51.3 really opined on it. you cite cases where he was working for the reagan 18:41:59.1 administration which clearly was against roe v. wade. but he was a staff attorney making the legal arguments that they wanted him to make, which 18:42:12.4 is quite a bit different from settling -- saddling him with that particular philosophy. now it turns out the absolute and cat goral certainties positions of those against stevens, kennedy and souter were just plain wrong, and 18:42:29.3 that's where i'm having some difficulty here, did your group participate in the stop souter rally that advertised on that flyer that went out, did you participate in that? >> ms. pearl: i do not know the 18:42:44.6 answer that. >> mr. hatch: i don't either. i seem to recall planned parenthood did. they had a right to. that was wrong. and so what i'm saying, it's one thing to say they think a 18:43:01.5 person may vote one way on the court, but you don't know how justice roberts will vote. i don't know how he will vote. you may be right. you may be wrong, as planned parenthood -- i think planned 18:43:16.0 parenthood was part of it. now the alliance for justice, naral, the leadership conference on civil rights, they were all wrong, on those three justices. now, if we -- if we make these decisions solely because 18:43:31.1 somebody thinks somebody might not live up to what they think is the -- the law should be, there would be very few people ever privileged to serve on the united states supreme court if both sides started to play that game. 18:43:46.2 so all i can say is this your organization is a great organization, i don't agree with some of the policies, but i've supported you with regard to some aspects of the work that you're trying to do, but not on the abortion side of it. but it seems to me that there's 18:44:02.9 a responsibility to not prejudge people who have the eminent qualifications that judge roberts has. and that's -- that worries me just a wee bit, but i've been interested in your testimony 18:44:17.7 and certainly have listened to it, and as i have to all of you. i welcome my old friend robert reich here. he's a controversial person that makes us all think more all the time. 18:44:32.4 you have done it here today deliberately, i know. do i respect you and appreciate you, but -- and i like alternative points of view, i think that's a good thing for our society. you certainly present plenty of them for us to think about up here, both democrats and 18:44:48.9 republicans. thank you, mr. chairman 124-6789 thank you. senator kennedy. >> mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome the panel and particularly welcome bob reich. a long time friend, i've been a great admirer to his commitment 18:45:05.6 to public policy and public life generally. it's been an extraordinary career for he and his wife as well who shared a strong commitment to public service. dr. reich, let me ask you. 18:45:25.2 the -- judge roberts in one of his statements said the courts are passive institutions. is that -- how do you react to that as a concept. 18:45:36.9 is that your view about where -- what the courts are, what the courts can be, what the courts should be in trying -- in particular to help the country respond to this extraordinary challenge which 18:45:52.1 all americans are reminded of, this past couple of weeks with katrina when we sort of tore back the fabric of america in the gulf states, and saw so many people that have been left out and left behind. we are not talking about 18:46:10.8 handouts, but talking about a hand up. and shouldn't the courts be a part of a process where the executive and the congress and the courts are moving in harmony to try to make this a fairer country and more equitable land and if that is 18:46:27.2 so, what's your reaction to the comment that the courts are passive institutions? >> mr. reich: senator, the courts are not passive. anybody who watches carefully, reads supreme court opinions, looks at the history of the 18:46:42.8 supreme court, understands they are far from passive institutions. interpretations of the 14th amendment, equal protection clause, have historically changed the face of this nation in terms of bringing minorities and women 18:46:56.7 into the mainstream. when i was secretary of labor, one of my duties was implement the family medical leave act. that was hard-fought piece of legislation. you were actively involved, first piece of legislation passed by the clinton administration we got through, 18:47:11.9 at least signed into law by bill clinton. well, we did some regulations pursuant to that. some common-sense regulations struck down by this supreme court in a very close 5-4 decision, i believe i'm right, said that particular regulation 18:47:28.6 simply required that an employer notify an employee of his or her family medical leave rights, was inconsistent with the purpose of the act. well, a judgment that a 18:47:43.3 particular regulation is inconsistent with the purpose of an act is not a neutral, passive decision. the court is an active instrument of public policy. it has values, social policy, economic policy, and look at -- senator, all of you, i 18:48:00.8 understand this is of ton woman there's not a lot -- there are not a lot of decisions, court decisions, there's memoranda, had difficulty getting from the administration, lot of pieces of information, but, and it's presumptuous of me to tell you 18:48:16.1 what to do, but the stakes are so huge here for the country, i don't -- i don't see how you can in good faith, given that the court is not a passive institution, turn the country over to a court, and it will be 18:48:32.4 turning the country over to a court where you don't know what's going to happen. >> mr. kennedy: i was somewhat disappointed that in the various areas of public policy where judge roberts had been so 18:48:47.6 active, i mean he had obviously solicited the job to serve in the administration, selected by the administration, do serve in the justice department and felt very comfortable, idea 18:49:05.0 logically being there. his commitment to public service, he wanted to be in there and felt very comfortable and was promoted all the way through there. he had the series of memorandas, stating administration position, and it 18:49:19.5 was always a question whether this was just stating a position or what percent of this was his own views. the point that i thought was somewhat disappointing was when asked given that was 20 years ago, would you -- what was your 18:49:36.1 position today on these issues. it seemed to me to be pretty ordinary that people would say, look, those are my views then, those are the administration today, i look at x, y and z, whether it is on the issues of 18:49:51.0 civil rights, whether it is on women's rights, whether it was on the issues and grove city which is always amazing to me after we had thought through all of the civil rights act, that an individual could feel 18:50:05.8 and with all the money that was going to universities with tuition, which was keeping them running. that you would have an individual that would say, well, we wanted just program specific, so if they don't discriminate in the admissions -- the financial 18:50:22.4 office, admissions office, they can discriminate wherever they want at the university. i mean, after we had gone through so much in terms of the battle to end discrimination, and the american people were t 18:50:37.8 a position where they felt we shouldn't permit taxpayers to be funded for discriminatory purposes. i think my time is over. i think the chairman might give you 15 seconds or something to respond, if you can. >> mr. reich: what's come out 18:50:55.3 so far, this man is a nice fellow, people like him, he's a very, very bright if not brilliant jurist and extremely thoughtful lawyer, but he has certain idealogical predispositions. 18:51:11.6 he has values, those values are way to the right of the mainstream in america. i don't think there's any question about it. and so it is up to all of you to decide whether you want to put somebody in as chief justice who is that far the right. 18:51:28.3 i think it's as simple and direct as that. >> mr. specter: thank you, senator kennedy. senator sessions. >> mr. sessions: senator hatch left, but here's the stop souter or women will die i just found, i guess that did not prove to be a good prediction except a lot of women partially 18:51:46.3 born have died since justice souter went on the court. >> mr. specter: make that part of the record. >> mr. sessions: i would offer that for the record. 18:51:56.3 i think, mr. reich, that judge roberts has a value that he's expressed articulately, beautifully, repeatedly. that he loves the law. he loves the court. 18:52:12.0 and he believes a court has a rule, has a role to be a neutral arbiter, and not to impose his personal views, and i don't think that's a -- i don't think he brings that because he may be politically conservative and believes in 18:52:27.7 lower taxes and whatever he believes in politically. i think that's his deepest and highest value that was repeatedly stated here many times. i think that's exactly what we need in the courts of america today. i think the people of this country will be mores areful of 18:52:45.8 the court --ful of the court if they return to that role. >> ms. thistlethwaite: el this wait, i've tried to think over the years about appropriate approaches to the church/state issue i'm methodist myself and 18:53:02.0 been involved in these things. i see you're liberation theologist. let me say this, you've expressed some pretty strong views about the need for a wall between church and state and just yesterday, the supreme 18:53:20.0 court -- a district court, following what it thought was the command of the 9th circuit ruled that the pledge of allegiance which has under god in it, is unconstitutional. do you have an opinion about 18:53:34.7 that. >> ms. thistlethwaite: -- exception session i think it's in which ways consistent with some rulings in the supreme court as i schaefered with judge roberts and i think it's perhaps inconsistent with others. how do you feel about the wisdom of having those words in the pledge of allegiance. 18:53:48.9 >> ms. thistlethwaite: i'm very interested, senator sessions to know whether you think people will be increased in their faith if they just say those words repetitively. i don't know what the goal is if it is not to establish a 18:54:07.0 theistic religion. if it is to include the words so that they can be historical, as i'm citing from the founders, god doesn't need your help. so if it's historical, that was 18:54:21.8 added to the pledge of allegiance. it was not even original in the pledge. i look at the people out on the street demonstrating. they seem to feel the people in favor after the -- after the press show us the pictures of 18:54:39.1 people demonstrating after this decision was made, and the people seemed to feel it is prayer, and if it is prayer, then i think it's unconstitutional. >> mr. sessions: well, what about i guess you would 18:54:53.2 share -- you would further say that we should take in god we trust off the coins. >> ms. thistlethwaite: do i think it's a good idea to confuse caesar and god? no, i don't. render unto caesar what is 18:55:11.0 caesar's and what is god. >> mr. sessions: you would oppose the chaplain of the united states senate. would you oppose the position of chaplain in the united states senate? >> ms. thistlethwaite: do i think you all need spiritual guidance? 18:55:29.2 >> mr. sessions: that's part of it, perhaps. >> ms. thistlethwaite: i think it's okay if you rotate it around. but i'm not the constitutional lawyer. i'm a pastor. i'm kind of in favor of pastoral care. >> mr. sessions: i would say this, i think that it is an 18:55:46.9 absolute truth that our government was founded on a principle that we are created beings with certain inalienable rights, and when you get in a secular like the marxist 18:56:04.1 ideologies that they have no respect for life, not the same degree of it, i think it's a unique portion of our great american spirit that every human being is respected specially because we believe they were created and such 18:56:20.5 words as under god or in god we trust, i think are not sectarian, i do not believe they establish a religion, but it's simply reflects a consensus view of probably 18:56:33.2 90 percent of americans that there is a higher being and i think that the supreme court authorities on these matters are somewhat strained and confusing and perhaps judge roberts can improve that. 18:56:48.5 i certainly hope so. i think my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. specter: senator coburn, 18:56:55.6 you have the last word. >> mr. coburn: thank you, mr. chairman. since i do, i would just like to compliment you and senator leahy. >> mr. specter: we can't hear you. >> mr. coburn: i'll say it again and again if my budget's increased. 18:57:10.6 i'd be happy to say it. but as a freshman senator, the way this hearing's been conducted, the leadership that you, mr. chairman and you, mr. leahy, have conducted it under, i think is reflective of good qualities of the united 18:57:29.1 states senate and the country. and it kind of leads me to the questions that i had especially for dr. thistlethwaite, the last statement you said, you're not convinced that john roberts believes in the dream of 18:57:45.3 america. and i'm just wondering could anybody of conservative values believe in that dream? is it possible because -- i don't know john roberts' actual. i go to bed at night worrying if he is on the supreme court, 18:58:02.4 i have completely opposite views about reproduction and other issues, but the question is, can somebody have values different conservative values and believe in the dream of america, be a good judge. is that possible. 18:58:17.6 >> ms. thistlethwaite: i was very impressed by the gentleman who spoke last on the left panel who was testifying to the fact that the definition of the word conservative has changed. >> ms. thistlethwaite: -- 18:58:34.8 >> mr. coburn: i'm a known quantity, all right. i'm a known quantity. people know my opinions, i'm not very quiet about them, sometimes to my own ill benefit. but the fact is, is it talks about what senator kennedy talked about, and senator feinstein, do they have a heart 18:58:52.1 and the question is, can somebody have a set of values that are different than what you perceive to be okay for the american dream and still have the heart of a senator kennedy and make a good judge? i'm very confused about what i 18:59:08.8 consider a very inflammatory statement about judge roberts in your closing. because what it does, it castigates people into categories, the very thing jesus said we don't do. and to me, it's concerning that 18:59:26.4 we have this decision that we have already decided how he's going to decide. i spent two hours with him, and i'm as pro life as they come and i can't tell you where he's going to be, and i tried to 18:59:40.0 find out, and if i spent two hours with him, how do you all know he's not going to be and how do you know based on the history of the judges that have come before this committee before who the same claims were made about and the opposite 18:59:56.0 results came about. and i think it undermines the testimony, and i think it lends for us to go back and reconsider as a nation, all of us, the people i represent, the viewpoints i represent, and the viewpoints you represent, that
KAGAN HEARING - WITNESS 1300 - 1400
Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation hearing The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the nomination of Elena Kagan, Solicitor General to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. 10 minute opening statements, introduction of Kagan, Kagan sworn in, Kagan opening statement 13:00:00 ORRIN HATCH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. TODAY IS A SAD DAY WITH THE 13:00:04 PASSING OF OUR GREAT COLLEAGUE SENATOR ROBERT BYRD THIS 13:00:09 MORNING, AND THE DEATH YESTERDAY OF RUTH GINSBURG'S HUSBAND. 13:00:17 AND HIS LOVE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR THIS 13:00:21 LEGISLATIVE BODY WAS WELL-KNOWN. HE STOOD UP FOR IT ALL THE TIME. 13:00:26 AND OF COURSE, I HAD NOTHING BUT GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:29 I REMEMBER IN THE EARLY YEARS, HE WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH ME AND 13:00:32 FRANKLY I WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH HIM EITHER. 13:00:34 BUT IN THE END, I GAINED SUCH TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:40 AND LOVE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE DIFFERED ON SO MANY ISSUES. 13:00:43 HE WAS A TOWERING FIGURE. THE GINSBURGS CELEBRATED THEIR 13:00:47 56th WEDDING ANNIVERSARY JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. 13:00:51 NOT AS LONG AS THE 68 YEARS THAT SENATOR AND URMA BYRD WERE 13:00:57 MARRIED BEFORE HER DEATH. CANCER WAS A PART OF THE 13:01:01 GINSBURGS' INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND THEIR LIFE TOGETHER. 13:01:03 AND FOR MANY YEARS AND I KNOW EACH OF THEM WAS A SOURCE OF 13:01:06 STRENGTH AND STABILITY TO THE OTHER. 13:01:08 THE GINSBURGS HAVE BEEN A MODEL OF DIGNITY AND GRACE AND JUSTICE 13:01:12 GINSBURG AND HER CHILDREN WILL BE IN MY PRAYERS. 13:01:15 I WANT TO WELCOME YOU BACK TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, GENERAL 13:01:17 KAGAN. SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS 13:01:21 LIKELY TO BE YOUR LAST CONFIRMATION HEARING. 13:01:26 AS AMERICA'S FOUNDERS DESIGNED IT, THE SENATE'S ROLE OF ADVICE 13:01:31 AND CONSENT IS A CHECK. FULFILLING THAT ROLE REQUIRES US 13:01:34 TO EVALUATE A NOMINEE FOR WHICH HE'S BEEN NOMINATED. 13:01:41 INCLUDE BOTH LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. 13:01:49 WHILE LEGAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARIZES THE PAST, JUDICIAL 13:01:52 PHILOSOPHY DESCRIBES HOW A NOMINEE WILL APPROACH JUDGING IN 13:01:57 THE FUTURE. MY PRIMARY GOAL IN THIS 13:01:59 CONFIRMATION PROCESS IS TO GET THE BEST PICTURE I CAN OF 13:02:03 GENERAL KAGAN'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, PRIMARILY FROM HER 13:02:07 RECORD, BUT ALSO FROM THIS HEARING, AS WELL. 13:02:10 I HAVE TO MAKE MY DECISION WHETHER TO SUPPORT OR NOT 13:02:15 SUPPORT HER NOMINATION ON EVIDENCE NOT ON BLIND FAITH. 13:02:18 I'VE NEVER CONSIDERED THE LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE TO BE AN 13:02:26 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFIER FOR A JUDICIAL NOMINEE. 13:02:30 MANY HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:02:32 WHAT THEY DID HAVE, HOWEVER, AN AVERAGE OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF 13:02:35 PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, SUPREME COURT 13:02:40 NOMINEES HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE BEHIND THE BENCH AS A JUDGE 13:02:42 BEFORE THE BENCH AS A LAWYER OR BOTH. 13:02:46 MS. KAGAN WORKED FOR TWO YEARS IN THE LAW FIRM, THE REST OF HER 13:02:51 CAREER IS IN ACADEMIA AND POLITICS. 13:02:54 AS THE "WASHINGTON POST" DESCRIBES, SHE BRINGS EXPERIENCE 13:02:58 IN THE POLITICAL CIRCUITS THAT OFTEN DEFINES WASHINGTON. 13:03:01 ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES RECENTLY SAID MS. KAGAN'S 13:03:05 STRONGEST QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT ARE HER EXPERIENCE 13:03:08 IN CRAFTING POLICY AND HER ABILITY TO BUILD CONSENSUS. 13:03:12 THE VALUE OF SUCH EXPERIENCE DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU VIEW THE 13:03:15 SUPREME COURT AS A POLITICAL CIRCUS OR VIEW ITS ROLE AS 13:03:17 CRAFTING POLICY. I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST 13:03:21 IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE IS THE 13:03:26 NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR HER APPROACH TO INTERPRETING AND 13:03:28 APPLYING THE LAW TO DECIDE CASES. 13:03:30 THIS IS WHAT JUDGES DO. BUT DIFFERENT JUDGES DO IT IN 13:03:34 RALLY DIFFERENT WAYS. OUR LIBERTY, HOWEVER, REQUIRES 13:03:39 LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT, AND THAT INCLUDES LIMITS ON JUDGES. 13:03:44 CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL WROTE IN MARBURY VERSUS MADISON THAT 13:03:52 AMERICAN FOUNDERS ENCOURAGED. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY JUDGES DO 13:03:56 NOT SEE IT THAT WAY BUT BELIEVE THEY MAY THEMSELVES GOVERN THE 13:03:58 CONSTITUTION. THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN 13:04:01 PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHICH KIND OF JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN WILL 13:04:04 BE. WILL THE CONSTITUTION CONTROL 13:04:09 HER? OR WILL SHE TRY TO CONTROL THE 13:04:10 CONSTITUTION? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT THE WORDS 13:04:13 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES CAN BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR 13:04:16 MEANING SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES 13:04:19 PUT WORDS ON THE PAGE BUT JUDGES MAY DETERMINE WHAT THOSE WORDS 13:04:23 ACTUALLY MEAN? DOES SHE BELIEVE IT IS VALID FOR 13:04:25 JUDGES TO MOLD AND STEER THE LAW TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS? 13:04:30 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT A JUDGE'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND VALUES 13:04:32 MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN HER DECISIONS? 13:04:36 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT COURTS EXIST TO PROTECT CERTAIN 13:04:38 INTERESTS? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT JUDGES MAY 13:04:43 CONTROL THE CONSTITUTION BY CHANGING ITS MEANING? 13:04:46 DOES SHE BELIEVE THE JUDGES MAY CHANGE THE MEANING OF STATUTES 13:04:49 IN ORDER TO MEET WHAT JUDGES BELIEVE ARE NEW SOCIAL 13:04:51 OBJECTIVES? THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE 13:04:55 QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF A NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL 13:04:56 PHILOSOPHY. I WANT TO CLARIFY AS BEST AS I 13:05:00 CAN WHAT KIND OF JUDGES -- WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN 13:05:03 WOULD BE. TO DO THAT, I HAVE TO EXAMINE 13:05:09 HER ENTIRE RECORD. AS IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, THERE 13:05:13 WILL NO DOUBT BE SOME TENSION DURING THIS HEARING BETWEEN WHAT 13:05:16 SENATORS WANT TO KNOW AND WHAT GENERAL KAGAN IS WILLING TO TELL 13:05:18 US. UNLIKE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, MS. 13:05:23 KAGAN HAS ALREADY OUTLINED VERY CLEARLY WHAT SHE BELIEVES THE 13:05:28 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT IN A 13:05:29 HEARING LIKE THIS. MS. KAGAN WROTE THE SENATE 13:05:36 BECOMES INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY EVALUATING OR APPROPRIATELY 13:05:42 EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, END QUOTE. SHE IDENTIFIED THE POLITICAL 13:05:45 INQUIRY ABOUT A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE AS "THE VOTES SHE WOULD 13:05:49 CAST, THE PERSPECTIVE SHE WOULD ADD, AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH 13:05:51 SHE WOULD MOVE THE INSTITUTION." BUT THE BOTTOM LINE ISSUE AND 13:05:54 THE APPOINTMENTS PROCESS MUST CONCERN THE KINDS OF JUDICIAL 13:05:58 DECISIONS THAT WILL SERVE THE COUNTRY AND THE EFFECT THE 13:06:03 NOMINEE WILL HAVE ON THE COURT'S DECISIONS. 13:06:05 IF THAT IS TOO RESULTS ORIENTED, SO BE IT, UNQUOTE. 13:06:10 MS. KAGAN OUTLINED THAT APPROACH, WHICH SHE ARGUED AS 13:06:13 NECESSARY FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARINGS TO BE MORE 13:06:21 THAN FARCE. WHEN SHE WAS WORKING ON THIS 13:06:24 COMMITTEE FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. 13:06:27 I BELIEVE YOU'LL BE HEARING A LOT ABOUT YOUR REMARKS IN THE 13:06:29 PAST. SHE WAS NOT A STUDENT WRITING A 13:06:34 BLOG ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL TOPIC SHE KNEW ABOUT. 13:06:37 I'M CONFIDENT THAT SENATORS WILL GIVE MS. KAGAN MANY 13:06:40 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION 13:06:43 AND INSIGHT THAT SHE HAS ARGUED IS CRITICAL FOR THE SENATE TO 13:06:47 PROPERLY MAKE A DECISION ON HER CONFIRMATION. 13:06:50 THIS IS A CRITICAL DECISION. AND IT IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST 13:06:52 ONE PERSON. OUR DECISION WILL AFFECT LIBERTY 13:06:57 ITSELF. GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID THIS IN 13:07:00 HIS FEDERAL ADDRESS. "THE BASIS OF OUR POLITICAL 13:07:03 SYSTEMS IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE AND ORDER THEIR 13:07:07 CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. BUT THE CONSTITUTION AT WHICH 13:07:11 ANY TIME EXISTS TILL CHANGED BY AN EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACT OF 13:07:15 THE WHOLE PEOPLE IS SACREDLY OBLIGATORY UPON ALL." 13:07:18 THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO MAKE AND ORDER THE CONSTITUTION MEANS 13:07:21 NOTHING IF THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THE CONSTITUTION'S WORDS, THE JUDGES 13:07:29 CHOOSE WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. A JUDGE WITH THAT MUCH POWER 13:07:32 WOULD EFFECTIVELY TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND NOT THE 13:07:36 CONSTITUTION, BUT HERSELF. I HOPE THIS WILL HELP ME FURTHER 13:07:40 UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE MS. KAGAN WOULD BE. 13:07:43 AND I WISH YOU WELL AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THESE 13:07:45 HEARINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 13:07:54 CHAIRMAN. AND I LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A WORD 13:07:58 ABOUT SENATOR BYRD. I SERVED ON THE APPROPRIATIONS 13:08:00 COMMITTEE FOR 16 OUT OF MY 18 YEARS IN THE SENATE. 13:08:04 SENATOR BYRD WAS THE CHAIRMAN, HE WAS TOUGH, HE WAS STRONG, HE 13:08:11 CARED. MANY TIMES THE CONSTITUTION 13:08:13 POPPED OUT OF HIS VEST POCKET. HE CERTAINLY WAS -- I THINK IN 13:08:20 ANYONE'S BOOK A TITAN IN THE SENATE. 13:08:23 AND HE'S LEFT AN INDELIBLE IMPRINT. 13:08:24 HE WILL BE MISSED. TODAY LET'S WELCOME ELENA KAGAN. 13:08:32 OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THERE'S BEEN A DRIFT NET OUT TRYING TO 13:08:38 FIND SOME DISQUALIFYING FACT OR FACTOR. 13:08:42 BUT TO DATE, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY SUCH FACTOR HAS BEEN FOUND. 13:08:47 I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE IMMINENTLY CONFIRMABLE. 13:08:50 YOUR EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE, MAKES YOU A VERY STRONG NOMINEE 13:08:52 FOR THE COURT. YOU'RE THE FIRST WOMAN SOLICITOR 13:08:54 GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS THE 13:09:02 ONLY FEDERAL OFFICIAL THAT'S REQUIRED IN STATUTE TO BE 13:09:09 "LEARNED IN THE LAW." OF THE 45 PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELD 13:09:15 THE JOB, FIVE HAVE GONE ON TO THE SUPREME COURT. 13:09:18 YOU HAVE FILED HUNDREDS OF BRIEFS BEFORE THE COURT, YOU 13:09:20 HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED LAW. AND YOU HAVE THE SUPREME COURT 13:09:26 OF NEARLY EVERY LIVING SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:09:29 YOU ARE THE FIRST WOMAN DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:09:32 THERE YOU DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS A LEADER WHO BROUGHT ALL 13:09:35 SIDES TO THE TABLE. YOU'RE A LEGAL ADVISER TO 13:09:40 PRESIDENT CLINTON, SERVED AS ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL, 13:09:44 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL, AND YOU COVERED 13:09:48 SOME TOUGH ISSUES. TOBACCO REFORM, IMPORTATION OF 13:09:52 RAPID FIRE ASSAULT WEAPONS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WOMEN'S 13:09:57 HEALTH, ABORTION. WHAT COMES ACROSS IN REVIEWING 13:10:01 YOUR WRITINGS IS THAT YOU WERE A VALUABLE ADVISER. 13:10:06 SMART, REASONABLE, HIGHLY RESPECTED, PRINCIPLED. 13:10:10 YOU ALSO SERVED AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THIS COMMITTEE DURING 13:10:15 THE GINSBURG CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. 13:10:18 THE BIGGEST CRITICISM I'VE SEEN OUT THERE IS YOU'VE NEVER BEEN A 13:10:22 JUDGE. FRANKLY, I FIND THIS REFRESHING. 13:10:28 THE ROBERTS COURT IS THE FIRST SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY TO BE 13:10:31 COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF FORMER FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS 13:10:34 JUDGES. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE 13:10:38 COURT OVER 1/3 OF THE JUSTICES, 38 OUT OF 111 HAVE HAD NO PRIOR 13:10:45 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE 13:10:49 WILLIAM REHNQUIST WHO WAS A LAW CLERK FOR THE SUPREME COURT, 13:10:53 WORKED FOR A LAW FIRM, AND THEN WAS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 13:10:57 IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE EARL 13:11:01 WARREN WHO RETURNED FROM WORLD WAR II TO PROSECUTE CASES AS AN 13:11:07 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY BEFORE -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE 13:11:09 BECOMING CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GOVERNOR. 13:11:12 AND THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE HARLAN FISK STONE WHO WAS DEAN 13:11:20 OF COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:11:22 THESE JUSTICES ALSO HAD NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:11:26 BUT THEIR BACKGROUNDS PROVED VALUE NONETHELESS. 13:11:30 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, I BELIEVE, IS NOT A MECHANICAL 13:11:32 ENDEAVOR. LIKE COMPLETING A MATH EQUATION. 13:11:38 THE MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER CANNOT TELL US WHETHER THE 13:11:40 PRESIDENT'S POWERS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF ALLOW HIM TO EXCEED THE 13:11:45 BOUNDS OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT 13:11:47 AND OTHER STATUTES IN WARTIME. NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHETHER 13:11:52 CONGRESSIONAL LAWS BARRING GUNS FROM THE GROUNDS OF SCHOOLS OR 13:11:57 IMPLEMENTING NEW HEALTH INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE 13:12:01 WITHIN CONGRESS'S ARTICLE ONE POWERS. 13:12:03 NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHAT THE 14th AMENDMENT'S PROMISE OF 13:12:07 EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW MEANS FOR STUDENTS IN OUR PUBLIC 13:12:09 SCHOOLS. THESE QUESTIONS ARE AMONG OUR 13:12:15 NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT. AND IT TAKES MORE THAN AN UMPIRE 13:12:17 TO FIND THEIR ANSWERS. IN RECENT YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A 13:12:21 RADICAL CHANGE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS ON DISPLAY EVEN 13:12:25 THIS MORNING. THIS MORNING, I WAS EXTREMELY 13:12:31 DISMAYED TO LEARN OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN McDONALD VERSUS THE 13:12:34 CITY OF CHICAGO. HOLDING THAT COMMON SENSE STATE 13:12:40 AND LOCAL GUN LAWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY NOW WILL BE SUBJECT TO 13:12:44 FEDERAL LAWSUITS. THIS DECISION AND ITS 13:12:48 PREDECESSOR, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HELLER HAVE 13:12:54 DISREGARDED THE PRECEDENT OF 71 YEARS EMBEDDED IN THE UNITED 13:12:59 STATES V. MILLER, A 1939 CASE. I FIND THAT SHOCKING AS A FORMER 13:13:03 MAYOR. I BELIEVE THE PROLIFERATION OF 13:13:08 GUNS HAVE MADE THIS NATION LESS SAFE, NOT MORE SAFE. 13:13:11 WE NOW HAVE MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:13:16 THEY ARE SOLD EVERYWHERE. ON STREET CORNERS, IN GUN SHOWS, 13:13:20 WITH NO RESTRAINT WHATSOEVER. ANY TYPE OF WEAPON. 13:13:23 THEY FALL INTO THE HANDS OF JUVENILES, CRIMINALS, AND THE 13:13:28 MENTALLY ILL VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 13:13:33 AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS THROWN ASIDE SEVEN DECADES OF PRECEDENT 13:13:37 TO EXACERBATE THIS SITUATION. FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE 13:13:41 BEEN REVEALED THUS FAR, I AM ENCOURAGED THAT SOLICITOR KAGAN 13:13:48 HOLDS STARRY DECISIS IN HIGH REGARD. 13:13:59 FOR EXAMPLE, AT HARVARD, SHE EXPRESSED STRONG DISAGREEMENT 13:14:03 WITH DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. BUT SHE ALLOWED MILITARY T 13:14:08 RECRUITMENT TO CONTINUE. THE NUMBER OF RECRUITS DID NOT 13:14:15 DIMINISH. I BELIEVE IT INCREASED. 13:14:17 AND AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, SHE DEFENDED THE POLICY' 13:14:20 CONSTITUTIONALITY. ARGUING THAT THE COURT SHOULD 13:14:25 DEFER TO THE JUDGMENT. DURING THE CLINTON 13:14:29 ADMINISTRATION, SHE ADVISED THE BUREAU THAT IT COULD NOT BAN 13:14:34 IMPORTATION. A PRE-1994 LARGE CAPACITY 13:14:37 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. 13:14:42 THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, I BOTH WANTED TO 13:14:48 BAN THESE IMPORTS. SHE ARGUED SUCCESSFULLY THAT THE 13:14:50 LAW SIMPLY DID NOT GIVE THE BUREAU THAT AUTHORITY. 13:14:55 ELENA KAGAN HAS WRITTEN THAT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS SHOULD BE A 13:15:02 SUBSTANTIVE ONE THAT THE KIND OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE 13:15:03 MOST TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATION OF A NOMINATION WOULD 13:15:08 INCLUDE DISCUSSION FIRST OF THE NOMINEE'S BROAD JUDICIAL 13:15:12 PHILOSOPHY AND SECOND OF HER VIEWS ON PARTICULAR 13:15:15 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. I AGREE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A 13:15:20 MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION THIS WEEK. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THIS NOMINEE -- 13:15:26 THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN SMOOTH SO FAR. 13:15:29 ONE NEWSPAPER EVEN CALLED IT A SNOOZE FEST. 13:15:33 IF IT IS, IT IS BECAUSE ELENA KAGAN IS UNQUESTIONABLY 13:15:41 QUALIFIED. OVER 170,000 DOCUMENTS HAVE 13:15:43 UNMASKED HER AS AN EVEN-HANDED LEGAL SCHOLAR WITH A STERLING 13:15:49 REPUTATION. EACH NEW SET OF DOCUMENTS MAKES 13:15:50 IT CLEARER THAT HER VIEWS FALL WITHIN THE MODERATE MAINSTREAM 13:15:56 OF LEGAL THINKING IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:15:59 SO AT THIS STAGE, I SEE NO IMPEDIMENT TO CONFIRMATION. 13:16:04 I HOPE THE WEEK ENDS THE SAME WAY. 13:16:10 I LOOK FORWARD TO PROCEEDING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:16:15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINSTEIN. 13:16:18 AND I THANK THE SENATORS FOR KEEPING UNDER THE TIME LINE. 13:16:29 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:16:31 IT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT APPOINTMENT. 13:16:33 OBVIOUSLY A REAL HONOR. I ALSO WELCOME YOUR FAMILY AND 13:16:37 FRIENDS, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY PROUD OF YOUR NOMINATION, AND I'M GLAD 13:16:40 THEY'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU. I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT 13:16:44 THIS PROCESS IS FAIR AND RESPECTFUL, BUT ALSO THOROUGH. 13:16:50 THE CONSTITUTION TASKS OUR SENATE WITH CONDUCTING A 13:16:51 PRESENCIVE REVIEW OF NOMINEE'S RECORD. 13:17:01 CONSEQUENTLY THE SENATE HAS A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO 13:17:03 ENSURE THAT YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUSTICE AND 13:17:08 THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 13:17:10 WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF CONFIRMED, YOU'LL BE TRUE TO THE 13:17:15 CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN. 13:17:17 WE HAD A NICE MEETING IN MY OFFICE. 13:17:21 YOU HAVE AN ACCOMPLISHED ACADEMIC AND POLICY BACKGROUND. 13:17:23 YOU'VE EXCELLED AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:27 YOU WERE AN OXFORD SCHOLAR, CLERKED ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT IN 13:17:31 THE SUPREME COURT, YOU WERE A LAW PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF 13:17:34 CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL AS WELL AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:37 YOU WERE A LAWYER HERE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND THEN 13:17:39 WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION, YOU'RE NOW THE 13:17:46 UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL. NOBODY CAN QUESTION SUCH 13:17:48 ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHAT IS LACKING FROM YOUR 13:17:54 BACKGROUND IS ANY EXPERIENCE ON ANY COURT OR MUCH EXPERIENCE AS 13:17:58 A PRACTICING LAWYER. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIVE 13:18:02 EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY TO TRANSITION FROM BEING 13:18:04 A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR POLITICAL OPERATIVE TO A FAIR AND 13:18:10 IMPARTIAL JURIST. WE'LL NEED TO ACQUIRE THAT 13:18:13 EVIDENCE THROUGH YOUR WRITINGS AND THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:18:15 OVER THE YEARS AS WELL AS YOUR TESTIMONY. 13:18:19 ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS IN A CANDID AND FORTHRIGHT MANNER 13:18:22 HOPEFULLY WILL FILL THAT VOID. WE KNOW YOU CANNOT COMMIT TO 13:18:24 RULING IN A CERTAIN WAY OR FOR A PARTICULAR PARTY. 13:18:29 OUR GOAL IS TO SEE IF YOU WILL EXERCISE JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. 13:18:34 WE WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU'LL EXERCISE A PREEMINENT 13:18:38 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A JUSTICE BY ADHERING TO THE LAW AND NOT 13:18:40 PUBLIC OPINION. POLICY CHOICES NEED TO BE 13:18:44 RESERVED FOR THOSE OF US ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF 13:18:48 GOVERNMENT. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:18:52 NOMINEE WHO HAS SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES. 13:18:57 BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A NOMINEE WHO 13:18:59 WON'T COME WITH RESULTS. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:19:12 SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WHO WILL FAITHFULLY INTERPRET THE LAW AND 13:19:17 CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PERSONAL BIAS. 13:19:20 THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN A JUDGE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. 13:19:22 BUT BECAUSE OF LACK OF JUDGING EXPERIENCE, IT'S EVEN MORE 13:19:26 CRITICAL THAT WE'RE PERSUADED THAT YOU HAVE THE PROPER 13:19:30 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND WILL PRACTICE IT. 13:19:33 WE MUST BE CONVINCED THAT YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT 13:19:36 QUALIFICATION OF A JUSTICE. THAT QUALIFICATION IS THE 13:19:38 ABILITY TO SET ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS AND POLITICAL 13:19:42 BELIEFS SO THAT YOU CAN ADMINISTER EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL 13:19:46 IN A DISPASSIONATE WAY. YOUR RELATIVELY THIN RECORD 13:19:51 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU'VE BEEN A POLITICAL LAWYER. 13:19:53 YOUR PAPERS FROM THE CLINTON LIBRARY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED 13:19:55 AS -- AND THESE AREN'T MY WORDS, A FLARE FOR THE POLITICAL AND A 13:20:03 FLARE FOR POLITICAL TACTICS. YOU'VE BEEN DESCRIBED AS HAVING 13:20:07 "FINELY TUNED POLITICAL ANTENNA" AND A POLITICAL HEART. 13:20:17 INCLUDING GUN RIGHTS, WELFARE REFORM, ABORTION, WHITEWATER, 13:20:20 AND PAULA JONES CONTROVERSIES. SHOWS THAT YOU FORCEFULLY 13:20:27 PROMOTED LIBERAL POSITIONS AND OFFERED ANALYSES AND 13:20:31 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT OFTEN WERE MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL. 13:20:37 NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR MARSHALL MEMOS INDICATE A LIBERAL AND 13:20:42 SEEMINGLY OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH TO YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. 13:20:46 YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOUR UPBRINGING STEEPED YOU IN DEEPLY 13:20:51 HELD LIBERAL PRINCIPLES. YOU SHOULD KNOW -- OR WE SHOULD 13:20:54 KNOW WHETHER AS YOU'VE SAID YOU HAVE "RETAINED THEM FAIRLY TO 13:21:02 THIS DAY." A JUDGE NEEDS TO BE AN 13:21:09 INDEPENDENT ARBITER. THIS POINT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL 13:21:12 FOR JUSTICES SINCE THE SUPREME COURT ISN'T AS CONSTRAINED TO 13:21:15 FOLLOW PRECEDENT AS THE SAME JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS. 13:21:20 YOU WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THE LAW. 13:21:23 YOU'VE BEEN A PROMINENT MEMBER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TEAM IN 13:21:27 NOMINATING YOU TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, PRESIDENT 13:21:28 OBAMA CLEARLY BELIEVES THAT YOU MEASURED UP TO HIS POLITICAL -- 13:21:36 OR HIS JUDICIAL STANDARD. A JUDGE'S ABILITY, IN OTHER 13:21:40 WORDS, TO EMPATHIZE WITH CERTAIN GROUPS OVER OTHERS. 13:21:45 INDEED, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THAT YOU CREDITED YOUR HERO, 13:21:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL WITH "REMINDING YOU THAT BEHIND THE LAW THERE 13:21:59 ARE STORIES SHAPED BY THE LAW STORIES OF PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT 13:22:02 MIGHT BE CHANGED BY THE LAW." THIS EMPATHY STANDARD HAS BEEN 13:22:05 SOUNDLY REJECTED. A PREFERENCE WHEN -- AND 13:22:15 PREFERENCES WHEN JUDGES DECIDE. IT ENCOURAGES JUDGES TO USURP 13:22:20 THE FUNCTIONS HELD BY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE 13:22:23 BRANCHS OF GOVERNMENT. A JUDGE OR JUSTICE MUST 13:22:26 UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECT THAT STANDARD. 13:22:31 IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE OR 13:22:35 JUDICIAL METHOD. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR 13:22:39 GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION ENVISIONED FOR A ROLE OF THE 13:22:41 JUDICIARY. I'LL BE ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR 13:22:47 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WHETHER YOU WILL ALLOW BIASES AND PERSONAL 13:22:51 PREFERENCES TO DICTATE YOUR JUDICIAL STANDARD. 13:22:54 YOU ONCE WROTE THAT IT "IS NOT NECESSARILY WRONG OR INVALID FOR 13:22:58 JUDGES TO TRY TO MOLD OR STEER THE LAW IN ORDER TO PROMOTE 13:23:05 CERTAIN ETHICAL VALUES AND ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS." 13:23:12 YOU'VE ALSO PRAISED JURORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE ROLE OF A JUDGE 13:23:15 IS TO "DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET THE LAW CATCH UP." 13:23:20 AND AGAIN ANOTHER QUOTE "BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN LAW AND 13:23:23 SOCIETY." TO ME, THIS KIND OF JUDICIAL 13:23:27 PHILOSOPHY ENDORSES JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT 13:23:33 AND HOPEFULLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID BEFORE IS NOT HOW YOU WOULD BE 13:23:37 IN REGARD TO THESE QUOTE WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE SUPREME 13:23:41 COURT. I ASK PERMISSION TO PUT A LONGER 13:23:45 STATEMENT IN THE RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION. 13:23:48 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. KAGAN, WELCOME, AND 13:23:51 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:23:53 LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE LONG HOURS YOU WILL SPEND 13:23:57 WITH US THIS WEEK. LIKE OTHERS, LET ME START, OF 13:24:01 COURSE, BY OFFERING MY CONDOLENCES TO JUSTICE RUTH 13:24:09 BATH GINSBURG AND THE PASSING OF HER 13:24:12 HUSBAND. AND WE JOIN THE PEOPLE IN WEST 13:24:15 VIRGINIA IN MOURNING THE LOSS OF THEIR SENATOR OUR COLLEAGUE 13:24:17 ROBERT BYRD. SENATOR BYRD CARED DEEPLY ABOUT 13:24:21 THE SENATE AND THE CONSTITUTION. AND WE CANNOT HELP BUT THINK OF 13:24:25 HIM AS WE BEGIN THIS PROCESS TODAY. 13:24:27 I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN LEAHY, COMPLIMENT HIM AND HIS STAFF ON 13:24:32 YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS SO OPEN AND 13:24:38 TRANSPARENT. NEARLY 200,000 PAGES OF 13:24:40 DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 13:24:44 ONLINE. I'M PARTICULARLY PLEASED YOU 13:24:46 JOINED WITH THE RANKING MEMBER TO REQUEST A COMPLETE AND TIMELY 13:24:51 SEARCH OF PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES SO AS MUCH ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S 13:24:57 PAST WORK COULD BE REVIEWED AS POSSIBLE. 13:24:59 AND I THINK THAT FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON DESERVES OUR 13:25:01 THANKS, AS WELL, FOR HIS AGREEMENT TO RELEASE TO THE 13:25:03 COMMITTEE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT HE WAS ENTITLED 13:25:07 TO BLOCK UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. 13:25:11 THE SUPREME COURT PLAYS A UNIQUE AND CENTRAL ROLE IN OUR NATION. 13:25:16 JUSTICES HAVE EXTRAORDINARY POWER OVER SOME OF THE MOST 13:25:18 IMPORTANT AND MOST BASIC ASPECTS OF THE LIVES OF AMERICAN 13:25:22 CITIZENS. THE NINE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SIT 13:25:23 ON THE COURT HAVE ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITIES. 13:25:26 AND THOSE OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT 13:25:30 RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL. MS. KAGAN, I HOPE YOU WILL BE 13:25:34 FORTHCOMING IN YOUR ANSWERS SO WE CAN HAVE THE OPEN AND HONEST 13:25:37 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES OUR COUNTRY DESERVES. 13:25:40 IN 2005 WHEN WE BEGAN OUR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR CHIEF 13:25:44 JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE COURT HAD NOT SEEN A NEW MEMBER FOR 11 13:25:47 YEARS. NOW WE'RE BEGINNING THE FOURTH 13:25:49 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. 13:25:51 AND TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE BEGIN A HEARING IN A NOMINATION 13:25:55 THAT COULD RESULT IN THREE WOMEN SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT AT 13:25:57 ONE TIME. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY FROM THE 13:26:01 DAYS WHEN JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS TURNED DOWN FOR A PRESTIGIOUS 13:26:06 CLERKSHIP BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN OR JUSTICE O'CONNOR 13:26:10 GRADUATE FROM STANFORD LAW SCHOOL BUT NO LAW FIRM WOULD 13:26:13 HIRE HER AS A LAWYER, INSTEAD OFFERING HER A POSITION AS A 13:26:16 SECRETARY. WOMEN ARE INCREASINGLY 13:26:20 OUTNUMBERING MEN ON LAW SCHOOL CAMPUSES THROUGHOUT THE NATION 13:26:23 AND I'M PLEASED THAT THE COURT IS BEGINNING TO REFLECT THAT 13:26:25 FACT. I ALSO HOPE THAT WE'LL CONTINUE 13:26:29 TO SEE GREATER DIVERSITY ON THE COURT IN OTHER WAYS INCLUDING 13:26:35 REPRESENTATION FROM MIDWESTERN AND WESTERN STATES. 13:26:38 IT'S IMPORTANT ALL AMERICANS FEELS THE COURT REPRESENTS THEIR 13:26:42 VALUES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE BEST WAY 13:26:45 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS BY SELECTING CANDIDATES THAT 13:26:48 REFLECT THE FULL DIVERSITY OF THIS COUNTRY. 13:26:50 THE COURT IS NOW TAKING SHAPE AND ELENA KAGAN IF SHE IS 13:26:57 NOMINATED WILL SHAPE THE COUNTRY IN THE YEARS TO COME. 13:26:59 THE FREEDOMS OF OUR CITIZENS THAT WILL DECIDE WHAT LIMITS 13:27:04 THERE ARE ON THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CAN SOLVE THE 13:27:07 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT THE COUNTRY FACES. 13:27:10 WILL CONFRONT QUESTIONS OF RACE THAT ARE AS OLD AS OUR NATION 13:27:13 AND AS NEW AS THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE 21st 13:27:17 CENTURY. BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS THAT 13:27:18 WILL COME BEFORE THE COURT IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES ARE SO 13:27:21 WEIGHTY, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT A GROWING SEGMENT OF AMERICANS 13:27:24 SEEM TO HAVE LOST TRUST IN THE COURT AND ITS JUSTICES. 13:27:27 SUPREME COURT CASES BY THEIR NATURE CAN DIVIDE THE COUNTRY. 13:27:31 IMPORTANT CASES WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES ARE 13:27:34 OFTEN DECIDED NOW BY A 5-4 VOTE. SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL 13:27:38 THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT 13:27:41 MADE ON THE BASIS OF AN IDEOLOGICAL OR PARTISAN 13:27:44 POLITICAL AGENDA. THE FAIRNESS, OBJECTIVITY, AND 13:27:50 GOOD FAITH OF JUSTICES SHOULD BE BEYOND QUESTION. 13:27:53 SO AS CHAIRMAN LEAHY SUGGESTED, WHEN A DECISION LIKE THE ONE 13:27:58 HANDED DOWN THIS YEAR BY A 5-4 VOTE IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE 13:28:05 UPROOTS AND UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, THE PUBLIC'S 13:28:08 CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT CAN'T HELP BUT BE SHAKEN. 13:28:11 I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THAT DECISION. 13:28:14 AND IN THE COURT FOR REACHING OUT TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF 13:28:18 ELECTION LAW IN A DRASTIC AND WHOLLY UNNECESSARY WAY. 13:28:21 BY ACTING IN SUCH AN EXTREME AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER. 13:28:26 THE COURT BADLY DAMAGED ITS OWN INTEGRITY BY ELEVATING THE 13:28:30 RIGHTS OF CORPORATION OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, THE COURT 13:28:32 DAMAGED OUR DEMOCRACY. MS. KAGAN, IF YOU'RE CONFIRMED, 13:28:39 I HOPE YOU'LL KEEP THIS IN MIND. I HOPE YOU'LL TREAD CAREFULLY 13:28:44 AND CONSIDER THE COURT AS A WHOLE WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TO 13:28:47 OVERTURN LONG STANDING PRECEDENT WAYS THAT WILL HAVE SUCH A 13:28:50 DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. 13:28:52 YOU HAVE DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS SOMEONE WHO CAN REACH OUT TO 13:28:55 THOSE WITH WHOM YOU MAY NOT AGREE AND WORK TOGETHER. 13:28:57 AND I THINK THAT'S A SKILL THAT WILL PROVE TO BE VERY USEFUL AND 13:29:00 VALUABLE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED. YOU ALSO HAVE AN IMPRESSIVE 13:29:06 EDUCATION. YOU'VE WORKED AT THE HIGHEST 13:29:08 LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. AND YOU'VE TAUGHT AND WRITTEN 13:29:10 ABOUT THE LAW. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU 13:29:12 UNDERSTAND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ROLES OF THE 13:29:17 THREE BRANCHES. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I HOPE 13:29:19 YOU'LL APPRECIATE THE IMPACT THE LAW HAS ON THE LIVES OF ALL 13:29:23 AMERICANS. SO IT'S MY HOPE THAT YOUR 13:29:25 DIVERSE EXPERIENCES, YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND OPENNESS YOUR 13:29:29 TALENT FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE 13:29:33 LONG-TERM DANGERS TO THE COURT AND THE COUNTRY AND ENABLE YOU 13:29:38 IF CONFIRMED TO CONVINCE YOUR COLLEAGUES TO AVOID MAKING 13:29:40 SIMILAR MISTAKES IN THE FUTURE. I ALSO HOPE THAT YOU WILL HAVE 13:29:44 THE WISDOM AND THE COURAGE THAT THE JUSTICE YOU HAVE BEEN 13:29:48 NOMINATED TO REPLACE, JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS SHOWED TIME 13:29:52 AND TIME AGAIN IN DRAWING THE LINE AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH 13:29:55 THAT SOUGHT POWERS THAT ENDANGERED THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 13:29:59 AND FREEDOMS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES. 13:30:03 MS. KAGAN, OF COURSE, JUDGING ISN'T EASY. 13:30:06 IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES. 13:30:08 BECAUSE JUDGES AND PARTICULARLY JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT 13:30:11 ARE CALLED UPON TO APPLY CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES THAT AS 13:30:18 JUSTICE SUTER SAID RECENTLY MAY EXIST IN TENSION WITH EACH 13:30:22 OTHER, NOT IN HARMONY. YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 13:30:24 SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT COMBINATION 13:30:27 OF QUALITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE A GOOD JUSTICE. 13:30:30 I WISH YOU WELL IN THAT TASK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE 13:30:33 CONVERSATION YOU WILL HAVE NOT ONLY WITH ME BUT WITH MY 13:30:35 COLLEAGUES AND WITH THE COUNTRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:30:40 THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINGOLD. 13:30:44 SENATOR KYLE? CONGRATULATIONS SOLICITOR 13:30:48 GENERAL KAGAN AND WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. 13:30:54 I FIRST KNOW IN AGREEMENT, WE DO KNOW MORE DIVERSITY ON THE 13:30:58 COURT. IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS NOW SINCE 13:31:00 AN ARIZONAN HAS BEEN ON THE SUPREME COURT. 13:31:02 I ONLY CONFIRM THEM, I DON'T PICK THEM. 13:31:10 WE SAT IN THE SAME ROOM TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF THEN 13:31:16 JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR. AND TO IMPARTIALLY APPLY THE LAW 13:31:27 TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES. 13:31:30 JUDGE SOTOMAYOR EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE EMPATHY STANDARD 13:31:34 THAT HAD BEEN ESPOUSED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. 13:31:39 A STANDARD WHERE LEGAL PROCESS ALONE IS DEEMED INEFFICIENT FOR 13:31:42 THE SO-CALLED HARD CASES WHERE THE CRITICAL INGREDIENT IS 13:31:46 SUPPLIED BY WHAT IS IN THE JUDGE'S HEART. 13:31:48 PERHAPS BECAUSE HIS FIRST NOMINEE FAILED TO DEFEND THE 13:31:51 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, THE PRESIDENT HAS 13:31:54 REPACKAGED IT. NOW HE SAYS THAT JUDGES SHOULD 13:31:57 HAVE A KEEN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES 13:32:00 OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND NO THAT IN A DEMOCRACY, 13:32:04 POWERFUL INTERESTS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES 13:32:08 OF ORDINARY CITIZENS. THE CLEAR IMPLICATION IS THAT AT 13:32:14 LEAST IN SOME KIND OF CASES, JUDGES SHOULD ABANDON 13:32:18 IMPARTIALITY AND ENGAGE IN RESULTS-ORIENTED JUDGING. 13:32:23 HIS OWN PRESS SECRETARY HAS CONFIRMED THE RESULTS ORIENTED 13:32:27 VIEW. EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF RESULTS IS 13:32:29 THE PRESIDENT LOOKING FOR FROM HIS JUDGES? 13:32:31 PERHAPS HE WANTS JUDGES WHO WILL IGNORE THE SERIOUS 13:32:34 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SURROUNDING SOME OF HIS DOMESTIC 13:32:36 LEGISLATION. OR MAYBE HE WANTS JUDGES WHO 13:32:40 WILL USE THE BENCH TO ADVANCE PROGRESSIVE GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN 13:32:44 STALLED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. 13:32:46 WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION, HIS VIEW OF THE ROLE 13:32:48 OF JUDGES IS WRONG. JUDGES ARE TO APPLY THE LAW 13:32:54 IMPARTIALLY, NOT TAKE ON SOCIAL CAUSES OR CUT DOWN POWERFUL 13:32:57 INTERESTS. WHILE THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH 13:33:03 LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS, IT IS NOT THEIR 13:33:07 PREROGATIVE TO FIX INEQUITIES. PART OF OUR TASK IS TO DETERMINE 13:33:13 WHETHER MS. KAGAN SHARES PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PHILOSOPHIES 13:33:17 OF JUDGING OR IS SHE COMMITTED TO IMPARTIALITY. 13:33:20 WHICH MAY BE A MORE DIFFICULT TASK WITH KAGAN THAN OTHER 13:33:24 SUPREME COURT NOMINEES WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, MOST 13:33:27 OF WHOM HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL JUDICIAL RECORDS TO EVALUATE. 13:33:30 FOR INSTANCE, JUDGE SOTOMAYOR ISSUED 15,000 OPINIONS IN A 13:33:34 DECADE AND A HALF OF DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT SERVICE. 13:33:37 MS. KAGAN HAS NEVER SERVED ON ANY BENCH. 13:33:40 INDEED EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF TWO-YEAR STENT IN PRIVATE 13:33:44 PRACTICE AND ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, MS. KAGAN'S 13:33:47 ENTIRE CAREER HAS BEEN DIVIDED BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND POLICY IN 13:33:52 THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. GIVEN THIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE 13:33:55 PRACTICING LAW, I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE AMERICAN BAR 13:33:57 ASSOCIATION AWARDED HER A WELL-QUALIFIED RATING SINCE THE 13:34:02 ABA'S OWN CRITERIA CALL FOR AMONG OTHER THINGS AT LEAST 12 13:34:07 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. 13:34:10 AND THEY MEAN ACTUAL PRACTICE OF LAW, LIKE FORMER JUSTICES 13:34:13 REHNQUIST AND POWELL. NOT ONLY IS MS. KAGAN'S 13:34:18 BACKGROUND UNUSUAL FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, IT'S NOT CLEAR 13:34:21 HOW IT DEMONSTRATES THAT SHE HAS IN THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS "A KEEN 13:34:25 UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES OF THE 13:34:27 AMERICAN PEOPLE." ONE RECENT ARTICLE NOTED THAT 13:34:31 HER EXPERIENCE DRAWS FROM A WORLD WHOSE SIGN POSTS ARE 13:34:35 DISTANT FROM MOST AMERICANS. MANHATTAN'S UPPER WEST SIDE, 13:34:39 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND THE UPPER 13:34:41 REACHES OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT. 13:34:45 HER CAREER IN ACADEMIA TELLS US RELATIVELY LITTLE ABOUT HER 13:34:49 VIEWS ON LEGAL ISSUES. IN 14 YEARS AS A PROFESSOR, SHE 13:34:54 PUBLISHED ONLY NINE ARTICLES. AND HER TENURE IN THE ACADEMY 13:34:57 WAS MARRED IN MY VIEW BY HER DECISION TO PUNISH THE MILITARY 13:35:00 AND WOULD BE RECRUITS FOR A POLICY DON'T ASK DON'T TELL AND 13:35:07 THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT ENACTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SIGNED 13:35:09 INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON. DESPITE THIS RELATIVELY THIN 13:35:14 PAPER TRAIL, THERE ARE WARNING SIGNS THAT SHE MAY BE EXACTLY 13:35:17 THE RESULTS-ORIENTED JUSTICE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS LOOKING FOR. 13:35:22 CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUDGES THAT MS. KAGAN SAYS SHE 13:35:24 MOST ADMIRES. MS. KAGAN HAS CALLED ISRAELI 13:35:31 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HER JUDICIAL HERO. 13:35:33 JUSTICE BARACK IS SOMEONE WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED AS SOMEONE WHO TOOK 13:35:38 AN ACTIVIST APPROACH TO JUDGING. DESCRIBED AS CREATING A DEGREE 13:35:43 OF JUDICIAL POWER UNDREAMED OF EVEN BY OUR MOST AGGRESSIVE 13:35:46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. MS. KAGAN IDENTIFIED THURGOOD 13:35:50 MARSHALL AS ANOTHER ONE OF HER LEGAL HEROES. 13:35:53 JUSTICE MARSHALL IS A HISTORIC FIGURE IN MANY RESPECTS. 13:35:57 AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT AS ONE OF HIS CLERKS, SHE HELD HIM 13:36:02 IN THE HIGHEST REGARD. HIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS NOT 13:36:04 WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE MAINSTREAM. 13:36:06 AS HE ONCE EXPLAINED, YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET 13:36:09 THE LAW CATCH UP. HE MIGHT BE THE EPITOME OF A 13:36:14 RESULTS ORIENTED JUDGE. AND MS. KAGAN APPEARS TO EMBRACE 13:36:19 THE PHILOSOPHY CALLING IT AMONG OTHER THINGS A THING OF GLORY. 13:36:23 IN 2003, MS. KAGAN WROTE A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE MARSHALL IN 13:36:27 WHICH SHE SAID IN HIS VIEW IT WAS THE ROLE OF THE COURTS AND 13:36:29 INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO WENT 13:36:34 UNPROTECTED BY EVERY OTHER ORGAN OF GOVERNMENT. 13:36:39 THE COURT EXISTED PRIMARILY TO FULFILL THIS MISSION. 13:36:44 AND LATER, WHEN SHE WAS WORKING IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, 13:36:48 SHE ENCOURAGED A COLLEAGUE WORKING ON A SPEECH ABOUT 13:36:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL TO EMPHASIZE HIS UNSHAKABLE DETERMINATION TO 13:36:55 PROTECT THE UNDERDOG. THE PEOPLE WHOM NO ONE ELSE WILL 13:36:57 PROTECT. TO ME THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE 13:37:00 WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS SAYING NOW. 13:37:04 AND MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A SUPREME COURT CLERK FOR JUSTICE 13:37:09 MARSHALL IS EVIDENCE SHE SHARES HIS VISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 13:37:12 IN MANY OF HER MEMOS, MS. KAGAN MADE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING 13:37:16 THE DISPOSITION OF CASES WHICH APPEAR TO BE BASED LARGELY ON 13:37:19 HER OWN LIBERAL POLICY PREFERENCES. 13:37:21 FOR EXAMPLE, DESPITE HER VIEW THAT ONE LOWER COURT'S DECISION 13:37:27 WAS LUDICROUS AND LACKED LEGAL BASIS, MS. KAGAN RECOMMENDED 13:37:31 THAT JUSTICE MARSHALL DENY FURTHER REVIEW BECAUSE OTHERWISE 13:37:34 WOULD LIKELY CREATE SOME VERY BAD LAW ON ABORTION AND OR 13:37:38 PRISONERS' RIGHTS. THIS KIND OF NAKED POLITICAL 13:37:41 JUDGMENT APPEARS FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A 13:37:45 JUDICIAL CLERK. IN ANOTHER CASE SHE SAID THE 13:37:47 SUPREME COURT SHOULD TAKE THE CASE BECAUSE "IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE 13:37:50 THAT THE GOOD GUYS MIGHT WIN ON THIS ISSUE." 13:37:53 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HER CHARACTERIZATION OF ONE PARTY AS 13:37:55 THE GOOD GUYS. TOO OFTEN IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE 13:38:00 MS. KAGAN SHARES THE VIEW OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND JUSTICE 13:38:02 MARSHALL THAT THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF 13:38:06 CERTAIN CLASSES OF LITIGANTS. IN ANOTHER CASE, MS. KAGAN WROTE 13:38:10 THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO PLACE AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE. 13:38:17 AND IN ANOTHER MEMO LACED WITH POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, MS. 13:38:21 KAGAN WROTE, I SEE NO REASON TO LET THIS COURT GET A CRACK AT 13:38:24 THIS QUESTION. SHE WAS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN A 13:38:27 HANDWRITTEN NOTE AFTER REVIEWING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN 13:38:30 ANOTHER CASE SAYING I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS DID 13:38:34 NOT SUPPORT THE ARREST, BUT I CANNOT SEE ANYTHING GOOD COMING 13:38:36 OUT OF REVIEW OF THIS CASE BY THIS COURT. 13:38:40 MS. KAGAN EXPLAINS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRIMARILY 13:38:43 CHANNELLING JUSTICE MARSHALL. BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHE 13:38:48 REALLY HAS ANY MAJOR DIFFERENCES WITH THEM AND WHETHER SHE SEES 13:38:51 ANYTHING WRONG WITH TAKING THE SAME APPROACH. 13:38:53 I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. 13:38:57 IN ADDITION TO MY GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER MS. KAGAN 13:39:00 COULD DECIDE CASES IMPARTIALLY AND WITHOUT BIAS FOR OUR AGAINST 13:39:04 CERTAIN PARTIES, A SURPRISING NUMBER OF THINGS IN HER 13:39:07 RELATIVELY THIN BODY OF WORK DO RAISE SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS ABOUT 13:39:12 VARIOUS ISSUES SUCH AS FEDERALISM, FREE SPEECH, 13:39:13 NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OTHERS. TO TAKE A LAST EXAMPLE. 13:39:17 I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED BY HER DECISION AS SOLICITOR GENERAL TO 13:39:20 URGE THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW AND STRIKE DOWN AN ARIZONA LAW 13:39:23 DESIGNED TO PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS. 13:39:28 THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THE LAW AND THE LOWER 13:39:31 COURT DECISION BECAUSE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW EXPLICITLY 13:39:35 ALLOWS STATES TO SANCTION EMPLOYERS THROUGH THEIR BUSINESS 13:39:37 LICENSING REGIMES. I THINK THERE ARE LEGITIMATE 13:39:40 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE BRIEF AUTHORIZED BY MS. KAGAN, 13:39:42 WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE LAW AND 13:39:46 URGES THE SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE THESE ENFORCEMENTS DOWN 13:39:50 WAS MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND 13:39:54 WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 13:39:55 AND I'M CONVINCED THAT WITHOUT THE URGING OF HER OFFICE, THE 13:40:01 COURT WOULD NOT GRANT TODAY. IN CONCLUSION, THERE'S AMPLE 13:40:04 REASON FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE THIS 13:40:10 NOMINEE, SCRUTINY IN WHICH SHE INVITED IN HER ARTICLE IN 1995. 13:40:12 BECAUSE SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL RECORD ON WHICH WE CAN DETERMINE 13:40:16 WHETHER SHE IS A RESULTS ORIENTED NOMINEE OR WOULD 13:40:22 APPROACH EACH CASE AS A CONTROLLED ARBITER, I BELIEVE 13:40:25 THE BURDEN IS ON THE NOMINEE TO SHOW HER RECORD DEMONSTRATES SHE 13:40:28 CAN BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE RATHER THAN ONE WHO 13:40:31 WOULD HAVE AN OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH. 13:40:34 I LOOK FORWARD TO HER TESTIMONY. SENATOR SPECTER? 13:40:39 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN 13:40:41 WELCOMING YOU HERE THIS MORNING. WITH THE PASSING OF SENATOR BYRD 13:40:46 EARLIER TODAY, I WAS REMINDED OF OUR HEARINGS FOR JUDGE BOOR, AND 13:41:00 A CANDID SHOT OF HIM TAKEN ONE SATURDAY WHEN WE HAD AN HOUR -- 13:41:05 A SATURDAY MORNING SESSION WITH JUDGE BORK AND HIS PICTURE 13:41:11 APPEARED ON THE "SUNDAY NEW YORKTIMES" AND HE WILL BE WITH 13:41:18 US IN MUCH OF OUR THINKING ON THE CONSTITUTION. 13:41:20 THIS HEARING PRESENTS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS, TO HAVE 13:41:24 QUESTIONS ANSWERED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PAST. 13:41:31 THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU AUTHORED FOR THE CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 13:41:35 BACKED IN 1995 IS OPENLY AND SPECIFICALLY CRITICAL OF JUSTICE 13:41:42 GINSBERG, JUSTICE BREYER AS YOU CHARACTERIZE IT STONE WALLED AND 13:41:46 CRITICIZED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I THINK PROPERLY SO 13:41:52 AS LACKING SERIOUSNESS AND SUBSTANCE IN OUR APPROACH TO THE 13:41:54 HEARINGS. AND YOU USE THE PHRASE THAT THE 13:41:58 CONFIRMATION PROCESS TAKES ON AN ERR OF FARCE. 13:42:07 YOU QUOTE SENATOR BIDEN THEN CHAIRMAN AND MYSELF EXPRESSING 13:42:11 CONCERNS THAT ONE DAY THE COMMITTEE WOULD "GROW UP ON ITS 13:42:21 HIND LEGS AND REJECT A NOMINEE WHO REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:42:25 FOR THAT REASON ALONE." SO THIS IS A UNIQUE HEARING IN 13:42:27 THAT RESPECT. THE COURT, REGRETTABLY I THINK 13:42:35 HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGICAL BATTLEGROUND. 13:42:38 AND THE ACTIVISM IS ON BOTH SIDES. 13:42:41 AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE 1960s, I WATCHED THE CONSTITUTION CHANGE 13:42:50 VIRTUALLY DAILY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAP 1961 RIGHT TO 1963, 13:42:57 MIRANDA, 1966. ACTIVISM. 13:43:02 WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAVING ADOPTED A TEST OF 13:43:06 DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONALITY SINCE 1996 ON CONGRUENCE AND 13:43:17 PROPORTIONALTY. J 13:43:26 WE'VE HAD NOMINATIONS WHO SAT WHERE YOU SIT NOT TOO LONG AGO 13:43:32 WHO SAID THEY WOULD NOT JOLT THE SYSTEM. 13:43:33 MODESTY AND THEN AGREED TO THE SYSTEM. 13:43:40 ASSURE THIS PANEL THAT THE LEGISLATIVE FINDING OF FACTS IS 13:43:46 NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. AND THEN TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD 13:43:51 AND CITIZENS UNITED ON A RECORD THAT IS 100,000 PAGES LONG AND 13:43:55 FINDING THAT THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A 100-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT, 13:44:02 WHICH WAS OVERTURNED. CERTAINLY A JOLT TO THE SYSTEM. 13:44:10 WHEN SENATOR BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING THE NOMINATION OF 13:44:15 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, HE SAID THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED BUT WOULD 13:44:21 VOTE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE AS THEN SENATOR OBAMA SAID, "OVERARCHING 13:44:28 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY." WELL, THE PRESIDENTS MAKE THEIR 13:44:35 SELECTIONS BASED ON I IDEOLOGY. AND I THOUGHT -- HAVE COME TO 13:44:47 THE CONCLUSION THE SENATORS HAVE THE SAME STANDING TO MAKE A 13:44:48 DETERMINATION ON IDEOLOGY. IT HAS BECOME ACCEPTED THAT 13:44:56 THERE SHOULD NOT BE TRANSGRESSION INTO THE AREA OF 13:45:02 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ON HOW A CASE WOULD BE DECIDED. 13:45:07 THERE'S AN INTERESTING CASE CAPTIONED MINNESOTA IN 2002 13:45:18 WHICH STRUCK DOWN A REQUIREMENT OF THE MINNESOTA BAR 13:45:22 ASSOCIATION, WHICH PROHIBITED JUDGES FROM SAYING HOW THEY 13:45:26 WOULD DECIDE CASES. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WAS AN 13:45:29 INFRINGEMENT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 13:45:33 NOW, THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT A JUDGE SHOULD ANSWER THE 13:45:40 QUESTION, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT A BAR ASSOCIATION RULE PROHIBITING 13:45:44 ANSWERING THE QUESTION IS INVALID, WHICH LEAVES THE JUDGE 13:45:48 AT LEAST SO FAR AS THAT STANDARD IS CONCERNED WITH A LATITUDE TO 13:45:54 ANSWER THE QUESTION SO THAT EVEN ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF HOW 13:45:59 A CASE WILL BE DECIDED, THEN IN YOUR LAW REVIEW ARTICLE, YOU 13:46:03 COME VERY CLOSE TO THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ANSWERING SUBSTANTIVE 13:46:09 LEGAL ISSUES. REALLY RIGHT ON THE LINE OF HOW 13:46:12 YOU WOULD DECIDE A CASE. BUT IF YOU ARE PRECLUDED FROM 13:46:21 ASKING HOW DECISIONS WOULD BE -- WHAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE OR 13:46:27 GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE PRECEDENT ON THAT. 13:46:30 I DO THINK IT IS FAIR FOR US TO ASK WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT 13:46:34 WOULD TAKE A CASE. THE CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY 13:46:40 TO DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT ON CASES WHICH MUST BE HEARD. 13:46:45 FLAG BURNING CASE, McCAIN-FEINGOLD AND MANY, MANY 13:46:52 OTHERS. SO THE COURT'S DISCUSSION IS 13:46:55 LIMITED THERE IF THERE IS A CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION. 13:46:56 I THINK IT IS FAIR FROM THAT PROPOSITION TO ASK A NOMINEES 13:47:04 WHETHER THEY WOULD TAKE CASES. I SPOKE AT LENGTH ON THE FLOOR 13:47:09 ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER THE INAPPROPRIATE DECLINE OF A 13:47:14 NUMBER OF CASES CONSIDERED. 100 YEARS AGO, A LITTLE MORE 13:47:21 THAN 1886, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED 146 CASES, 146 OPINIONS, 13:47:26 A LITTLE MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, 1987, 146 OPINIONS. 13:47:33 LAST YEAR, LAST TERM, 78 ARGUMENTS, 75 OPINIONS. 13:47:40 A LOT OF CIRCUIT SPLITS, IMPORTANT CASES ARE NOT TAKEN UP 13:47:44 BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO 13:47:47 HEAR THE CONFLICT, WHICH ARGUABLY IS THE MOST SERIOUS 13:47:54 CLASH BETWEEN CONGRESS' ARTICLE ONE POWERS UNDER THE FOREIGN 13:47:59 INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT WHICH SETS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS 13:48:01 FOR GETTING A WARRANT, LISTENING TO A WIRETAP, PROBABLE CAUSE, 13:48:08 AND THE PRESIDENT'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAP PROGRAM JUSTIFIED UNDER 13:48:13 ARTICLE II. THE DETROIT FEDERAL JUDGE SAID 13:48:15 IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DUCKED IT WITH A 13:48:21 STANDING DECISION 2-1 WITH ADMITTEDLY THE DISSENTING 13:48:25 OPINION MUCH STRONGER, APPLICATION DENIED. 13:48:29 AND THIS WAS SOMETHING I DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN OUR 13:48:32 MEETING, WHICH I THANK YOU. I SENT YOU A SERIES OF LETTERS 13:48:36 ON ISSUES WHICH I INTEND TO ASK YOU ABOUT. 13:48:37 AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR 13:48:44 DECISIONS AS SOLICITOR GENERAL ON THE CASE INVOLVING THE 13:48:49 HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, SUING AN ITALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, AND 13:48:54 THE SECOND CIRCUIT BOWS TO THE EXECUTIVE POSITION SAYING, WELL, 13:48:58 THAT OUGHT TO BE DECIDED BETWEEN ITALY AND THE UNITED STATES ON 13:49:02 HOW THAT'S TO BE HANDLED. I THINK THAT'S WRONG. 13:49:06 BUT AT LEAST THE SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO DECIDE IT. 13:49:08 NOT GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE THE CASE, BUT WOULD 13:49:11 YOU CONSIDER IT? A CASE INVOLVING THE SURVIVORS 13:49:16 OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 HAS NOT BEEN HEARD OR PETITIONED FROM THE 13:49:23 SECOND CIRCUIT. THE SECOND CIRCUIT SAID, WELL, 13:49:25 THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES CASE DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE SAUDI 13:49:32 ARABIA HASN'T BEEN DECLARED A TERRORIST STATE. 13:49:35 THAT'S REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACT, CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, 13:49:41 NOT GOVERNED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 13:49:46 SAID THE ACTS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY, A DISTINCTION I 13:49:49 DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRADE 13:49:52 TOWERS AND 3,000 AMERICANS ARE KILLED, CERTAINLY THE SOVEREIGN 13:49:58 IMMUNITIES ACT OUGHT TO SAUDI ARABIA SUBJECT TO SUE, BUT 13:50:02 I WON'T ASK YOU HOW YOU WILL DECIDE THE CASE, BUT IF YOU 13:50:06 WOULD TAKE IT UP. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WOULDN'T BE 13:50:10 RESOLVED TODAY AND PERHAPS NEVER IS HOW TO SEE TO IT THE NOMINEES 13:50:19 WHO MAKE STATEMENTS HERE ARE ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND ON STAIR 13:50:23 DECISIS FOLLOW-UP ON IT. AND MAYBE THE CLOSEST APPROACH 13:50:30 IS THE IDEA OF TELEVISING. IN OUR MEETING, YOU SAID YOU 13:50:33 FAVOR TELL ADVISING THE COURT. NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT BRAN 13:50:37 DIES TALKED ABOUT SUNLIGHT AND PUBLICITY BEING THE BEST 13:50:41 DISINFECTANT. WELL IT IS NOT A DISINFECTANT WE 13:50:43 ARE LOOKING FOR HERE BUT TO HOLD NOMINEES WHO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:50:47 HERE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WHEN THEY ARE ON THE COURT. 13:50:55 THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR 13:50:57 GRAHAM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:50:59 CONGRATULATIONS. I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD COUPLE 13:51:00 OF DAYS. I HOPE YOU SOMEWHAT ENJOY IT. 13:51:04 AND I THINK YOU WILL. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I WOULD LIKE 13:51:08 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PASSION OF SENATOR BYRD, WHO WAS A WORTHY 13:51:13 ALLY AND A VERY GOOD OPPONENT WHEN IT CAME TO THE SENATE. 13:51:16 MY ASSOCIATION WITH SENATOR BYRD DURING THE GANG OF 14, I LEARNED 13:51:20 A LOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION FROM HIM AND AS ALL OF OUR 13:51:24 COLLEAGUES REMEMBER, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, WE HAD A REAL -- REAL 13:51:27 CONFLICT IN THE SENATE ABOUT FILIBUSTERING JUDICIAL NOMINEES 13:51:32 AND SENATOR BYRD AND A FEW OTHER SENATORS WHO CAME UP WITH THE 13:51:35 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TEST THAT WOULD SAY THAT FILIBUSTERS 13:51:37 SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 13:51:40 BECAUSE ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND SENATOR BYRD 13:51:43 WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF AUTHORS OF THE LANGUAGE, DEFINING WHAT AN 13:51:48 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE WAS. I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IN 13:51:52 HIS PASSING IS GOING TO BE AS WILL TO THE SENATE. 13:51:54 AND THE THING THAT WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT SENATOR BYRD 13:51:57 IS THAT ALL OF US ARE CHOOSING TO JUDGE HIM BY HIS COMPLETE 13:52:01 CAREER. AND HISTORY WILL JUDGE HIM BY 13:52:03 HIS COMPLETE CAREER, NOT ONE MOMENT IN TIME AND THAT'S 13:52:06 PROBABLY A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW WHEN IT COMES TO 13:52:10 EACH OTHER AND TO NOMINEES. NOW, YOU ARE THE BEST EXAMPLE I 13:52:13 CAN THINK OF WHY HEARINGS SHOULD BE PROBATIVE AND MEANINGFUL. 13:52:16 YOU COME WITH NO JUDICIAL RECORD, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST 13:52:19 PERSON TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT HAVING BEEN A 13:52:22 JUDGE. BUT IT DOES, I THINK, REQUIRE US 13:52:25 AND YOU TO PROVIDE US A LITTLE INSIGHT AS TO WHAT KIND OF JUDGE 13:52:29 YOU WOULD BE. VERY LITTLE PRIVATE PRACTICE. 13:52:32 ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL AND A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON 13:52:35 THIS SIDE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:52:38 THAT I THINK ARE A BIT DISTURBING, BUT I'D LIKE TO 13:52:42 ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR 13:52:44 GENERAL THAT I THOUGHT WERE VERY GOOD. 13:52:45 YOU OPPOSED APPLYING HABEAS RIGHTS TO BAGHRAM DETAINEES. 13:52:50 YOU SUPPORTED THE IDEA THAT A TERROR SUSPECT COULD BE CHARGED 13:52:55 WITH MATERIAL SUPPORT OF TERRORISM UNDER THE STATUTE AND 13:52:58 THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF WARS HISTORY. 13:53:02 SO, THERE ARE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT I 13:53:05 THINK WILL MERIT PRAISE AND I WILL CERTAINLY, FROM MY POINT OF 13:53:08 VIEW, GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THOSE. 13:53:10 AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU TWO THINGS YOU CAN HIRED 13:53:13 SOME CONSERVATIVES, WHICH IS A GOOD THING AND YOU OPPOSED 13:53:17 MILITARY RECRUITMENT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BUT WE 13:53:21 WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ALL THAT REALLY DOES MEAN T 13:53:23 IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU BRING TO THIS HEARING, A LITTLE 13:53:28 OF THIS AND A LITTLE OF THAT NOW WHAT DO WE KNOW? 13:53:30 WE KNOW YOU ARE VERY SMART. OFF STRONG ACADEMIC BACKGROUND. 13:53:36 YOU GOT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. THE LETTER FROM MIGUEL ESTRADA 13:53:38 IS A HUMBLING LETTER AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE MENTIONED 13:53:41 THROUGHOUT THE HEARING, BUT IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT HIM. 13:53:44 IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU THAT HE WOULD WRITE THAT LETTER. 13:53:48 KEN STARR AND TED OLSON HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT 13:53:51 YOU ARE A QUALIFIED NOMINEE. THERE'S NO TO DOUBT IN MY MIND 13:53:54 THAT YOU ARE A LIBERAL PERSON. THAT APPLIES TO MOST OF THE 13:53:57 PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND I RESPECT THEM AND I RESPECT 13:54:01 YOU. I'M A CONSERVATIVE PERSON. 13:54:03 AND YOU WOULD EXPECT A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT TO 13:54:06 NOMINATE A CONSERVATIVE PERSON WHO DID NOT WORK IN THE CLINTON 13:54:11 ADMINISTRATION. SO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE EMBRACED 13:54:13 LIBERAL CAUSES AND YOU HAVE GROWN UP IN A LIBERAL HOUSEHOLD 13:54:16 IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THAT'S JUST AMERICA. 13:54:20 IT'S OKAY TO BE LIBERAL, IT'S OKAY TO BE CONSERVATIVE, BUT 13:54:23 WHEN IT COMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE, YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE YOU 13:54:26 UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS THAT POSITION PLACES ON ANY AGENDA, 13:54:30 LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. YOUR JUDICIAL HERO IS AN 13:54:35 INTERESTING GUY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 13:54:38 EXPLAINING TO DO TO ME ABOUT WHY YOU PICKED JUDGE BARACK AS YOUR 13:54:44 HERO BECAUSE WHEN I READ HIS WRITINGS, A BIT DISTURBING ABOUT 13:54:47 HIS VIEW OF WHAT A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR SOCIETY AS A 13:54:51 WHOLE, BUT I'M SURE VUL GOOD ANSWERS AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD 13:54:54 TO THAT DISCUSSION. ON THE WAR ON TERROR, YOU COULD 13:54:57 IN MY VIEW, IF CONFIRMED, PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME 13:55:01 REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S FACING. 13:55:04 ABOUT HOW THE LAW NEEDS TO BE T 13:55:13 DRAFTED AND CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY TO RECOGNIZE FIGHTING CRIME 13:55:15 AND FIGHTING WAR. SO YOU, IN MY VIEW, HAVE A 13:55:18 POTENTIAL TEACHING OPPORTUNITY, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN 13:55:20 A JUDGE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THIS COUNTRY AS 13:55:24 SOLICITOR GENERAL AT A TIME OF WAR. 13:55:26 THE ONE THING I CAN SAY WITHOUT CERTAINTY IS I DON'T EXPECT YOUR 13:55:29 NOMINATION TO CHANGE THE BILLION OF POWER. 13:55:32 AFTER THIS HEARING'S OVER, I HOPE AMERICAN -- THE AMERICAN 13:55:36 PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT ELECTIONS DO MATTER. 13:55:39 WHAT DID I EXPECT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA? 13:55:41 JUST ABOUT WHAT I'M GETTING. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE 13:55:44 WHO ARE SURPRISED. WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, 13:55:48 IF YOU WERE LISTENING. SO, I LOOK FORWARD TO TRYING TO 13:55:51 BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE POLITICAL 13:55:55 ACTIVISM, ASSOCIATION WITH LIBERAL CAUSES AND PARK IT WHEN 13:56:00 IT BECOMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE. THAT, TO ME, IS YOUR CHALLENGE. 13:56:05 I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER YOU QUALIFIED, BECAUSE 13:56:09 YOU'VE DONE A LOT IN YOUR LIFE WORTHY OF PRAISE. 13:56:12 BUT IT WILL BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO CONVINCE ME AND OTHERS, 13:56:15 PARTICULARLY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, THAT WHATEVER 13:56:18 ACTIVITIES YOU'VE ENGAGED IN POLITICALLY AND WHATEVER ADVICE 13:56:22 YOU'VE GIVEN TO PRESIDENT CLINTON OR JUSTICE MARSHALL, 13:56:25 THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL BE YOUR OWN PERSON, THAT 13:56:29 YOU WILL BE STANDING IN DIFFERENT SHOES WHERE IT WILL BE 13:56:32 YOUR DECISION TO MAKE, NOT TRYING TO CHANNEL WHAT THEY 13:56:36 THOUGHT. AND IF AT THE END OF THE DAY, 13:56:37 YOU THINK MORE LIKE JUSTICE MARSHALL THAN JUSTICE RHENQUIST, 13:56:42 SO BE IT. THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU MAKE 13:56:46 SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT CHANNELING YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA, YOUR 13:56:50 POLITICAL LEANINGS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RENDER DECISIONS? 13:56:54 AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE QUALIFICATION TEST WILL BE 13:56:59 MET. WHETHER OR NOT ACTIVISM CAN BE 13:57:01 PARKED IS UP TO YOU. AND I LOOK AT THIS CONFIRMATION 13:57:06 PROCESS AS A WAY TO RECOGNIZE THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES 13:57:10 AND THE SENATE HAS AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION ON BEHALF 13:57:13 OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO PUT YOU UNDER SCRUTINY, FIRM AND 13:57:20 FAIR, RESPECTFUL AND SOMETIMES CONTENTIOUS. 13:57:24 GOOD LUCK. BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE AND 13:57:28 IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE WITH US UP HERE. 13:57:34 THANK YOU. THE -- THANK YOU, SENATOR. 13:57:39 AND NEXT, SENATOR SCHUMER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 13:57:43 I, TOO, WANT TO NOTE THE PASSING OF OUR FRIEND AND LEADER, 13:57:46 SENATOR BYRD. SENATOR BYRD'S FIERCE DEVOTION 13:57:50 TO THE CONSTITUTION HOVERS OVER THIS HEARING AND NOTHING COULD 13:57:53 BE MORE APPROPRIATE ON THE SAD DAY OF HIS DEATH THAN HOLDING 13:57:58 THIS HEARING, WHERE THE FIRST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GIVES 13:58:02 ADVICE AND CONSENT TO THE SECOND BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AS WE FILL 13:58:06 SOMEBODY -- FILL A POSITION ON THE THIRD. 13:58:09 WELL, WELCOME, MADAM SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:58:13 THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO TO ELABORATE ON YOUR 13:58:18 QUALIFICATIONS. SOLICITOR GENERAL KAGAN'S 13:58:20 ACHIEVEMENTS, AS WELL AS HER RECORD, ARE BY NOW WELL KNOWN TO 13:58:24 THIS COMMITTEE AND BY THE END OF THE WEEK, THEY WILL BE WELL 13:58:26 KNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FRANKLY THERE ARE NOT MANY 13:58:29 BLANKS LEFT TO FILL IN. GIVEN HOW FORTHCOMING GENERAL 13:58:33 KAGAN HAS ALREADY BEEN, I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD FINISH THIS 13:58:37 HEARING IN ONE ROUND OF QUESTIONING. 13:58:40 NOW, I AM AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR ASKING 13:58:43 NOMINEES SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND I EXPECT NOMINEES TO ANSWER. 13:58:49 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MY COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAIS 13:58:52 HAVE A RIGHT AND A DUTY TO ASK TOUGH, PROBATIVE QUESTIONS, BUT 13:58:56 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE QUALITY OF ANSWERS
KAGAN HEARING - COMMITTEE 1300 - 1400
Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation hearing The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the nomination of Elena Kagan, Solicitor General to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. 10 minute opening statements, introduction of Kagan, Kagan sworn in, Kagan opening statement 13:00:00 ORRIN HATCH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. TODAY IS A SAD DAY WITH THE 13:00:04 PASSING OF OUR GREAT COLLEAGUE SENATOR ROBERT BYRD THIS 13:00:09 MORNING, AND THE DEATH YESTERDAY OF RUTH GINSBURG'S HUSBAND. 13:00:17 AND HIS LOVE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR THIS 13:00:21 LEGISLATIVE BODY WAS WELL-KNOWN. HE STOOD UP FOR IT ALL THE TIME. 13:00:26 AND OF COURSE, I HAD NOTHING BUT GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:29 I REMEMBER IN THE EARLY YEARS, HE WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH ME AND 13:00:32 FRANKLY I WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH HIM EITHER. 13:00:34 BUT IN THE END, I GAINED SUCH TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:40 AND LOVE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE DIFFERED ON SO MANY ISSUES. 13:00:43 HE WAS A TOWERING FIGURE. THE GINSBURGS CELEBRATED THEIR 13:00:47 56th WEDDING ANNIVERSARY JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. 13:00:51 NOT AS LONG AS THE 68 YEARS THAT SENATOR AND URMA BYRD WERE 13:00:57 MARRIED BEFORE HER DEATH. CANCER WAS A PART OF THE 13:01:01 GINSBURGS' INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND THEIR LIFE TOGETHER. 13:01:03 AND FOR MANY YEARS AND I KNOW EACH OF THEM WAS A SOURCE OF 13:01:06 STRENGTH AND STABILITY TO THE OTHER. 13:01:08 THE GINSBURGS HAVE BEEN A MODEL OF DIGNITY AND GRACE AND JUSTICE 13:01:12 GINSBURG AND HER CHILDREN WILL BE IN MY PRAYERS. 13:01:15 I WANT TO WELCOME YOU BACK TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, GENERAL 13:01:17 KAGAN. SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS 13:01:21 LIKELY TO BE YOUR LAST CONFIRMATION HEARING. 13:01:26 AS AMERICA'S FOUNDERS DESIGNED IT, THE SENATE'S ROLE OF ADVICE 13:01:31 AND CONSENT IS A CHECK. FULFILLING THAT ROLE REQUIRES US 13:01:34 TO EVALUATE A NOMINEE FOR WHICH HE'S BEEN NOMINATED. 13:01:41 INCLUDE BOTH LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. 13:01:49 WHILE LEGAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARIZES THE PAST, JUDICIAL 13:01:52 PHILOSOPHY DESCRIBES HOW A NOMINEE WILL APPROACH JUDGING IN 13:01:57 THE FUTURE. MY PRIMARY GOAL IN THIS 13:01:59 CONFIRMATION PROCESS IS TO GET THE BEST PICTURE I CAN OF 13:02:03 GENERAL KAGAN'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, PRIMARILY FROM HER 13:02:07 RECORD, BUT ALSO FROM THIS HEARING, AS WELL. 13:02:10 I HAVE TO MAKE MY DECISION WHETHER TO SUPPORT OR NOT 13:02:15 SUPPORT HER NOMINATION ON EVIDENCE NOT ON BLIND FAITH. 13:02:18 I'VE NEVER CONSIDERED THE LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE TO BE AN 13:02:26 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFIER FOR A JUDICIAL NOMINEE. 13:02:30 MANY HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:02:32 WHAT THEY DID HAVE, HOWEVER, AN AVERAGE OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF 13:02:35 PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, SUPREME COURT 13:02:40 NOMINEES HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE BEHIND THE BENCH AS A JUDGE 13:02:42 BEFORE THE BENCH AS A LAWYER OR BOTH. 13:02:46 MS. KAGAN WORKED FOR TWO YEARS IN THE LAW FIRM, THE REST OF HER 13:02:51 CAREER IS IN ACADEMIA AND POLITICS. 13:02:54 AS THE "WASHINGTON POST" DESCRIBES, SHE BRINGS EXPERIENCE 13:02:58 IN THE POLITICAL CIRCUITS THAT OFTEN DEFINES WASHINGTON. 13:03:01 ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES RECENTLY SAID MS. KAGAN'S 13:03:05 STRONGEST QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT ARE HER EXPERIENCE 13:03:08 IN CRAFTING POLICY AND HER ABILITY TO BUILD CONSENSUS. 13:03:12 THE VALUE OF SUCH EXPERIENCE DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU VIEW THE 13:03:15 SUPREME COURT AS A POLITICAL CIRCUS OR VIEW ITS ROLE AS 13:03:17 CRAFTING POLICY. I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST 13:03:21 IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE IS THE 13:03:26 NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR HER APPROACH TO INTERPRETING AND 13:03:28 APPLYING THE LAW TO DECIDE CASES. 13:03:30 THIS IS WHAT JUDGES DO. BUT DIFFERENT JUDGES DO IT IN 13:03:34 RALLY DIFFERENT WAYS. OUR LIBERTY, HOWEVER, REQUIRES 13:03:39 LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT, AND THAT INCLUDES LIMITS ON JUDGES. 13:03:44 CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL WROTE IN MARBURY VERSUS MADISON THAT 13:03:52 AMERICAN FOUNDERS ENCOURAGED. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY JUDGES DO 13:03:56 NOT SEE IT THAT WAY BUT BELIEVE THEY MAY THEMSELVES GOVERN THE 13:03:58 CONSTITUTION. THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN 13:04:01 PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHICH KIND OF JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN WILL 13:04:04 BE. WILL THE CONSTITUTION CONTROL 13:04:09 HER? OR WILL SHE TRY TO CONTROL THE 13:04:10 CONSTITUTION? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT THE WORDS 13:04:13 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES CAN BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR 13:04:16 MEANING SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES 13:04:19 PUT WORDS ON THE PAGE BUT JUDGES MAY DETERMINE WHAT THOSE WORDS 13:04:23 ACTUALLY MEAN? DOES SHE BELIEVE IT IS VALID FOR 13:04:25 JUDGES TO MOLD AND STEER THE LAW TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS? 13:04:30 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT A JUDGE'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND VALUES 13:04:32 MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN HER DECISIONS? 13:04:36 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT COURTS EXIST TO PROTECT CERTAIN 13:04:38 INTERESTS? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT JUDGES MAY 13:04:43 CONTROL THE CONSTITUTION BY CHANGING ITS MEANING? 13:04:46 DOES SHE BELIEVE THE JUDGES MAY CHANGE THE MEANING OF STATUTES 13:04:49 IN ORDER TO MEET WHAT JUDGES BELIEVE ARE NEW SOCIAL 13:04:51 OBJECTIVES? THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE 13:04:55 QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF A NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL 13:04:56 PHILOSOPHY. I WANT TO CLARIFY AS BEST AS I 13:05:00 CAN WHAT KIND OF JUDGES -- WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN 13:05:03 WOULD BE. TO DO THAT, I HAVE TO EXAMINE 13:05:09 HER ENTIRE RECORD. AS IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, THERE 13:05:13 WILL NO DOUBT BE SOME TENSION DURING THIS HEARING BETWEEN WHAT 13:05:16 SENATORS WANT TO KNOW AND WHAT GENERAL KAGAN IS WILLING TO TELL 13:05:18 US. UNLIKE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, MS. 13:05:23 KAGAN HAS ALREADY OUTLINED VERY CLEARLY WHAT SHE BELIEVES THE 13:05:28 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT IN A 13:05:29 HEARING LIKE THIS. MS. KAGAN WROTE THE SENATE 13:05:36 BECOMES INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY EVALUATING OR APPROPRIATELY 13:05:42 EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, END QUOTE. SHE IDENTIFIED THE POLITICAL 13:05:45 INQUIRY ABOUT A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE AS "THE VOTES SHE WOULD 13:05:49 CAST, THE PERSPECTIVE SHE WOULD ADD, AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH 13:05:51 SHE WOULD MOVE THE INSTITUTION." BUT THE BOTTOM LINE ISSUE AND 13:05:54 THE APPOINTMENTS PROCESS MUST CONCERN THE KINDS OF JUDICIAL 13:05:58 DECISIONS THAT WILL SERVE THE COUNTRY AND THE EFFECT THE 13:06:03 NOMINEE WILL HAVE ON THE COURT'S DECISIONS. 13:06:05 IF THAT IS TOO RESULTS ORIENTED, SO BE IT, UNQUOTE. 13:06:10 MS. KAGAN OUTLINED THAT APPROACH, WHICH SHE ARGUED AS 13:06:13 NECESSARY FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARINGS TO BE MORE 13:06:21 THAN FARCE. WHEN SHE WAS WORKING ON THIS 13:06:24 COMMITTEE FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. 13:06:27 I BELIEVE YOU'LL BE HEARING A LOT ABOUT YOUR REMARKS IN THE 13:06:29 PAST. SHE WAS NOT A STUDENT WRITING A 13:06:34 BLOG ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL TOPIC SHE KNEW ABOUT. 13:06:37 I'M CONFIDENT THAT SENATORS WILL GIVE MS. KAGAN MANY 13:06:40 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION 13:06:43 AND INSIGHT THAT SHE HAS ARGUED IS CRITICAL FOR THE SENATE TO 13:06:47 PROPERLY MAKE A DECISION ON HER CONFIRMATION. 13:06:50 THIS IS A CRITICAL DECISION. AND IT IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST 13:06:52 ONE PERSON. OUR DECISION WILL AFFECT LIBERTY 13:06:57 ITSELF. GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID THIS IN 13:07:00 HIS FEDERAL ADDRESS. "THE BASIS OF OUR POLITICAL 13:07:03 SYSTEMS IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE AND ORDER THEIR 13:07:07 CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. BUT THE CONSTITUTION AT WHICH 13:07:11 ANY TIME EXISTS TILL CHANGED BY AN EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACT OF 13:07:15 THE WHOLE PEOPLE IS SACREDLY OBLIGATORY UPON ALL." 13:07:18 THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO MAKE AND ORDER THE CONSTITUTION MEANS 13:07:21 NOTHING IF THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THE CONSTITUTION'S WORDS, THE JUDGES 13:07:29 CHOOSE WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. A JUDGE WITH THAT MUCH POWER 13:07:32 WOULD EFFECTIVELY TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND NOT THE 13:07:36 CONSTITUTION, BUT HERSELF. I HOPE THIS WILL HELP ME FURTHER 13:07:40 UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE MS. KAGAN WOULD BE. 13:07:43 AND I WISH YOU WELL AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THESE 13:07:45 HEARINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 13:07:54 CHAIRMAN. AND I LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A WORD 13:07:58 ABOUT SENATOR BYRD. I SERVED ON THE APPROPRIATIONS 13:08:00 COMMITTEE FOR 16 OUT OF MY 18 YEARS IN THE SENATE. 13:08:04 SENATOR BYRD WAS THE CHAIRMAN, HE WAS TOUGH, HE WAS STRONG, HE 13:08:11 CARED. MANY TIMES THE CONSTITUTION 13:08:13 POPPED OUT OF HIS VEST POCKET. HE CERTAINLY WAS -- I THINK IN 13:08:20 ANYONE'S BOOK A TITAN IN THE SENATE. 13:08:23 AND HE'S LEFT AN INDELIBLE IMPRINT. 13:08:24 HE WILL BE MISSED. TODAY LET'S WELCOME ELENA KAGAN. 13:08:32 OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THERE'S BEEN A DRIFT NET OUT TRYING TO 13:08:38 FIND SOME DISQUALIFYING FACT OR FACTOR. 13:08:42 BUT TO DATE, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY SUCH FACTOR HAS BEEN FOUND. 13:08:47 I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE IMMINENTLY CONFIRMABLE. 13:08:50 YOUR EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE, MAKES YOU A VERY STRONG NOMINEE 13:08:52 FOR THE COURT. YOU'RE THE FIRST WOMAN SOLICITOR 13:08:54 GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS THE 13:09:02 ONLY FEDERAL OFFICIAL THAT'S REQUIRED IN STATUTE TO BE 13:09:09 "LEARNED IN THE LAW." OF THE 45 PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELD 13:09:15 THE JOB, FIVE HAVE GONE ON TO THE SUPREME COURT. 13:09:18 YOU HAVE FILED HUNDREDS OF BRIEFS BEFORE THE COURT, YOU 13:09:20 HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED LAW. AND YOU HAVE THE SUPREME COURT 13:09:26 OF NEARLY EVERY LIVING SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:09:29 YOU ARE THE FIRST WOMAN DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:09:32 THERE YOU DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS A LEADER WHO BROUGHT ALL 13:09:35 SIDES TO THE TABLE. YOU'RE A LEGAL ADVISER TO 13:09:40 PRESIDENT CLINTON, SERVED AS ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL, 13:09:44 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL, AND YOU COVERED 13:09:48 SOME TOUGH ISSUES. TOBACCO REFORM, IMPORTATION OF 13:09:52 RAPID FIRE ASSAULT WEAPONS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WOMEN'S 13:09:57 HEALTH, ABORTION. WHAT COMES ACROSS IN REVIEWING 13:10:01 YOUR WRITINGS IS THAT YOU WERE A VALUABLE ADVISER. 13:10:06 SMART, REASONABLE, HIGHLY RESPECTED, PRINCIPLED. 13:10:10 YOU ALSO SERVED AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THIS COMMITTEE DURING 13:10:15 THE GINSBURG CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. 13:10:18 THE BIGGEST CRITICISM I'VE SEEN OUT THERE IS YOU'VE NEVER BEEN A 13:10:22 JUDGE. FRANKLY, I FIND THIS REFRESHING. 13:10:28 THE ROBERTS COURT IS THE FIRST SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY TO BE 13:10:31 COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF FORMER FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS 13:10:34 JUDGES. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE 13:10:38 COURT OVER 1/3 OF THE JUSTICES, 38 OUT OF 111 HAVE HAD NO PRIOR 13:10:45 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE 13:10:49 WILLIAM REHNQUIST WHO WAS A LAW CLERK FOR THE SUPREME COURT, 13:10:53 WORKED FOR A LAW FIRM, AND THEN WAS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 13:10:57 IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE EARL 13:11:01 WARREN WHO RETURNED FROM WORLD WAR II TO PROSECUTE CASES AS AN 13:11:07 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY BEFORE -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE 13:11:09 BECOMING CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GOVERNOR. 13:11:12 AND THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE HARLAN FISK STONE WHO WAS DEAN 13:11:20 OF COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:11:22 THESE JUSTICES ALSO HAD NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:11:26 BUT THEIR BACKGROUNDS PROVED VALUE NONETHELESS. 13:11:30 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, I BELIEVE, IS NOT A MECHANICAL 13:11:32 ENDEAVOR. LIKE COMPLETING A MATH EQUATION. 13:11:38 THE MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER CANNOT TELL US WHETHER THE 13:11:40 PRESIDENT'S POWERS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF ALLOW HIM TO EXCEED THE 13:11:45 BOUNDS OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT 13:11:47 AND OTHER STATUTES IN WARTIME. NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHETHER 13:11:52 CONGRESSIONAL LAWS BARRING GUNS FROM THE GROUNDS OF SCHOOLS OR 13:11:57 IMPLEMENTING NEW HEALTH INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE 13:12:01 WITHIN CONGRESS'S ARTICLE ONE POWERS. 13:12:03 NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHAT THE 14th AMENDMENT'S PROMISE OF 13:12:07 EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW MEANS FOR STUDENTS IN OUR PUBLIC 13:12:09 SCHOOLS. THESE QUESTIONS ARE AMONG OUR 13:12:15 NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT. AND IT TAKES MORE THAN AN UMPIRE 13:12:17 TO FIND THEIR ANSWERS. IN RECENT YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A 13:12:21 RADICAL CHANGE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS ON DISPLAY EVEN 13:12:25 THIS MORNING. THIS MORNING, I WAS EXTREMELY 13:12:31 DISMAYED TO LEARN OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN McDONALD VERSUS THE 13:12:34 CITY OF CHICAGO. HOLDING THAT COMMON SENSE STATE 13:12:40 AND LOCAL GUN LAWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY NOW WILL BE SUBJECT TO 13:12:44 FEDERAL LAWSUITS. THIS DECISION AND ITS 13:12:48 PREDECESSOR, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HELLER HAVE 13:12:54 DISREGARDED THE PRECEDENT OF 71 YEARS EMBEDDED IN THE UNITED 13:12:59 STATES V. MILLER, A 1939 CASE. I FIND THAT SHOCKING AS A FORMER 13:13:03 MAYOR. I BELIEVE THE PROLIFERATION OF 13:13:08 GUNS HAVE MADE THIS NATION LESS SAFE, NOT MORE SAFE. 13:13:11 WE NOW HAVE MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:13:16 THEY ARE SOLD EVERYWHERE. ON STREET CORNERS, IN GUN SHOWS, 13:13:20 WITH NO RESTRAINT WHATSOEVER. ANY TYPE OF WEAPON. 13:13:23 THEY FALL INTO THE HANDS OF JUVENILES, CRIMINALS, AND THE 13:13:28 MENTALLY ILL VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 13:13:33 AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS THROWN ASIDE SEVEN DECADES OF PRECEDENT 13:13:37 TO EXACERBATE THIS SITUATION. FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE 13:13:41 BEEN REVEALED THUS FAR, I AM ENCOURAGED THAT SOLICITOR KAGAN 13:13:48 HOLDS STARRY DECISIS IN HIGH REGARD. 13:13:59 FOR EXAMPLE, AT HARVARD, SHE EXPRESSED STRONG DISAGREEMENT 13:14:03 WITH DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. BUT SHE ALLOWED MILITARY T 13:14:08 RECRUITMENT TO CONTINUE. THE NUMBER OF RECRUITS DID NOT 13:14:15 DIMINISH. I BELIEVE IT INCREASED. 13:14:17 AND AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, SHE DEFENDED THE POLICY' 13:14:20 CONSTITUTIONALITY. ARGUING THAT THE COURT SHOULD 13:14:25 DEFER TO THE JUDGMENT. DURING THE CLINTON 13:14:29 ADMINISTRATION, SHE ADVISED THE BUREAU THAT IT COULD NOT BAN 13:14:34 IMPORTATION. A PRE-1994 LARGE CAPACITY 13:14:37 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. 13:14:42 THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, I BOTH WANTED TO 13:14:48 BAN THESE IMPORTS. SHE ARGUED SUCCESSFULLY THAT THE 13:14:50 LAW SIMPLY DID NOT GIVE THE BUREAU THAT AUTHORITY. 13:14:55 ELENA KAGAN HAS WRITTEN THAT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS SHOULD BE A 13:15:02 SUBSTANTIVE ONE THAT THE KIND OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE 13:15:03 MOST TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATION OF A NOMINATION WOULD 13:15:08 INCLUDE DISCUSSION FIRST OF THE NOMINEE'S BROAD JUDICIAL 13:15:12 PHILOSOPHY AND SECOND OF HER VIEWS ON PARTICULAR 13:15:15 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. I AGREE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A 13:15:20 MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION THIS WEEK. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THIS NOMINEE -- 13:15:26 THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN SMOOTH SO FAR. 13:15:29 ONE NEWSPAPER EVEN CALLED IT A SNOOZE FEST. 13:15:33 IF IT IS, IT IS BECAUSE ELENA KAGAN IS UNQUESTIONABLY 13:15:41 QUALIFIED. OVER 170,000 DOCUMENTS HAVE 13:15:43 UNMASKED HER AS AN EVEN-HANDED LEGAL SCHOLAR WITH A STERLING 13:15:49 REPUTATION. EACH NEW SET OF DOCUMENTS MAKES 13:15:50 IT CLEARER THAT HER VIEWS FALL WITHIN THE MODERATE MAINSTREAM 13:15:56 OF LEGAL THINKING IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:15:59 SO AT THIS STAGE, I SEE NO IMPEDIMENT TO CONFIRMATION. 13:16:04 I HOPE THE WEEK ENDS THE SAME WAY. 13:16:10 I LOOK FORWARD TO PROCEEDING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:16:15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINSTEIN. 13:16:18 AND I THANK THE SENATORS FOR KEEPING UNDER THE TIME LINE. 13:16:29 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:16:31 IT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT APPOINTMENT. 13:16:33 OBVIOUSLY A REAL HONOR. I ALSO WELCOME YOUR FAMILY AND 13:16:37 FRIENDS, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY PROUD OF YOUR NOMINATION, AND I'M GLAD 13:16:40 THEY'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU. I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT 13:16:44 THIS PROCESS IS FAIR AND RESPECTFUL, BUT ALSO THOROUGH. 13:16:50 THE CONSTITUTION TASKS OUR SENATE WITH CONDUCTING A 13:16:51 PRESENCIVE REVIEW OF NOMINEE'S RECORD. 13:17:01 CONSEQUENTLY THE SENATE HAS A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO 13:17:03 ENSURE THAT YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUSTICE AND 13:17:08 THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 13:17:10 WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF CONFIRMED, YOU'LL BE TRUE TO THE 13:17:15 CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN. 13:17:17 WE HAD A NICE MEETING IN MY OFFICE. 13:17:21 YOU HAVE AN ACCOMPLISHED ACADEMIC AND POLICY BACKGROUND. 13:17:23 YOU'VE EXCELLED AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:27 YOU WERE AN OXFORD SCHOLAR, CLERKED ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT IN 13:17:31 THE SUPREME COURT, YOU WERE A LAW PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF 13:17:34 CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL AS WELL AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:37 YOU WERE A LAWYER HERE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND THEN 13:17:39 WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION, YOU'RE NOW THE 13:17:46 UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL. NOBODY CAN QUESTION SUCH 13:17:48 ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHAT IS LACKING FROM YOUR 13:17:54 BACKGROUND IS ANY EXPERIENCE ON ANY COURT OR MUCH EXPERIENCE AS 13:17:58 A PRACTICING LAWYER. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIVE 13:18:02 EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY TO TRANSITION FROM BEING 13:18:04 A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR POLITICAL OPERATIVE TO A FAIR AND 13:18:10 IMPARTIAL JURIST. WE'LL NEED TO ACQUIRE THAT 13:18:13 EVIDENCE THROUGH YOUR WRITINGS AND THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:18:15 OVER THE YEARS AS WELL AS YOUR TESTIMONY. 13:18:19 ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS IN A CANDID AND FORTHRIGHT MANNER 13:18:22 HOPEFULLY WILL FILL THAT VOID. WE KNOW YOU CANNOT COMMIT TO 13:18:24 RULING IN A CERTAIN WAY OR FOR A PARTICULAR PARTY. 13:18:29 OUR GOAL IS TO SEE IF YOU WILL EXERCISE JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. 13:18:34 WE WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU'LL EXERCISE A PREEMINENT 13:18:38 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A JUSTICE BY ADHERING TO THE LAW AND NOT 13:18:40 PUBLIC OPINION. POLICY CHOICES NEED TO BE 13:18:44 RESERVED FOR THOSE OF US ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF 13:18:48 GOVERNMENT. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:18:52 NOMINEE WHO HAS SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES. 13:18:57 BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A NOMINEE WHO 13:18:59 WON'T COME WITH RESULTS. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:19:12 SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WHO WILL FAITHFULLY INTERPRET THE LAW AND 13:19:17 CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PERSONAL BIAS. 13:19:20 THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN A JUDGE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. 13:19:22 BUT BECAUSE OF LACK OF JUDGING EXPERIENCE, IT'S EVEN MORE 13:19:26 CRITICAL THAT WE'RE PERSUADED THAT YOU HAVE THE PROPER 13:19:30 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND WILL PRACTICE IT. 13:19:33 WE MUST BE CONVINCED THAT YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT 13:19:36 QUALIFICATION OF A JUSTICE. THAT QUALIFICATION IS THE 13:19:38 ABILITY TO SET ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS AND POLITICAL 13:19:42 BELIEFS SO THAT YOU CAN ADMINISTER EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL 13:19:46 IN A DISPASSIONATE WAY. YOUR RELATIVELY THIN RECORD 13:19:51 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU'VE BEEN A POLITICAL LAWYER. 13:19:53 YOUR PAPERS FROM THE CLINTON LIBRARY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED 13:19:55 AS -- AND THESE AREN'T MY WORDS, A FLARE FOR THE POLITICAL AND A 13:20:03 FLARE FOR POLITICAL TACTICS. YOU'VE BEEN DESCRIBED AS HAVING 13:20:07 "FINELY TUNED POLITICAL ANTENNA" AND A POLITICAL HEART. 13:20:17 INCLUDING GUN RIGHTS, WELFARE REFORM, ABORTION, WHITEWATER, 13:20:20 AND PAULA JONES CONTROVERSIES. SHOWS THAT YOU FORCEFULLY 13:20:27 PROMOTED LIBERAL POSITIONS AND OFFERED ANALYSES AND 13:20:31 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT OFTEN WERE MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL. 13:20:37 NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR MARSHALL MEMOS INDICATE A LIBERAL AND 13:20:42 SEEMINGLY OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH TO YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. 13:20:46 YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOUR UPBRINGING STEEPED YOU IN DEEPLY 13:20:51 HELD LIBERAL PRINCIPLES. YOU SHOULD KNOW -- OR WE SHOULD 13:20:54 KNOW WHETHER AS YOU'VE SAID YOU HAVE "RETAINED THEM FAIRLY TO 13:21:02 THIS DAY." A JUDGE NEEDS TO BE AN 13:21:09 INDEPENDENT ARBITER. THIS POINT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL 13:21:12 FOR JUSTICES SINCE THE SUPREME COURT ISN'T AS CONSTRAINED TO 13:21:15 FOLLOW PRECEDENT AS THE SAME JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS. 13:21:20 YOU WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THE LAW. 13:21:23 YOU'VE BEEN A PROMINENT MEMBER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TEAM IN 13:21:27 NOMINATING YOU TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, PRESIDENT 13:21:28 OBAMA CLEARLY BELIEVES THAT YOU MEASURED UP TO HIS POLITICAL -- 13:21:36 OR HIS JUDICIAL STANDARD. A JUDGE'S ABILITY, IN OTHER 13:21:40 WORDS, TO EMPATHIZE WITH CERTAIN GROUPS OVER OTHERS. 13:21:45 INDEED, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THAT YOU CREDITED YOUR HERO, 13:21:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL WITH "REMINDING YOU THAT BEHIND THE LAW THERE 13:21:59 ARE STORIES SHAPED BY THE LAW STORIES OF PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT 13:22:02 MIGHT BE CHANGED BY THE LAW." THIS EMPATHY STANDARD HAS BEEN 13:22:05 SOUNDLY REJECTED. A PREFERENCE WHEN -- AND 13:22:15 PREFERENCES WHEN JUDGES DECIDE. IT ENCOURAGES JUDGES TO USURP 13:22:20 THE FUNCTIONS HELD BY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE 13:22:23 BRANCHS OF GOVERNMENT. A JUDGE OR JUSTICE MUST 13:22:26 UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECT THAT STANDARD. 13:22:31 IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE OR 13:22:35 JUDICIAL METHOD. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR 13:22:39 GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION ENVISIONED FOR A ROLE OF THE 13:22:41 JUDICIARY. I'LL BE ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR 13:22:47 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WHETHER YOU WILL ALLOW BIASES AND PERSONAL 13:22:51 PREFERENCES TO DICTATE YOUR JUDICIAL STANDARD. 13:22:54 YOU ONCE WROTE THAT IT "IS NOT NECESSARILY WRONG OR INVALID FOR 13:22:58 JUDGES TO TRY TO MOLD OR STEER THE LAW IN ORDER TO PROMOTE 13:23:05 CERTAIN ETHICAL VALUES AND ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS." 13:23:12 YOU'VE ALSO PRAISED JURORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE ROLE OF A JUDGE 13:23:15 IS TO "DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET THE LAW CATCH UP." 13:23:20 AND AGAIN ANOTHER QUOTE "BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN LAW AND 13:23:23 SOCIETY." TO ME, THIS KIND OF JUDICIAL 13:23:27 PHILOSOPHY ENDORSES JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT 13:23:33 AND HOPEFULLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID BEFORE IS NOT HOW YOU WOULD BE 13:23:37 IN REGARD TO THESE QUOTE WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE SUPREME 13:23:41 COURT. I ASK PERMISSION TO PUT A LONGER 13:23:45 STATEMENT IN THE RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION. 13:23:48 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. KAGAN, WELCOME, AND 13:23:51 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:23:53 LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE LONG HOURS YOU WILL SPEND 13:23:57 WITH US THIS WEEK. LIKE OTHERS, LET ME START, OF 13:24:01 COURSE, BY OFFERING MY CONDOLENCES TO JUSTICE RUTH 13:24:09 BATH GINSBURG AND THE PASSING OF HER 13:24:12 HUSBAND. AND WE JOIN THE PEOPLE IN WEST 13:24:15 VIRGINIA IN MOURNING THE LOSS OF THEIR SENATOR OUR COLLEAGUE 13:24:17 ROBERT BYRD. SENATOR BYRD CARED DEEPLY ABOUT 13:24:21 THE SENATE AND THE CONSTITUTION. AND WE CANNOT HELP BUT THINK OF 13:24:25 HIM AS WE BEGIN THIS PROCESS TODAY. 13:24:27 I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN LEAHY, COMPLIMENT HIM AND HIS STAFF ON 13:24:32 YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS SO OPEN AND 13:24:38 TRANSPARENT. NEARLY 200,000 PAGES OF 13:24:40 DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 13:24:44 ONLINE. I'M PARTICULARLY PLEASED YOU 13:24:46 JOINED WITH THE RANKING MEMBER TO REQUEST A COMPLETE AND TIMELY 13:24:51 SEARCH OF PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES SO AS MUCH ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S 13:24:57 PAST WORK COULD BE REVIEWED AS POSSIBLE. 13:24:59 AND I THINK THAT FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON DESERVES OUR 13:25:01 THANKS, AS WELL, FOR HIS AGREEMENT TO RELEASE TO THE 13:25:03 COMMITTEE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT HE WAS ENTITLED 13:25:07 TO BLOCK UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. 13:25:11 THE SUPREME COURT PLAYS A UNIQUE AND CENTRAL ROLE IN OUR NATION. 13:25:16 JUSTICES HAVE EXTRAORDINARY POWER OVER SOME OF THE MOST 13:25:18 IMPORTANT AND MOST BASIC ASPECTS OF THE LIVES OF AMERICAN 13:25:22 CITIZENS. THE NINE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SIT 13:25:23 ON THE COURT HAVE ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITIES. 13:25:26 AND THOSE OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT 13:25:30 RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL. MS. KAGAN, I HOPE YOU WILL BE 13:25:34 FORTHCOMING IN YOUR ANSWERS SO WE CAN HAVE THE OPEN AND HONEST 13:25:37 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES OUR COUNTRY DESERVES. 13:25:40 IN 2005 WHEN WE BEGAN OUR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR CHIEF 13:25:44 JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE COURT HAD NOT SEEN A NEW MEMBER FOR 11 13:25:47 YEARS. NOW WE'RE BEGINNING THE FOURTH 13:25:49 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. 13:25:51 AND TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE BEGIN A HEARING IN A NOMINATION 13:25:55 THAT COULD RESULT IN THREE WOMEN SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT AT 13:25:57 ONE TIME. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY FROM THE 13:26:01 DAYS WHEN JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS TURNED DOWN FOR A PRESTIGIOUS 13:26:06 CLERKSHIP BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN OR JUSTICE O'CONNOR 13:26:10 GRADUATE FROM STANFORD LAW SCHOOL BUT NO LAW FIRM WOULD 13:26:13 HIRE HER AS A LAWYER, INSTEAD OFFERING HER A POSITION AS A 13:26:16 SECRETARY. WOMEN ARE INCREASINGLY 13:26:20 OUTNUMBERING MEN ON LAW SCHOOL CAMPUSES THROUGHOUT THE NATION 13:26:23 AND I'M PLEASED THAT THE COURT IS BEGINNING TO REFLECT THAT 13:26:25 FACT. I ALSO HOPE THAT WE'LL CONTINUE 13:26:29 TO SEE GREATER DIVERSITY ON THE COURT IN OTHER WAYS INCLUDING 13:26:35 REPRESENTATION FROM MIDWESTERN AND WESTERN STATES. 13:26:38 IT'S IMPORTANT ALL AMERICANS FEELS THE COURT REPRESENTS THEIR 13:26:42 VALUES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE BEST WAY 13:26:45 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS BY SELECTING CANDIDATES THAT 13:26:48 REFLECT THE FULL DIVERSITY OF THIS COUNTRY. 13:26:50 THE COURT IS NOW TAKING SHAPE AND ELENA KAGAN IF SHE IS 13:26:57 NOMINATED WILL SHAPE THE COUNTRY IN THE YEARS TO COME. 13:26:59 THE FREEDOMS OF OUR CITIZENS THAT WILL DECIDE WHAT LIMITS 13:27:04 THERE ARE ON THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CAN SOLVE THE 13:27:07 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT THE COUNTRY FACES. 13:27:10 WILL CONFRONT QUESTIONS OF RACE THAT ARE AS OLD AS OUR NATION 13:27:13 AND AS NEW AS THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE 21st 13:27:17 CENTURY. BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS THAT 13:27:18 WILL COME BEFORE THE COURT IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES ARE SO 13:27:21 WEIGHTY, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT A GROWING SEGMENT OF AMERICANS 13:27:24 SEEM TO HAVE LOST TRUST IN THE COURT AND ITS JUSTICES. 13:27:27 SUPREME COURT CASES BY THEIR NATURE CAN DIVIDE THE COUNTRY. 13:27:31 IMPORTANT CASES WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES ARE 13:27:34 OFTEN DECIDED NOW BY A 5-4 VOTE. SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL 13:27:38 THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT 13:27:41 MADE ON THE BASIS OF AN IDEOLOGICAL OR PARTISAN 13:27:44 POLITICAL AGENDA. THE FAIRNESS, OBJECTIVITY, AND 13:27:50 GOOD FAITH OF JUSTICES SHOULD BE BEYOND QUESTION. 13:27:53 SO AS CHAIRMAN LEAHY SUGGESTED, WHEN A DECISION LIKE THE ONE 13:27:58 HANDED DOWN THIS YEAR BY A 5-4 VOTE IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE 13:28:05 UPROOTS AND UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, THE PUBLIC'S 13:28:08 CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT CAN'T HELP BUT BE SHAKEN. 13:28:11 I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THAT DECISION. 13:28:14 AND IN THE COURT FOR REACHING OUT TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF 13:28:18 ELECTION LAW IN A DRASTIC AND WHOLLY UNNECESSARY WAY. 13:28:21 BY ACTING IN SUCH AN EXTREME AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER. 13:28:26 THE COURT BADLY DAMAGED ITS OWN INTEGRITY BY ELEVATING THE 13:28:30 RIGHTS OF CORPORATION OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, THE COURT 13:28:32 DAMAGED OUR DEMOCRACY. MS. KAGAN, IF YOU'RE CONFIRMED, 13:28:39 I HOPE YOU'LL KEEP THIS IN MIND. I HOPE YOU'LL TREAD CAREFULLY 13:28:44 AND CONSIDER THE COURT AS A WHOLE WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TO 13:28:47 OVERTURN LONG STANDING PRECEDENT WAYS THAT WILL HAVE SUCH A 13:28:50 DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. 13:28:52 YOU HAVE DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS SOMEONE WHO CAN REACH OUT TO 13:28:55 THOSE WITH WHOM YOU MAY NOT AGREE AND WORK TOGETHER. 13:28:57 AND I THINK THAT'S A SKILL THAT WILL PROVE TO BE VERY USEFUL AND 13:29:00 VALUABLE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED. YOU ALSO HAVE AN IMPRESSIVE 13:29:06 EDUCATION. YOU'VE WORKED AT THE HIGHEST 13:29:08 LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. AND YOU'VE TAUGHT AND WRITTEN 13:29:10 ABOUT THE LAW. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU 13:29:12 UNDERSTAND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ROLES OF THE 13:29:17 THREE BRANCHES. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I HOPE 13:29:19 YOU'LL APPRECIATE THE IMPACT THE LAW HAS ON THE LIVES OF ALL 13:29:23 AMERICANS. SO IT'S MY HOPE THAT YOUR 13:29:25 DIVERSE EXPERIENCES, YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND OPENNESS YOUR 13:29:29 TALENT FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE 13:29:33 LONG-TERM DANGERS TO THE COURT AND THE COUNTRY AND ENABLE YOU 13:29:38 IF CONFIRMED TO CONVINCE YOUR COLLEAGUES TO AVOID MAKING 13:29:40 SIMILAR MISTAKES IN THE FUTURE. I ALSO HOPE THAT YOU WILL HAVE 13:29:44 THE WISDOM AND THE COURAGE THAT THE JUSTICE YOU HAVE BEEN 13:29:48 NOMINATED TO REPLACE, JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS SHOWED TIME 13:29:52 AND TIME AGAIN IN DRAWING THE LINE AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH 13:29:55 THAT SOUGHT POWERS THAT ENDANGERED THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 13:29:59 AND FREEDOMS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES. 13:30:03 MS. KAGAN, OF COURSE, JUDGING ISN'T EASY. 13:30:06 IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES. 13:30:08 BECAUSE JUDGES AND PARTICULARLY JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT 13:30:11 ARE CALLED UPON TO APPLY CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES THAT AS 13:30:18 JUSTICE SUTER SAID RECENTLY MAY EXIST IN TENSION WITH EACH 13:30:22 OTHER, NOT IN HARMONY. YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 13:30:24 SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT COMBINATION 13:30:27 OF QUALITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE A GOOD JUSTICE. 13:30:30 I WISH YOU WELL IN THAT TASK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE 13:30:33 CONVERSATION YOU WILL HAVE NOT ONLY WITH ME BUT WITH MY 13:30:35 COLLEAGUES AND WITH THE COUNTRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:30:40 THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINGOLD. 13:30:44 SENATOR KYLE? CONGRATULATIONS SOLICITOR 13:30:48 GENERAL KAGAN AND WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. 13:30:54 I FIRST KNOW IN AGREEMENT, WE DO KNOW MORE DIVERSITY ON THE 13:30:58 COURT. IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS NOW SINCE 13:31:00 AN ARIZONAN HAS BEEN ON THE SUPREME COURT. 13:31:02 I ONLY CONFIRM THEM, I DON'T PICK THEM. 13:31:10 WE SAT IN THE SAME ROOM TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF THEN 13:31:16 JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR. AND TO IMPARTIALLY APPLY THE LAW 13:31:27 TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES. 13:31:30 JUDGE SOTOMAYOR EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE EMPATHY STANDARD 13:31:34 THAT HAD BEEN ESPOUSED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. 13:31:39 A STANDARD WHERE LEGAL PROCESS ALONE IS DEEMED INEFFICIENT FOR 13:31:42 THE SO-CALLED HARD CASES WHERE THE CRITICAL INGREDIENT IS 13:31:46 SUPPLIED BY WHAT IS IN THE JUDGE'S HEART. 13:31:48 PERHAPS BECAUSE HIS FIRST NOMINEE FAILED TO DEFEND THE 13:31:51 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, THE PRESIDENT HAS 13:31:54 REPACKAGED IT. NOW HE SAYS THAT JUDGES SHOULD 13:31:57 HAVE A KEEN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES 13:32:00 OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND NO THAT IN A DEMOCRACY, 13:32:04 POWERFUL INTERESTS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES 13:32:08 OF ORDINARY CITIZENS. THE CLEAR IMPLICATION IS THAT AT 13:32:14 LEAST IN SOME KIND OF CASES, JUDGES SHOULD ABANDON 13:32:18 IMPARTIALITY AND ENGAGE IN RESULTS-ORIENTED JUDGING. 13:32:23 HIS OWN PRESS SECRETARY HAS CONFIRMED THE RESULTS ORIENTED 13:32:27 VIEW. EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF RESULTS IS 13:32:29 THE PRESIDENT LOOKING FOR FROM HIS JUDGES? 13:32:31 PERHAPS HE WANTS JUDGES WHO WILL IGNORE THE SERIOUS 13:32:34 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SURROUNDING SOME OF HIS DOMESTIC 13:32:36 LEGISLATION. OR MAYBE HE WANTS JUDGES WHO 13:32:40 WILL USE THE BENCH TO ADVANCE PROGRESSIVE GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN 13:32:44 STALLED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. 13:32:46 WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION, HIS VIEW OF THE ROLE 13:32:48 OF JUDGES IS WRONG. JUDGES ARE TO APPLY THE LAW 13:32:54 IMPARTIALLY, NOT TAKE ON SOCIAL CAUSES OR CUT DOWN POWERFUL 13:32:57 INTERESTS. WHILE THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH 13:33:03 LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS, IT IS NOT THEIR 13:33:07 PREROGATIVE TO FIX INEQUITIES. PART OF OUR TASK IS TO DETERMINE 13:33:13 WHETHER MS. KAGAN SHARES PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PHILOSOPHIES 13:33:17 OF JUDGING OR IS SHE COMMITTED TO IMPARTIALITY. 13:33:20 WHICH MAY BE A MORE DIFFICULT TASK WITH KAGAN THAN OTHER 13:33:24 SUPREME COURT NOMINEES WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, MOST 13:33:27 OF WHOM HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL JUDICIAL RECORDS TO EVALUATE. 13:33:30 FOR INSTANCE, JUDGE SOTOMAYOR ISSUED 15,000 OPINIONS IN A 13:33:34 DECADE AND A HALF OF DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT SERVICE. 13:33:37 MS. KAGAN HAS NEVER SERVED ON ANY BENCH. 13:33:40 INDEED EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF TWO-YEAR STENT IN PRIVATE 13:33:44 PRACTICE AND ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, MS. KAGAN'S 13:33:47 ENTIRE CAREER HAS BEEN DIVIDED BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND POLICY IN 13:33:52 THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. GIVEN THIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE 13:33:55 PRACTICING LAW, I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE AMERICAN BAR 13:33:57 ASSOCIATION AWARDED HER A WELL-QUALIFIED RATING SINCE THE 13:34:02 ABA'S OWN CRITERIA CALL FOR AMONG OTHER THINGS AT LEAST 12 13:34:07 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. 13:34:10 AND THEY MEAN ACTUAL PRACTICE OF LAW, LIKE FORMER JUSTICES 13:34:13 REHNQUIST AND POWELL. NOT ONLY IS MS. KAGAN'S 13:34:18 BACKGROUND UNUSUAL FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, IT'S NOT CLEAR 13:34:21 HOW IT DEMONSTRATES THAT SHE HAS IN THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS "A KEEN 13:34:25 UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES OF THE 13:34:27 AMERICAN PEOPLE." ONE RECENT ARTICLE NOTED THAT 13:34:31 HER EXPERIENCE DRAWS FROM A WORLD WHOSE SIGN POSTS ARE 13:34:35 DISTANT FROM MOST AMERICANS. MANHATTAN'S UPPER WEST SIDE, 13:34:39 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND THE UPPER 13:34:41 REACHES OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT. 13:34:45 HER CAREER IN ACADEMIA TELLS US RELATIVELY LITTLE ABOUT HER 13:34:49 VIEWS ON LEGAL ISSUES. IN 14 YEARS AS A PROFESSOR, SHE 13:34:54 PUBLISHED ONLY NINE ARTICLES. AND HER TENURE IN THE ACADEMY 13:34:57 WAS MARRED IN MY VIEW BY HER DECISION TO PUNISH THE MILITARY 13:35:00 AND WOULD BE RECRUITS FOR A POLICY DON'T ASK DON'T TELL AND 13:35:07 THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT ENACTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SIGNED 13:35:09 INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON. DESPITE THIS RELATIVELY THIN 13:35:14 PAPER TRAIL, THERE ARE WARNING SIGNS THAT SHE MAY BE EXACTLY 13:35:17 THE RESULTS-ORIENTED JUSTICE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS LOOKING FOR. 13:35:22 CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUDGES THAT MS. KAGAN SAYS SHE 13:35:24 MOST ADMIRES. MS. KAGAN HAS CALLED ISRAELI 13:35:31 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HER JUDICIAL HERO. 13:35:33 JUSTICE BARACK IS SOMEONE WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED AS SOMEONE WHO TOOK 13:35:38 AN ACTIVIST APPROACH TO JUDGING. DESCRIBED AS CREATING A DEGREE 13:35:43 OF JUDICIAL POWER UNDREAMED OF EVEN BY OUR MOST AGGRESSIVE 13:35:46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. MS. KAGAN IDENTIFIED THURGOOD 13:35:50 MARSHALL AS ANOTHER ONE OF HER LEGAL HEROES. 13:35:53 JUSTICE MARSHALL IS A HISTORIC FIGURE IN MANY RESPECTS. 13:35:57 AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT AS ONE OF HIS CLERKS, SHE HELD HIM 13:36:02 IN THE HIGHEST REGARD. HIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS NOT 13:36:04 WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE MAINSTREAM. 13:36:06 AS HE ONCE EXPLAINED, YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET 13:36:09 THE LAW CATCH UP. HE MIGHT BE THE EPITOME OF A 13:36:14 RESULTS ORIENTED JUDGE. AND MS. KAGAN APPEARS TO EMBRACE 13:36:19 THE PHILOSOPHY CALLING IT AMONG OTHER THINGS A THING OF GLORY. 13:36:23 IN 2003, MS. KAGAN WROTE A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE MARSHALL IN 13:36:27 WHICH SHE SAID IN HIS VIEW IT WAS THE ROLE OF THE COURTS AND 13:36:29 INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO WENT 13:36:34 UNPROTECTED BY EVERY OTHER ORGAN OF GOVERNMENT. 13:36:39 THE COURT EXISTED PRIMARILY TO FULFILL THIS MISSION. 13:36:44 AND LATER, WHEN SHE WAS WORKING IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, 13:36:48 SHE ENCOURAGED A COLLEAGUE WORKING ON A SPEECH ABOUT 13:36:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL TO EMPHASIZE HIS UNSHAKABLE DETERMINATION TO 13:36:55 PROTECT THE UNDERDOG. THE PEOPLE WHOM NO ONE ELSE WILL 13:36:57 PROTECT. TO ME THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE 13:37:00 WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS SAYING NOW. 13:37:04 AND MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A SUPREME COURT CLERK FOR JUSTICE 13:37:09 MARSHALL IS EVIDENCE SHE SHARES HIS VISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 13:37:12 IN MANY OF HER MEMOS, MS. KAGAN MADE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING 13:37:16 THE DISPOSITION OF CASES WHICH APPEAR TO BE BASED LARGELY ON 13:37:19 HER OWN LIBERAL POLICY PREFERENCES. 13:37:21 FOR EXAMPLE, DESPITE HER VIEW THAT ONE LOWER COURT'S DECISION 13:37:27 WAS LUDICROUS AND LACKED LEGAL BASIS, MS. KAGAN RECOMMENDED 13:37:31 THAT JUSTICE MARSHALL DENY FURTHER REVIEW BECAUSE OTHERWISE 13:37:34 WOULD LIKELY CREATE SOME VERY BAD LAW ON ABORTION AND OR 13:37:38 PRISONERS' RIGHTS. THIS KIND OF NAKED POLITICAL 13:37:41 JUDGMENT APPEARS FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A 13:37:45 JUDICIAL CLERK. IN ANOTHER CASE SHE SAID THE 13:37:47 SUPREME COURT SHOULD TAKE THE CASE BECAUSE "IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE 13:37:50 THAT THE GOOD GUYS MIGHT WIN ON THIS ISSUE." 13:37:53 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HER CHARACTERIZATION OF ONE PARTY AS 13:37:55 THE GOOD GUYS. TOO OFTEN IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE 13:38:00 MS. KAGAN SHARES THE VIEW OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND JUSTICE 13:38:02 MARSHALL THAT THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF 13:38:06 CERTAIN CLASSES OF LITIGANTS. IN ANOTHER CASE, MS. KAGAN WROTE 13:38:10 THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO PLACE AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE. 13:38:17 AND IN ANOTHER MEMO LACED WITH POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, MS. 13:38:21 KAGAN WROTE, I SEE NO REASON TO LET THIS COURT GET A CRACK AT 13:38:24 THIS QUESTION. SHE WAS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN A 13:38:27 HANDWRITTEN NOTE AFTER REVIEWING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN 13:38:30 ANOTHER CASE SAYING I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS DID 13:38:34 NOT SUPPORT THE ARREST, BUT I CANNOT SEE ANYTHING GOOD COMING 13:38:36 OUT OF REVIEW OF THIS CASE BY THIS COURT. 13:38:40 MS. KAGAN EXPLAINS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRIMARILY 13:38:43 CHANNELLING JUSTICE MARSHALL. BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHE 13:38:48 REALLY HAS ANY MAJOR DIFFERENCES WITH THEM AND WHETHER SHE SEES 13:38:51 ANYTHING WRONG WITH TAKING THE SAME APPROACH. 13:38:53 I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. 13:38:57 IN ADDITION TO MY GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER MS. KAGAN 13:39:00 COULD DECIDE CASES IMPARTIALLY AND WITHOUT BIAS FOR OUR AGAINST 13:39:04 CERTAIN PARTIES, A SURPRISING NUMBER OF THINGS IN HER 13:39:07 RELATIVELY THIN BODY OF WORK DO RAISE SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS ABOUT 13:39:12 VARIOUS ISSUES SUCH AS FEDERALISM, FREE SPEECH, 13:39:13 NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OTHERS. TO TAKE A LAST EXAMPLE. 13:39:17 I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED BY HER DECISION AS SOLICITOR GENERAL TO 13:39:20 URGE THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW AND STRIKE DOWN AN ARIZONA LAW 13:39:23 DESIGNED TO PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS. 13:39:28 THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THE LAW AND THE LOWER 13:39:31 COURT DECISION BECAUSE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW EXPLICITLY 13:39:35 ALLOWS STATES TO SANCTION EMPLOYERS THROUGH THEIR BUSINESS 13:39:37 LICENSING REGIMES. I THINK THERE ARE LEGITIMATE 13:39:40 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE BRIEF AUTHORIZED BY MS. KAGAN, 13:39:42 WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE LAW AND 13:39:46 URGES THE SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE THESE ENFORCEMENTS DOWN 13:39:50 WAS MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND 13:39:54 WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 13:39:55 AND I'M CONVINCED THAT WITHOUT THE URGING OF HER OFFICE, THE 13:40:01 COURT WOULD NOT GRANT TODAY. IN CONCLUSION, THERE'S AMPLE 13:40:04 REASON FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE THIS 13:40:10 NOMINEE, SCRUTINY IN WHICH SHE INVITED IN HER ARTICLE IN 1995. 13:40:12 BECAUSE SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL RECORD ON WHICH WE CAN DETERMINE 13:40:16 WHETHER SHE IS A RESULTS ORIENTED NOMINEE OR WOULD 13:40:22 APPROACH EACH CASE AS A CONTROLLED ARBITER, I BELIEVE 13:40:25 THE BURDEN IS ON THE NOMINEE TO SHOW HER RECORD DEMONSTRATES SHE 13:40:28 CAN BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE RATHER THAN ONE WHO 13:40:31 WOULD HAVE AN OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH. 13:40:34 I LOOK FORWARD TO HER TESTIMONY. SENATOR SPECTER? 13:40:39 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN 13:40:41 WELCOMING YOU HERE THIS MORNING. WITH THE PASSING OF SENATOR BYRD 13:40:46 EARLIER TODAY, I WAS REMINDED OF OUR HEARINGS FOR JUDGE BOOR, AND 13:41:00 A CANDID SHOT OF HIM TAKEN ONE SATURDAY WHEN WE HAD AN HOUR -- 13:41:05 A SATURDAY MORNING SESSION WITH JUDGE BORK AND HIS PICTURE 13:41:11 APPEARED ON THE "SUNDAY NEW YORKTIMES" AND HE WILL BE WITH 13:41:18 US IN MUCH OF OUR THINKING ON THE CONSTITUTION. 13:41:20 THIS HEARING PRESENTS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS, TO HAVE 13:41:24 QUESTIONS ANSWERED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PAST. 13:41:31 THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU AUTHORED FOR THE CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 13:41:35 BACKED IN 1995 IS OPENLY AND SPECIFICALLY CRITICAL OF JUSTICE 13:41:42 GINSBERG, JUSTICE BREYER AS YOU CHARACTERIZE IT STONE WALLED AND 13:41:46 CRITICIZED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I THINK PROPERLY SO 13:41:52 AS LACKING SERIOUSNESS AND SUBSTANCE IN OUR APPROACH TO THE 13:41:54 HEARINGS. AND YOU USE THE PHRASE THAT THE 13:41:58 CONFIRMATION PROCESS TAKES ON AN ERR OF FARCE. 13:42:07 YOU QUOTE SENATOR BIDEN THEN CHAIRMAN AND MYSELF EXPRESSING 13:42:11 CONCERNS THAT ONE DAY THE COMMITTEE WOULD "GROW UP ON ITS 13:42:21 HIND LEGS AND REJECT A NOMINEE WHO REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:42:25 FOR THAT REASON ALONE." SO THIS IS A UNIQUE HEARING IN 13:42:27 THAT RESPECT. THE COURT, REGRETTABLY I THINK 13:42:35 HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGICAL BATTLEGROUND. 13:42:38 AND THE ACTIVISM IS ON BOTH SIDES. 13:42:41 AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE 1960s, I WATCHED THE CONSTITUTION CHANGE 13:42:50 VIRTUALLY DAILY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAP 1961 RIGHT TO 1963, 13:42:57 MIRANDA, 1966. ACTIVISM. 13:43:02 WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAVING ADOPTED A TEST OF 13:43:06 DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONALITY SINCE 1996 ON CONGRUENCE AND 13:43:17 PROPORTIONALTY. J 13:43:26 WE'VE HAD NOMINATIONS WHO SAT WHERE YOU SIT NOT TOO LONG AGO 13:43:32 WHO SAID THEY WOULD NOT JOLT THE SYSTEM. 13:43:33 MODESTY AND THEN AGREED TO THE SYSTEM. 13:43:40 ASSURE THIS PANEL THAT THE LEGISLATIVE FINDING OF FACTS IS 13:43:46 NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. AND THEN TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD 13:43:51 AND CITIZENS UNITED ON A RECORD THAT IS 100,000 PAGES LONG AND 13:43:55 FINDING THAT THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A 100-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT, 13:44:02 WHICH WAS OVERTURNED. CERTAINLY A JOLT TO THE SYSTEM. 13:44:10 WHEN SENATOR BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING THE NOMINATION OF 13:44:15 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, HE SAID THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED BUT WOULD 13:44:21 VOTE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE AS THEN SENATOR OBAMA SAID, "OVERARCHING 13:44:28 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY." WELL, THE PRESIDENTS MAKE THEIR 13:44:35 SELECTIONS BASED ON I IDEOLOGY. AND I THOUGHT -- HAVE COME TO 13:44:47 THE CONCLUSION THE SENATORS HAVE THE SAME STANDING TO MAKE A 13:44:48 DETERMINATION ON IDEOLOGY. IT HAS BECOME ACCEPTED THAT 13:44:56 THERE SHOULD NOT BE TRANSGRESSION INTO THE AREA OF 13:45:02 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ON HOW A CASE WOULD BE DECIDED. 13:45:07 THERE'S AN INTERESTING CASE CAPTIONED MINNESOTA IN 2002 13:45:18 WHICH STRUCK DOWN A REQUIREMENT OF THE MINNESOTA BAR 13:45:22 ASSOCIATION, WHICH PROHIBITED JUDGES FROM SAYING HOW THEY 13:45:26 WOULD DECIDE CASES. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WAS AN 13:45:29 INFRINGEMENT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 13:45:33 NOW, THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT A JUDGE SHOULD ANSWER THE 13:45:40 QUESTION, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT A BAR ASSOCIATION RULE PROHIBITING 13:45:44 ANSWERING THE QUESTION IS INVALID, WHICH LEAVES THE JUDGE 13:45:48 AT LEAST SO FAR AS THAT STANDARD IS CONCERNED WITH A LATITUDE TO 13:45:54 ANSWER THE QUESTION SO THAT EVEN ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF HOW 13:45:59 A CASE WILL BE DECIDED, THEN IN YOUR LAW REVIEW ARTICLE, YOU 13:46:03 COME VERY CLOSE TO THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ANSWERING SUBSTANTIVE 13:46:09 LEGAL ISSUES. REALLY RIGHT ON THE LINE OF HOW 13:46:12 YOU WOULD DECIDE A CASE. BUT IF YOU ARE PRECLUDED FROM 13:46:21 ASKING HOW DECISIONS WOULD BE -- WHAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE OR 13:46:27 GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE PRECEDENT ON THAT. 13:46:30 I DO THINK IT IS FAIR FOR US TO ASK WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT 13:46:34 WOULD TAKE A CASE. THE CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY 13:46:40 TO DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT ON CASES WHICH MUST BE HEARD. 13:46:45 FLAG BURNING CASE, McCAIN-FEINGOLD AND MANY, MANY 13:46:52 OTHERS. SO THE COURT'S DISCUSSION IS 13:46:55 LIMITED THERE IF THERE IS A CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION. 13:46:56 I THINK IT IS FAIR FROM THAT PROPOSITION TO ASK A NOMINEES 13:47:04 WHETHER THEY WOULD TAKE CASES. I SPOKE AT LENGTH ON THE FLOOR 13:47:09 ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER THE INAPPROPRIATE DECLINE OF A 13:47:14 NUMBER OF CASES CONSIDERED. 100 YEARS AGO, A LITTLE MORE 13:47:21 THAN 1886, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED 146 CASES, 146 OPINIONS, 13:47:26 A LITTLE MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, 1987, 146 OPINIONS. 13:47:33 LAST YEAR, LAST TERM, 78 ARGUMENTS, 75 OPINIONS. 13:47:40 A LOT OF CIRCUIT SPLITS, IMPORTANT CASES ARE NOT TAKEN UP 13:47:44 BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO 13:47:47 HEAR THE CONFLICT, WHICH ARGUABLY IS THE MOST SERIOUS 13:47:54 CLASH BETWEEN CONGRESS' ARTICLE ONE POWERS UNDER THE FOREIGN 13:47:59 INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT WHICH SETS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS 13:48:01 FOR GETTING A WARRANT, LISTENING TO A WIRETAP, PROBABLE CAUSE, 13:48:08 AND THE PRESIDENT'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAP PROGRAM JUSTIFIED UNDER 13:48:13 ARTICLE II. THE DETROIT FEDERAL JUDGE SAID 13:48:15 IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DUCKED IT WITH A 13:48:21 STANDING DECISION 2-1 WITH ADMITTEDLY THE DISSENTING 13:48:25 OPINION MUCH STRONGER, APPLICATION DENIED. 13:48:29 AND THIS WAS SOMETHING I DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN OUR 13:48:32 MEETING, WHICH I THANK YOU. I SENT YOU A SERIES OF LETTERS 13:48:36 ON ISSUES WHICH I INTEND TO ASK YOU ABOUT. 13:48:37 AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR 13:48:44 DECISIONS AS SOLICITOR GENERAL ON THE CASE INVOLVING THE 13:48:49 HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, SUING AN ITALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, AND 13:48:54 THE SECOND CIRCUIT BOWS TO THE EXECUTIVE POSITION SAYING, WELL, 13:48:58 THAT OUGHT TO BE DECIDED BETWEEN ITALY AND THE UNITED STATES ON 13:49:02 HOW THAT'S TO BE HANDLED. I THINK THAT'S WRONG. 13:49:06 BUT AT LEAST THE SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO DECIDE IT. 13:49:08 NOT GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE THE CASE, BUT WOULD 13:49:11 YOU CONSIDER IT? A CASE INVOLVING THE SURVIVORS 13:49:16 OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 HAS NOT BEEN HEARD OR PETITIONED FROM THE 13:49:23 SECOND CIRCUIT. THE SECOND CIRCUIT SAID, WELL, 13:49:25 THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES CASE DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE SAUDI 13:49:32 ARABIA HASN'T BEEN DECLARED A TERRORIST STATE. 13:49:35 THAT'S REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACT, CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, 13:49:41 NOT GOVERNED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 13:49:46 SAID THE ACTS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY, A DISTINCTION I 13:49:49 DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRADE 13:49:52 TOWERS AND 3,000 AMERICANS ARE KILLED, CERTAINLY THE SOVEREIGN 13:49:58 IMMUNITIES ACT OUGHT TO SAUDI ARABIA SUBJECT TO SUE, BUT 13:50:02 I WON'T ASK YOU HOW YOU WILL DECIDE THE CASE, BUT IF YOU 13:50:06 WOULD TAKE IT UP. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WOULDN'T BE 13:50:10 RESOLVED TODAY AND PERHAPS NEVER IS HOW TO SEE TO IT THE NOMINEES 13:50:19 WHO MAKE STATEMENTS HERE ARE ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND ON STAIR 13:50:23 DECISIS FOLLOW-UP ON IT. AND MAYBE THE CLOSEST APPROACH 13:50:30 IS THE IDEA OF TELEVISING. IN OUR MEETING, YOU SAID YOU 13:50:33 FAVOR TELL ADVISING THE COURT. NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT BRAN 13:50:37 DIES TALKED ABOUT SUNLIGHT AND PUBLICITY BEING THE BEST 13:50:41 DISINFECTANT. WELL IT IS NOT A DISINFECTANT WE 13:50:43 ARE LOOKING FOR HERE BUT TO HOLD NOMINEES WHO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:50:47 HERE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WHEN THEY ARE ON THE COURT. 13:50:55 THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR 13:50:57 GRAHAM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:50:59 CONGRATULATIONS. I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD COUPLE 13:51:00 OF DAYS. I HOPE YOU SOMEWHAT ENJOY IT. 13:51:04 AND I THINK YOU WILL. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I WOULD LIKE 13:51:08 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PASSION OF SENATOR BYRD, WHO WAS A WORTHY 13:51:13 ALLY AND A VERY GOOD OPPONENT WHEN IT CAME TO THE SENATE. 13:51:16 MY ASSOCIATION WITH SENATOR BYRD DURING THE GANG OF 14, I LEARNED 13:51:20 A LOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION FROM HIM AND AS ALL OF OUR 13:51:24 COLLEAGUES REMEMBER, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, WE HAD A REAL -- REAL 13:51:27 CONFLICT IN THE SENATE ABOUT FILIBUSTERING JUDICIAL NOMINEES 13:51:32 AND SENATOR BYRD AND A FEW OTHER SENATORS WHO CAME UP WITH THE 13:51:35 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TEST THAT WOULD SAY THAT FILIBUSTERS 13:51:37 SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 13:51:40 BECAUSE ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND SENATOR BYRD 13:51:43 WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF AUTHORS OF THE LANGUAGE, DEFINING WHAT AN 13:51:48 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE WAS. I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IN 13:51:52 HIS PASSING IS GOING TO BE AS WILL TO THE SENATE. 13:51:54 AND THE THING THAT WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT SENATOR BYRD 13:51:57 IS THAT ALL OF US ARE CHOOSING TO JUDGE HIM BY HIS COMPLETE 13:52:01 CAREER. AND HISTORY WILL JUDGE HIM BY 13:52:03 HIS COMPLETE CAREER, NOT ONE MOMENT IN TIME AND THAT'S 13:52:06 PROBABLY A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW WHEN IT COMES TO 13:52:10 EACH OTHER AND TO NOMINEES. NOW, YOU ARE THE BEST EXAMPLE I 13:52:13 CAN THINK OF WHY HEARINGS SHOULD BE PROBATIVE AND MEANINGFUL. 13:52:16 YOU COME WITH NO JUDICIAL RECORD, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST 13:52:19 PERSON TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT HAVING BEEN A 13:52:22 JUDGE. BUT IT DOES, I THINK, REQUIRE US 13:52:25 AND YOU TO PROVIDE US A LITTLE INSIGHT AS TO WHAT KIND OF JUDGE 13:52:29 YOU WOULD BE. VERY LITTLE PRIVATE PRACTICE. 13:52:32 ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL AND A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON 13:52:35 THIS SIDE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:52:38 THAT I THINK ARE A BIT DISTURBING, BUT I'D LIKE TO 13:52:42 ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR 13:52:44 GENERAL THAT I THOUGHT WERE VERY GOOD. 13:52:45 YOU OPPOSED APPLYING HABEAS RIGHTS TO BAGHRAM DETAINEES. 13:52:50 YOU SUPPORTED THE IDEA THAT A TERROR SUSPECT COULD BE CHARGED 13:52:55 WITH MATERIAL SUPPORT OF TERRORISM UNDER THE STATUTE AND 13:52:58 THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF WARS HISTORY. 13:53:02 SO, THERE ARE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT I 13:53:05 THINK WILL MERIT PRAISE AND I WILL CERTAINLY, FROM MY POINT OF 13:53:08 VIEW, GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THOSE. 13:53:10 AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU TWO THINGS YOU CAN HIRED 13:53:13 SOME CONSERVATIVES, WHICH IS A GOOD THING AND YOU OPPOSED 13:53:17 MILITARY RECRUITMENT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BUT WE 13:53:21 WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ALL THAT REALLY DOES MEAN T 13:53:23 IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU BRING TO THIS HEARING, A LITTLE 13:53:28 OF THIS AND A LITTLE OF THAT NOW WHAT DO WE KNOW? 13:53:30 WE KNOW YOU ARE VERY SMART. OFF STRONG ACADEMIC BACKGROUND. 13:53:36 YOU GOT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. THE LETTER FROM MIGUEL ESTRADA 13:53:38 IS A HUMBLING LETTER AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE MENTIONED 13:53:41 THROUGHOUT THE HEARING, BUT IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT HIM. 13:53:44 IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU THAT HE WOULD WRITE THAT LETTER. 13:53:48 KEN STARR AND TED OLSON HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT 13:53:51 YOU ARE A QUALIFIED NOMINEE. THERE'S NO TO DOUBT IN MY MIND 13:53:54 THAT YOU ARE A LIBERAL PERSON. THAT APPLIES TO MOST OF THE 13:53:57 PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND I RESPECT THEM AND I RESPECT 13:54:01 YOU. I'M A CONSERVATIVE PERSON. 13:54:03 AND YOU WOULD EXPECT A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT TO 13:54:06 NOMINATE A CONSERVATIVE PERSON WHO DID NOT WORK IN THE CLINTON 13:54:11 ADMINISTRATION. SO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE EMBRACED 13:54:13 LIBERAL CAUSES AND YOU HAVE GROWN UP IN A LIBERAL HOUSEHOLD 13:54:16 IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THAT'S JUST AMERICA. 13:54:20 IT'S OKAY TO BE LIBERAL, IT'S OKAY TO BE CONSERVATIVE, BUT 13:54:23 WHEN IT COMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE, YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE YOU 13:54:26 UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS THAT POSITION PLACES ON ANY AGENDA, 13:54:30 LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. YOUR JUDICIAL HERO IS AN 13:54:35 INTERESTING GUY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 13:54:38 EXPLAINING TO DO TO ME ABOUT WHY YOU PICKED JUDGE BARACK AS YOUR 13:54:44 HERO BECAUSE WHEN I READ HIS WRITINGS, A BIT DISTURBING ABOUT 13:54:47 HIS VIEW OF WHAT A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR SOCIETY AS A 13:54:51 WHOLE, BUT I'M SURE VUL GOOD ANSWERS AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD 13:54:54 TO THAT DISCUSSION. ON THE WAR ON TERROR, YOU COULD 13:54:57 IN MY VIEW, IF CONFIRMED, PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME 13:55:01 REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S FACING. 13:55:04 ABOUT HOW THE LAW NEEDS TO BE T 13:55:13 DRAFTED AND CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY TO RECOGNIZE FIGHTING CRIME 13:55:15 AND FIGHTING WAR. SO YOU, IN MY VIEW, HAVE A 13:55:18 POTENTIAL TEACHING OPPORTUNITY, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN 13:55:20 A JUDGE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THIS COUNTRY AS 13:55:24 SOLICITOR GENERAL AT A TIME OF WAR. 13:55:26 THE ONE THING I CAN SAY WITHOUT CERTAINTY IS I DON'T EXPECT YOUR 13:55:29 NOMINATION TO CHANGE THE BILLION OF POWER. 13:55:32 AFTER THIS HEARING'S OVER, I HOPE AMERICAN -- THE AMERICAN 13:55:36 PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT ELECTIONS DO MATTER. 13:55:39 WHAT DID I EXPECT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA? 13:55:41 JUST ABOUT WHAT I'M GETTING. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE 13:55:44 WHO ARE SURPRISED. WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, 13:55:48 IF YOU WERE LISTENING. SO, I LOOK FORWARD TO TRYING TO 13:55:51 BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE POLITICAL 13:55:55 ACTIVISM, ASSOCIATION WITH LIBERAL CAUSES AND PARK IT WHEN 13:56:00 IT BECOMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE. THAT, TO ME, IS YOUR CHALLENGE. 13:56:05 I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER YOU QUALIFIED, BECAUSE 13:56:09 YOU'VE DONE A LOT IN YOUR LIFE WORTHY OF PRAISE. 13:56:12 BUT IT WILL BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO CONVINCE ME AND OTHERS, 13:56:15 PARTICULARLY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, THAT WHATEVER 13:56:18 ACTIVITIES YOU'VE ENGAGED IN POLITICALLY AND WHATEVER ADVICE 13:56:22 YOU'VE GIVEN TO PRESIDENT CLINTON OR JUSTICE MARSHALL, 13:56:25 THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL BE YOUR OWN PERSON, THAT 13:56:29 YOU WILL BE STANDING IN DIFFERENT SHOES WHERE IT WILL BE 13:56:32 YOUR DECISION TO MAKE, NOT TRYING TO CHANNEL WHAT THEY 13:56:36 THOUGHT. AND IF AT THE END OF THE DAY, 13:56:37 YOU THINK MORE LIKE JUSTICE MARSHALL THAN JUSTICE RHENQUIST, 13:56:42 SO BE IT. THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU MAKE 13:56:46 SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT CHANNELING YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA, YOUR 13:56:50 POLITICAL LEANINGS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RENDER DECISIONS? 13:56:54 AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE QUALIFICATION TEST WILL BE 13:56:59 MET. WHETHER OR NOT ACTIVISM CAN BE 13:57:01 PARKED IS UP TO YOU. AND I LOOK AT THIS CONFIRMATION 13:57:06 PROCESS AS A WAY TO RECOGNIZE THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES 13:57:10 AND THE SENATE HAS AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION ON BEHALF 13:57:13 OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO PUT YOU UNDER SCRUTINY, FIRM AND 13:57:20 FAIR, RESPECTFUL AND SOMETIMES CONTENTIOUS. 13:57:24 GOOD LUCK. BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE AND 13:57:28 IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE WITH US UP HERE. 13:57:34 THANK YOU. THE -- THANK YOU, SENATOR. 13:57:39 AND NEXT, SENATOR SCHUMER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 13:57:43 I, TOO, WANT TO NOTE THE PASSING OF OUR FRIEND AND LEADER, 13:57:46 SENATOR BYRD. SENATOR BYRD'S FIERCE DEVOTION 13:57:50 TO THE CONSTITUTION HOVERS OVER THIS HEARING AND NOTHING COULD 13:57:53 BE MORE APPROPRIATE ON THE SAD DAY OF HIS DEATH THAN HOLDING 13:57:58 THIS HEARING, WHERE THE FIRST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GIVES 13:58:02 ADVICE AND CONSENT TO THE SECOND BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AS WE FILL 13:58:06 SOMEBODY -- FILL A POSITION ON THE THIRD. 13:58:09 WELL, WELCOME, MADAM SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:58:13 THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO TO ELABORATE ON YOUR 13:58:18 QUALIFICATIONS. SOLICITOR GENERAL KAGAN'S 13:58:20 ACHIEVEMENTS, AS WELL AS HER RECORD, ARE BY NOW WELL KNOWN TO 13:58:24 THIS COMMITTEE AND BY THE END OF THE WEEK, THEY WILL BE WELL 13:58:26 KNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FRANKLY THERE ARE NOT MANY 13:58:29 BLANKS LEFT TO FILL IN. GIVEN HOW FORTHCOMING GENERAL 13:58:33 KAGAN HAS ALREADY BEEN, I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD FINISH THIS 13:58:37 HEARING IN ONE ROUND OF QUESTIONING. 13:58:40 NOW, I AM AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR ASKING 13:58:43 NOMINEES SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND I EXPECT NOMINEES TO ANSWER. 13:58:49 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MY COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAIS 13:58:52 HAVE A RIGHT AND A DUTY TO ASK TOUGH, PROBATIVE QUESTIONS, BUT 13:58:56 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE QUALITY OF ANSWERS
KAGAN HEARING - SWITCHED 1300 - 1400
Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation hearing The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the nomination of Elena Kagan, Solicitor General to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. 10 minute opening statements, introduction of Kagan, Kagan sworn in, Kagan opening statement 13:00:00 ORRIN HATCH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. TODAY IS A SAD DAY WITH THE 13:00:04 PASSING OF OUR GREAT COLLEAGUE SENATOR ROBERT BYRD THIS 13:00:09 MORNING, AND THE DEATH YESTERDAY OF RUTH GINSBURG'S HUSBAND. 13:00:17 AND HIS LOVE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR THIS 13:00:21 LEGISLATIVE BODY WAS WELL-KNOWN. HE STOOD UP FOR IT ALL THE TIME. 13:00:26 AND OF COURSE, I HAD NOTHING BUT GREAT RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:29 I REMEMBER IN THE EARLY YEARS, HE WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH ME AND 13:00:32 FRANKLY I WASN'T VERY HAPPY WITH HIM EITHER. 13:00:34 BUT IN THE END, I GAINED SUCH TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR HIM. 13:00:40 AND LOVE EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE DIFFERED ON SO MANY ISSUES. 13:00:43 HE WAS A TOWERING FIGURE. THE GINSBURGS CELEBRATED THEIR 13:00:47 56th WEDDING ANNIVERSARY JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. 13:00:51 NOT AS LONG AS THE 68 YEARS THAT SENATOR AND URMA BYRD WERE 13:00:57 MARRIED BEFORE HER DEATH. CANCER WAS A PART OF THE 13:01:01 GINSBURGS' INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND THEIR LIFE TOGETHER. 13:01:03 AND FOR MANY YEARS AND I KNOW EACH OF THEM WAS A SOURCE OF 13:01:06 STRENGTH AND STABILITY TO THE OTHER. 13:01:08 THE GINSBURGS HAVE BEEN A MODEL OF DIGNITY AND GRACE AND JUSTICE 13:01:12 GINSBURG AND HER CHILDREN WILL BE IN MY PRAYERS. 13:01:15 I WANT TO WELCOME YOU BACK TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, GENERAL 13:01:17 KAGAN. SOMETHING TELLS ME THIS IS 13:01:21 LIKELY TO BE YOUR LAST CONFIRMATION HEARING. 13:01:26 AS AMERICA'S FOUNDERS DESIGNED IT, THE SENATE'S ROLE OF ADVICE 13:01:31 AND CONSENT IS A CHECK. FULFILLING THAT ROLE REQUIRES US 13:01:34 TO EVALUATE A NOMINEE FOR WHICH HE'S BEEN NOMINATED. 13:01:41 INCLUDE BOTH LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. 13:01:49 WHILE LEGAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARIZES THE PAST, JUDICIAL 13:01:52 PHILOSOPHY DESCRIBES HOW A NOMINEE WILL APPROACH JUDGING IN 13:01:57 THE FUTURE. MY PRIMARY GOAL IN THIS 13:01:59 CONFIRMATION PROCESS IS TO GET THE BEST PICTURE I CAN OF 13:02:03 GENERAL KAGAN'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, PRIMARILY FROM HER 13:02:07 RECORD, BUT ALSO FROM THIS HEARING, AS WELL. 13:02:10 I HAVE TO MAKE MY DECISION WHETHER TO SUPPORT OR NOT 13:02:15 SUPPORT HER NOMINATION ON EVIDENCE NOT ON BLIND FAITH. 13:02:18 I'VE NEVER CONSIDERED THE LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE TO BE AN 13:02:26 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFIER FOR A JUDICIAL NOMINEE. 13:02:30 MANY HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:02:32 WHAT THEY DID HAVE, HOWEVER, AN AVERAGE OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF 13:02:35 PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, SUPREME COURT 13:02:40 NOMINEES HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE BEHIND THE BENCH AS A JUDGE 13:02:42 BEFORE THE BENCH AS A LAWYER OR BOTH. 13:02:46 MS. KAGAN WORKED FOR TWO YEARS IN THE LAW FIRM, THE REST OF HER 13:02:51 CAREER IS IN ACADEMIA AND POLITICS. 13:02:54 AS THE "WASHINGTON POST" DESCRIBES, SHE BRINGS EXPERIENCE 13:02:58 IN THE POLITICAL CIRCUITS THAT OFTEN DEFINES WASHINGTON. 13:03:01 ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES RECENTLY SAID MS. KAGAN'S 13:03:05 STRONGEST QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT ARE HER EXPERIENCE 13:03:08 IN CRAFTING POLICY AND HER ABILITY TO BUILD CONSENSUS. 13:03:12 THE VALUE OF SUCH EXPERIENCE DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU VIEW THE 13:03:15 SUPREME COURT AS A POLITICAL CIRCUS OR VIEW ITS ROLE AS 13:03:17 CRAFTING POLICY. I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST 13:03:21 IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE IS THE 13:03:26 NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR HER APPROACH TO INTERPRETING AND 13:03:28 APPLYING THE LAW TO DECIDE CASES. 13:03:30 THIS IS WHAT JUDGES DO. BUT DIFFERENT JUDGES DO IT IN 13:03:34 RALLY DIFFERENT WAYS. OUR LIBERTY, HOWEVER, REQUIRES 13:03:39 LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT, AND THAT INCLUDES LIMITS ON JUDGES. 13:03:44 CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL WROTE IN MARBURY VERSUS MADISON THAT 13:03:52 AMERICAN FOUNDERS ENCOURAGED. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY JUDGES DO 13:03:56 NOT SEE IT THAT WAY BUT BELIEVE THEY MAY THEMSELVES GOVERN THE 13:03:58 CONSTITUTION. THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN 13:04:01 PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHICH KIND OF JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN WILL 13:04:04 BE. WILL THE CONSTITUTION CONTROL 13:04:09 HER? OR WILL SHE TRY TO CONTROL THE 13:04:10 CONSTITUTION? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT THE WORDS 13:04:13 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES CAN BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR 13:04:16 MEANING SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES 13:04:19 PUT WORDS ON THE PAGE BUT JUDGES MAY DETERMINE WHAT THOSE WORDS 13:04:23 ACTUALLY MEAN? DOES SHE BELIEVE IT IS VALID FOR 13:04:25 JUDGES TO MOLD AND STEER THE LAW TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS? 13:04:30 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT A JUDGE'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND VALUES 13:04:32 MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN HER DECISIONS? 13:04:36 DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT COURTS EXIST TO PROTECT CERTAIN 13:04:38 INTERESTS? DOES SHE BELIEVE THAT JUDGES MAY 13:04:43 CONTROL THE CONSTITUTION BY CHANGING ITS MEANING? 13:04:46 DOES SHE BELIEVE THE JUDGES MAY CHANGE THE MEANING OF STATUTES 13:04:49 IN ORDER TO MEET WHAT JUDGES BELIEVE ARE NEW SOCIAL 13:04:51 OBJECTIVES? THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE 13:04:55 QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF A NOMINEE'S JUDICIAL 13:04:56 PHILOSOPHY. I WANT TO CLARIFY AS BEST AS I 13:05:00 CAN WHAT KIND OF JUDGES -- WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE GENERAL KAGAN 13:05:03 WOULD BE. TO DO THAT, I HAVE TO EXAMINE 13:05:09 HER ENTIRE RECORD. AS IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, THERE 13:05:13 WILL NO DOUBT BE SOME TENSION DURING THIS HEARING BETWEEN WHAT 13:05:16 SENATORS WANT TO KNOW AND WHAT GENERAL KAGAN IS WILLING TO TELL 13:05:18 US. UNLIKE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, MS. 13:05:23 KAGAN HAS ALREADY OUTLINED VERY CLEARLY WHAT SHE BELIEVES THE 13:05:28 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT IN A 13:05:29 HEARING LIKE THIS. MS. KAGAN WROTE THE SENATE 13:05:36 BECOMES INCAPABLE OF PROPERLY EVALUATING OR APPROPRIATELY 13:05:42 EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, END QUOTE. SHE IDENTIFIED THE POLITICAL 13:05:45 INQUIRY ABOUT A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE AS "THE VOTES SHE WOULD 13:05:49 CAST, THE PERSPECTIVE SHE WOULD ADD, AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH 13:05:51 SHE WOULD MOVE THE INSTITUTION." BUT THE BOTTOM LINE ISSUE AND 13:05:54 THE APPOINTMENTS PROCESS MUST CONCERN THE KINDS OF JUDICIAL 13:05:58 DECISIONS THAT WILL SERVE THE COUNTRY AND THE EFFECT THE 13:06:03 NOMINEE WILL HAVE ON THE COURT'S DECISIONS. 13:06:05 IF THAT IS TOO RESULTS ORIENTED, SO BE IT, UNQUOTE. 13:06:10 MS. KAGAN OUTLINED THAT APPROACH, WHICH SHE ARGUED AS 13:06:13 NECESSARY FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARINGS TO BE MORE 13:06:21 THAN FARCE. WHEN SHE WAS WORKING ON THIS 13:06:24 COMMITTEE FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. 13:06:27 I BELIEVE YOU'LL BE HEARING A LOT ABOUT YOUR REMARKS IN THE 13:06:29 PAST. SHE WAS NOT A STUDENT WRITING A 13:06:34 BLOG ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL TOPIC SHE KNEW ABOUT. 13:06:37 I'M CONFIDENT THAT SENATORS WILL GIVE MS. KAGAN MANY 13:06:40 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION 13:06:43 AND INSIGHT THAT SHE HAS ARGUED IS CRITICAL FOR THE SENATE TO 13:06:47 PROPERLY MAKE A DECISION ON HER CONFIRMATION. 13:06:50 THIS IS A CRITICAL DECISION. AND IT IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST 13:06:52 ONE PERSON. OUR DECISION WILL AFFECT LIBERTY 13:06:57 ITSELF. GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID THIS IN 13:07:00 HIS FEDERAL ADDRESS. "THE BASIS OF OUR POLITICAL 13:07:03 SYSTEMS IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE AND ORDER THEIR 13:07:07 CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. BUT THE CONSTITUTION AT WHICH 13:07:11 ANY TIME EXISTS TILL CHANGED BY AN EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACT OF 13:07:15 THE WHOLE PEOPLE IS SACREDLY OBLIGATORY UPON ALL." 13:07:18 THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO MAKE AND ORDER THE CONSTITUTION MEANS 13:07:21 NOTHING IF THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THE CONSTITUTION'S WORDS, THE JUDGES 13:07:29 CHOOSE WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. A JUDGE WITH THAT MUCH POWER 13:07:32 WOULD EFFECTIVELY TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND NOT THE 13:07:36 CONSTITUTION, BUT HERSELF. I HOPE THIS WILL HELP ME FURTHER 13:07:40 UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF A JUSTICE MS. KAGAN WOULD BE. 13:07:43 AND I WISH YOU WELL AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THESE 13:07:45 HEARINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 13:07:54 CHAIRMAN. AND I LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A WORD 13:07:58 ABOUT SENATOR BYRD. I SERVED ON THE APPROPRIATIONS 13:08:00 COMMITTEE FOR 16 OUT OF MY 18 YEARS IN THE SENATE. 13:08:04 SENATOR BYRD WAS THE CHAIRMAN, HE WAS TOUGH, HE WAS STRONG, HE 13:08:11 CARED. MANY TIMES THE CONSTITUTION 13:08:13 POPPED OUT OF HIS VEST POCKET. HE CERTAINLY WAS -- I THINK IN 13:08:20 ANYONE'S BOOK A TITAN IN THE SENATE. 13:08:23 AND HE'S LEFT AN INDELIBLE IMPRINT. 13:08:24 HE WILL BE MISSED. TODAY LET'S WELCOME ELENA KAGAN. 13:08:32 OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, THERE'S BEEN A DRIFT NET OUT TRYING TO 13:08:38 FIND SOME DISQUALIFYING FACT OR FACTOR. 13:08:42 BUT TO DATE, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY SUCH FACTOR HAS BEEN FOUND. 13:08:47 I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE IMMINENTLY CONFIRMABLE. 13:08:50 YOUR EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE, MAKES YOU A VERY STRONG NOMINEE 13:08:52 FOR THE COURT. YOU'RE THE FIRST WOMAN SOLICITOR 13:08:54 GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS THE 13:09:02 ONLY FEDERAL OFFICIAL THAT'S REQUIRED IN STATUTE TO BE 13:09:09 "LEARNED IN THE LAW." OF THE 45 PEOPLE WHO HAVE HELD 13:09:15 THE JOB, FIVE HAVE GONE ON TO THE SUPREME COURT. 13:09:18 YOU HAVE FILED HUNDREDS OF BRIEFS BEFORE THE COURT, YOU 13:09:20 HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED LAW. AND YOU HAVE THE SUPREME COURT 13:09:26 OF NEARLY EVERY LIVING SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:09:29 YOU ARE THE FIRST WOMAN DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:09:32 THERE YOU DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS A LEADER WHO BROUGHT ALL 13:09:35 SIDES TO THE TABLE. YOU'RE A LEGAL ADVISER TO 13:09:40 PRESIDENT CLINTON, SERVED AS ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL, 13:09:44 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL, AND YOU COVERED 13:09:48 SOME TOUGH ISSUES. TOBACCO REFORM, IMPORTATION OF 13:09:52 RAPID FIRE ASSAULT WEAPONS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WOMEN'S 13:09:57 HEALTH, ABORTION. WHAT COMES ACROSS IN REVIEWING 13:10:01 YOUR WRITINGS IS THAT YOU WERE A VALUABLE ADVISER. 13:10:06 SMART, REASONABLE, HIGHLY RESPECTED, PRINCIPLED. 13:10:10 YOU ALSO SERVED AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THIS COMMITTEE DURING 13:10:15 THE GINSBURG CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. 13:10:18 THE BIGGEST CRITICISM I'VE SEEN OUT THERE IS YOU'VE NEVER BEEN A 13:10:22 JUDGE. FRANKLY, I FIND THIS REFRESHING. 13:10:28 THE ROBERTS COURT IS THE FIRST SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY TO BE 13:10:31 COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF FORMER FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS 13:10:34 JUDGES. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE 13:10:38 COURT OVER 1/3 OF THE JUSTICES, 38 OUT OF 111 HAVE HAD NO PRIOR 13:10:45 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE 13:10:49 WILLIAM REHNQUIST WHO WAS A LAW CLERK FOR THE SUPREME COURT, 13:10:53 WORKED FOR A LAW FIRM, AND THEN WAS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 13:10:57 IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE EARL 13:11:01 WARREN WHO RETURNED FROM WORLD WAR II TO PROSECUTE CASES AS AN 13:11:07 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY BEFORE -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE 13:11:09 BECOMING CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GOVERNOR. 13:11:12 AND THEY INCLUDE CHIEF JUSTICE HARLAN FISK STONE WHO WAS DEAN 13:11:20 OF COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:11:22 THESE JUSTICES ALSO HAD NO PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE. 13:11:26 BUT THEIR BACKGROUNDS PROVED VALUE NONETHELESS. 13:11:30 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, I BELIEVE, IS NOT A MECHANICAL 13:11:32 ENDEAVOR. LIKE COMPLETING A MATH EQUATION. 13:11:38 THE MOST POWERFUL COMPUTER CANNOT TELL US WHETHER THE 13:11:40 PRESIDENT'S POWERS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF ALLOW HIM TO EXCEED THE 13:11:45 BOUNDS OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT 13:11:47 AND OTHER STATUTES IN WARTIME. NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHETHER 13:11:52 CONGRESSIONAL LAWS BARRING GUNS FROM THE GROUNDS OF SCHOOLS OR 13:11:57 IMPLEMENTING NEW HEALTH INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE 13:12:01 WITHIN CONGRESS'S ARTICLE ONE POWERS. 13:12:03 NOR CAN THEY TELL US WHAT THE 14th AMENDMENT'S PROMISE OF 13:12:07 EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW MEANS FOR STUDENTS IN OUR PUBLIC 13:12:09 SCHOOLS. THESE QUESTIONS ARE AMONG OUR 13:12:15 NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT. AND IT TAKES MORE THAN AN UMPIRE 13:12:17 TO FIND THEIR ANSWERS. IN RECENT YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A 13:12:21 RADICAL CHANGE ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS ON DISPLAY EVEN 13:12:25 THIS MORNING. THIS MORNING, I WAS EXTREMELY 13:12:31 DISMAYED TO LEARN OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN McDONALD VERSUS THE 13:12:34 CITY OF CHICAGO. HOLDING THAT COMMON SENSE STATE 13:12:40 AND LOCAL GUN LAWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY NOW WILL BE SUBJECT TO 13:12:44 FEDERAL LAWSUITS. THIS DECISION AND ITS 13:12:48 PREDECESSOR, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HELLER HAVE 13:12:54 DISREGARDED THE PRECEDENT OF 71 YEARS EMBEDDED IN THE UNITED 13:12:59 STATES V. MILLER, A 1939 CASE. I FIND THAT SHOCKING AS A FORMER 13:13:03 MAYOR. I BELIEVE THE PROLIFERATION OF 13:13:08 GUNS HAVE MADE THIS NATION LESS SAFE, NOT MORE SAFE. 13:13:11 WE NOW HAVE MORE GUNS THAN PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:13:16 THEY ARE SOLD EVERYWHERE. ON STREET CORNERS, IN GUN SHOWS, 13:13:20 WITH NO RESTRAINT WHATSOEVER. ANY TYPE OF WEAPON. 13:13:23 THEY FALL INTO THE HANDS OF JUVENILES, CRIMINALS, AND THE 13:13:28 MENTALLY ILL VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 13:13:33 AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS THROWN ASIDE SEVEN DECADES OF PRECEDENT 13:13:37 TO EXACERBATE THIS SITUATION. FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE 13:13:41 BEEN REVEALED THUS FAR, I AM ENCOURAGED THAT SOLICITOR KAGAN 13:13:48 HOLDS STARRY DECISIS IN HIGH REGARD. 13:13:59 FOR EXAMPLE, AT HARVARD, SHE EXPRESSED STRONG DISAGREEMENT 13:14:03 WITH DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. BUT SHE ALLOWED MILITARY T 13:14:08 RECRUITMENT TO CONTINUE. THE NUMBER OF RECRUITS DID NOT 13:14:15 DIMINISH. I BELIEVE IT INCREASED. 13:14:17 AND AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, SHE DEFENDED THE POLICY' 13:14:20 CONSTITUTIONALITY. ARGUING THAT THE COURT SHOULD 13:14:25 DEFER TO THE JUDGMENT. DURING THE CLINTON 13:14:29 ADMINISTRATION, SHE ADVISED THE BUREAU THAT IT COULD NOT BAN 13:14:34 IMPORTATION. A PRE-1994 LARGE CAPACITY 13:14:37 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES BY EXECUTIVE ORDER. 13:14:42 THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, I BOTH WANTED TO 13:14:48 BAN THESE IMPORTS. SHE ARGUED SUCCESSFULLY THAT THE 13:14:50 LAW SIMPLY DID NOT GIVE THE BUREAU THAT AUTHORITY. 13:14:55 ELENA KAGAN HAS WRITTEN THAT THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS SHOULD BE A 13:15:02 SUBSTANTIVE ONE THAT THE KIND OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE 13:15:03 MOST TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATION OF A NOMINATION WOULD 13:15:08 INCLUDE DISCUSSION FIRST OF THE NOMINEE'S BROAD JUDICIAL 13:15:12 PHILOSOPHY AND SECOND OF HER VIEWS ON PARTICULAR 13:15:15 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. I AGREE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A 13:15:20 MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION THIS WEEK. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THIS NOMINEE -- 13:15:26 THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN SMOOTH SO FAR. 13:15:29 ONE NEWSPAPER EVEN CALLED IT A SNOOZE FEST. 13:15:33 IF IT IS, IT IS BECAUSE ELENA KAGAN IS UNQUESTIONABLY 13:15:41 QUALIFIED. OVER 170,000 DOCUMENTS HAVE 13:15:43 UNMASKED HER AS AN EVEN-HANDED LEGAL SCHOLAR WITH A STERLING 13:15:49 REPUTATION. EACH NEW SET OF DOCUMENTS MAKES 13:15:50 IT CLEARER THAT HER VIEWS FALL WITHIN THE MODERATE MAINSTREAM 13:15:56 OF LEGAL THINKING IN THIS COUNTRY. 13:15:59 SO AT THIS STAGE, I SEE NO IMPEDIMENT TO CONFIRMATION. 13:16:04 I HOPE THE WEEK ENDS THE SAME WAY. 13:16:10 I LOOK FORWARD TO PROCEEDING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:16:15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINSTEIN. 13:16:18 AND I THANK THE SENATORS FOR KEEPING UNDER THE TIME LINE. 13:16:29 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:16:31 IT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT APPOINTMENT. 13:16:33 OBVIOUSLY A REAL HONOR. I ALSO WELCOME YOUR FAMILY AND 13:16:37 FRIENDS, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY PROUD OF YOUR NOMINATION, AND I'M GLAD 13:16:40 THEY'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU. I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT 13:16:44 THIS PROCESS IS FAIR AND RESPECTFUL, BUT ALSO THOROUGH. 13:16:50 THE CONSTITUTION TASKS OUR SENATE WITH CONDUCTING A 13:16:51 PRESENCIVE REVIEW OF NOMINEE'S RECORD. 13:17:01 CONSEQUENTLY THE SENATE HAS A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO 13:17:03 ENSURE THAT YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUSTICE AND 13:17:08 THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 13:17:10 WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF CONFIRMED, YOU'LL BE TRUE TO THE 13:17:15 CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS AS WRITTEN. 13:17:17 WE HAD A NICE MEETING IN MY OFFICE. 13:17:21 YOU HAVE AN ACCOMPLISHED ACADEMIC AND POLICY BACKGROUND. 13:17:23 YOU'VE EXCELLED AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:27 YOU WERE AN OXFORD SCHOLAR, CLERKED ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT IN 13:17:31 THE SUPREME COURT, YOU WERE A LAW PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF 13:17:34 CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL AS WELL AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 13:17:37 YOU WERE A LAWYER HERE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND THEN 13:17:39 WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION, YOU'RE NOW THE 13:17:46 UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL. NOBODY CAN QUESTION SUCH 13:17:48 ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHAT IS LACKING FROM YOUR 13:17:54 BACKGROUND IS ANY EXPERIENCE ON ANY COURT OR MUCH EXPERIENCE AS 13:17:58 A PRACTICING LAWYER. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIVE 13:18:02 EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY TO TRANSITION FROM BEING 13:18:04 A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR POLITICAL OPERATIVE TO A FAIR AND 13:18:10 IMPARTIAL JURIST. WE'LL NEED TO ACQUIRE THAT 13:18:13 EVIDENCE THROUGH YOUR WRITINGS AND THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:18:15 OVER THE YEARS AS WELL AS YOUR TESTIMONY. 13:18:19 ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS IN A CANDID AND FORTHRIGHT MANNER 13:18:22 HOPEFULLY WILL FILL THAT VOID. WE KNOW YOU CANNOT COMMIT TO 13:18:24 RULING IN A CERTAIN WAY OR FOR A PARTICULAR PARTY. 13:18:29 OUR GOAL IS TO SEE IF YOU WILL EXERCISE JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. 13:18:34 WE WANT TO KNOW THAT YOU'LL EXERCISE A PREEMINENT 13:18:38 RESPONSIBILITIES OF A JUSTICE BY ADHERING TO THE LAW AND NOT 13:18:40 PUBLIC OPINION. POLICY CHOICES NEED TO BE 13:18:44 RESERVED FOR THOSE OF US ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF 13:18:48 GOVERNMENT. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:18:52 NOMINEE WHO HAS SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES. 13:18:57 BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A NOMINEE WHO 13:18:59 WON'T COME WITH RESULTS. IT'S OUR DUTY TO CONFIRM A 13:19:12 SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WHO WILL FAITHFULLY INTERPRET THE LAW AND 13:19:17 CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PERSONAL BIAS. 13:19:20 THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN A JUDGE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. 13:19:22 BUT BECAUSE OF LACK OF JUDGING EXPERIENCE, IT'S EVEN MORE 13:19:26 CRITICAL THAT WE'RE PERSUADED THAT YOU HAVE THE PROPER 13:19:30 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AND WILL PRACTICE IT. 13:19:33 WE MUST BE CONVINCED THAT YOU HAVE THE MOST IMPORTANT 13:19:36 QUALIFICATION OF A JUSTICE. THAT QUALIFICATION IS THE 13:19:38 ABILITY TO SET ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS AND POLITICAL 13:19:42 BELIEFS SO THAT YOU CAN ADMINISTER EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL 13:19:46 IN A DISPASSIONATE WAY. YOUR RELATIVELY THIN RECORD 13:19:51 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU'VE BEEN A POLITICAL LAWYER. 13:19:53 YOUR PAPERS FROM THE CLINTON LIBRARY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED 13:19:55 AS -- AND THESE AREN'T MY WORDS, A FLARE FOR THE POLITICAL AND A 13:20:03 FLARE FOR POLITICAL TACTICS. YOU'VE BEEN DESCRIBED AS HAVING 13:20:07 "FINELY TUNED POLITICAL ANTENNA" AND A POLITICAL HEART. 13:20:17 INCLUDING GUN RIGHTS, WELFARE REFORM, ABORTION, WHITEWATER, 13:20:20 AND PAULA JONES CONTROVERSIES. SHOWS THAT YOU FORCEFULLY 13:20:27 PROMOTED LIBERAL POSITIONS AND OFFERED ANALYSES AND 13:20:31 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT OFTEN WERE MORE POLITICAL THAN LEGAL. 13:20:37 NOT ONLY THAT, YOUR MARSHALL MEMOS INDICATE A LIBERAL AND 13:20:42 SEEMINGLY OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH TO YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. 13:20:46 YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOUR UPBRINGING STEEPED YOU IN DEEPLY 13:20:51 HELD LIBERAL PRINCIPLES. YOU SHOULD KNOW -- OR WE SHOULD 13:20:54 KNOW WHETHER AS YOU'VE SAID YOU HAVE "RETAINED THEM FAIRLY TO 13:21:02 THIS DAY." A JUDGE NEEDS TO BE AN 13:21:09 INDEPENDENT ARBITER. THIS POINT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL 13:21:12 FOR JUSTICES SINCE THE SUPREME COURT ISN'T AS CONSTRAINED TO 13:21:15 FOLLOW PRECEDENT AS THE SAME JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS. 13:21:20 YOU WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THE LAW. 13:21:23 YOU'VE BEEN A PROMINENT MEMBER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TEAM IN 13:21:27 NOMINATING YOU TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, PRESIDENT 13:21:28 OBAMA CLEARLY BELIEVES THAT YOU MEASURED UP TO HIS POLITICAL -- 13:21:36 OR HIS JUDICIAL STANDARD. A JUDGE'S ABILITY, IN OTHER 13:21:40 WORDS, TO EMPATHIZE WITH CERTAIN GROUPS OVER OTHERS. 13:21:45 INDEED, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THAT YOU CREDITED YOUR HERO, 13:21:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL WITH "REMINDING YOU THAT BEHIND THE LAW THERE 13:21:59 ARE STORIES SHAPED BY THE LAW STORIES OF PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT 13:22:02 MIGHT BE CHANGED BY THE LAW." THIS EMPATHY STANDARD HAS BEEN 13:22:05 SOUNDLY REJECTED. A PREFERENCE WHEN -- AND 13:22:15 PREFERENCES WHEN JUDGES DECIDE. IT ENCOURAGES JUDGES TO USURP 13:22:20 THE FUNCTIONS HELD BY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE 13:22:23 BRANCHS OF GOVERNMENT. A JUDGE OR JUSTICE MUST 13:22:26 UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECT THAT STANDARD. 13:22:31 IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE OR 13:22:35 JUDICIAL METHOD. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR 13:22:39 GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION ENVISIONED FOR A ROLE OF THE 13:22:41 JUDICIARY. I'LL BE ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR 13:22:47 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WHETHER YOU WILL ALLOW BIASES AND PERSONAL 13:22:51 PREFERENCES TO DICTATE YOUR JUDICIAL STANDARD. 13:22:54 YOU ONCE WROTE THAT IT "IS NOT NECESSARILY WRONG OR INVALID FOR 13:22:58 JUDGES TO TRY TO MOLD OR STEER THE LAW IN ORDER TO PROMOTE 13:23:05 CERTAIN ETHICAL VALUES AND ACHIEVE CERTAIN SOCIAL ENDS." 13:23:12 YOU'VE ALSO PRAISED JURORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE ROLE OF A JUDGE 13:23:15 IS TO "DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET THE LAW CATCH UP." 13:23:20 AND AGAIN ANOTHER QUOTE "BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN LAW AND 13:23:23 SOCIETY." TO ME, THIS KIND OF JUDICIAL 13:23:27 PHILOSOPHY ENDORSES JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT 13:23:33 AND HOPEFULLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID BEFORE IS NOT HOW YOU WOULD BE 13:23:37 IN REGARD TO THESE QUOTE WHEN YOU GET BACK TO THE SUPREME 13:23:41 COURT. I ASK PERMISSION TO PUT A LONGER 13:23:45 STATEMENT IN THE RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION. 13:23:48 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. KAGAN, WELCOME, AND 13:23:51 CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NOMINATION. 13:23:53 LET ME THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE LONG HOURS YOU WILL SPEND 13:23:57 WITH US THIS WEEK. LIKE OTHERS, LET ME START, OF 13:24:01 COURSE, BY OFFERING MY CONDOLENCES TO JUSTICE RUTH 13:24:09 BATH GINSBURG AND THE PASSING OF HER 13:24:12 HUSBAND. AND WE JOIN THE PEOPLE IN WEST 13:24:15 VIRGINIA IN MOURNING THE LOSS OF THEIR SENATOR OUR COLLEAGUE 13:24:17 ROBERT BYRD. SENATOR BYRD CARED DEEPLY ABOUT 13:24:21 THE SENATE AND THE CONSTITUTION. AND WE CANNOT HELP BUT THINK OF 13:24:25 HIM AS WE BEGIN THIS PROCESS TODAY. 13:24:27 I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN LEAHY, COMPLIMENT HIM AND HIS STAFF ON 13:24:32 YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS SO OPEN AND 13:24:38 TRANSPARENT. NEARLY 200,000 PAGES OF 13:24:40 DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 13:24:44 ONLINE. I'M PARTICULARLY PLEASED YOU 13:24:46 JOINED WITH THE RANKING MEMBER TO REQUEST A COMPLETE AND TIMELY 13:24:51 SEARCH OF PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES SO AS MUCH ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S 13:24:57 PAST WORK COULD BE REVIEWED AS POSSIBLE. 13:24:59 AND I THINK THAT FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON DESERVES OUR 13:25:01 THANKS, AS WELL, FOR HIS AGREEMENT TO RELEASE TO THE 13:25:03 COMMITTEE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT HE WAS ENTITLED 13:25:07 TO BLOCK UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. 13:25:11 THE SUPREME COURT PLAYS A UNIQUE AND CENTRAL ROLE IN OUR NATION. 13:25:16 JUSTICES HAVE EXTRAORDINARY POWER OVER SOME OF THE MOST 13:25:18 IMPORTANT AND MOST BASIC ASPECTS OF THE LIVES OF AMERICAN 13:25:22 CITIZENS. THE NINE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SIT 13:25:23 ON THE COURT HAVE ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITIES. 13:25:26 AND THOSE OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT 13:25:30 RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL. MS. KAGAN, I HOPE YOU WILL BE 13:25:34 FORTHCOMING IN YOUR ANSWERS SO WE CAN HAVE THE OPEN AND HONEST 13:25:37 DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES OUR COUNTRY DESERVES. 13:25:40 IN 2005 WHEN WE BEGAN OUR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR CHIEF 13:25:44 JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE COURT HAD NOT SEEN A NEW MEMBER FOR 11 13:25:47 YEARS. NOW WE'RE BEGINNING THE FOURTH 13:25:49 SUPREME COURT NOMINATION HEARING IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. 13:25:51 AND TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE BEGIN A HEARING IN A NOMINATION 13:25:55 THAT COULD RESULT IN THREE WOMEN SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT AT 13:25:57 ONE TIME. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY FROM THE 13:26:01 DAYS WHEN JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS TURNED DOWN FOR A PRESTIGIOUS 13:26:06 CLERKSHIP BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN OR JUSTICE O'CONNOR 13:26:10 GRADUATE FROM STANFORD LAW SCHOOL BUT NO LAW FIRM WOULD 13:26:13 HIRE HER AS A LAWYER, INSTEAD OFFERING HER A POSITION AS A 13:26:16 SECRETARY. WOMEN ARE INCREASINGLY 13:26:20 OUTNUMBERING MEN ON LAW SCHOOL CAMPUSES THROUGHOUT THE NATION 13:26:23 AND I'M PLEASED THAT THE COURT IS BEGINNING TO REFLECT THAT 13:26:25 FACT. I ALSO HOPE THAT WE'LL CONTINUE 13:26:29 TO SEE GREATER DIVERSITY ON THE COURT IN OTHER WAYS INCLUDING 13:26:35 REPRESENTATION FROM MIDWESTERN AND WESTERN STATES. 13:26:38 IT'S IMPORTANT ALL AMERICANS FEELS THE COURT REPRESENTS THEIR 13:26:42 VALUES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE BEST WAY 13:26:45 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS BY SELECTING CANDIDATES THAT 13:26:48 REFLECT THE FULL DIVERSITY OF THIS COUNTRY. 13:26:50 THE COURT IS NOW TAKING SHAPE AND ELENA KAGAN IF SHE IS 13:26:57 NOMINATED WILL SHAPE THE COUNTRY IN THE YEARS TO COME. 13:26:59 THE FREEDOMS OF OUR CITIZENS THAT WILL DECIDE WHAT LIMITS 13:27:04 THERE ARE ON THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CAN SOLVE THE 13:27:07 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT THE COUNTRY FACES. 13:27:10 WILL CONFRONT QUESTIONS OF RACE THAT ARE AS OLD AS OUR NATION 13:27:13 AND AS NEW AS THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE 21st 13:27:17 CENTURY. BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS THAT 13:27:18 WILL COME BEFORE THE COURT IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES ARE SO 13:27:21 WEIGHTY, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT A GROWING SEGMENT OF AMERICANS 13:27:24 SEEM TO HAVE LOST TRUST IN THE COURT AND ITS JUSTICES. 13:27:27 SUPREME COURT CASES BY THEIR NATURE CAN DIVIDE THE COUNTRY. 13:27:31 IMPORTANT CASES WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES ARE 13:27:34 OFTEN DECIDED NOW BY A 5-4 VOTE. SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL 13:27:38 THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT 13:27:41 MADE ON THE BASIS OF AN IDEOLOGICAL OR PARTISAN 13:27:44 POLITICAL AGENDA. THE FAIRNESS, OBJECTIVITY, AND 13:27:50 GOOD FAITH OF JUSTICES SHOULD BE BEYOND QUESTION. 13:27:53 SO AS CHAIRMAN LEAHY SUGGESTED, WHEN A DECISION LIKE THE ONE 13:27:58 HANDED DOWN THIS YEAR BY A 5-4 VOTE IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE 13:28:05 UPROOTS AND UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, THE PUBLIC'S 13:28:08 CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT CAN'T HELP BUT BE SHAKEN. 13:28:11 I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THAT DECISION. 13:28:14 AND IN THE COURT FOR REACHING OUT TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF 13:28:18 ELECTION LAW IN A DRASTIC AND WHOLLY UNNECESSARY WAY. 13:28:21 BY ACTING IN SUCH AN EXTREME AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER. 13:28:26 THE COURT BADLY DAMAGED ITS OWN INTEGRITY BY ELEVATING THE 13:28:30 RIGHTS OF CORPORATION OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, THE COURT 13:28:32 DAMAGED OUR DEMOCRACY. MS. KAGAN, IF YOU'RE CONFIRMED, 13:28:39 I HOPE YOU'LL KEEP THIS IN MIND. I HOPE YOU'LL TREAD CAREFULLY 13:28:44 AND CONSIDER THE COURT AS A WHOLE WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TO 13:28:47 OVERTURN LONG STANDING PRECEDENT WAYS THAT WILL HAVE SUCH A 13:28:50 DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. 13:28:52 YOU HAVE DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS SOMEONE WHO CAN REACH OUT TO 13:28:55 THOSE WITH WHOM YOU MAY NOT AGREE AND WORK TOGETHER. 13:28:57 AND I THINK THAT'S A SKILL THAT WILL PROVE TO BE VERY USEFUL AND 13:29:00 VALUABLE IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED. YOU ALSO HAVE AN IMPRESSIVE 13:29:06 EDUCATION. YOU'VE WORKED AT THE HIGHEST 13:29:08 LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. AND YOU'VE TAUGHT AND WRITTEN 13:29:10 ABOUT THE LAW. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU 13:29:12 UNDERSTAND OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ROLES OF THE 13:29:17 THREE BRANCHES. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I HOPE 13:29:19 YOU'LL APPRECIATE THE IMPACT THE LAW HAS ON THE LIVES OF ALL 13:29:23 AMERICANS. SO IT'S MY HOPE THAT YOUR 13:29:25 DIVERSE EXPERIENCES, YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND OPENNESS YOUR 13:29:29 TALENT FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE 13:29:33 LONG-TERM DANGERS TO THE COURT AND THE COUNTRY AND ENABLE YOU 13:29:38 IF CONFIRMED TO CONVINCE YOUR COLLEAGUES TO AVOID MAKING 13:29:40 SIMILAR MISTAKES IN THE FUTURE. I ALSO HOPE THAT YOU WILL HAVE 13:29:44 THE WISDOM AND THE COURAGE THAT THE JUSTICE YOU HAVE BEEN 13:29:48 NOMINATED TO REPLACE, JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS SHOWED TIME 13:29:52 AND TIME AGAIN IN DRAWING THE LINE AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH 13:29:55 THAT SOUGHT POWERS THAT ENDANGERED THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 13:29:59 AND FREEDOMS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES. 13:30:03 MS. KAGAN, OF COURSE, JUDGING ISN'T EASY. 13:30:06 IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES. 13:30:08 BECAUSE JUDGES AND PARTICULARLY JUSTICES IN THE SUPREME COURT 13:30:11 ARE CALLED UPON TO APPLY CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES THAT AS 13:30:18 JUSTICE SUTER SAID RECENTLY MAY EXIST IN TENSION WITH EACH 13:30:22 OTHER, NOT IN HARMONY. YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 13:30:24 SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT COMBINATION 13:30:27 OF QUALITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE A GOOD JUSTICE. 13:30:30 I WISH YOU WELL IN THAT TASK, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE 13:30:33 CONVERSATION YOU WILL HAVE NOT ONLY WITH ME BUT WITH MY 13:30:35 COLLEAGUES AND WITH THE COUNTRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:30:40 THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH, SENATOR FEINGOLD. 13:30:44 SENATOR KYLE? CONGRATULATIONS SOLICITOR 13:30:48 GENERAL KAGAN AND WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE. 13:30:54 I FIRST KNOW IN AGREEMENT, WE DO KNOW MORE DIVERSITY ON THE 13:30:58 COURT. IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS NOW SINCE 13:31:00 AN ARIZONAN HAS BEEN ON THE SUPREME COURT. 13:31:02 I ONLY CONFIRM THEM, I DON'T PICK THEM. 13:31:10 WE SAT IN THE SAME ROOM TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF THEN 13:31:16 JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR. AND TO IMPARTIALLY APPLY THE LAW 13:31:27 TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES. 13:31:30 JUDGE SOTOMAYOR EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE EMPATHY STANDARD 13:31:34 THAT HAD BEEN ESPOUSED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. 13:31:39 A STANDARD WHERE LEGAL PROCESS ALONE IS DEEMED INEFFICIENT FOR 13:31:42 THE SO-CALLED HARD CASES WHERE THE CRITICAL INGREDIENT IS 13:31:46 SUPPLIED BY WHAT IS IN THE JUDGE'S HEART. 13:31:48 PERHAPS BECAUSE HIS FIRST NOMINEE FAILED TO DEFEND THE 13:31:51 JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, THE PRESIDENT HAS 13:31:54 REPACKAGED IT. NOW HE SAYS THAT JUDGES SHOULD 13:31:57 HAVE A KEEN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES 13:32:00 OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND NO THAT IN A DEMOCRACY, 13:32:04 POWERFUL INTERESTS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES 13:32:08 OF ORDINARY CITIZENS. THE CLEAR IMPLICATION IS THAT AT 13:32:14 LEAST IN SOME KIND OF CASES, JUDGES SHOULD ABANDON 13:32:18 IMPARTIALITY AND ENGAGE IN RESULTS-ORIENTED JUDGING. 13:32:23 HIS OWN PRESS SECRETARY HAS CONFIRMED THE RESULTS ORIENTED 13:32:27 VIEW. EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF RESULTS IS 13:32:29 THE PRESIDENT LOOKING FOR FROM HIS JUDGES? 13:32:31 PERHAPS HE WANTS JUDGES WHO WILL IGNORE THE SERIOUS 13:32:34 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SURROUNDING SOME OF HIS DOMESTIC 13:32:36 LEGISLATION. OR MAYBE HE WANTS JUDGES WHO 13:32:40 WILL USE THE BENCH TO ADVANCE PROGRESSIVE GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN 13:32:44 STALLED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. 13:32:46 WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION, HIS VIEW OF THE ROLE 13:32:48 OF JUDGES IS WRONG. JUDGES ARE TO APPLY THE LAW 13:32:54 IMPARTIALLY, NOT TAKE ON SOCIAL CAUSES OR CUT DOWN POWERFUL 13:32:57 INTERESTS. WHILE THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH 13:33:03 LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS, IT IS NOT THEIR 13:33:07 PREROGATIVE TO FIX INEQUITIES. PART OF OUR TASK IS TO DETERMINE 13:33:13 WHETHER MS. KAGAN SHARES PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PHILOSOPHIES 13:33:17 OF JUDGING OR IS SHE COMMITTED TO IMPARTIALITY. 13:33:20 WHICH MAY BE A MORE DIFFICULT TASK WITH KAGAN THAN OTHER 13:33:24 SUPREME COURT NOMINEES WHO HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, MOST 13:33:27 OF WHOM HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIAL JUDICIAL RECORDS TO EVALUATE. 13:33:30 FOR INSTANCE, JUDGE SOTOMAYOR ISSUED 15,000 OPINIONS IN A 13:33:34 DECADE AND A HALF OF DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT SERVICE. 13:33:37 MS. KAGAN HAS NEVER SERVED ON ANY BENCH. 13:33:40 INDEED EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF TWO-YEAR STENT IN PRIVATE 13:33:44 PRACTICE AND ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, MS. KAGAN'S 13:33:47 ENTIRE CAREER HAS BEEN DIVIDED BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND POLICY IN 13:33:52 THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. GIVEN THIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE 13:33:55 PRACTICING LAW, I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE AMERICAN BAR 13:33:57 ASSOCIATION AWARDED HER A WELL-QUALIFIED RATING SINCE THE 13:34:02 ABA'S OWN CRITERIA CALL FOR AMONG OTHER THINGS AT LEAST 12 13:34:07 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. 13:34:10 AND THEY MEAN ACTUAL PRACTICE OF LAW, LIKE FORMER JUSTICES 13:34:13 REHNQUIST AND POWELL. NOT ONLY IS MS. KAGAN'S 13:34:18 BACKGROUND UNUSUAL FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, IT'S NOT CLEAR 13:34:21 HOW IT DEMONSTRATES THAT SHE HAS IN THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS "A KEEN 13:34:25 UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAW AFFECTS THE DAILY LIVES OF THE 13:34:27 AMERICAN PEOPLE." ONE RECENT ARTICLE NOTED THAT 13:34:31 HER EXPERIENCE DRAWS FROM A WORLD WHOSE SIGN POSTS ARE 13:34:35 DISTANT FROM MOST AMERICANS. MANHATTAN'S UPPER WEST SIDE, 13:34:39 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND THE UPPER 13:34:41 REACHES OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT. 13:34:45 HER CAREER IN ACADEMIA TELLS US RELATIVELY LITTLE ABOUT HER 13:34:49 VIEWS ON LEGAL ISSUES. IN 14 YEARS AS A PROFESSOR, SHE 13:34:54 PUBLISHED ONLY NINE ARTICLES. AND HER TENURE IN THE ACADEMY 13:34:57 WAS MARRED IN MY VIEW BY HER DECISION TO PUNISH THE MILITARY 13:35:00 AND WOULD BE RECRUITS FOR A POLICY DON'T ASK DON'T TELL AND 13:35:07 THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT ENACTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SIGNED 13:35:09 INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON. DESPITE THIS RELATIVELY THIN 13:35:14 PAPER TRAIL, THERE ARE WARNING SIGNS THAT SHE MAY BE EXACTLY 13:35:17 THE RESULTS-ORIENTED JUSTICE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS LOOKING FOR. 13:35:22 CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUDGES THAT MS. KAGAN SAYS SHE 13:35:24 MOST ADMIRES. MS. KAGAN HAS CALLED ISRAELI 13:35:31 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HER JUDICIAL HERO. 13:35:33 JUSTICE BARACK IS SOMEONE WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED AS SOMEONE WHO TOOK 13:35:38 AN ACTIVIST APPROACH TO JUDGING. DESCRIBED AS CREATING A DEGREE 13:35:43 OF JUDICIAL POWER UNDREAMED OF EVEN BY OUR MOST AGGRESSIVE 13:35:46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. MS. KAGAN IDENTIFIED THURGOOD 13:35:50 MARSHALL AS ANOTHER ONE OF HER LEGAL HEROES. 13:35:53 JUSTICE MARSHALL IS A HISTORIC FIGURE IN MANY RESPECTS. 13:35:57 AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT AS ONE OF HIS CLERKS, SHE HELD HIM 13:36:02 IN THE HIGHEST REGARD. HIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS NOT 13:36:04 WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE MAINSTREAM. 13:36:06 AS HE ONCE EXPLAINED, YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND LET 13:36:09 THE LAW CATCH UP. HE MIGHT BE THE EPITOME OF A 13:36:14 RESULTS ORIENTED JUDGE. AND MS. KAGAN APPEARS TO EMBRACE 13:36:19 THE PHILOSOPHY CALLING IT AMONG OTHER THINGS A THING OF GLORY. 13:36:23 IN 2003, MS. KAGAN WROTE A TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE MARSHALL IN 13:36:27 WHICH SHE SAID IN HIS VIEW IT WAS THE ROLE OF THE COURTS AND 13:36:29 INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO WENT 13:36:34 UNPROTECTED BY EVERY OTHER ORGAN OF GOVERNMENT. 13:36:39 THE COURT EXISTED PRIMARILY TO FULFILL THIS MISSION. 13:36:44 AND LATER, WHEN SHE WAS WORKING IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, 13:36:48 SHE ENCOURAGED A COLLEAGUE WORKING ON A SPEECH ABOUT 13:36:51 JUSTICE MARSHALL TO EMPHASIZE HIS UNSHAKABLE DETERMINATION TO 13:36:55 PROTECT THE UNDERDOG. THE PEOPLE WHOM NO ONE ELSE WILL 13:36:57 PROTECT. TO ME THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE 13:37:00 WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS SAYING NOW. 13:37:04 AND MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A SUPREME COURT CLERK FOR JUSTICE 13:37:09 MARSHALL IS EVIDENCE SHE SHARES HIS VISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 13:37:12 IN MANY OF HER MEMOS, MS. KAGAN MADE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING 13:37:16 THE DISPOSITION OF CASES WHICH APPEAR TO BE BASED LARGELY ON 13:37:19 HER OWN LIBERAL POLICY PREFERENCES. 13:37:21 FOR EXAMPLE, DESPITE HER VIEW THAT ONE LOWER COURT'S DECISION 13:37:27 WAS LUDICROUS AND LACKED LEGAL BASIS, MS. KAGAN RECOMMENDED 13:37:31 THAT JUSTICE MARSHALL DENY FURTHER REVIEW BECAUSE OTHERWISE 13:37:34 WOULD LIKELY CREATE SOME VERY BAD LAW ON ABORTION AND OR 13:37:38 PRISONERS' RIGHTS. THIS KIND OF NAKED POLITICAL 13:37:41 JUDGMENT APPEARS FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT MS. KAGAN'S WORK AS A 13:37:45 JUDICIAL CLERK. IN ANOTHER CASE SHE SAID THE 13:37:47 SUPREME COURT SHOULD TAKE THE CASE BECAUSE "IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE 13:37:50 THAT THE GOOD GUYS MIGHT WIN ON THIS ISSUE." 13:37:53 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HER CHARACTERIZATION OF ONE PARTY AS 13:37:55 THE GOOD GUYS. TOO OFTEN IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE 13:38:00 MS. KAGAN SHARES THE VIEW OF PRESIDENT OBAMA AND JUSTICE 13:38:02 MARSHALL THAT THE SUPREME COURT EXISTS TO ADVANCE THE AGENDA OF 13:38:06 CERTAIN CLASSES OF LITIGANTS. IN ANOTHER CASE, MS. KAGAN WROTE 13:38:10 THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO PLACE AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE. 13:38:17 AND IN ANOTHER MEMO LACED WITH POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, MS. 13:38:21 KAGAN WROTE, I SEE NO REASON TO LET THIS COURT GET A CRACK AT 13:38:24 THIS QUESTION. SHE WAS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN A 13:38:27 HANDWRITTEN NOTE AFTER REVIEWING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN 13:38:30 ANOTHER CASE SAYING I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS DID 13:38:34 NOT SUPPORT THE ARREST, BUT I CANNOT SEE ANYTHING GOOD COMING 13:38:36 OUT OF REVIEW OF THIS CASE BY THIS COURT. 13:38:40 MS. KAGAN EXPLAINS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRIMARILY 13:38:43 CHANNELLING JUSTICE MARSHALL. BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHE 13:38:48 REALLY HAS ANY MAJOR DIFFERENCES WITH THEM AND WHETHER SHE SEES 13:38:51 ANYTHING WRONG WITH TAKING THE SAME APPROACH. 13:38:53 I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. 13:38:57 IN ADDITION TO MY GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER MS. KAGAN 13:39:00 COULD DECIDE CASES IMPARTIALLY AND WITHOUT BIAS FOR OUR AGAINST 13:39:04 CERTAIN PARTIES, A SURPRISING NUMBER OF THINGS IN HER 13:39:07 RELATIVELY THIN BODY OF WORK DO RAISE SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS ABOUT 13:39:12 VARIOUS ISSUES SUCH AS FEDERALISM, FREE SPEECH, 13:39:13 NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OTHERS. TO TAKE A LAST EXAMPLE. 13:39:17 I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED BY HER DECISION AS SOLICITOR GENERAL TO 13:39:20 URGE THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW AND STRIKE DOWN AN ARIZONA LAW 13:39:23 DESIGNED TO PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS. 13:39:28 THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THE LAW AND THE LOWER 13:39:31 COURT DECISION BECAUSE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW EXPLICITLY 13:39:35 ALLOWS STATES TO SANCTION EMPLOYERS THROUGH THEIR BUSINESS 13:39:37 LICENSING REGIMES. I THINK THERE ARE LEGITIMATE 13:39:40 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE BRIEF AUTHORIZED BY MS. KAGAN, 13:39:42 WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE LAW AND 13:39:46 URGES THE SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE THESE ENFORCEMENTS DOWN 13:39:50 WAS MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND 13:39:54 WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 13:39:55 AND I'M CONVINCED THAT WITHOUT THE URGING OF HER OFFICE, THE 13:40:01 COURT WOULD NOT GRANT TODAY. IN CONCLUSION, THERE'S AMPLE 13:40:04 REASON FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE THIS 13:40:10 NOMINEE, SCRUTINY IN WHICH SHE INVITED IN HER ARTICLE IN 1995. 13:40:12 BECAUSE SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL RECORD ON WHICH WE CAN DETERMINE 13:40:16 WHETHER SHE IS A RESULTS ORIENTED NOMINEE OR WOULD 13:40:22 APPROACH EACH CASE AS A CONTROLLED ARBITER, I BELIEVE 13:40:25 THE BURDEN IS ON THE NOMINEE TO SHOW HER RECORD DEMONSTRATES SHE 13:40:28 CAN BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE RATHER THAN ONE WHO 13:40:31 WOULD HAVE AN OUTCOME-BASED APPROACH. 13:40:34 I LOOK FORWARD TO HER TESTIMONY. SENATOR SPECTER? 13:40:39 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN 13:40:41 WELCOMING YOU HERE THIS MORNING. WITH THE PASSING OF SENATOR BYRD 13:40:46 EARLIER TODAY, I WAS REMINDED OF OUR HEARINGS FOR JUDGE BOOR, AND 13:41:00 A CANDID SHOT OF HIM TAKEN ONE SATURDAY WHEN WE HAD AN HOUR -- 13:41:05 A SATURDAY MORNING SESSION WITH JUDGE BORK AND HIS PICTURE 13:41:11 APPEARED ON THE "SUNDAY NEW YORKTIMES" AND HE WILL BE WITH 13:41:18 US IN MUCH OF OUR THINKING ON THE CONSTITUTION. 13:41:20 THIS HEARING PRESENTS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS, TO HAVE 13:41:24 QUESTIONS ANSWERED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PAST. 13:41:31 THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU AUTHORED FOR THE CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 13:41:35 BACKED IN 1995 IS OPENLY AND SPECIFICALLY CRITICAL OF JUSTICE 13:41:42 GINSBERG, JUSTICE BREYER AS YOU CHARACTERIZE IT STONE WALLED AND 13:41:46 CRITICIZED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I THINK PROPERLY SO 13:41:52 AS LACKING SERIOUSNESS AND SUBSTANCE IN OUR APPROACH TO THE 13:41:54 HEARINGS. AND YOU USE THE PHRASE THAT THE 13:41:58 CONFIRMATION PROCESS TAKES ON AN ERR OF FARCE. 13:42:07 YOU QUOTE SENATOR BIDEN THEN CHAIRMAN AND MYSELF EXPRESSING 13:42:11 CONCERNS THAT ONE DAY THE COMMITTEE WOULD "GROW UP ON ITS 13:42:21 HIND LEGS AND REJECT A NOMINEE WHO REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:42:25 FOR THAT REASON ALONE." SO THIS IS A UNIQUE HEARING IN 13:42:27 THAT RESPECT. THE COURT, REGRETTABLY I THINK 13:42:35 HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGICAL BATTLEGROUND. 13:42:38 AND THE ACTIVISM IS ON BOTH SIDES. 13:42:41 AS A PROSECUTOR IN THE 1960s, I WATCHED THE CONSTITUTION CHANGE 13:42:50 VIRTUALLY DAILY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAP 1961 RIGHT TO 1963, 13:42:57 MIRANDA, 1966. ACTIVISM. 13:43:02 WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAVING ADOPTED A TEST OF 13:43:06 DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONALITY SINCE 1996 ON CONGRUENCE AND 13:43:17 PROPORTIONALTY. J 13:43:26 WE'VE HAD NOMINATIONS WHO SAT WHERE YOU SIT NOT TOO LONG AGO 13:43:32 WHO SAID THEY WOULD NOT JOLT THE SYSTEM. 13:43:33 MODESTY AND THEN AGREED TO THE SYSTEM. 13:43:40 ASSURE THIS PANEL THAT THE LEGISLATIVE FINDING OF FACTS IS 13:43:46 NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. AND THEN TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD 13:43:51 AND CITIZENS UNITED ON A RECORD THAT IS 100,000 PAGES LONG AND 13:43:55 FINDING THAT THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A 100-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT, 13:44:02 WHICH WAS OVERTURNED. CERTAINLY A JOLT TO THE SYSTEM. 13:44:10 WHEN SENATOR BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING THE NOMINATION OF 13:44:15 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, HE SAID THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED BUT WOULD 13:44:21 VOTE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE AS THEN SENATOR OBAMA SAID, "OVERARCHING 13:44:28 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY." WELL, THE PRESIDENTS MAKE THEIR 13:44:35 SELECTIONS BASED ON I IDEOLOGY. AND I THOUGHT -- HAVE COME TO 13:44:47 THE CONCLUSION THE SENATORS HAVE THE SAME STANDING TO MAKE A 13:44:48 DETERMINATION ON IDEOLOGY. IT HAS BECOME ACCEPTED THAT 13:44:56 THERE SHOULD NOT BE TRANSGRESSION INTO THE AREA OF 13:45:02 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ON HOW A CASE WOULD BE DECIDED. 13:45:07 THERE'S AN INTERESTING CASE CAPTIONED MINNESOTA IN 2002 13:45:18 WHICH STRUCK DOWN A REQUIREMENT OF THE MINNESOTA BAR 13:45:22 ASSOCIATION, WHICH PROHIBITED JUDGES FROM SAYING HOW THEY 13:45:26 WOULD DECIDE CASES. SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WAS AN 13:45:29 INFRINGEMENT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 13:45:33 NOW, THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT A JUDGE SHOULD ANSWER THE 13:45:40 QUESTION, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT A BAR ASSOCIATION RULE PROHIBITING 13:45:44 ANSWERING THE QUESTION IS INVALID, WHICH LEAVES THE JUDGE 13:45:48 AT LEAST SO FAR AS THAT STANDARD IS CONCERNED WITH A LATITUDE TO 13:45:54 ANSWER THE QUESTION SO THAT EVEN ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF HOW 13:45:59 A CASE WILL BE DECIDED, THEN IN YOUR LAW REVIEW ARTICLE, YOU 13:46:03 COME VERY CLOSE TO THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ANSWERING SUBSTANTIVE 13:46:09 LEGAL ISSUES. REALLY RIGHT ON THE LINE OF HOW 13:46:12 YOU WOULD DECIDE A CASE. BUT IF YOU ARE PRECLUDED FROM 13:46:21 ASKING HOW DECISIONS WOULD BE -- WHAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE OR 13:46:27 GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE PRECEDENT ON THAT. 13:46:30 I DO THINK IT IS FAIR FOR US TO ASK WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT 13:46:34 WOULD TAKE A CASE. THE CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY 13:46:40 TO DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT ON CASES WHICH MUST BE HEARD. 13:46:45 FLAG BURNING CASE, McCAIN-FEINGOLD AND MANY, MANY 13:46:52 OTHERS. SO THE COURT'S DISCUSSION IS 13:46:55 LIMITED THERE IF THERE IS A CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION. 13:46:56 I THINK IT IS FAIR FROM THAT PROPOSITION TO ASK A NOMINEES 13:47:04 WHETHER THEY WOULD TAKE CASES. I SPOKE AT LENGTH ON THE FLOOR 13:47:09 ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER THE INAPPROPRIATE DECLINE OF A 13:47:14 NUMBER OF CASES CONSIDERED. 100 YEARS AGO, A LITTLE MORE 13:47:21 THAN 1886, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED 146 CASES, 146 OPINIONS, 13:47:26 A LITTLE MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO, 1987, 146 OPINIONS. 13:47:33 LAST YEAR, LAST TERM, 78 ARGUMENTS, 75 OPINIONS. 13:47:40 A LOT OF CIRCUIT SPLITS, IMPORTANT CASES ARE NOT TAKEN UP 13:47:44 BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO 13:47:47 HEAR THE CONFLICT, WHICH ARGUABLY IS THE MOST SERIOUS 13:47:54 CLASH BETWEEN CONGRESS' ARTICLE ONE POWERS UNDER THE FOREIGN 13:47:59 INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT WHICH SETS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS 13:48:01 FOR GETTING A WARRANT, LISTENING TO A WIRETAP, PROBABLE CAUSE, 13:48:08 AND THE PRESIDENT'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAP PROGRAM JUSTIFIED UNDER 13:48:13 ARTICLE II. THE DETROIT FEDERAL JUDGE SAID 13:48:15 IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DUCKED IT WITH A 13:48:21 STANDING DECISION 2-1 WITH ADMITTEDLY THE DISSENTING 13:48:25 OPINION MUCH STRONGER, APPLICATION DENIED. 13:48:29 AND THIS WAS SOMETHING I DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN OUR 13:48:32 MEETING, WHICH I THANK YOU. I SENT YOU A SERIES OF LETTERS 13:48:36 ON ISSUES WHICH I INTEND TO ASK YOU ABOUT. 13:48:37 AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR 13:48:44 DECISIONS AS SOLICITOR GENERAL ON THE CASE INVOLVING THE 13:48:49 HOLOCAUST VICTIMS, SUING AN ITALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, AND 13:48:54 THE SECOND CIRCUIT BOWS TO THE EXECUTIVE POSITION SAYING, WELL, 13:48:58 THAT OUGHT TO BE DECIDED BETWEEN ITALY AND THE UNITED STATES ON 13:49:02 HOW THAT'S TO BE HANDLED. I THINK THAT'S WRONG. 13:49:06 BUT AT LEAST THE SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO DECIDE IT. 13:49:08 NOT GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE THE CASE, BUT WOULD 13:49:11 YOU CONSIDER IT? A CASE INVOLVING THE SURVIVORS 13:49:16 OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 HAS NOT BEEN HEARD OR PETITIONED FROM THE 13:49:23 SECOND CIRCUIT. THE SECOND CIRCUIT SAID, WELL, 13:49:25 THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES CASE DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE SAUDI 13:49:32 ARABIA HASN'T BEEN DECLARED A TERRORIST STATE. 13:49:35 THAT'S REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACT, CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, 13:49:41 NOT GOVERNED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 13:49:46 SAID THE ACTS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY, A DISTINCTION I 13:49:49 DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRADE 13:49:52 TOWERS AND 3,000 AMERICANS ARE KILLED, CERTAINLY THE SOVEREIGN 13:49:58 IMMUNITIES ACT OUGHT TO SAUDI ARABIA SUBJECT TO SUE, BUT 13:50:02 I WON'T ASK YOU HOW YOU WILL DECIDE THE CASE, BUT IF YOU 13:50:06 WOULD TAKE IT UP. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WOULDN'T BE 13:50:10 RESOLVED TODAY AND PERHAPS NEVER IS HOW TO SEE TO IT THE NOMINEES 13:50:19 WHO MAKE STATEMENTS HERE ARE ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND ON STAIR 13:50:23 DECISIS FOLLOW-UP ON IT. AND MAYBE THE CLOSEST APPROACH 13:50:30 IS THE IDEA OF TELEVISING. IN OUR MEETING, YOU SAID YOU 13:50:33 FAVOR TELL ADVISING THE COURT. NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT BRAN 13:50:37 DIES TALKED ABOUT SUNLIGHT AND PUBLICITY BEING THE BEST 13:50:41 DISINFECTANT. WELL IT IS NOT A DISINFECTANT WE 13:50:43 ARE LOOKING FOR HERE BUT TO HOLD NOMINEES WHO ANSWER QUESTIONS 13:50:47 HERE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WHEN THEY ARE ON THE COURT. 13:50:55 THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR 13:50:57 GRAHAM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:50:59 CONGRATULATIONS. I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD COUPLE 13:51:00 OF DAYS. I HOPE YOU SOMEWHAT ENJOY IT. 13:51:04 AND I THINK YOU WILL. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I WOULD LIKE 13:51:08 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PASSION OF SENATOR BYRD, WHO WAS A WORTHY 13:51:13 ALLY AND A VERY GOOD OPPONENT WHEN IT CAME TO THE SENATE. 13:51:16 MY ASSOCIATION WITH SENATOR BYRD DURING THE GANG OF 14, I LEARNED 13:51:20 A LOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION FROM HIM AND AS ALL OF OUR 13:51:24 COLLEAGUES REMEMBER, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, WE HAD A REAL -- REAL 13:51:27 CONFLICT IN THE SENATE ABOUT FILIBUSTERING JUDICIAL NOMINEES 13:51:32 AND SENATOR BYRD AND A FEW OTHER SENATORS WHO CAME UP WITH THE 13:51:35 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TEST THAT WOULD SAY THAT FILIBUSTERS 13:51:37 SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 13:51:40 BECAUSE ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND SENATOR BYRD 13:51:43 WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF AUTHORS OF THE LANGUAGE, DEFINING WHAT AN 13:51:48 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE WAS. I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IN 13:51:52 HIS PASSING IS GOING TO BE AS WILL TO THE SENATE. 13:51:54 AND THE THING THAT WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT SENATOR BYRD 13:51:57 IS THAT ALL OF US ARE CHOOSING TO JUDGE HIM BY HIS COMPLETE 13:52:01 CAREER. AND HISTORY WILL JUDGE HIM BY 13:52:03 HIS COMPLETE CAREER, NOT ONE MOMENT IN TIME AND THAT'S 13:52:06 PROBABLY A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW WHEN IT COMES TO 13:52:10 EACH OTHER AND TO NOMINEES. NOW, YOU ARE THE BEST EXAMPLE I 13:52:13 CAN THINK OF WHY HEARINGS SHOULD BE PROBATIVE AND MEANINGFUL. 13:52:16 YOU COME WITH NO JUDICIAL RECORD, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST 13:52:19 PERSON TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT HAVING BEEN A 13:52:22 JUDGE. BUT IT DOES, I THINK, REQUIRE US 13:52:25 AND YOU TO PROVIDE US A LITTLE INSIGHT AS TO WHAT KIND OF JUDGE 13:52:29 YOU WOULD BE. VERY LITTLE PRIVATE PRACTICE. 13:52:32 ONE YEAR AS SOLICITOR GENERAL AND A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON 13:52:35 THIS SIDE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE POSITIONS YOU'VE TAKEN 13:52:38 THAT I THINK ARE A BIT DISTURBING, BUT I'D LIKE TO 13:52:42 ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR 13:52:44 GENERAL THAT I THOUGHT WERE VERY GOOD. 13:52:45 YOU OPPOSED APPLYING HABEAS RIGHTS TO BAGHRAM DETAINEES. 13:52:50 YOU SUPPORTED THE IDEA THAT A TERROR SUSPECT COULD BE CHARGED 13:52:55 WITH MATERIAL SUPPORT OF TERRORISM UNDER THE STATUTE AND 13:52:58 THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF WARS HISTORY. 13:53:02 SO, THERE ARE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE AS SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT I 13:53:05 THINK WILL MERIT PRAISE AND I WILL CERTAINLY, FROM MY POINT OF 13:53:08 VIEW, GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THOSE. 13:53:10 AS DEAN OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU TWO THINGS YOU CAN HIRED 13:53:13 SOME CONSERVATIVES, WHICH IS A GOOD THING AND YOU OPPOSED 13:53:17 MILITARY RECRUITMENT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BUT WE 13:53:21 WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ALL THAT REALLY DOES MEAN T 13:53:23 IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU BRING TO THIS HEARING, A LITTLE 13:53:28 OF THIS AND A LITTLE OF THAT NOW WHAT DO WE KNOW? 13:53:30 WE KNOW YOU ARE VERY SMART. OFF STRONG ACADEMIC BACKGROUND. 13:53:36 YOU GOT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. THE LETTER FROM MIGUEL ESTRADA 13:53:38 IS A HUMBLING LETTER AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE MENTIONED 13:53:41 THROUGHOUT THE HEARING, BUT IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT HIM. 13:53:44 IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU THAT HE WOULD WRITE THAT LETTER. 13:53:48 KEN STARR AND TED OLSON HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT 13:53:51 YOU ARE A QUALIFIED NOMINEE. THERE'S NO TO DOUBT IN MY MIND 13:53:54 THAT YOU ARE A LIBERAL PERSON. THAT APPLIES TO MOST OF THE 13:53:57 PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND I RESPECT THEM AND I RESPECT 13:54:01 YOU. I'M A CONSERVATIVE PERSON. 13:54:03 AND YOU WOULD EXPECT A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT TO 13:54:06 NOMINATE A CONSERVATIVE PERSON WHO DID NOT WORK IN THE CLINTON 13:54:11 ADMINISTRATION. SO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE EMBRACED 13:54:13 LIBERAL CAUSES AND YOU HAVE GROWN UP IN A LIBERAL HOUSEHOLD 13:54:16 IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THAT'S JUST AMERICA. 13:54:20 IT'S OKAY TO BE LIBERAL, IT'S OKAY TO BE CONSERVATIVE, BUT 13:54:23 WHEN IT COMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE, YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE YOU 13:54:26 UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS THAT POSITION PLACES ON ANY AGENDA, 13:54:30 LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. YOUR JUDICIAL HERO IS AN 13:54:35 INTERESTING GUY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 13:54:38 EXPLAINING TO DO TO ME ABOUT WHY YOU PICKED JUDGE BARACK AS YOUR 13:54:44 HERO BECAUSE WHEN I READ HIS WRITINGS, A BIT DISTURBING ABOUT 13:54:47 HIS VIEW OF WHAT A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO DO FOR SOCIETY AS A 13:54:51 WHOLE, BUT I'M SURE VUL GOOD ANSWERS AND I WILL LOOK FORWARD 13:54:54 TO THAT DISCUSSION. ON THE WAR ON TERROR, YOU COULD 13:54:57 IN MY VIEW, IF CONFIRMED, PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME 13:55:01 REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S FACING. 13:55:04 ABOUT HOW THE LAW NEEDS TO BE T 13:55:13 DRAFTED AND CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY TO RECOGNIZE FIGHTING CRIME 13:55:15 AND FIGHTING WAR. SO YOU, IN MY VIEW, HAVE A 13:55:18 POTENTIAL TEACHING OPPORTUNITY, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN 13:55:20 A JUDGE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPRESENTED THIS COUNTRY AS 13:55:24 SOLICITOR GENERAL AT A TIME OF WAR. 13:55:26 THE ONE THING I CAN SAY WITHOUT CERTAINTY IS I DON'T EXPECT YOUR 13:55:29 NOMINATION TO CHANGE THE BILLION OF POWER. 13:55:32 AFTER THIS HEARING'S OVER, I HOPE AMERICAN -- THE AMERICAN 13:55:36 PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT ELECTIONS DO MATTER. 13:55:39 WHAT DID I EXPECT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA? 13:55:41 JUST ABOUT WHAT I'M GETTING. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE 13:55:44 WHO ARE SURPRISED. WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, 13:55:48 IF YOU WERE LISTENING. SO, I LOOK FORWARD TO TRYING TO 13:55:51 BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE POLITICAL 13:55:55 ACTIVISM, ASSOCIATION WITH LIBERAL CAUSES AND PARK IT WHEN 13:56:00 IT BECOMES TIME TO BE A JUDGE. THAT, TO ME, IS YOUR CHALLENGE. 13:56:05 I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER YOU QUALIFIED, BECAUSE 13:56:09 YOU'VE DONE A LOT IN YOUR LIFE WORTHY OF PRAISE. 13:56:12 BUT IT WILL BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO CONVINCE ME AND OTHERS, 13:56:15 PARTICULARLY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, THAT WHATEVER 13:56:18 ACTIVITIES YOU'VE ENGAGED IN POLITICALLY AND WHATEVER ADVICE 13:56:22 YOU'VE GIVEN TO PRESIDENT CLINTON OR JUSTICE MARSHALL, 13:56:25 THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL BE YOUR OWN PERSON, THAT 13:56:29 YOU WILL BE STANDING IN DIFFERENT SHOES WHERE IT WILL BE 13:56:32 YOUR DECISION TO MAKE, NOT TRYING TO CHANNEL WHAT THEY 13:56:36 THOUGHT. AND IF AT THE END OF THE DAY, 13:56:37 YOU THINK MORE LIKE JUSTICE MARSHALL THAN JUSTICE RHENQUIST, 13:56:42 SO BE IT. THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU MAKE 13:56:46 SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT CHANNELING YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA, YOUR 13:56:50 POLITICAL LEANINGS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RENDER DECISIONS? 13:56:54 AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE QUALIFICATION TEST WILL BE 13:56:59 MET. WHETHER OR NOT ACTIVISM CAN BE 13:57:01 PARKED IS UP TO YOU. AND I LOOK AT THIS CONFIRMATION 13:57:06 PROCESS AS A WAY TO RECOGNIZE THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES 13:57:10 AND THE SENATE HAS AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION ON BEHALF 13:57:13 OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY TO PUT YOU UNDER SCRUTINY, FIRM AND 13:57:20 FAIR, RESPECTFUL AND SOMETIMES CONTENTIOUS. 13:57:24 GOOD LUCK. BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE AND 13:57:28 IT'S OKAY TO DISAGREE WITH US UP HERE. 13:57:34 THANK YOU. THE -- THANK YOU, SENATOR. 13:57:39 AND NEXT, SENATOR SCHUMER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 13:57:43 I, TOO, WANT TO NOTE THE PASSING OF OUR FRIEND AND LEADER, 13:57:46 SENATOR BYRD. SENATOR BYRD'S FIERCE DEVOTION 13:57:50 TO THE CONSTITUTION HOVERS OVER THIS HEARING AND NOTHING COULD 13:57:53 BE MORE APPROPRIATE ON THE SAD DAY OF HIS DEATH THAN HOLDING 13:57:58 THIS HEARING, WHERE THE FIRST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT GIVES 13:58:02 ADVICE AND CONSENT TO THE SECOND BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AS WE FILL 13:58:06 SOMEBODY -- FILL A POSITION ON THE THIRD. 13:58:09 WELL, WELCOME, MADAM SOLICITOR GENERAL. 13:58:13 THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO TO ELABORATE ON YOUR 13:58:18 QUALIFICATIONS. SOLICITOR GENERAL KAGAN'S 13:58:20 ACHIEVEMENTS, AS WELL AS HER RECORD, ARE BY NOW WELL KNOWN TO 13:58:24 THIS COMMITTEE AND BY THE END OF THE WEEK, THEY WILL BE WELL 13:58:26 KNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FRANKLY THERE ARE NOT MANY 13:58:29 BLANKS LEFT TO FILL IN. GIVEN HOW FORTHCOMING GENERAL 13:58:33 KAGAN HAS ALREADY BEEN, I WOULD THINK THAT WE COULD FINISH THIS 13:58:37 HEARING IN ONE ROUND OF QUESTIONING. 13:58:40 NOW, I AM AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR ASKING 13:58:43 NOMINEES SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND I EXPECT NOMINEES TO ANSWER. 13:58:49 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MY COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAIS 13:58:52 HAVE A RIGHT AND A DUTY TO ASK TOUGH, PROBATIVE QUESTIONS, BUT 13:58:56 I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE QUALITY OF ANSWERS