Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Crapo to introduce the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, which would restore and increase critical funding for direct services and compensation to victims of crime under the Victims of Crime Act.

I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Act provides grants for direct services to victims, such as state crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are all financed by a reserve fund created from fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders, at no cost to taxpayers.

A number of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund makes these programs possible and has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime bravely move forward with their lives.

Several years ago, I worked to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in good times, and in bad. We made sure it had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the fund would run out of money and that they would be left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the Fund in a given year, in part to help preserve adequate funds from year to year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. Fortunately Congress has consistently rejected efforts to rob crime victims of resources that are appropriately set aside to assist them and their families.

Unfortunately, the cap on the fund has not kept pace with the demand for compensation and services. From 2006 to 2008, VOCA victim assistance formula grants were cut by $87 billion or 22 percent. This reduction in funding, coupled with the current economic climate, was devastating to victim service providers who were forced to curtail services, lay off staff, and close their doors, jeopardizing the well- being and recovery of many crime victims.

In addition, victim service professionals have seen a clear increase in victimization and victim need in the past year as job losses and economic stress translate into increased violence in the home and in our communities. The National Crime Victims Helpline reported a 25 percent increase in calls in recent months and the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported a similar increase. Local shelters and crisis lines are also reporting a rise in demand as the shortage of affordable housing and rising unemployment are increasing the time that victims stay in emergency shelters. The rising unemployment rate also means victims are less likely to have insurance to cover their crime-related expenses.

At a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in April on the Victim of Crime Act, witnesses testified that there has also been an increase in the variety of crimes being committed. The National Crime Victims Helpline has seen an increase in calls from fraud victims people falling prey to ``work at home'' scams, secret shopper scams, investment scams, mortgage fraud, and construction fraud. Such victims are in desperate need of financial counseling and mental health counseling to overcome the stress and emotional impact of falling victim to these scams. Under Federal regulations, States may use compensation and victim assistance programs to aid financial crime victims, but services are not available. Victim service providers are reluctant to expand their outreach and services without assured increased funding and there is already too much competition for the limited funds available. The National Census of Domestic Violence Services conducted last fall showed that in one day, nearly 9,000 victims were turned away from shelter, counseling, and other crucial services because local programs were unable to serve them.

The need for victim assistance and compensation has grown. The Crime Victims Fund can provide more help. Recent years have seen an increase in collections from criminal fines and penalties. Accordingly, Congress has the ability to provide stable and predictable growth without jeopardizing the sustainability of the fund, and should do so through this legislation. The Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act would establish a minimum funding level for programs under VOCA to ensure reasonable and predictable growth in victim services through fiscal year 2014. Providing a stable and predictable funding stream will enable states to expand their programs and outreach to the thousands of victims who have nowhere to turn. Again, I emphasize that it does not cost a dime of taxpayer funds but will come exclusively from Federal criminal fines and penalties.

I want to commend Senator Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for working with the President to provide $100 million in the economic recovery package for crime victims. That additional funding is sorely needed right now and I know it was sincerely appreciated by victim service providers. Funding in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 together with the Recovery Act funds, restored funding to the 2006 level, adjusted for inflation. A 2010 cap on total VOCA obligations of $705 million is expected to maintain the funding level for assistance grants provided in 2009 through the Recovery Act funding and annual appropriations. I believe that

the certainty this legislation will provide will be helpful to the states, victim service providers, and the citizens they serve, and will help improve this vital program.

I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and many other interested Senators on this initiative to provide increased, stable, and predicable funding for to meet the ongoing need for essential services for crime victims and their families in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold in introducing the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009. This legislation will make it a violation of United States law to commit a crime against humanity, and will help ensure that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity do not find safe haven in the United States. I commend Senator Durbin for his work on this legislation and for his leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law.

Last Congress, I was pleased to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, the first-ever congressional committee established to address human rights issues. The work that we have done through this Subcommittee has helped the Senate focus on important and difficult legal human rights issues, including genocide, human trafficking, child soldiers, war crimes, corporate accountability overseas, systematic rape, and torture.

The work of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee has already achieved important results. Last Congress, the President signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which outlawed the abhorrent practice of recruiting and using child soldiers, and the Genocide Accountability Act, which closed a loophole that had allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. These legislative initiatives were a critical step toward showing the international community that the United States will not tolerate human rights abuses at home or abroad, and that those who commit these atrocities must be held accountable for their actions. I am pleased to join Senator Durbin to take the next step to protect victims of crimes against humanity in the United States, and to hold those responsible for these terrible crimes to account.

Along with genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes under international law. We see such crimes against humanity by groups or governments as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. These deplorable crimes include murder, enslavement, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, extermination, hostage taking, and ethnic cleansing, and they continue to take place around the world in places like Uganda, Burma, and Sudan.

Although the United States has strongly and consistently for more than 60 years supported the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, there is currently no United States law prohibiting crimes against humanity. As a result, the government is unable to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity found in our country. This legislation will fix this loophole by enabling the Attorney General to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by a U.S. national, legal alien or habitual resident in the United States. The law will also enable the prosecution of any crimes against humanity committed in whole or in part within the United States, as well as offenses that occur outside the United States, if the offender is currently located in the United States.

The actions prohibited by the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 are appalling. They happen too often throughout the world. We must promote accountability for human rights violations committed anywhere in the world, and we must do whatever we can to prevent those who commit such crimes from escaping justice by finding a safe haven in the United States. A foreign policy that seeks to defend human rights will never fully achieve its goals if we undermine our own credibility by failing in our commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights here at home. I urge

Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation to help this country take another step toward reclaiming our place as a guardian of human rights.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Crapo to introduce the Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, which would restore and increase critical funding for direct services and compensation to victims of crime under the Victims of Crime Act.

I was honored to support the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, which has been the principal means by which the Federal Government has supported essential services for crime victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Act provides grants for direct services to victims, such as state crime victim compensation programs, emergency shelters, crisis intervention, counseling, and assistance in participating in the criminal justice system. These services are all financed by a reserve fund created from fines and penalties paid by Federal criminal offenders, at no cost to taxpayers.

A number of us have worked hard over the years to protect the Crime Victims Fund. State victim compensation and assistance programs serve nearly four million crime victims each year, including victims of violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving. The Crime Victims Fund makes these programs possible and has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime bravely move forward with their lives.

Several years ago, I worked to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund would be there in good times, and in bad. We made sure it had a ``rainy day'' capacity so that in lean years, victims and their advocates would not have to worry that the fund would run out of money and that they would be left stranded. More recently, an annual cap has been set on the level of funding to be spent from the Fund in a given year, in part to help preserve adequate funds from year to year. When this cap was established, and when President Bush then sought to empty the Crime Victims Fund of unexpended funds, I joined with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and others from both political parties to make sure that the Crime Victims Fund was preserved. Fortunately Congress has consistently rejected efforts to rob crime victims of resources that are appropriately set aside to assist them and their families.

Unfortunately, the cap on the fund has not kept pace with the demand for compensation and services. From 2006 to 2008, VOCA victim assistance formula grants were cut by $87 billion or 22 percent. This reduction in funding, coupled with the current economic climate, was devastating to victim service providers who were forced to curtail services, lay off staff, and close their doors, jeopardizing the well- being and recovery of many crime victims.

In addition, victim service professionals have seen a clear increase in victimization and victim need in the past year as job losses and economic stress translate into increased violence in the home and in our communities. The National Crime Victims Helpline reported a 25 percent increase in calls in recent months and the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported a similar increase. Local shelters and crisis lines are also reporting a rise in demand as the shortage of affordable housing and rising unemployment are increasing the time that victims stay in emergency shelters. The rising unemployment rate also means victims are less likely to have insurance to cover their crime-related expenses.

At a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired in April on the Victim of Crime Act, witnesses testified that there has also been an increase in the variety of crimes being committed. The National Crime Victims Helpline has seen an increase in calls from fraud victims people falling prey to ``work at home'' scams, secret shopper scams, investment scams, mortgage fraud, and construction fraud. Such victims are in desperate need of financial counseling and mental health counseling to overcome the stress and emotional impact of falling victim to these scams. Under Federal regulations, States may use compensation and victim assistance programs to aid financial crime victims, but services are not available. Victim service providers are reluctant to expand their outreach and services without assured increased funding and there is already too much competition for the limited funds available. The National Census of Domestic Violence Services conducted last fall showed that in one day, nearly 9,000 victims were turned away from shelter, counseling, and other crucial services because local programs were unable to serve them.

The need for victim assistance and compensation has grown. The Crime Victims Fund can provide more help. Recent years have seen an increase in collections from criminal fines and penalties. Accordingly, Congress has the ability to provide stable and predictable growth without jeopardizing the sustainability of the fund, and should do so through this legislation. The Crime Victims Fund Preservation Act would establish a minimum funding level for programs under VOCA to ensure reasonable and predictable growth in victim services through fiscal year 2014. Providing a stable and predictable funding stream will enable states to expand their programs and outreach to the thousands of victims who have nowhere to turn. Again, I emphasize that it does not cost a dime of taxpayer funds but will come exclusively from Federal criminal fines and penalties.

I want to commend Senator Mikulski, the Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Shelby, the Ranking Member, for working with the President to provide $100 million in the economic recovery package for crime victims. That additional funding is sorely needed right now and I know it was sincerely appreciated by victim service providers. Funding in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 together with the Recovery Act funds, restored funding to the 2006 level, adjusted for inflation. A 2010 cap on total VOCA obligations of $705 million is expected to maintain the funding level for assistance grants provided in 2009 through the Recovery Act funding and annual appropriations. I believe that

the certainty this legislation will provide will be helpful to the states, victim service providers, and the citizens they serve, and will help improve this vital program.

I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski and many other interested Senators on this initiative to provide increased, stable, and predicable funding for to meet the ongoing need for essential services for crime victims and their families in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin and Senator Feingold in introducing the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009. This legislation will make it a violation of United States law to commit a crime against humanity, and will help ensure that the perpetrators of crimes against humanity do not find safe haven in the United States. I commend Senator Durbin for his work on this legislation and for his leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law.

Last Congress, I was pleased to work with Senator Durbin to create the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, the first-ever congressional committee established to address human rights issues. The work that we have done through this Subcommittee has helped the Senate focus on important and difficult legal human rights issues, including genocide, human trafficking, child soldiers, war crimes, corporate accountability overseas, systematic rape, and torture.

The work of the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee has already achieved important results. Last Congress, the President signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which outlawed the abhorrent practice of recruiting and using child soldiers, and the Genocide Accountability Act, which closed a loophole that had allowed those who commit or incite genocide to seek refuge in our country without fear of prosecution for their actions. These legislative initiatives were a critical step toward showing the international community that the United States will not tolerate human rights abuses at home or abroad, and that those who commit these atrocities must be held accountable for their actions. I am pleased to join Senator Durbin to take the next step to protect victims of crimes against humanity in the United States, and to hold those responsible for these terrible crimes to account.

Along with genocide and war crimes, crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes under international law. We see such crimes against humanity by groups or governments as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. These deplorable crimes include murder, enslavement, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, extermination, hostage taking, and ethnic cleansing, and they continue to take place around the world in places like Uganda, Burma, and Sudan.

Although the United States has strongly and consistently for more than 60 years supported the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, there is currently no United States law prohibiting crimes against humanity. As a result, the government is unable to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity found in our country. This legislation will fix this loophole by enabling the Attorney General to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by a U.S. national, legal alien or habitual resident in the United States. The law will also enable the prosecution of any crimes against humanity committed in whole or in part within the United States, as well as offenses that occur outside the United States, if the offender is currently located in the United States.

The actions prohibited by the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 are appalling. They happen too often throughout the world. We must promote accountability for human rights violations committed anywhere in the world, and we must do whatever we can to prevent those who commit such crimes from escaping justice by finding a safe haven in the United States. A foreign policy that seeks to defend human rights will never fully achieve its goals if we undermine our own credibility by failing in our commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights here at home. I urge

Senators on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation to help this country take another step toward reclaiming our place as a guardian of human rights.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before I begin, are we in morning business or on the Koh nomination?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Schumer for their outstanding statements to the Senate today. As I review Judge Sotomayor's record in preparation for her confirmation hearing on July 13, I am struck by her extraordinary career and how she has excelled at everything she has done. I know how proud her mother Celina is of her accomplishments. I was delighted to hear Laura Bush, the former First Lady, say recently that she, too, is ``proud'' that President Obama nominated a woman to serve on our Supreme Court. I recall that Justice Ginsburg said she was ``cheered'' by the announcement and that she is glad that she will no longer be ``the lone woman on the Court.'' I contrast this reaction to President Bush's naming of Justice O'Connor's successor a few years ago when Justice O'Connor conceded her disappointment ``to see the percentage of women on [the Supreme Court] drop by 50 percent.'' Are these women biased, or prejudiced, or being discriminatory? Of course not. I hope that all Americans are encouraged by the nomination of Judge Sotomayor and join together to celebrate what it says about America being a land of opportunity for all.

A member of just the third class at Princeton in which women were included, Judge Sotomayor worked hard and graduated summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and shared the M. Taylor Senior Pyne Prize for scholastic excellence and service to the university. Think about that. She was a young woman who worked hard, including during the summers, to make up for lessons she had not received growing up in a South Bronx tenement. That is why she read children's books and classics, and arranged for tutoring to improve her writing. She went on to excel at Yale Law School, where she was an active member of the law school community, served as an editor of the prestigious Yale Law Journal, and as the managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order working on two journals during her 3 years of law school. She was also a semifinalist in the Barrister's Union mock trial competition at the law school. Now, some Republican Senators have made fun of her achievements and some seek to belittle them. They question how she could be an editor without providing a major article that she edited. I know from my experience that members of student journals do not all edit major articles. It is an achievement to be affiliated with the Yale Law Journal in any capacity. They act as if she made this up. If this really is a major concern, and they wish to ask her about it at her confirmation hearing, they can. I have never known Sonia Sotomayor to be one who padded her resume. Frankly, she does not need to. Her achievements are extraordinary and impressive.

She is the first nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years to have been nominated to three Federal judicial positions by three different Presidents. Indeed, it was President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, who nominated and then appointed her with the consent of the Senate to be a Federal district court judge. She has the most Federal court experience after 17 years of any nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. She is the first nominee in more than 50 years to have served as a Federal trial judge and a Federal appellate judge at the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court. She will be the only member of the Supreme Court to have served as a trial judge. She will be one of only two members of the Supreme Court to have served as a prosecutor.

I remember well when she was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by President Clinton, and when an anonymous Republican hold stalled her appointment for months. Finally, in June 1998, a column in The Wall Street Journal confirmed that the Republican obstruction was because they feared that President Clinton would nominate her to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, if one were to arise. After that Supreme Court term ended without a vacancy, we were finally able to vote on her nomination and she was confirmed overwhelmingly. Not one word was spoken on the Senate floor and not one word was inserted into the Congressional Record by those who had opposed her to explain their opposition or to justify or excuse the shabby treatment her nomination had received.

It is apparent that some Republicans are responding to the demands of conservative pressure groups to oppose her confirmation by doing just that. The truth is that they were prepared to oppose any nomination that President Obama made. Just today, a number of Republican Senators have come to the Senate floor to speak against President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The Senate Republican leader, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee have all taken a turn.

My initial reaction to their effort is to note that they have doubly demonstrated why a hearing should not be delayed. In fairness, no one should seek to delay her opportunity to respond to their questions and concerns and to answer their charges. As I said when I set the hearing date after consulting with Senator Sessions, I wanted it to be fair and adequate--fair to the nominee and adequate to allow Senators to prepare. To be fair to her, we need to give her the earliest possible opportunity to answer. As for preparedness, those Republican critics were prepared to air their grievances and concerns and to discuss her record and her cases 3 weeks before

the scheduled date of the hearing. What they clearly demonstrated today is that they are prepared to proceed with the July 13 hearing.

I do not agree with their characterization of her distinguished record on the Federal bench, or with their mischaracterization of her manner of judging. Judge Sotomayor's approach to the law should be clear to all after a 17-year record of fairly applying the law on the Federal bench. I remind them that when I asked Judge Sotomayor about her approach to judging she told me that, of course, one's life experience shapes who you are, but she went on to say this: ``Ultimately and completely''--and she used those words--as a judge you follow the law. There is not one law for one race or another. There is not one law for one color or another. There is not one law for rich and a different one for poor. There is only one law. She said ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what his or her upbringing has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial judging that the American people expect. That is respect for the rule of law. That is the kind of judge she has been.

For all the talk we have heard for years about judicial modesty and judicial restraint from nominees at their confirmation hearings, we have seen a Supreme Court these last four years that has been anything but modest and restrained. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases, or the Gross case from last week, to understand how just one vote can determine the Court's decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans.

The question we should be asking as we consider Judge Sotomayor's nomination is whether she will act in the mold of these conservative activists who have second-guessed Congress and undercut laws meant to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs and in voting, laws meant to protect the access of Americans to health care and education, and laws meant to protect the privacy of all Americans from an overreaching government. We should be asking whether she will be the kind of Justice who understands the real world impact of her decisions.

I know Judge Sotomayor is a restrained and thoughtful judge. She understands the role of a judge. Her record is one of restraint. In fact, the cases her critics chose to highlight are cases in which she showed restraint and followed the law. I hope that she is also a judge who understands that the courthouse doors must be as open to ordinary Americans as they are to government and big corporations.

I wish Republican Senators would pay less attention to the agitating from the far right, take a less selective view of a handful of Judge Sotomayor's cases to paint her--inaccurately--as an activist and, instead, consider her record fairly. She has been a judge that Kenneth Starr has endorsed. The other judges on the Second Circuit think the world of her, and have great respect for her judgment and judging. She is a nominee in which all Americans can take pride and have confidence. She has been a judge for all Americans and will be a Justice for all Americans.

I am sorry that some critics are seeking to caricature Judge Sotomayor and mischaracterize her involvement with respectable mainstream civil rights organizations. Judge Sotomayor was a member of board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, PRLDEF, now known as LatinoJustice PRLDEF, from 1980 until her resignation in 1992. Today, Republican critics chose to malign PRLDEF. This is a respected organization that was founded in the early 1970s with the support of Senator Jacob Javits, former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, and legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who was Judge Sotomayor's boss when she worked in his office as a prosecutor after graduating from Yale Law School.

It was modeled on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Its mission is to develop a more equitable society by creating opportunities for Latinos in areas where they are traditionally underrepresented. It seeks to ensure that Latinos have the legal resources necessary to fully engage in civic life. Financial support for PRLDEF comes from widely regarded foundations like Ford and Carnegie, and corporate contributions from businesses like Time Warner. These foundations and corporations are not radical. Neither is PRLDEF.

Other past directors of PRLDEF include the honorable Jose Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Congressman Herman Badillo, now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and former Governor of New York Hugh Carey. Jack John Olivero, a former regional director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and deputy director of its Washington office was PRLDEF's fourth president and general counsel. The list goes on and on of distinguished lawyers who have served in leadership capacities at PRLDEF.

One of PRLDEF's core missions is increasing diversity in the legal profession. To that end, PRLDEF mentors youth from all backgrounds, assisting them in completing their law school applications, mentoring them throughout law school, and supporting them during their years as young lawyers. Thousands of attorneys, including prominent civic, government, and corporate leaders, credit PRLDEF for helping them realize their dreams of becoming lawyers.

We all know about this part of Sonia Sotomayor's life because she disclosed her board membership and status as an officer in response to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. We know about it because Judge Sotomayor not only reviewed her own records to provide documents from her time at PRLDEF, but she also went above and beyond what the bipartisan questionnaire called for and asked that PRLDEF conduct its own search of its records. Judge Sotomayor has now provided the committee with additional documents from this search related to her work for PRLDEF. The record before us is public and it is transparent. We already have a more complete picture of Judge Sotomayor's record than we ever had of the records of John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

The committee did not receive 15,000 pages of documents related to key parts of Chief Justice Roberts' career in executive branch until the eve of the hearings, and many of them were heavily redacted. The Bush administration refused to meet or even discuss the Democrats' narrow request for specific memoranda relating to 16 key cases on which John Roberts worked while he was the principal deputy to Solicitor General Kenneth Starr in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. As a result, the committee had little knowledge of highly relevant parts of John Roberts's work as a political appointee in the office of ``the people's lawyer''--the Solicitor General. Because John Roberts had fewer than 3 years on the bench at the time of his nomination, these documents would have provided a crucial window into his qualifications. But we never received them.

During the committee's consideration of the Alito nomination, we requested documents from Samuel Alito's 6 years in the Department of Justice. However, the Bush administration just days before his hearing refused to produce 45 of the 50 opinions Sam Alito had written or supervised while in the Office of Legal Counsel. The administration also refused to provide most of the documents he wrote while in the Solicitor General's Office. Indeed, in refusing our request for these documents, the Department of Justice wrote:

Judge Alito has sat on the federal appellate bench for more

than 15 years, and his decisions in that capacity represent

the best evidence of his judicial philosophy and of the

manner in which he approaches judicial decision-making.

I do not recall a single Republican saying that we did not have a complete record to consider those nominations of President Bush to the Supreme Court even though there were significant gaps in the records. We should not apply a double standard to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

We have Judge Sotomayor's record from the Federal bench. That is a public record that we had even before she was designated by the President. Judge Sotomayor's mainstream record of judicial restraint and modesty is the best indication of her judicial philosophy. We do not have to imagine what kind of a judge she will be because we see what kind of a judge she has been.

I thank Judge Sotomayor for her quick and complete answers to the committee's questionnaire, and for going above and beyond what is required. My review of Judge Sotomayor's record has only bolstered the strong impression she has made over the past several years. She is extraordinarily qualified to serve on the Nation's highest court. She will bring to the Supreme Court more than just her first-rate legal mind and impeccable credentials. Hers is a distinctly American story. Whether you are from the South Bronx, the south side of Chicago or South Burlington, the American Dream inspires all of us, and her life story is the American dream.

I am confident that when elevated to the highest court in the land Judge Sotomayor will continue to live up to Justice Marshall's description of the work of the judge. Justice Marshall said:

We whose profession it is to ensure that the game is played

according to the rules, have an overriding professional

responsibility of ensuring that the game itself is fair for

all. Our citizenry expect a system of justice that not only

lives up to the letter of the Constitution, but one that also

abides by its spirit. They deserve the best efforts of all of

us towards meeting that end. In our day-to-day work we must

continue to realize that we are dealing with individuals not

statistics.

It is a pretty awesome responsibility when a Justice of the Supreme Court is nominated. Most Justices will serve long after the President who nominated them is gone, long after most of the Senators who vote on that nominee are gone. We have 300 million Americans. There are only 101 Americans who get a direct say in who is going to be on the Supreme Court. First and foremost, the President of the United States, when he makes the nomination to the Supreme Court, and then the 100 Senators who either vote yes or vote no. So let's stop delegating our work to special interest groups. Let's delegate our work to ourselves. Let's do what we are paid to do. Let's do what we have been elected to do.

This is a historic nomination. It should unite the American people and unite the 100 of us in the Senate who will act on their behalf. It is a nomination that keeps faith with the words engraved in Vermont marble over the entrance of the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non- Discrimination that will extend a number of benefits to same-sex partners that are afforded to spouses of Federal employees. I applaud the President for this effort to promote fairness in the workplace. It is a step in the right direction towards equalizing benefit coverage for all Federal employees.

The memorandum will enable domestic partners of civil service Federal employees to be added to their long-term care insurance program, and enable employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and nonbiological, nonadopted children. The memorandum also extends a number of benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service employees, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

Equal pay for equal work is a cornerstone of our country's bedrock principles, and equal access to important benefits should share that importance. Insurance benefits, work incentives, and retirement options comprise a significant portion of all employee compensation. By not offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees, the Federal Government is unfairly withholding these valuable options from dedicated employees across the country. President Obama's Memorandum is a step forward towards having a fair and consistent policy.

This step by the President brings the Federal Government in line with many of America's largest and most successful companies, as well as State and local governments and educational institutions, which already extend benefits to same-sex couples. Over half of all Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees, up from just 25 percent in 2000. Offering domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees improves the quality of its workforce and demonstrates the Federal Government's commitment to fairness and equality for all Americans.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Collins, which would provide domestic partners of Federal employees all of the same protections and benefits afforded to spouses of Federal employees, including participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and health insurance benefits. I am also a cosponsor of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2009, which would end the taxation of health benefits provided to domestic partners in workplaces that provide domestic partner health benefits to their employees.

Providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees is long overdue. I look forward to working with the Obama administration and Members on both sides of the aisle to continue to make progress towards equality in the workplace.

Mr. President, the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2009 will provide the recording industry and webcasters the additional time they need to reach a mutually beneficial agreement on webcasting rates. I am pleased that Congress has acted swiftly on this legislation.

I have long championed the development of new business models for transmitting music to the public. Webcasters are able to offer a range of music to consumers in a form that can compete with traditional broadcast radio and satellite radio. As webcasting and webcasters flourish, the performers whose music is attracting listeners deserve compensation.

In March 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board determined the rates applicable to webcasters through 2010. Webcasters large and small expressed serious concerns that the new rates would threaten their viability. I encouraged all parties at that time to negotiate and reach an agreement on rates that would compensate recording artists while allowing webcasters to prosper. The Copyright Royalty Board process is intended as a backstop when parties cannot reach agreements. All parties, and the listening public, benefit when private sector agreements are reached.

Last year, Congress passed an extension similar to the one we pass today. It paved the way for agreements between SoundExchange, on behalf of the recording industry, and the National Association of Broadcasters, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a group of small webcasters.

I am pleased that both webcasters and the recording industry are promoting this legislation. I have said before that I would not sanction a legislative readjustment of rates because one party is dissatisfied with the results. By passing this extension today, Congress is returning the authority to set rates to the creators and distributors of the music we all enjoy.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will pass the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act, ACPERA. I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. Passage of this legislation ensures that the Department of Justice will retain the tools it needs to prosecute criminal antitrust violations effectively and efficiently.

Since its inception 5 years ago, ACPERA has bolstered the Department of Justice's ability to uncover and prosecute criminal antitrust violations through its leniency program. The act provides incentives for corporations to self-report antitrust violations by limiting criminal liability and the civil damages recoverable to actual damages against a party that comes forward and cooperates with the Department of Justice.

The incentives in this program are critical to the success of the Antitrust Division's criminal antitrust enforcement. The 1-year extension will allow the Department of Justice to continue this successful program while Congress assesses the long-term direction of the Department of Justice's leniency program.

Madam President, last Thursday Bermuda welcomed to freedom four men who had been wrongly detained at Guantanamo Bay for more than 7 years. The men are ethnic Uighurs--a minority group from western China that has long suffered discrimination and oppression by China's Government. Their release is welcome news--our own Federal courts had cleared them for release, as did both the Bush and Obama administrations. Bermudian Prime Minister Dr. Ewart Brown and the Bermudian people have done a humanitarian service, and should be praised for it.

I strongly support President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, which became a rallying cry for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups seeking recruits. I am disappointed that the United States did not find a way to resettle the Uighurs here, as there are Uighur communities in several States that would have welcomed them and helped them become productive members of society. It would also have been an important gesture to other countries that we are asking to accept Guantanamo detainees. All the more reason that we should offer our sincere thanks to Bermuda for helping to put this sorry episode behind us.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is moving once again to pass legislation to regulate tobacco products in the United States. Senator Kennedy's lifetime efforts to improve the public's health are exemplified in his fight to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Despite many setbacks, Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to pass this legislation and I am proud to join him again as a cosponsor of this bill. This legislation is long overdue and I look forward to it being signed into law.

The health risks associated with smoking are undisputed and cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their lives every year. Tobacco products will kill one out of three long-term smokers, leading to over 400,000 deaths per year. The Surgeon General has determined that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and other serious illnesses. Deaths from tobacco products exceed deaths from HIV/AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use, car accidents, suicides, and murders combined.

Despite the dangers of smoking, we have seen that children have the greatest risk of becoming addicted to tobacco. Each day more than 3,500 children will try a cigarette for the first time and 1000 of those kids will become regular smokers. Among adult smokers, 90 percent started smoking as children and teens under the age of 18. In my home State of Vermont, more than 18 percent of high school students smoke. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 12,000 children in Vermont will ultimately die from smoking if smoking rates remain unchanged.

These statistics are horrifying but perhaps not surprising given the historic lack of regulation of the tobacco industry. At a congressional hearing as late as 1994, tobacco industry chairmen and CEOs testified that nicotine is not addictive, even though decades of evidence showed otherwise. In fact, the tobacco industry has increased the nicotine levels in cigarettes by more than 11 percent from 1998 to 2005, increasing the risk of cigarette addiction. If enhanced nicotine levels in cigarettes is not enough to convince us that the tobacco industry should be regulated, a new study released this spring showed that changes the tobacco industry has made to cigarette design over the years has increased the risk of lung cancer for those who smoke.

In addition to making their products more potent and addictive, study after study has shown how the tobacco industry continues to successfully target advertising to minors to get them hooked for life on smoking. Each year, the tobacco industry spends over $13 billion in advertising--that is $36 million every day. Studies have showed that children are three times more sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to be influenced to start smoking by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure.

This bill addresses these shameful business practices by giving the United States Food and Drug Administration the authority for the first time to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. It will require manufacturers to better disclose the contents and consequences of their products in new, stronger warning labels on packages. It will also prohibit cigarette companies from labeling their brands as reduced risk ``lite'' or ``ultra-lite'' unless the government can certify that those claims are true. The very purpose of the Food and Drug Administration is to protect the interests and safety of consumers and this legislation will finally allow the FDA to hold the tobacco industry accountable for their products.

A recent ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court highlights the need for serious regulation of the tobacco industry. The DC Appeals Court confirmed the district court's ruling, which found that the tobacco industry had for decades engaged in deceptive marketing tactics to conceal the negative health impacts of smoking. The ruling confirmed that tobacco companies had not changed the way their products were marketed in response to the Master Settlement Agreement, and instead the industry has more than doubled spending on marketing campaigns that included spurious claims of ``healthier'' cigarettes that are ``light'' or ``low-tar.'' The ruling did not, however, require that the tobacco industry surrender profits that resulted in the misleading advertising or stop the industry from adding flavors to make products more appealing to kids or to manipulate nicotine levels to increase addictiveness and harm. The tobacco industry must be regulated to create transparency in the contents of tobacco products and to help stop hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths each year.

For far too long, the tobacco industry has been given free rein to mislead

the public and encourage children and teens to take up smoking. The passage of this bill will give the FDA the authority it needs to effectively protect children from smoking and improve consumer awareness of tobacco industry practices, which will in turn save American lives. I urge all Senators to support passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, for the sake of my colleagues, I want to talk about the timing of the Judge Sotomayor nomination.

I talked with the distinguished ranking member last week on this schedule, and I would note the concerns he raised, but I am announcing today that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the confirmation hearing on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 13.

I have talked and met with Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking member, several times to discuss the scheduling of this hearing. I will continue to consult with Senator Sessions

to ensure that we hold a fair hearing. We were able to work cooperatively to send a bipartisan questionnaire to Judge Sotomayor within one day of her designation by President Obama. Last week the committee received her response to that questionnaire. We also received other background information from the administration, as well as the official Presidential nomination.

This is a reasonable schedule. It will be the middle of next month. It is in line with past experience. It will allow several more weeks for committee members to prepare for the hearing--several more weeks than if I had held the hearing this month--and there is no reason to unduly delay the consideration of this well-qualified nominee. Judge Sotomayor deserves the opportunity to go before the public and speak of her record, especially as some have mischaracterized and misstated it. The only place she can speak of her record is in a hearing.

It is also a responsible schedule that serves the many interests involved. Of course, first and foremost is the American people's stake in a process that is fair and thorough but not needlessly prolonged. It serves the purpose of the institution of the Senate, where we need sufficient time to prepare for a confirmation hearing. We have a full legislative plate of additional pressing business in the weeks and months ahead that is of great importance to our constituents and to the Nation. Then, of course, it serves the need of the third branch of government, which depends on the other branches of government to fill court vacancies in our independent judiciary. It serves the needs of the President who has nominated Judge Sotomayor. And lest we forget, it serves the needs of the nominee herself, who as a judge will only be able to speak publicly about her record when the hearings are convened.

This is an extremely important obligation that we as Members of the Senate take on. There are only 101 people who get a direct say in the nomination and confirmation of a Justice of the Supreme Court. First and foremost, of course, the President of the United States--and in this case, President Obama consulted with numerous Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike--prior to making his nomination. Then once the nomination is made, 100 Members of the Senate have to stand in for 300 million Americans in deciding who will get that lifetime appointment. I voted on every single current member of the Supreme Court, as well as some in the past, and I know how important an obligation that is.

The Justice who takes Justice Souter's place for the court session that convenes October 5 also needs as much time as possible to hire law clerks, to set up an office, to find a place to live here in Washington, and to take part with the rest of the Court in the preparatory work that precedes the formal start of the session on the first Monday in October.

I mention that because I have put together a schedule that tracks the process the Senate followed, by bipartisan agreement, in considering President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2005. At that time, I served as the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee. I met with our Republican chairman, and we worked out a schedule which provided for Chief Justice Roberts' hearing 48 days after he was named by President Bush.

I might say that the agreement on time was reached even before the committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire. And while Justice Roberts--then Judge Roberts--had not written as many opinions as Judge Sotomayor, he had been in a political policy position in Republican administrations for years before, and there were 75,000 pages of documents from that time. In fact, some arrived almost on the eve of the hearing itself. And, of course, that nomination replaced Justice O'Connor, who was recognized as a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court.

If something that significant required 48 days, and Republicans and Democrats agreed that was sufficient to prepare for that hearing, in accordance with our agreement on the initial schedule, certainly that is a precedent that says we have more than adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor.

My initial proposal to Senator Sessions was that we begin the hearing on July 7, following the Senate's return from the Fourth of July recess. I have deferred the start date to July 13 in an effort to accommodate our Republican members. With bipartisan cooperation, we should still be able to complete Judiciary Committee consideration of the nomination during the last week in July, and allow the Senate to consider the nomination during the first week in August, before the Senate recesses on August 7.

In selecting the date, I am trying to be fair to all concerned. I want to be fair to the nominee, allowing her the earliest possible opportunity to respond to attacks made about her character. It is not fair for critics to be calling her racist--one even equating her with the head of the Ku Klux Klan, an outrageous comment, and both Republicans and Democrats have said it was outrageous--without allowing her the opportunity to speak to it, and she can't speak to it until she is in the hearing.

I also want to conclude the process without unnecessary delay so that she might participate fully in the deliberations of the Supreme Court selecting cases and preparing for its new term. In his May 1 letter to President Obama, Justice Souter announced his resignation effective ``when the Supreme Court rises for the summer recess this year,'' which will happen later this month. Thereafter, the Supreme Court prepares for the next term. To participate fully in the upcoming deliberations, it would be helpful for his successor to be confirmed and able to take part in the selection of cases as well in preparing for their argument.

I am merely following the timeline we followed with the Roberts nomination. The timeline for the Alito nomination provides no reason to delay the hearing for Judge Sotomayor. It presented a very different situation in many ways. For one thing, that nomination was made with no consultation by President Bush. By contrast, President Obama devoted several weeks to consultation with both Republicans and Democrats before making his selection. The Alito nomination was President Bush's third nomination to succeed Justice O'Connor. It followed 4 months of intense effort by the Judiciary Committee, beginning with Justice O'Connor's announcement on July 1. And finally, the Christmas holidays helped account for the timing of those hearings. I do not believe Bastille Day requires us to delay the confirmation hearings for the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court for an additional 6 weeks.

Some may recall that Justice O'Connor's resignation in 2005 was contingent on the ``nomination and confirmation of [her] successor.'' She continued to serve on the Supreme Court when its new term began in October 2005, and until Justice Alito was confirmed at the end of January 2006. In addition, proceedings to fill that vacancy involved a more extended process, not only because Justice O'Connor represented a pivotal vote on the Supreme Court on so many issues, but because President Bush first nominated John Roberts and then withdrew that nomination, then nominated Harriet Miers and withdrew her nomination when Republicans and conservatives revolted, and finally nominated Samuel Alito. The nomination of Judge Alito was the third Supreme Court nomination that the Senate was asked to consider, and followed the withdrawal of the Miers nomination by only 3 days.

Given that sequence of events, and the then upcoming Christmas holiday, that hearing on the late October nomination of Samuel Alito was appropriately scheduled by the Republican Chairman to begin after the New Year. In addition, Judge Alito did not return his questionnaire until November 30. His hearing was held 40 days after his questionnaire was returned, which includes the Christmas and the holiday period. That is substantially equivalent to the 39 days between the time receipt of Judge Sotomayor's questionnaire response and her hearing.

Of course, in the case of the current nomination, Judge Sotomayor had been reported to be a leading candidate for the vacancy as soon as it arose on May 1, and her record was being studied from at least that time forward. The right wing groups attacking her were doing so long before she was named by the President on May 26, and those attacks have intensified since her designation.

I do not want to see this historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor treated unfairly or less fairly than the Senate treated the nomination of John Roberts. In 2005, when President Bush made his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Senator McConnell, who was the majority whip, said the Senate should consider and confirm the nominations within 60 to 70 days. We worked hard to achieve that.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor should more easily be considered within that timeframe. Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to succeed Justice Souter, a like-minded, independent and fair Justice, not bound by ideology, but one who decided each case on its merits and in accordance with the rule of law. We have the added benefit of her career being one that includes her service on the judiciary for the past 17 years. Her judicial decisions are matters of the public record. Indeed, when my staff assembled her written opinions and offered them to the Republican staff, they declined, because they already had them and were reviewing them. We have the benefit of her judicial record being public and well known to us. We have the benefit of her record having been a subject of review for the last month, since at least May 1, when she was mentioned as a leading candidate to succeed Justice Souter. We have the benefit of having considered and confirmed her twice before, first when nominated to be a judge by a Republican President and then when elevated to the circuit court by a Democratic President. We have the benefit of not having to search through Presidential libraries for work papers of the nominee. By contrast, the 75,000 pages of work papers for John Roberts required extensive time and effort to retrieve them from Presidential libraries and to overcome claims of privilege. In fact, they were still being received just days before the hearing.

To delay Judge Sotomayor's hearing until September would double the amount of time that Republicans and Democrats agreed was adequate to prepare for Judge Roberts' hearing. That would not be fair or appropriate. That would not be equal treatment.

Unlike the late July nomination of John Roberts, this nomination of Judge Sotomayor by President Obama was announced in May. Unlike the resignation of Justice O'Connor that was not announced until July, the retirement of Justice Souter was made official on May 1. Given that the vacancy arose 2 months earlier, and the nomination was made after bipartisan consultation 2 months earlier, by following the Roberts roadmap, we should be able to complete the process 2 months earlier. We should be able to complete the entire process by the scheduled recess date of August 7.

Of course, while the Roberts nomination was pending, Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away and President Bush decided to withdraw the initial nomination to be an Associate Justice, and proceeded to nominate John Roberts to succeed the Chief Justice, instead. We did not insist that the process start over; rather, we continued to move forward. It was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with its destruction and toll in damage and human life, that pushed the start of the hearings back 1 week, by bipartisan agreement.

We were still able to complete Senate consideration and the Senate confirmed John Roberts to be the Chief Justice 72 days after he was initially designated to be an Associate Justice. We did this despite the fact his initial nomination was withdrawn and only shortly before his hearing he was renominated to serve as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And we did this despite the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where everybody--Republicans and Democrats alike-- agreed that we should hold back a week on the hearings so we could all concentrate the Nation's resources on Hurricane Katrina. So that required a week's delay. If we followed the same schedule, 72 days after Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court would be August 6--and we will not have to lose 7 of those days to Hurricane Katrina.

Her historic nomination should be treated as fairly as the nomination of John Roberts was treated by the Senate. Given the outrageous attacks on Judge Sotomayor's character, I do not think it fair to delay her hearing. I cringed when I was told that, during the courtesy visit Judge Sotomayor paid to Senator McConnell, reporters shouted questions about conservatives calling her a racist. She had to sit there silently and could not respond. She deserves that opportunity as soon as possible.

The hearing is the opportunity for all Senators on the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to ask questions, to raise concerns, and to evaluate the nominee. As Senator Sessions' Saturday radio speech ably demonstrates, Republican Senators are already prepared to ask their questions. Last week, we were considering another judicial nomination at the meeting of the Judiciary Committee when Senator Kyl suggested that he may oppose all of President Obama's nominees given what he views as the criteria President Obama is considering in selecting them. Republicans have questioned whether her recognition that she brings her life experience with her, as all judges do, is somehow disqualifying.

Our Republican colleagues have said they intend to ask her about her judicial philosophy. It doesn't take a month to prepare to ask these questions. In fact, most of them have already raised the questions. They will surely be prepared to ask them more than a month from now. And during that month, we have a week's vacation from the Senate. I intend to be using that week--without the interruption of committee hearings, without the interruption of votes, without the interruption of the regular Senate business--to prepare for the hearings. I would advise those Senators who feel they have to have extra time to forgo your vacation and spend that week preparing for the hearing. Holding Judge Sotomayor's hearing on July 13 will, in effect, afford 10 weeks for them to have prepared.

Because this is a historic nomination, I hope all Senators will cooperate. It is a schedule that I think is both fair and adequate-- fair to the nominee, but also adequate for the Senate to prepare for the hearing and Senate consideration. There is no reason to indulge in needless and unreasonable delay.

I say this is a historic nomination because it should unite and not divide the American people and the Senate. Hers is a distinctly American story. Whether you are from the south Bronx or the south side of Chicago or south Burlington, VT, the American dream inspires all of us. Her life story is the American dream. And so, I might add, is the journey of the President who nominated her.

Some are simply spoiling for a fight. There have been too many unfair attacks, people unfairly calling her racist and bigoted. I know Sonia Sotomayor, and nothing could be further from the truth. These are some of the same people who vilify Justice Souter and Justice O'Connor. Americans deserve better. There are others who have questioned her character and temperament. She deserves a fair hearing, not a trial by attack and assaults upon her character. So let's proceed to give her that fair hearing without unnecessary delay.

I am also disappointed that some have taken to suggesting that after 17 years as a Federal judge, including 11 as a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor does not understand ``the judge's role.'' I know her to be a restrained and thoughtful judge. She has reportedly agreed with judges appointed by Republican Presidents 95 percent of the time. Let us respect her achievements, her experience and her understanding. Let no one demean this extraordinary woman or her understanding of the constitutional duties she has faithfully performed for the last 17 years. I urge all Senators to join with me to fulfill our constitutional duties with respect.

I have said many times on the floor of this great body over my 35 years here that as Senators we should be the conscience of the Nation, as we are called upon to be. There have been occasions when this Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--has united and shown they can be the conscience of the Nation. I would say this is one time we should rise above partisanship and be that conscience.

When I met with Judge Sotomayor, I asked her about her approach to the law. She answered that, of course, one's life experience shapes who you are, but ultimately and completely--

her words--as a judge, you follow the law. There is not one law for one race or another. There is not one law for one color or another. There is not one law for rich, a different one for poor. There is not one law for those who belong to one political party or another. There is one law for all Americans. And she made it very emphatic that as a judge, you follow that one law.

There is only one law. We all know that. She said, ultimately and completely a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their upbringing has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial judging that the American people expect. That is respect for the rule of law. That is the kind of judge she has been.

The purpose of the hearing is to allow Senators to ask questions and raise their concerns. It is also the time the American people can see the nominee, consider her temperament and evaluate her character, too. I am disappointed that some Republican Senators have declared that they will vote no on this historic nomination and have made that announcement before giving the nominee a fair chance to be heard at her hearing. It is incumbent on us to allow the nominee an opportunity to be considered fairly and allow her to respond to false criticism of her record and her character. Those who are critical and have doubts should support the promptest possible hearing. That is where questions can be asked and answered. That is why we hold hearings.

Judge Sotomayor is extraordinarily well equipped to serve on the Nation's highest court. To borrow the phrase that the First Lady used last week, not only do I believe that Judge Sotomayor is prepared to serve all Americans on the Supreme Court, I believe the country is more than ready to see this accomplished Hispanic woman do just that. This is a historic nomination, and it is an occasion for the Senate and our great Nation to come together. This is the time for us to come together.

The process is another step toward the American people regaining confidence in their judiciary. Our independent judiciary is considered to be the envy of the world. Though less visible than the other two branches, the judiciary is a vital part of the infrastructure that knits our Nation together under the rule of law. Every time I walk up the steps into the Supreme Court, I look at the words over the entrance to the Supreme Court. They are engraved in marble from my native State of Vermont. Those words say: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The nomination of Judge Sotomayor keeps faith with that model.

Her experience as a trial court judge will be important. Only Justice Souter of those currently on the Supreme Court previously served as a trial court judge. Judge Sotomayor has the added benefit of having been in law enforcement as a tough prosecutor who received her early training in the office of the longtime and storied New York District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau.

I appreciate that she has shown restraint as a judge. We do not need another Supreme Court Justice intent on second-guessing Congress, undercutting laws passed to benefit Americans and protect their liberties, and making light of judicial precedent.

President Obama handled the selection process with the care that the American people expect and deserve, and met with Senators from both sides of the aisle. Senator Sessions suggested to the President that it was important to nominate someone with a judicial record. Judge Sotomayor has more judicial experience than any nominee in recent history.

I wanted someone outside the judicial monastery, and whose experiences were not limited to those in the rarified air of the Federal appellate courts. Her background as someone who was largely raised by a working mother in the South Bronx, who has never forgotten where she came from, means a great deal to me. Judge Sotomayor has a first-rate legal mind and impeccable credentials. I think she combines the best of what Senator Sessions and I recommended that the President look for in his nominee.

The Supreme Court's decisions have a fundamental impact on Americans' everyday lives. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to understand how just one vote can determine the Court's decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans.

I believe Judge Sotomayor will continue to do what she has always done as a judge--applying the law to the case before her. I do not believe she will act in the mold of conservative activists who second- guess Congress and undercut laws meant to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs and in voting, to protect the access of Americans to health care and education, and to protect their privacy from an overreaching government.

I believe Judge Sotomayor understands that the courthouse doors must be as open to ordinary Americans as they are to government and big corporations.

President Obama is to be commended for having consulted with Senators from both sides of the aisle. I was with him on some of the occasions that he did. I have had Senators come up to me, Republican Senators, and tell me they had never been called by a President of their own party, to say nothing of a Democratic President, to talk about a Supreme Court nominee. But President Obama did call and reach out.

Now it is the Senate's duty to come to the fore. I believe all Senators, of both parties, will work with me to consider this nomination in a fair and timely manner.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I note there is nobody here who wishes to speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.