"dear mitch, thank you for your letter regarding the process for considering the nomination of judge sotomayor, united states supreme court. i take -- i have taken your concerns into consideration and have discussed the process with the president and the chairman of the judiciary committee. judge sotomayor's record is largely public and gone over by interested parties since announced her nomination on may 26. in addition, she has returned her questionnaire according to available records of her speeches and writings in record time. the record for review is now essentially complete. in contrast, both judge roberts and judge alito spent significant time and much of their record was not available for review following their nominations. numerous executive branch documents were not included with the questionnaires and much staff preparation time was devoted to extensive negotiations over document production with both

nominations. in 2005, senator leahy agreed to a september 6th hearing date before judge roberts submitted his questionnaire and before 75,000 pages of documents primarily from the reagan library and the national archives came in before august. indeed on the eve of the planned start of the hearing on august 30th, the archives notified the judiciary committee that they found a new set of documents consisting of about 15,000 pages. these were delivered september 2, further complicating hearing. the hearing went in on september 12th. furthermore hurricane katrina hit new orleans and chief justice rehnquist passed away leading to a week-long delay in his hearing after he was then nominated to be the new chief justice. despite all of these obstacles,

judge roberts was confirmed 72 days after president bush named him as a nominee to the supreme court of the united states. if judge sotomayor is confirmed before the senate recess in august she will have been confirmed on an eye didn't kal timetable. if, however, she is not confirm until the term in october, consideration of nomination will have lasted nearly twice as long as that of judge roberts. confirming judge sotomayor before the august recess would give her time to prepare adequately for the court's fall term. including reviews of hundreds of petitions for the court's first conference and preparation for merits arguments. it would also allow her time to move and hire law clerks. i do in the believe it is fair to delay judge sotomayor's confirmation if it is not absolutely necessary. that the republicans will have a

fair confirmation process. i believe it is -- that judge sotomayor's record fulfill her constitutional duty. i believe our proposed schedule for hearings and floor vote on the confirmation will do so. now, i signed that letter harry reid. now, mr. president, the hearing date, which is 48 days after judge sotomayor was selected is consistent with the 51-day average time between announcement for a presidential selection and the start of the hearings. it has been that way for the past nine court nominees. -- that were confirmed. the proposed g.o.p. alternative, that the hearings be heard after the senate returns from recess,

the first tuesday after labor day, tuesday september 8th, would subject judge sotomayor to the longest confirmation hearing to any supreme court nominee in history so far as we could tell. we stopped checks when we got back to 1960. the g.o.p. plan would delay her hearing until the 107th day after her selection. robert boric, the current record holder, waited 76 days, thomas alito waited 64 -- 64 and 67 days respectfully. mr. president, we are doing our utmost to have this nominee have a fair -- we want to -- a fair hearing, we want to make sure that the republicans have all the time they need. but history doesn't lie and history suggests we're being overly generous with this good woman. she'll be a wonder full addition to the court.

and -- wonderful addition to the court, and i would hope that we could move forward and have this matter resolved quietly, respectfully, and fairly. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer?if the se. mr. leahy: when i met with the distinguished senator from alabama last week, i suggested that it would be within the time frame of other judges, in-- other justices including justice roberts, i suggested that we have the hearing the week we cameack from our week-long break at the fourth of july. he had expressed, and i'll let him speak for himself, some concern about that -- that week after. and so i said, ok, we'll put it a week later. now, he, obviously, wanted to speak with his leadership. i said, that's fine. i had originally intended to speak about it on friday.

but i understood that the republican leader had sent a letter to the majority leader, the majority leader told me, about that. they're well aware of the date. there was never a question on what date i intended to start. i had known that for some time. and this morning i had -- i told him i would do that. i told the president, advised him and advised judge sotomayor. the fact of the matter is the -- we're not doing something that we -- we have tens of thousands of pages just days before the -- before the hearing. we've got all the material. now, i -- i can't speak for other senators. but we have a lot of work to do here. we're paid well. we have big staffs. now, i had hoped to take some

vacation time during the fourth of july week. i won't. i'll spend that time preparing for it. -- preparing for it at my farmhouse in vermont. i would suggest that senators may have to spend some time doing that. i know a lot of our staff, both republican and democratic staff plan to take -- planned to take time off. they're going to be working hard. but we have a responsibility to the american people. certainly we have a responsibility to have a justice have time enough to get a place to give down here -- to live down here, hire law clerks and get going. we find it -- mr. reid: will the gentleman yield for just a -- mr. leahy: sure. mr. reid: it's also true, is it not, i say to my distinguished friend, an announcement has been made during the five weeks we're in session during july, we'll be working monday through friday. and you informed the members of the judiciary committee, democrats and republicans, that would be the case. that is why it is my understanding from the

distinguished chair that you have announced the hearing was going t start on a monday. mr. laahy: we'll be innyway. and iould also note, mr. president, that this gives us plenty of time. we have to work hard. but we get elected november, st of us, the first week in november if we're new senators and we find it really difficult to put everything together in o months to go into a -- into the senate january. but we should at least give the same courtesy to the justice of the supreme court that we expect the american voters and taxpayers to give us. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i just want to confirm and agrgr with the majority leader and our chairman in terms of what they said. bottom line here: this is a

nomination that should be easy to study up on. the record is public. the record has been ailable from the day her name was nominated. and there are not thousands and thousands of pages that we given to us at the end of the day, as i kno my colleague, the chairman, has said. i'd like to make one other point here. i know that my colleague, our ranking minority member, mr. sessions said, alito took some 90 days. that is true. but that included both the thanksgiving and christmas breaks. if you look at the actual working days, it was much shorter as it has been for every other justice. and let me just repeat, if we were to do what the minority ader asked and not vote on this nominatn until well after the september break, it would be the longest nomination proceeding that we've had for the most public, most available,

most conci record. this is not somebody that you have to dignd find out things about because she has had 17 years -- 17 years of federal decisions at the dtrict and at the court of apeals level. more than any other nominee to the supreme court in 100 years. in 70 years. excuse m in 100 years for federal, a in 70 years for all -- for federal an state because justice cardo had 29 years on the state bench. but the reord is ample. the record is pubc. and given thetaff that i know the judiciary minority has, as airman of th rules committee, any lawyer worth their salt could more easily resrch the whole record in less than a month.

so actually chairman leahy has been kind of generous by delaying a week orwo beyond that month. every day, as we speak now, there are, i dare say, tens of thousands of lawyers who have larger research dockets to do and doing the in less time. and so the bottom line here, mr. president, is very simple. one can only come to the concluon that the reason for delay is delay alone. not needing time to study a public ample recor and i would urge my colleagues on the other side to reconsider. i've been told at lea on my subcommittee, no one's going to particatin meengs on anything. i don'know if that's true or not. i hope it isn't. that there's going to be an team to just close dow the judicia committee on all o the important issues we face. if we were -- if -- i'd be happy

to yieldo my colleague from massachusetts for a question. a senator: mr. president -- mr. kerry: i wou ask my colleague, isn't it true that it is not only inerms of the public record the longest period of time,f we were to del unl september isn't it true that would be the longest period of timf csideration for any justice of the supreme court in history? mr. schumer: i believe my colleague om maschusetts is correct. mr. kerry: certaly much longer than justice alito, justice roberts or any of the others that we considered very rapidly. mr. schumer: it would be clearly longer than roberts -- much longer than roberts, but longer than alito, but alito had the thanks gichthanksgiving and chrs breaks that we were celebrating in that time. mr. kerry: there is no rationale here that we've seen for why this justice's entire record is public and pored over already, requires the longest judgment in

history particularly given what is at stake. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague and i think his points are well taken. as i mentioned before -- as i mentioned before the bottom line here is any lawyer worth his salt, and there are many very qualified lawyers in the minority on the judiciary committee, could research this record within a month easily -- easily right now in the buildings here in washington and in the buildings in new york and in the buildings in birmingham, alabama, are lawyers who have far more extensive research to do and less time in doing it well. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. schumer: yes. mrs. boxer: a very brief question because i know that we have to vote. i want to speak for a moment as a woman and from california where we have such excitement about this nomination.

i know that we all agree this is a historic first, this nomination. and i think given that, and the fact that, you know, the women of this country comprise the majority and there is only one woman on the court, and we certainly have never had a latino on the bench, i'm asking my friend: does he not believe this nominee should be accorded equal treatment -- equal treatment as it relates to the others who have been nominated for the same most that's all i'm asking for. i'm not on the committee. but i'm supporting our chairman leahy here and the rest of the committee -- at least those who are moving toward this in a schedule similar to justice roberts. so i would say, once again, shouldn't we who are very excited about this nomination and want to see it move forward expect to have judge sotomayor treated in an equal fashion? mr. schumer: i think my colleague from california makes

an excellent point and i would answer it in the affirmative. we're in the asking for more time. we're actually asking for less time if you include vacation time. it is not a situation like with justice roberts an even judge -- and even judge alito where there were weeks an weeks before we were able to get private records that were available. judge sotomayor doesn't have -- she hasn't worked for the executive so you don't have all of those issues that have to be discussed and negotiated about executive privilege. she has a 17-year career on the bench. she has 3,000 opinions. if you -- if that isn't an adequate record, i mean, my office just in two days looked at every one, for instance, of the immigration asylum cases brought before her. there were 83. a pretty good example. 83%. i don't recall the number. but there were a large number of

cases. and 83% of the time we found she denied asylum to the immigrant applicant, which we conclude made it pretty clear that her fidelity to rule of law trumped her sympathy -- natural sip by think for the immigrant experience. now, we just did that in a day or two and i don't have the kind of staff that my good friend the senator from alabama has. he should have it. he's the ranking minority. so it's very easy given the number of staff, given the public record, given that there's no litigation or discussion about executive privilege as there was with both judge alito -- judge -- nominee alito and nominee roberts, that a month, seems to me, to be ample time, and the chairman in his wisdom, which i will defer, gave more than a month before the day of the nomination. mr. sessions: will the senator yield for one question?

mr. schumer: i will happy to yield to my colleague. mr. sessions: i know that the senator raised the question of doing for this nominee as for the others, if this goes forward as planned, it would be 48 day from nomination announcement, really, to the first hearing. i think -- i wonder if senator from new york would acknowledge that for justice breyer, 65 days, judge roberts was 55, the shortest and so this would be a shorter period of time that would be given for this nominee who has 3,500 cases. and i would ask if the senator remembers saying with regard to the alito nomination when our democratic nominees asked that it be held over past christmas and at their request it was done so, he said -- quote -- "it is more important to do it right

than to do it quickly. and now we have a bipartisan agreement to do that." so we just simply ask for a bipartisan agreement to do it right and not too fast. and i don't know how we can work it out but i think this isable arbitrary date designed to move this thing forward by a certain end game faster than we need to. the vacancy, as the senator knows, does not occur until october when justice souter steps down, and so we do need to complete it by then. and i've told the president i will work to make sure that occurs. i thank you. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: if i might just respond again with nominee alito, now justice alee together, theralito, therewas ti understand it. according to chairman leahy, it was the republicans that asked that we go to that christmas break, not the democrats. in justice roberts' case, i

believe katrina intervened and everybody had to drop everything and work on the emergency of katrina. if you look at days where the record is available -- and it's been available right from the get-go here -- and no vacation, no intervening long recesses and things like that, the nominee knee will have -- or the minority leader or any senator here will have more time to scrutinize this record than we've had for most other judges. and, again, underscored by the fact that the record is public, open and ample. it's not, you know -- no one has to go look for needles in a haystack to try and figure out what the record of judge sotomayor is. it's very extensive and ample.

with justice roberts, we only had a few years where he was on the bench and all the rest of his record was in executive -- in the executive. and it took us weeks -- and i think if the chairman probably remembers this better than me, months to get the record. so with with, that i'll yield te floor. i know we want to get on with the vote. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask consent to speak for up to three minutes before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to join in saying that the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator leahy, has come up with a reasonable timetable for considering this historic nomination. i believe that his setting monday, july 13, for the hearing is well within the ordinary bounds of time allotted for supreme court nominees. the important date is when paperwork is submitted, and when it came to the submission of paperwork before the hearing actually took place, it

basically -- when it came to judge sotomayor, she completed her paperwork, setting forth her key information, background, on june 4. the july 13 hearing will take place 39 days after that paperwork was submitted. in the case of justice alito, who, incidentally, had participated in 4,000 cases -- 1,000 more than judge sotomayor -- in that case, in justice alito's case, the hearing took place 40 days after he received his work. chief justice john roberts, 43 days. so this is entirely consistent. i might also add a point that was raised by senator udall of new mexico. judge sotomayor is no stranger to this chamber. she was nominated first for the district court bench by president george herbert walker bush and then nominated for the district court by president clinton, and that's an indication that we have seen her work before, we are aware of her

background. the last point i would make, and consistent with the senator from california, is that judge delayed could be justice denied. in this case, if we continue this hearing for a record-breaking period of time, which has been requested by the republican side, it will mean that we will have a vacancy on the supreme court when it begins its important work this fall. what chairman leahy has asked for is reasonable. it is consistent with the way judges were treated under president bush at the time the republicans had no objection or complaint about it. this is a reasonable timetable and i urge my colleagues to support chairman leahy. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1256, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 47, h.r. 1256, an act to protect the public health by providing the food and drug administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment 1256 -- 1246, authored by the senator from north carolina, mr. burr. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: .

vote: