writings and speeches and other statements are intentioned with core democratic values in this country. i believe that his legal advice on transnational law, if taken to heart, could undermine american soaforty, our security and -- our national interests. now, i urge my colleagues not to take my word for it but to look for them at professor koh's record and to consider whether he's the right person to be add sliegz secretary clinton and other diplomats -- advising secretary clinton and other diplomats at the state department on legal issues pertaining to our relationship with other nations on such key issues. now, i mentioned this notion of transnational jurisprudence which is a littl a little arcant me explain what it's all about. professor koh has been an advocate for transnational

jurisprudence which is the idea that federal judges should look at cases and controversies as opportunities to change u.s. law and to make it look for like international or other foreign law. and i'm not saying that all foreign law is bad, but our founders acknowledged that when we take the over the office here, we pledge to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states of america, not some unsigned, unratified international treaty or some expansive notion of international common law, which professor koh embraces and advocates. we know that americans don't have a monopoly on virtue and wisdom, and certainly we can benefit from exchanging ideas with other democratic country. but professor koh's notion that it is appropriate and proper for a federal judge to look at foreign law in deciding what the constitution of the united states means and what the laws

of the united states require to me is at complete tension with this idea that we will uphold american values and the american constitution and american laws passed by our elected officials. we do not i think appropriately ask federal judges to look at unratified treaties, some notion of international common law, and certainly the laws of other countries in interpreting what our laws are here in the united states. but professor koh seems to have a different view. he said that federal judges should use their power to -- quote -- "vertically enforce" or -- quote -- "domesticate" american law with international norms and foreign law. he's argued that federal judges should help -- quote -- "build the bridge between the international and domestic law through a number of interpretive technical kneeingtechnical tech" where will these interpretive techniques lead?

"newsweek" magazine asked those questions earlier this year. and they answered, based on their investigation -- quote -- "where were koh's rieghts to become -- writings to become policy, judges mus might have te power to use treaties and customary international law to override a wide variety of federal and state laws affecting matters as disparate as the redistribution of wealth and prostitution." transnational jurisprudence is not the only controversial view that professor koh holds. and again, as a law professor and dean of yale law school, i understand law professors advocating cutting-edge and, indeed, provocative legal interpretations. but to say that this is appropriate not in the classroom as a teaching exercise but, rather, important for federal judges to do in the exercise of their article 3 powers is an entirely different notion altogetherment in another

writing -- or another lecture in 2002, professor koh gave a lecture titled -- quote -- "a world drowning in guns." in which he argued for a -- quote -- "global gu gun-control regime." a global gun control regime. in 2007, he argued that foreign prisoners of war held by the united states armed forces anywhere in the world, not just enemy combatants held at guantanamo bay, are entitled to the same rights as american citizens under habeas corpus law as applied by our federal courts. perhaps most timely, professor koh appears to draw a moral equivalence between the iranian regime's political suppression and human rights abuses on one hand and america's counterterrorism policies on the other. professor koh has written -- quote -- "u.s. criticism of iranian security

forces who monitor the social activities of citizens, entered homes and offices, monitored telephone conversations, and opened mail without court authorization is hard to square with our own national security agency's sustained program of secret, unreviewed, warrantless electronic surveillance of americans and citizens. and residents. furthermore, he said," the united states cannot stand on strong footing, attacking iran for illegal detensions when similar charges can be and have been lodged against our own government." mr. president, the u.s. policies professor koh is criticizing are those that have been authorized by the united states congress in a bipartisan fashion. and each of us are accountable to our constituents for the decisions that we make. it is offensive to compare the

policies of the united states government to those of a thee crate i can -- a theo crate i can dictatorship -- theocratic dictatorship to responds to oppression with brutal violence against its people. we've heard enough about moral equivalence about iran over the last year and a half. we've heard enough apologies for the policies of the united states and enough soft peddling of the brutal suppression by the iranian regime of their own people. we don't need another kois voice in the administration -- we don't need another voice in the administration whose first instinct is to blame america and whose long-term objective is to transform this country into something that it is not. for these reasons, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the cloture petition on this nomination. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, before i begin, are we in morning business or are we on the koh matter? the presiding officer: the senator is correct, we are in morning business. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer and my friend. i also want to thank senator menendez and senator schumer for their outstanding statements in the senate today. they spoke about judge sonia sotomayor, and i could not help

but think as i reviewed judge sotomayor's record in preparation for her confirmation hearing on july 13, a review that i would assume all senators are doing, i was struck by her extraordinary career and how she's excelled at everything she's done. i know how proud her mother, selina, a registered nurse, is of her accomplishments. and i was delighted to -- this goes across political lines. i was delighted to hear laura bush, the foreman first lad they recently too she's proud president obama nominated a woman to serve on the supreme court. you know, i -- i recall that justice ginsburg said she was cheered by the announcement and that she's glad she's no longer

going to be the lone woman out of nine members of the court. now, i contrast this to reaction to president bush's naming of justice o'connor's successor a few years ago when justice o'connor conceded her disappointment because when she was leaving and not replaced by another woman, the percentage of women on the supreme court dropped by 50%. now, sandra day o'connor and justice ruth bader ginsburg weren't being prejudiced or biased or discriminatory. of course not. and i hope that all americans are encouraged by the nomination of judge sotomayor, hope they join together and celebrate what it says about america being a land of opportunity for all. 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. it was president george h.w. bush as a republican who nominated her to be a federal district court judge. president bill clinton then nominated and the senate confirmed her to be on the second circuit court of appeals, the circuit that covers my own state of vermont. she actually, mr. president, you may be interested in knowing this, she has the most federal court experience of any supreme court nominee during the past 100 years. this is a remarkable person. she's the first nominee in more than 50 years to serve as a federal trial judge and then as a federal appellate judge at the time of her nomination to the

supreme court. in fact, with judge souter's retirement, she's going to be the only member of the supreme court to have served as a trial j. now, th -- as a trial judge. now, the distinguished presiding officer knows, his own experiences, that most of the cases that go up to the appellate courts come to the trial court. and there are trials of the trial court. of the others, none will have served as a trial j. she will have. she served there with great distinction. now, with all of this, it's remarkable that you have some special interest groups, mostly on the far right, who have opposed her nomination. i can remember the fund-raising letters that have gone out to oppose her.

and i think it is unfortunate that these pressure groups, these right-wing pressure grou groups, have gotten some republicans here in the senate to oppose her confirmation before they've even had a hearing. now, some might say they're prepared to oppose any nominationth 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. this is before she's even had her hearing. senate republican leader, ranking republican on the judiciary clerk the head of the national republican senatorial committee have all taken a turn. they won't let us have the hearing, they won't let us hear the facts. don't tell -- let her speak, keep her quiet, don't have a

hearing. but we're all against her. well, come on, mr. president. that's not the american peoplemenway.and actually my inn to their efforts note they doubly demonstrated why we should have a hearing as soon as possible. don't delay. let her respond. let her speak for herself. because so far they're the only ones trying to speak for her. and when they do, they say we're open finded, we're fair-minded and everything else, but we're going to vote against her. well, in fairness, knowing she's stick to the earlier opportunity to respond to their questions and concerns and answer their charges. as i said when i went the date after consulting with the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee, i wanted that date to be fair and adequate. fair to the nominee and adequate to allow senators to prepare. to be fair, we needed to give

her the earliest possibility to answer. we could have leaders of the republican party go on television almost immediately after seize nominated and one of them calling her the equivalent of the head of the ku klux klan, another one calling her, in effect, a bigot. come on. let's let her be heardment and as preparedness, those republican critics were prepared, prepared to air their grievances and concerns and to discuss her record and to say why they're against her three weeks before we even have the hearing. apparently they don't need anymore time to prepare. so one would assume they're prepared for a hearing that will not be until the middle of next month. now, i would say, speaking both as the senator from vermont buts

as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, i don't agree with their characterization of her distinguished record on the federal bench. and i don't agree with their mischaracterization, her manner of judging. judge sonia 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 -- when i asked judge sonia sotomayor about her approach to judging she told me that of course one's life experiences shape who you are. it does for all 100 members of this body. but she went on to say ultimately and completely -- and she used those words -- as a judge you have to 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 the poor. there is not one law for one religion and a different for another. there's only one law in our country. she said ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what his or her upbringing has been. now that's a kind of fair and impartial judging the american people expect. it is the kind of fair and impartial judging the american people deserve. that is respect for the rule of law and that's the kind of judge she has been. as i said, i've been here when first she was nominated as distribute judge and then nominated as circuit court of appeals judge. i've watched her record.

i know that judge sonia sotomayor is a restrained and thoughtful judge. she understands the role of her 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. now, i wish republican senators would pay less attention to the special interest groups and the pressure groups, the agitators from the far right. i wish they would take a less likely view of a handful of judges, to consider her record fairly. she has been a judge so a very conservative judge, kenneth starr, has endorsed. the other judges on the second circuit, the circuit -- i'm a

member of the bar of the second circuit -- is the vermont is one of the three states under the second circuit. i know the other judges of the second circuit think of world of her and i've been here for the nomination of practically all of them. they have great respect for the judge. she is a nominee in which all americans can take ride and have confidence. she has been a judge for all americans. more importantly, mr. president, she will be a justice of the supreme court for all americans. and i'm sorry that some critics are seeking are mischaracterring her involvement with respectable mainstream civil rights organizations. i had some of the press say, what about her puerto rico

defense fund as they quote on the mischaracterization made on the floor of this senate? well, the puerto rican legal defensdefense education fund she served from 1980 until the resignation in 1992, mr. president, instead of -- i hope the press will look at what this is. quoting the mischaracterizations on the other side. this is a respected organization. it was founded in the early 1970's with the support of republican senator jacob javits and i served with him. former attorney general nicholas kassaback, and former attorney general robert abrams and the legendary dean of prosecutors in this country, new york county district attorney robert

morganth thaul who was judge sonia sotomayor's boss when she worked in his office when she graduated from law school and went to work as a prosecutor. it is the only time i can remember help doing something like, he wrote an op-ed piece for the "new york times" in support of her. but the prldf was models on the naacp fund to have a more equitable society by creating opportunities for latinos in areas where they're traditionally underrepresented. their financial support comes from widely regarded foundations like ford and carnegie and corporate contributions from mainstream businesses like time-warner. these are not radical foundations or corporations.

in fact, look at some of the people who have been there, other past directors: judge hose cabrinas, court of appeals for the second court; former congressman herman bedillo; former governor of new york, hugh cary. we all know about this part of her life because she very proudly disclosed her board membership and status as an officer in response to the judiciary committee questionnaire that senator sessions and i sent her. we know about it because she reviewed her own records to provide time at the prldf and she went above and beyond what the bipartisan questionnaire called for and asked them to go and conduct and search its own

records. she's come up with other materials -- she didn't need to, but she has provided the committee with that. the record before us is public. it is transparent. we already have a more complete record of judge sonia sotomayor's, more and clear -- let me say that again. we have a more and complete picture of judge sonia sotomayor's record than we ever had of the record of the last two nominees to the supreme court, chief justice john roberts or justice samuel alito. now, i mention chief justice roberts and justice sam alito who did not give us anywhere near as clear a record or complete a record but i don't recall a single republican saying we did not have a complete record before we

considered their nominations. of course, their nominations were by a republican president, for those two men, their nomination was by a republican president. for those two men, for the supreme court. this woman is nominated by a democratic president even though she has given a more complete record, somehow that's not enough. it was more than enough for the two men nominated by a republican president; not enough for this woman nominated by democratic president. but we have judge sonia sotomayor's record for the federal bench. it's a public record. we had it even before she was designated by the president. as i said, we have her record. from when she was first nominated to the federal bench

by federal george h.w. bush and we have her record after she became a member of the federal court of appeals nominated by president bill clinton. and what is that record? it's a main stream record of judicial restraint and modesty in the best indication of her judicial philosophy. we don't have to imagine what kind of a judge she will become because we have seen what kind of a judge she has been. and actually, this is a case where a week before -- mr. president, i've been here 35 years. i've had the privilege of voting on every member of the current supreme court. i also voted on chief justice rehnquist for chief justice and sandra day o'connor for associate justice.

and i had one rule on every single one of those. i would make up my mind based on the record, based on the cases i read, based on what i saw and heard from the nominee and i refused to meet with the special interest groups of either the right or the left. i would urge senators, we get well paid. we have great staffs. request don't we forget the -- either the right wing or the left wing groups. forget those who want to raise money and for their own interests based on who the nominee is, and represent the cup and make up our own minds. don't make up our own minds based on someone sending out a fundraising letter but based on what we see here. it's a pretty awesome responsibility when a justice of

the supreme court is nominated. most justices will serve long after the president who nominated him is again, long after most of the senators who vote on that nominee is gone. we have 300 million americans. there are only 101 americans who get a direct say in who's 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 united states senators 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're paid to do. let's do what we've been elected to do. i know during the beck we have the 4th of july, i've canceled

practically everything on my schedule just to working on going through this record and prepare for this hearing. i'd recommend other senators do the same. we'll have a fir and open hearing -- we'll have a fair and open hearing. the current presiding officer is a distinguished member of the judiciary committee and i know he will ask fair and firm questions. but when that is over, vote for or against her. forget the things beneath the dignity of the united states senate that certainly besmirches the reputation of someone like judge sonia sotomayor. we have heard the charges against her, mr. president. i'm glad you and other members of the committee will be there next month when we will hear if her. and that's what's going to count. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: