Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008

Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to confirm two more nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench: Cathy Seibel for the Southern District of New York and Glenn T. Suddaby for the Northern District of New York. These nominees each have the support of the New York Senators, who worked with the White House to identify a slate of consensus nominees. I thank both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton for their work in connection with these nominees.

When these nominees are confirmed, that will bring the number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the slightly more than three years I have served as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to 158. Coincidentally, the number of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the almost four and one-half years of Republican control totaled 158.

I have always said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's. And we have. Indeed, we have matched the confirmation record that Republicans achieved for a President from their own party. We have not pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's nominees. We are not going to return 17 circuit court nominees without action to this President as the Republican-led Senate did to President Clinton. We have not doubled the judicial vacancies and forced them above 100 nationwide, nor have we doubled the number of circuit court vacancies. To the contrary, we have cut judicial vacancies by more than half, and reduced circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds from a high point of 32, to a low of just nine throughout all 13 Federal circuits.

The 100 nominations we confirmed in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002, while working with a most uncooperative White House, reduced the vacancies by 45 percent by the end of 2002. With 40 additional confirmations last year, and another 18 this year, the Senate under Democratic leadership has now confirmed 158 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench nominated by President Bush. Nearly half of the judicial nominees the Senate has confirmed while I have served as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have filled vacancies classified by the Administrative Office of the Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. Eighteen of the 27 circuit court nominees confirmed while I have chaired the committee filled judicial emergency vacancies, including nine of the 10 circuit court nominees confirmed this Congress. This is another aspect of the problem created by Republicans that we have worked hard to improve. When President Bush took office there were 28 judicial emergency vacancies. Those have been reduced by more than half.

In the 2 full years that preceded my returning as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2007, with a Republican chairman and a Republican Senate majority working to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican President, 54 nominations were confirmed. After the two confirmations today, we will reach 58 judicial confirmations for this Congress. Truth be told, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed faster by the Democratic majority than by the previous Republican majority of the Senate.

Judicial vacancies have been reduced from 10 percent as we made the transition to the Bush administration to 4.5 percent today. I wish we could say the same about unemployment, the cost of gasoline, food prices, health care costs, about inflation and the national debt, but all those indicators have been moving in the wrong direction, as is consumer confidence and the percentage of Americans who see the country as on the wrong track.

Republican critics ignore the progress we have made on judicial vacancies. They also ignore the crisis that they had created by not considering circuit nominees in 1996, 1997 and 1998. They ignore the fact that they refused to confirm a single circuit nominee during the entire 1996 session. They ignore the fact that they returned 17 circuit court nominees without action to the White House in 2000. They ignore the public criticism of Chief Justice Rehnquist to their actions during those years. They ignore the fact that they were responsible for more than doubling circuit court vacancies during their pocket filibusters of Clinton nominees or that we have reduced those circuit court vacancies by more than two thirds.

In fact, as the Presidential elections in 2000 drew closer, and when the judicial vacancy rate stood at 7.2 percent, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch declared that ``There is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis,'' and that 7.2 percent was a ``rather low percentage of vacancies that shows the judiciary is not suffering from an overwhelming number of vacancies.'' As a result of Republican inaction, the vacancy rate continued to rise, reaching 10 percent when the Democrats took over the Senate majority in 2001.

Democrats have reversed course. We have cut circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds, from a high of 32. With the confirmation of two nominees today, the judicial vacancy rate will be just 4.5 percent.

I have yet to hear praise from a single Republican for our work in lowering vacancies. I also have yet to hear in the Republican talking points any explanation for their actions during the 1996 congressional session, when the Republican Senate majority refused to allow the Senate to confirm even one circuit court judge. I have yet to hear explanations for why they did not proceed with the nominations of Bonnie Campbell, Allen Snyder and so many others.

I hope the American people will not witness another week in which Senate Republicans attempt to make a partisan, election-year issue out of the confirmation of judicial nominations. This is the one area where the numbers have actually improved during the Bush presidency while the life of hardworking Americans has only gotten more difficult. The Treasury Secretary has been quite sobering about the financial difficulties still ahead. Inflation is now on the rise, jobs are being lost, gas prices have skyrocketed, food prices have soared, health care is unaffordable and yet Republicans want come to the floor to pick a partisan fight about the pace of judicial confirmations while the Senate proceeds to confirm two more judges.

Americans have seen the unemployment rate rise to 5.5 percent and trillions of dollars in budget surplus have turned into trillions of dollars of debt. Last week General Motors announced layoffs. The annual budget deficit is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the dollar has lost half its value, and the costs of the Iraq war and interest on the national debt amounts to $1.5 billion a day.

When President Bush took office, the price of gas was $1.42 a gallon. Today, it is over $4.00 a gallon. The housing crisis and mortgage crisis threatens the economy. The stock market dropped 2,000 points in the first six months of the year and went under 11,000.

Hardworking Americans trying to do the best they can for their families are more concerned about critical issues they face in their lives each day. They are concerned about affording to heat their homes this winter. They are concerned about gas prices that have skyrocketed so high they do not know how they will afford to drive to work. They are concerned about the steepest decline in home values in two decades. More and more Americans are affected by rising unemployment, with job losses for the first six consecutive months of this year tallying over 438,000. Americans are worried about soaring health care costs, rising health insurance costs, the rising costs of education and rising food prices. The partisan, election-year rhetoric over judicial nominations, at a time when judicial vacancies have been significantly reduced, is a reflection of misplaced priorities.

Our progress today in confirming two more nominations for lifetime appointments shows that when the President works with home State Senators to identify consensus, well-qualified nominees, we can make progress, even this late in an election year. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

The Federal judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be political or politicized, regardless of who sits in the White House. I will continue in this Congress, and with a new President in the next Congress, to work with Senators from both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to all Americans, without fear or favor.

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to consider a number of bipartisan measures. Several are important items on which Republicans had already delayed consideration since June. They include the bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, a bipartisan OPEN FOIA bill and the bipartisan William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. In addition, we had before us the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act and the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act.

I had hoped that last week we would be able to report these measures. A few words about one of them--the legislation to reauthorize the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This bill would strengthen our efforts to stop the abhorrent practice of human trafficking around the world. Our bill enhances protections for victims of these terrible crimes. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. These practices continue to victimize hundreds of thousands around the world, mostly women and children, and we must do all that we can to be more effective in confronting this continuing problem. I thank Senator Biden for his leadership. Unfortunately, Republican partisan antics have gotten in the way of progress on this front and delayed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate from acting on this measure.

Rather than meet and work on the human trafficking bill and the others, a number of the Republican Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee came to the Senate floor while Republicans objected to the committee meeting. That was too bad. It set back our legislative agenda.

Republicans previously boycotted business meetings for the month of February when we were trying to report judicial nominations. That only slowed our progress. Then, when we tried to expedite consideration of two circuit court nominations in May, they objected. Those judicial nominations were finally confirmed late in June.

I look forward to a time when Senators from the other side of the aisle return to work with us on the important legislative business of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. It would be refreshing if they recognized the progress we have made on filling judicial vacancies.

When they do, when they show cooperation, when we are able to make progress on our legislative agenda, at that point I will be able to turn my attention from concentrating on that legislative agenda and consider, along with the majority leader, whether there are additional judicial nominees we might be able to consider and confirm this year. It will be difficult to do so, especially in connection with nominees recently received for whom we do not have an ABA peer review rating at this time.

Let me give you some flavor of how petty the obstructionism from Republicans has become. I introduced at the request of the Chief Justice a bill to extend authorization for the Supreme Court police to remain in operation, S. 3296. I have been trying to clear this measure for passage since June 19. Although our Ranking Republican on the Committee cosponsored, he has not been able to clear it on his side of the aisle.

I have been seeking for months to find a way to extend the EB-5 investor visa pilot program that brings benefits

not only to Vermont but to Pennsylvania and Iowa, and elsewhere. Authority for this worthwhile program that leads to investments here in the United States expires in September. My efforts to clear H.R. 5569, a bill to extend the program for 5 years, have been stymied by Republicans who insist on using this bill as a vehicle for other immigration-related matters and have ensnarled it in a series of competing concerns.

More broadly, the Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance the priorities of Americans. We have reported legislation to support local law enforcement to make our cities and towns safe from crime that has now gone back up after consistent declines in the 1990s, like the COPS Improvements Act, S. 368, and my bill to extend the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 2511. We have reported legislation to combat fraud and corruption, like the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, and the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, S. 1946. We have reported legislation to protect the civil rights and voting rights of Americans, like the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, and Senator Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, S. 453. We have reported legislation to protect Americans' data privacy like my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, S. 495. We have reported measures to provide the Federal judiciary with increased resources both in terms of salary restoration and additional judgeships, S. 1638 and S. 2774. We have reported intellectual property measures like the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, S. 2913. And, of course, we have reported the bill to confront the OPEC cartel, NOPEC, S. 879. I look forward to a time when Republicans work with us on these matters instead of obstructing us at every turn.

Legislation with broad bipartisan support that I have managed to move through the Judiciary Committee has then been stalled on the Senate floor by the obstruction of a few Republicans. Of the bills that have been reported from the Judiciary Committee this Congress, Republicans have blocked legislation to support runaway and homeless young people, S. 2982; to help law enforcement cope with mentally ill offenders, S. 2304; to support the investigation and prosecution of civil rights era murders left unsolved for too long, S. 535; and to protect our children from the scourges of drugs, child pornography, and child exploitation, such as S. 1210, S. 1738 and S. 2344. I joined the Majority Leader in introducing a measure yesterday that combines some of these Committee- approved and House-passed bipartisan measures into one bill, S. 3297. These should have been consent items and already been considered and passed by the Senate.

The list goes on. I say, again, Republican obstructionists have blocked legislation to ensure that law enforcement officers can obtain bulletproof vests, to give much needed resources to State and local law enforcement, to break the grip of the OPEC cartel on oil prices, to prohibit war profiteering, to train prosecutors, and to teach children to use the internet safely, just to reiterate a few examples. And that is just legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee. Every Committee in the Senate has seen simple legislation intended to help the American people in difficult times stymied by Republican obstruction.

Republicans have become masters of true obstruction, boycotting business meetings of the Judiciary Committee and cutting short important hearings, including a hearing at which two courageous women from Pennsylvania were testifying about severe injuries they suffered to help us understand the plight of hardworking Americans whose legitimate grievances have been rejected by a pro-business Supreme Court. When Republicans obstructed a meeting last week where we could have made progress on reducing youth violence, protecting women and children from human trafficking, and helping those who serve our country to cope with unmanageable debt, that was just the latest example of a pattern that has become all too familiar.

Sadly, we have seen Republican obstructionism since the beginning of this Congress, with Republicans using filibuster after filibuster to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the American people. Republican filibusters prevented Senate majorities from passing the climate change bill; the Employee Free Choice Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the DC Voting Rights Act; the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007; the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008; the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008; and the Consumer- First Energy Act.

These are critical pieces of legislation to address urgent priorities like the energy crisis, the environment, voting rights, health care, and fair wages for working men and women. All of them had the support of the majority of the Senate. And all were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators bent on preventing us from making progress. Republicans have now filibustered more than 80 pieces of legislation in this Congress. We can only imagine what we could have accomplished in this Congress with cooperation rather than obstruction.

This long list of priorities unaddressed because of the Republicans in Congress would be even longer if we were to include the many important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress. This list includes legislation to fund stem cell research to fight debilitating and deadly diseases, to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children without it, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq, and to ban waterboarding and help restore America as a beacon for the rule of law.

The American people are going through increasingly difficult times, and their Congress should be working to make their lives better. Time is running short in this Congress. It is past time for Republicans to stop their foot stomping and work with us to get things done. That is what I have been trying to do throughout this Congress. I hope, despite their recent antics, that Republicans will reconsider and join with me to make progress on legislative matters of concern to the American people.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007. Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation. This bill would demonstrate our respect and appreciation for our hardworking Federal judges by authorizing an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries. Our bill recognizes the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government. It is time Congress treated the Federal judiciary with the respect that a co-equal branch of government deserves.

Eight years ago, in 1999, the President's salary was doubled to $400,000 a year. We are not proposing to increase judges' salaries by 100 percent, but by half that, by 50 percent. The increase is an important step in ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is critical for preserving our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans. Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of Government as we did for the executive branch 8 years ago.

For too long, judicial salaries have failed even to keep up with inflation while public and private sector salaries have surged ahead. According to information provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, judicial salaries have declined by nearly 25 percent in real terms since 1969. During the same time, private sector salaries have increased by more than 15 percent. In 1969, a Federal district court judge earned 20 percent more than a law school dean and about 30 percent more than a senior law professor at a top law school. By contrast, today top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more. Many recent law school graduates will make more in their starting salary at a private law firm than we pay to an experienced district court judge. Those in the executive branch have enjoyed periodic raises that have taken their salaries well above those of judges. For example, SEC trial attorneys now make up to $180,330, which is significantly higher than the annual salary of our Federal trial judges.

In addition, the workload for Federal judges has increased dramatically. Since 1960, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by almost 60 percent and the caseload of circuit court judges has jumped more than 200 percent. Judges who are working to preserve the rule of law in America and to make equal justice a reality should be respected, and their labor should be compensated.

Paul Volcker, the chair of the National Commission on the Public Service, recently noted in The Wall Street Journal that congressional inaction on judicial pay could erode the high professional standards and independence of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Rehnquist repeatedly called for an increase in judicial pay, warning that ``[i)nadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure'' and that ``. . . low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench.'' Chief Justice Roberts pointed to an increasing trend in early retirement in his last ``Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' noting that many of those retired judges have gone to work in the private sector. Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February about similar threats to judicial independence.

This bill addresses these concerns by granting a raise for all Federal judges. This bipartisan legislation has broad support. President Bush supports a significant pay raise for judges, as does the American Bar Association, as do the deans of 130 of the Nation's top law schools, civil rights groups, and others.

One of the first bills we passed in the Senate this year, S. 197, authorized cost-of-living adjustments for the salaries of United States judges. Senators Specter, Feinstein and Cornyn joined me in cosponsoring this bill. Unfortunately, that bill has failed to move through the House of Representatives. Too often during the last several years our Federal judges have not been given a standard cost-of-living raise. That, too, has contributed to the diminution in their real compensation.

Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent) judiciary. During the last few years it has been the courts that have acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is compromised, however, if judges leave the bench for financial reasons. The quality of the judiciary is threatened if judges' salaries are inadequate to attract and retain our best legal minds. Given the essential role that the judiciary plays in our system of government, we should pass this raise to judicial salaries.

I thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn for agreeing to join me in introducing this bill. I also thank Majority Leader Reid, as well as Minority Leader McConnell, for their support of this legislation and their commitment to the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007. Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation. This bill would demonstrate our respect and appreciation for our hardworking Federal judges by authorizing an immediate and substantial increase in judicial salaries. Our bill recognizes the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government. It is time Congress treated the Federal judiciary with the respect that a co-equal branch of government deserves.

Eight years ago, in 1999, the President's salary was doubled to $400,000 a year. We are not proposing to increase judges' salaries by 100 percent, but by half that, by 50 percent. The increase is an important step in ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Judicial independence is critical for preserving our system of government and protecting the rights of all Americans. Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of Government as we did for the executive branch 8 years ago.

For too long, judicial salaries have failed even to keep up with inflation while public and private sector salaries have surged ahead. According to information provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, judicial salaries have declined by nearly 25 percent in real terms since 1969. During the same time, private sector salaries have increased by more than 15 percent. In 1969, a Federal district court judge earned 20 percent more than a law school dean and about 30 percent more than a senior law professor at a top law school. By contrast, today top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more. Many recent law school graduates will make more in their starting salary at a private law firm than we pay to an experienced district court judge. Those in the executive branch have enjoyed periodic raises that have taken their salaries well above those of judges. For example, SEC trial attorneys now make up to $180,330, which is significantly higher than the annual salary of our Federal trial judges.

In addition, the workload for Federal judges has increased dramatically. Since 1960, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by almost 60 percent and the caseload of circuit court judges has jumped more than 200 percent. Judges who are working to preserve the rule of law in America and to make equal justice a reality should be respected, and their labor should be compensated.

Paul Volcker, the chair of the National Commission on the Public Service, recently noted in The Wall Street Journal that congressional inaction on judicial pay could erode the high professional standards and independence of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Rehnquist repeatedly called for an increase in judicial pay, warning that ``[i)nadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure'' and that ``. . . low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench.'' Chief Justice Roberts pointed to an increasing trend in early retirement in his last ``Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,'' noting that many of those retired judges have gone to work in the private sector. Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February about similar threats to judicial independence.

This bill addresses these concerns by granting a raise for all Federal judges. This bipartisan legislation has broad support. President Bush supports a significant pay raise for judges, as does the American Bar Association, as do the deans of 130 of the Nation's top law schools, civil rights groups, and others.

One of the first bills we passed in the Senate this year, S. 197, authorized cost-of-living adjustments for the salaries of United States judges. Senators Specter, Feinstein and Cornyn joined me in cosponsoring this bill. Unfortunately, that bill has failed to move through the House of Representatives. Too often during the last several years our Federal judges have not been given a standard cost-of-living raise. That, too, has contributed to the diminution in their real compensation.

Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent) judiciary. During the last few years it has been the courts that have acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is compromised, however, if judges leave the bench for financial reasons. The quality of the judiciary is threatened if judges' salaries are inadequate to attract and retain our best legal minds. Given the essential role that the judiciary plays in our system of government, we should pass this raise to judicial salaries.

I thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn for agreeing to join me in introducing this bill. I also thank Majority Leader Reid, as well as Minority Leader McConnell, for their support of this legislation and their commitment to the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the state of the United States Army.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing.

The hearing will address issues related to the retirement of the Space Shuttle, its remaining missions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's, NASA, plans to compensate should they not fulfill all mission requirements on schedule, and other issues facing NASA when the Space Shuttle is retired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2203, a bill to reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on America's Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing on the anti-drug foreign assistance package for Mexico and Central America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Restoring Congressional Intent and Protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act'' November 15, 2007, at 2 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda:

I. Bills

S. 2248, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007;

S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007, (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin);

S. 344, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings, (Specter, Grassley, Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Cornyn);

S. 1638, Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007, (Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Graham, Kennedy). II. Resolutions

S. Res. 366, designating November 2007 as ``National Methamphetamine Awareness Month,'' to increase awareness of methamphetamine abuse, (Baucus, Grassley, Biden, Graham, Schumer);

S. Res. 367, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the mass movement for Soviet Jewish freedom and the 20th anniversary of the Freedom Sunday rally for Soviet Jewry on the National Mall, (Lieberman, Specter, Biden, Brownback, Cardin, Feinstein) III. Nominations

Joseph N. Laplante to be United States District Judge for the District of New Hampshire; Reed Charles O'Connor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division; Thomas D. Schroeder to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Amul R. Thapar to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, off the Senate Floor in the Reception Room, immediately after the first rollcall vote occurring after 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Michael W. Hager to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Human Resources and Management.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia and the Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Not a Matter `If,' But of `When': The Status of U.S. Response Following an RDD Attack.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on December 13, 2007. At 10:30 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Shopping Smart and Avoiding Scams: Financial Literacy During the Holiday Season.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, for the purposes of conducting a hearing.

At this hearing, the committee members will hear from the five Federal Communications Commission comissioners on current proceedings involving media and telecommunications policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing. At this hearing, the committee will hear testimony regarding forest restoration and hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the forests of Oregon and Washington.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Clean Water Act following the recent Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County and Rapanos-Carabell.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007. at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Housing Decline: The Extent of the Problem and Potential Remedies.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at a time to be determined in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nominations of Christopher A. Padilla, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Christina H. Pearson, to be Assistant Secretary Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Benjamin Eric Sasse, to be Assistant Secretary Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Charles E.F. Millard, to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a hearing on global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct an Executive Business meeting on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

I. Resolutions of Contempt

II. Bills

S. 2402, FISA Intelligence Surveillance Substitution Act of 2007, (Specter); S. 344, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court Proceedings, (Specter, Grassley, Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Cornyn); S. 1638, Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007, (Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Graham, Kennedy); S. 1829, Protect Our Children First Act of 2007, (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer); S. 431, Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007, (Schumer, McCain, Grassley, Specter, Kyl); S. 2344, Internet Safety Education Act of 2007, (Menendez).

III. Resolution

S. Res. 388, Designating the week of February 4 through February 8, 2008, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week'', (Crapo, Biden).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007. The Committee will meet off the Senate Floor in the Reception room to consider the nomination of LTG James B. Peake (Ret.) for Secretary of Veterans Affairs after the first Floor vote that occurs on Thursday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Prioritizing Management: Implementing Chief Management Officers at Federal Agencies.''