opportunity for bipartisan support of a highly qualified and moderate judge who falls well within the mainstream of the american legal thought. we could be celebrating the first latino justice of the supreme court has a great and, in, bipartisan american achievement. instead, here we are on the floor having to defend basic principles of american history from assault from the right. i hope as the future looks back on this day, it will be the historic nature of this nomination that will be remembered, not the strange and and strained efforts to impose right wing political orthodoxy on the courts that defend our constitutional rights. i look forward to judge sonia sotomayor's service as an excellent and historic supreme court justice. i will vote proudly for her

confirmation. i ask unanimous consent that we had into the record of these proceedings a letter of support of justice sonia sotomayor from new york city's mayor, michael bloomberg. .. into the record a letter of support for judge sotomayor from former f.b.i. director freeh. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i thank the presiding officer. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i have enjoyed my colleague's remarks. i don't agree with him but he is a great colleague and we appreciate him. mr. president, i rise today to explain why i cannot support the nomination of judge sotomayor sonia sotomayojudge sotomayor te supreme court and i do this with regret because the prospect of a woman of puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court

says a lot about america. says a lot about america. >> judge sotomayor has achieved academic and professional success, and i alaud her -- applaud her public service. but in the end her record creates too many conflicts with fundamental principles about the judiciary in which i deeply believe. i do not have -- it did not have to be this way. president obama could have taken a very positive step for our country by choosing a his tannic -- hispanic nominee whom all senators could support. president obama could have done so, and i regret he did not. i commend the ranking member of the judiciary committee senators leahy and sessions for conducting a fair and thorough confirmation hearing. judge sotomayor herself said the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i evaluate judicial nominees by focusing on qualifications which

include not only legal experience, but more importantly judicial philosophy. judge sotomayor's approach to judging is more important to me than her resumé. i ask consent to put in the record following my remarks an article that i published earlier this year in the harvard journal of law and public policy. >> without objection. >> it explains more fully the principles i will mention here. president obama has described the kind of judge he intends to appoint. as a senator he said that judges decide cases based on their, quote, deepest values, core concerns, broader perspectives and the depth and breadth of their empathy, unquote. as a presidential candidate he pledged to appoint judges who, indeed, have empathy for certain groups. and as president he has said that a judge's personal empathy is an essential ingredient in judicial decisions.

this standard is seriously out of sync with mainstream america. by more than 3 to 1, meshes believe -- americans belief that judges should decide cases based on the law as written rather than on their own sense of fairness or justice. the american people reject president obama's standard for the kind of judge we need on the federal bench. at the judiciary committee hearing, judge sotomayor said that her judicial philosophy is simply, quote, fidelity to the law, unquote. well, some of my democratic committee colleagues said that they wanted to avoid slogans, code words and iewf mystic phrases, they apparently sent -- accepted this one at face value. unfortunately, it begs rather than answers the important question. some senators on the other side of the aisle try to confine concerns about judge sotomayor's record to a single case and a single phrase, that political spin i will admit makes for quotable sound bytes, but even a

casual observer of this process knows that this political spin is simply not true. ironically, those who would narrowly characterize the case against confirmation want us to confine our examination of judge sotomayor's record only to her cases while ignoring her speeches and arls. articles. a partial review, however, cannot provide a complete picture. appeals court decisions that are bound by supreme court precedent are not the same as supreme court decisions freed from such constraints. taking judge sotomayor's entire record seriously not only gives us more of the information we need, but also gives her the respect that she deserves. debates over judicial nominations are debates over judicial power, and america's founders gave us solid guidance about the proper role of judges in our system of government. judges interpret and apply written law to decide cases.

while judges cannot change the words of or laws -- our laws, they can still control statutes and the constitution by controlling the meaning of those words. that would result in the role of judges but not role of law. to borrow judge sotomayor's phrase, judges would not have fidelity to the law, but fidelity to themselves. in september 2001, judge sotomayor introduced judge antonin scalia. she repeated a legend about justice oliver wendell holmes. judge hand served on both the southern district of new york and the second circuit court of appeals. as they departed after having lunch, judge hand called out, do justice, sir, do justice. justice holmes replied, that is not my job.

my job is to apply the law. is it a judge's role to do justice or to apply the law? president obama says that a judge's personal empathy is an essential ingredient for doing justice. at the hearing on judge sotomayor's nomination, one of my democratic colleagues invoked what he called, quote, america's common law inheritance, unquote, to describe federal judges with broad discretion to decide cases based on their personal notions of justice or fairness. that may be the judiciary some of my colleagues would prefer, but it is not the judiciary america's founders gave us. federal judges are not common law judges. they may not decide cases based on subjective feelings they find inside themselves. but only on objective law that they find outside themselves. thankfully, the american people overwhelmingly say today that

america's founders -- what america's founders said, that judges must follow the law rather than their personal empathy to decide cases. the question is which kind of supreme court justice sonia sotomayor will be. in one speech that she gave over several times over nearly a decade she spoke directly about how judges should decide cases. factors such as race and gender affect how judges decide cases and as she put it, quote, the facts i choose to see, unquote. she embraced the notion that there is no objectivity or neutrality in judging and that impartiality is merely an aspiration which judges probably cannot achieve and perhaps should not even attempt. she said that judges must decide when their personal sympathies and prejudices are appropriate to deciding cases. judge sotomayor and her

advocates have tried unsuccessfully to blunt the speech's more controversial edges. their claim that she used the speech solely to inspire young lawyers or law students even if true is irrelevant because the speech is controversial for its content, not its audience. my concern only grew after discussing this speech with judge sotomayor during the hearing. rather than disavow these views, she presented a different and contradictory picture. now, i'm not the only one who noticed this. "the washington post" editorialized that judge sotomayor's attempt to explain away or distance herself from past statements, unquote, were unconvincing and at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous, especially when she argued her reason for raising questions about gender or race was to warn against injecting personal why whereases into the -- biases into the judicial process. that was "the washington post."

in another speech just a few months ago, judge sotomayor addressed whether judges may use foreign law to interpret and apply american law in deciding cases, the distinguishing ranking member of the committee mentioned this as well. she said that foreign law, quote, will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system, unquote. she endorsed the idea that judges may as they interpret american law consider anything from any source that they can find persuasive. once again, senators discussed this issue with judge sotomayor at her hearing, and once again she neither defended nor disavowed these controversial statements, but presented a different contradictory picture. in her speech she hoped that judges would continue to consult what others have said, including foreign law, to, quote, interpret our law in the best way we can, unquote.

but in the hearing she said that, quote, i will not use foreign law to interpret the constitution or american statutes, unquote. she said that judges may use ideas from any source that they find interswaisive, but -- persuasive, but in the hearing she said foreign law cannot be used to influence a legal decision. these different versions are cleary at odds with each other. judge sotomayor took a different tack in answering posthearing questions. she said that decisions of foreign courts may not serve as, quote, binding or controlling precedent, unquote, in deciding cases. the issue, however, is not whether a decision by the supreme court of france literally binds the supreme court of the united states. of course it doesn't. the issue is whether that foreign decision may influence our supreme court in determining what our statutes and the constitution mean. and in her answers to posthearing questions, judge sotomayor once again said that

decisions of foreign courts can, indeed, be, quote, a source of ideas in forming or understanding of our own constitutional rights, unquote. in these speeches judge sotomayor described how such things as race, gender, life experience, personal sympathies or prejudices affect judges and their decision. that is certainly possible. but i waited for her to say that judges have an obligation to eliminate the influence of these factors. i wanted for her to say that because these things undermine a judge's impartiality, judges must be vigilant to prevent their influence. that would have given me more solace about what judge sotomayor's phrase fidelity to the law really means. but she never said it. instead, she endorsed the notion that judges may look either inside themselves to their

empathy or outside the foreign law for ideas and notions to guide their decisions. turning to her cases, the supreme court has disagreed with judge sotomayor in nine of the ten cases it has reviewed. three of them in the most recent supreme court term alone. that is nine of her ten cases that they have reviewed. and these were not close decisions either. the total vote in the cases reversing judge sotomayor happen to be in lopsided 52-19. in one case judge sotomayor had held that the environmental protection agency could not consider cost benefit analysis when adopting a regulation. the supreme court reversed her citing it own precedents extending back more than 30 years and holding that the epa's use of cost benefit analysis was well within the bounds of its

statutory authority. in another case judge sotomayor had reopened part of a bankruptcy proceeding that had closed more than 20 years ago to resurrect a tort suit. justice souter whom judge sotomayor would replace wrote the opinion for the supreme court's 7-2 decision reversing her. in another case judge sotomayor declared unconstitutional a state law providing for political party election of judges because she felt the law did not give people what she called a, quote, fair shot, unquote. the supreme court unanimously reversed her saying that tradition aleck toarl practice, quote, gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, unquote, of the fair shot standard. judge sotomayor had invented. in one case the supreme court affirmed judge sotomayor's result but rejected her reasoning because her reading of the relevant statute, quote,

flies in the face of the statutory language, unquote. and in one case where the supreme court affirmed both judge sotomayor's result and reasoning, it did so by the slimmest 5-4 margin. now, this is a very shaky record on appeal. the ricci vs. stefan know case is one of the cases in which the supreme court reversed judge sotomayor. the court reversed her result by a 5-4 vote, but unanimously rejected her reasoning. in this case judge sotomayor affirmed the city of new haven's decision to throw out the results of a fairly-designed and administered firefighter promotion exam because too few racial minorities passed it. this case presents troubling questions of both process and substance. judge sotomayor initially used a

summary order that did not have to be circulated to the full second circuit. that bothered me a great deal. because judges know when they issue a summary order, the rest of the judges probably aren't going to see it. she then converted once it was found by judge jose ca bran that is, and once he insisted the whole circuit look at it, she then changed it to a opinion that is permissible when the law is entirely settled. each of these cases was a mere single paragraph and neither appears to be an appropriate vehicle for deciding this challenging case. on the merits title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act prohibits two kinds of discrimination. it prohibits disparate treatment which is intentional and disparate impact which may be

unintentional. disparate treatment focuses on the motivation of an employment decision while disparate impact focuses on its effect. while discrimination cases typically involve one or the other, the ricci case involved both. in this case the city claimed it had to, it had to engage in disrate treatment of those who passed the promotion exam because it feared a disparate impact lawsuit by those who failed the exam. judge sotomayor and her advocates claim that her decision was based squarely onset led and long standing second circuit and supreme court precedent. we've heard some of that on the floor here tonight. contrary to her statement to me at the hearing, however, her one paragraph opinion cited no precedent at all. the only case she cited was the

district court opinion in that very case. but the district court actually acknowledged that this case was the opposite of the norm. rather than those failing an employment test challenging the use of results, of the results, in this case those who passed the test challenged the refusal to use the results. none of the precedents cited by the district court involved this kind of case. for this reason six of judge sotomayor's second circuit colleagues believed that the full circuit should have reviewed her decision arguing that the case raised important questions of first impression in the second circuit and the entire nation. contrary to her assertions. and very critical of the summary order that she had p given.

when the supreme court simply observed there were few, if any, precedents in any court even discussing this case. in a column published today in the national journal, the respected legal analyst stuart taylor carefully analyzed whether judge sotomayor's decision was, indeed, compelled by precedent. now, we've all read stuart taylor through the years. he's one of the most prescient commentators and journalists with regard to the law. he concludes, quote, the bottom line is that second circuit precedents did not make sotomayor rule as she did. supreme court precedent favored the firefighters. sotomayor's ruling was her own, unquote. i ask consent that mr. taylor's column appear on the record following my remarks. >> without objection. >> i thank the chair. in addition to claiming that her

decision in ricci was grounded in either second circuit or supreme court precedent, judge sotomayor offered at the hearing that the sixth circuit had addressed a similar issue in the same way. i can only assume that she did so to imply that if the sixth circuit independently came to the same conclusion in a parallel case, then it would be difficult to say that judge sotomayor's decision in ricci is controversial. well, i would paris note -- first note that in oakley v. city of memphis the sixth circuit analyzed the case, applied the law to the facts and issued a real opinion. i wish judge sotomayor had done that in her case. it was an important case. a lot of lives depended on it. people worked hard to pass that test. but more importantly, judge

sotomayor failed to mention that the sixth circuit case was issued three months after hers and, in fact, relied upon her decision as persuasive authority. there is no evidence that they are decision was proceed yourly or substancely sound. neither are her decisions on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. last year in district of columbia v. heller, the supreme court clearly identified the proper analysis for deciding whether the second amendment binds states as well as the federal government. several months later judge sotomayor ignored that directive and clung to her previous insistence following a different analysis the supreme court had discarded that the right to bear arms does not apply to the states. she also held that the right to bear arms is so insignificant

that virtually any conceivable reason is sufficient to justify a weapons restriction. when i asked her about these decisions at the hearing, she refused to acknowledge that the supreme court's so-called rational basis test is its most permissive legal standard. yet this was practically a self-evident truth in the law, one that judge sotomayor herself cited and applied just last fall to uphold a weapons restriction in maloney very cuomo. she likewise gave short shoplift to the fundamental right to property. judge sotomayor affirmed dismissal of a property owner's lawsuit after the village condemned his property and gave it to a developer. the supreme court incorrectly, in my view, had previously held in kilo v. city of new london that economic development can

constitute the public use for which the fifth amendment allows the taking of private property. in didden, however, the village had only announced a general plan for economic development. no taking of anyone's property had occurred. mr. didden sued only after the village actually took his property. yet in another cursory opinion that for some reason took more than a year to produce, judge sotomayor denied mr. didden even a chance to argue his case. she said that the three-year period for filing suit began not when the village actually took his property, but when the village earlier had merely announce bed its general development -- announced its general development plan. in other words, mr. didden should have sued over the taking of his property before his property had been taken. but had he done so then, he would certainly have been denied his day in court because his legal rights had not yet been

violated. this catch 22 amounts to a case of dismissed if he did and dismissed if he did not. once again, judge sotomayor gave inadequate protection to a fundamental constitutional right. this is important stuff. in another effort to blunt the impact of these and other controversial decisions, judge sotomayor's supporters attempt to portray her as moderate by observing that on the second circuit she agreed with republican-appointed colleagues 95 percent of the time. on the other hand, this was one of several misguided attempts to defend her by suggesting that a calculator is all it takes properly to evaluate a judicial record. on the other hand, however, this claim comes from the same democratic senators who voted against justice samuel alito just a few years ago. on the third circuit he had agreed with his democratic-appointed colleagues

99 percent of the time over a much longer tenure. it shows how speechless some of the arguments are. let me return to where i began. i believe that judge sotomayor is a good person. i respect her achievements and applaud her service to her community, the judiciary, and the country. while appointment of the first puerto rican justice says a lot about america, however, i believe that appointing a justice with her judicial philosophy says the wrong thing about the power and role of judges in our system of government. i might add that i was very concerned with her answers when i asked her questions about abortion and about the e my cuts curiae briefs that the puerto rican legal defense fund had filed. she said she knew nothing about those even though she had had 11 different positions, if i recall it correctly, on that trust. and at one time headed the

litigation department. that bothered me a great deal. an approach to judging is more important than her resumé especially on the supreme court where justices cooperate or should i say operate with the fewest constraints. judge sotomayor has expressed particular admiration for justice benjamin cardoza. often mentioned as one of the premier justices in the history of the supreme court. his book on the judicial process contains a chapter titled, the judge as a legislator, in which he compares judges to legislators who decide difficult cases on the basis of personal reflections and life considerations. that sounds very much like president obama's appointment standard and judge sotomayor's expressed judicial philosophy. i believe it is inconsistent

with the limited role that america's founders prescribed for judges in our system of government. my colleagues know that i take a generous approach to the confirmation process, and i believe some deference to the president of the united states and his choices is appropriate. i have rarely voted against any judicial nominee and took very seriously the question of whether to do so now. to that end i studied her speeches, articles, and case. i spoke with experts and advocates from different perspectives. i participated in all three question rounds during the judiciary committee hearing. but in the end neither general deference to the president nor a specific desire to support an hispanic nominee could overcome the serious conflicts between judge sotomayor's record and the principles of liberty in which i deeply believe. i was the one who started the

republican senatorial hispanic task force and ran it for many years bringing democrat, independent, and republicans together. in the best interests of the hispanic community, try and give them more of a voice. so i feel pretty deeply about hispanic people. as i do all people. i just want everybody to know that this, this took a lot of consideration on my part to come to the conclusion i had. that i've come to. i wish president obama had taken a different course, but this is a decision that i have to make in this case. like i say, i like judge sotomayor, i particularly like her life story, her mother, her brother, other members of the

family who were there. the last thing on earth i wanted to do was vote against her. but i think i've begin just a few of -- given just a few of the thoughts i have on this matter tonight, and i think these are serious, important things. she's going to be confirmed, i'm sure, by this body, and i will wish her well. and nothing would make me happier, nothing would make me happier than to see her become a great justice on the united states supreme court. i hope she proves me wrong. and i'm going to pray that she does. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> part of yesterday's floor debate on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court, more expected today after half an hour of general speeches, we've gotten word that five democratic senators, women senators, will speak on the nomination right around 10a.m. eastern. lawmakers will recess so

democrats can attend a caucus meeting on health care. now live senate coverage on dr. span 2. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, holy, powerful, loving, good, thank you for expressing your love to us with generous gifts. we're grateful for the gift of

your mercy which delivers those bruised and battered by life. thank you also for the peaceful satisfaction you give us, as we strive to do your will. lord, you have sustained our families and loved ones and nourished us with the blessings of faithful friends. you also have honored us with the privilege of being called your children. you've showered our land from your bounty with freedom, just, strength, and resilience.

thank you for our lawmakers who work to keep america strong and for our military men and women and their families who daily sacrifice to keep us free. lord of hosts, we lift to you this day our gratitude and praise. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c.,

august 5, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business until 10:00 this morning with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. following that morning business, the senate will resume nsideration of the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. debate will be controlled in alternating times with the majority controlling the first hour. that is starting at 11:00. and the time between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. equally divided and controlled with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the final 30 minutes. because of the special caucus that the democrats are having, we'll be in recess from 3:00

until 5:00 p.m. when the senate reconvenes, the senate will resume the alternating blocks of time with republicans controlling the first hour. mr. president, in addition to the supreme court nomination we need to deal with, there are two major items that we need to complete before we leave here for the august recess. first we've got to have some way of moving forward on the travel promotion and on the cash for clunkers. i will -- if we don't work something out on the cash for clunkers, i will file a cloture petition this evening, which means we'll have to have a cloture vote on friday. and if people want to use the 30 hours, it goes over until saturday. i don't think that's the case. i've had a number of very good conversations with the republican leader, and we all acknowledge there's a

significant majority that want to move forward with this legislation that has sold in a period of days almost 300,000 vehicles. and for us, mr. president, the taxpayers, it creates jobs, helps our manufacturing base, and helps the taxpayers in effect loan money though these two manufacturers. and this will help repay that money. it's really been stimulative, and we all recognize that. that having been said, there are some people who still don't like the program. we have to figure a way to move through that. it's my understanding the democrats have one amendment. i've explained what the amendment is to the republicans. the republicans have a long list of amendments that they're going to have to whittle down to a reasonable number so that we can deal with them real soon. i hope that we can work something out so that we can

meet our responsibilities. we also have a number of nominations that have been held up as a result of the supreme court nomination. we hope all that can be taken care of as soon as she's confirmed. mr. president, i am told s. 1572 is due for a second reading and the legislation is now at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1572, a bill to provide for a point of order against any legislation that eliminates or reduces the ability of americans to keep their health plan and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to further proceedings with respect to this legislation. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time be reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for

up to ten minutes each. the senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: mr. president, i just want to call to the attention of the senate and thank the pentagon in its dogged pursuit of finding the evidence of captain scott spiker, united states navy. the pie lost f-18 hornet -- the pilot of the f-18 hornet who was shot down on the first night of the gulf war back in 1991. this saga has evolved over the last 18 years. the pentagon became lax in the 1990's and did not pursue the finding of evidence, and there were all kinds of reports that captain spiker may have been

alive, held in a prison. you can imagine the trauma, the emotional ups and downs which have occurred to the family, which included the children that were quite young at the time, and are now at the age that they are in college. fortunately, mr. president, the pentagon about eight or nine years ago got serious about the search. and so when we invaded iraq in 2003, they even created a search team. and again, all of these false leads -- there had been the sighting of a pilot. an iraqi refugee said he saw a pilot, an american pilot in a prison. and it went on and on.

and, of course, the hopes of the family was that captain scott spiker was going to be found alive. our pentagon even went so far -- and i commend them -- that one of the first sets of questions on the debrief of any iraqi detainee, and especially the high-value detainees, that the question would be asked: do you know about an american pilot? and all of these leads turned up to be false. or they led to nothing. and so it was that we expected that what would happen to find the final evidence would be a bedouin tribe that would have been in the area of the iraqi desert at the time that captain

spiker punched out, when he ejected, from his jet that was hit. the irony was that scott was not even supposed to fly that first attack wave. but another member of the squadron got sick, and he filled in. and either he was hit with a ground-to-air missile or somehow in the aerial combat of the darkness of that night and ejected from his airplane. and then the rest has been a mystery until a bedouin thought to have been a younger child at the time of 1991 remembered a pilot being buried, couldn't identify the location but knew of another bedouin who was an adult at the time, and that

bedouin ultimately led the marines to the site in an extensive investigation and excavation that occurred on the iraqi desert floor. and so all who have participated , the army reserve major, major eanes, who led the scott spiker search party and who extended his duty voluntarily for an additional six months way back there in 2003, because he was absolutely intent that he was going to find this downed pilot, for all of those, including the chairman of the joint chiefs and the c.n.o. who now have brought this to closure because last weekend they found the remains of captain spiker, and in positive

identification through one of his jawbones with his military dental records, to be confirmed even further by d.n.a. evidence, we know now that captain spiker can be brought home, and his family can have this final closure. mr. president, i would conclude by saying that a mistake was made that we never want to repeat again. because of him being mistakenly declared dead at a press conference the next morning after that first night attack in the first gulf war, he was mistakenly declared dead by the secretary of defense, and we did not send a search-and-rescue mission. and every military pilot has to

have the security of knowing that if he has to eject, that a search-and-rescue mission is coming after him. and that's a mistake that we will not make again. so for the family and on behalf of the family, i want to say to the pentagon and to the other senators that have participated in this 18-year quest, on behalf of scott's family in florida, thank you from the bottom of their hearts. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: it's my understanding we're in morning business. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, if you look at the root cause of our economic crisis today, most people would agree that it started in the housing industry.

people across america signed up for these new mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, with terms that people had never seen before. sometimes they were terms that turned out to be unrealistic for a person's income for the value of the property, and at the end of a reset period, what was an affordable mortgage became unaffordable, and people were then faced with the grim reality that they couldn't stay in their homes. some of the folks who entered into these mortgages just signed up for bad mortgages. others were misled into. some signed you have for a mortgage and lost their jobs. the net result of it, though, was that we saw foreclosures across america in record numbers. about two years ago i started a legislative effort to change the bankruptcy code. the bankruptcy code is a set of laws, for those who declare

bankruptcy, and those who go into i it try to restructure thr debts and to emerge from bankruptcy in a solid financial position. now, when they go to court, virtually any secured asset, that is, a debt which has a security, the thing that is borrowed against, can be restructured by the court if it is a i have indication home -- if it is a vacation home, a mortgage on a vacation home, a mortgage on a ranch or a farm, a secured debt on a boat, a car. things like this can be restructured by the court to try to come down to terms that are affordable based on the reality of the income of the person filing bankruptcy. there's one exception to this. the court cannot restructure the mortgage on a primary residence. of all of the things that we own, maybe the most important thing is the home. and the law specifically precludes the bankruptcy court

from restructuring the mortgage. so, facing bankruptcy, you go in with your mortgage in foreclosure, and the court says there's nothing we can do. we might be able to do something about your vacation home, farm, or ranch, but nothing about your home. so people have their homes foreclosed upon. it struck me we needed to change this. because there was a time when people would borrow money for their home, take out a mortgage from a bank down the street -- from a banker they knew, and they would make their payments to that bank. that world changed when banks started selling the paper off to other banks and institutions and then it went wild. it went beyond another bank or institution into groups of investors who bought a piece of a share of your mortgage. someone may have bought an interest in the interest payments you were going to make in the fifth year of your mortgage. so what started off as a bank down the street at a closing that you knew personally turned

out to be a group of financial institutions you didn't even know and never heard of and may never, ever learn the ey identiy of. so when time came for foreclosure, you had to herd in all of these financial cats and are try to get everyone to agree with what happened next, which was almost im. my idea is to allow the bankruptcy court to restructure and rewrite the mortgage terms so that a person could stay in their home just as they could continue to own a vacation home. it seemed to me a modest suggestion, but one of value, because it gave the court a voice in saying to all of these different lenders that had a piece of your mortgage, you all better come together and gather around the table because we're going to make a decision in this court and you just can't ignore it. well, i introduced this over two years ago. and it had staunch opposition from the banking industry.

they did not want to give that power to the bankruptcy court. and they said -- we anticipate only two million foreclosures in america, so we don't see a need for change in the bankruptcy code. called the bill on the floor, and i lost. well, today we're facing over nine million foreclosures in bankruptcy. the banking industry is still vehemently opposed to any type of change in the bankruptcy law and the situation when it comes to foreclosure in america is going from bad to worse. this morning's "new york times" business section has a headline -- "u.s. effort aids only 9% of eligible homeowners." the article is about the voluntary efforts of mortgagers to renegotiate the terms of mortgages for people facing foreclosure. now, if a person is facing foreclosure because of a reset in mortgage terms and the like,

and the -- and the foreclosure goes through, it's a disastrous result for the family. they lose their home. it's a disastrous result for the neighborhood because every time a home goes into foreclosure, the neighbor's home value goes home and it's a disastrous result for a bank. banks don't win in foreclosure. i've heard estimates that they lose up to $50,000 for every foreclosure. it would seem that the avoidance of foreclosure is a good thing for everyone involved, the homeowner. other people who own property in the neighborhood as well as the bank. and, yet, it turns out that when we turn to the banks and say -- so do something about it voluntarily, their response to it is meager and disappointing. the treasury department said on tuesday that only a small number of homeowners, 239,247, or 9% of those eligible had been helped

by the latest government program created to modify home loans and prevent foreclosures. a report released by treasury officials identified lenders who made slow progress on naming mortgages. naming wells fargo among those failing to reach large number of eligible borrowers. 15% of eligible homeowners have been offered help through the mortgage modification program, 15%, the low rate of actual mortgage reductions has frustrated administration officials. now, they go on to note that several banks have done better than others. bank of america has done -- modified only 4% of eligible mortgages. wells fargo 6%. city mortgage, a unit of citigroup fared better at 15%. j.p. morgan chase, among the most successful, modifying loans for 20% of eligible borrowers.

mr. president, in the previous administration the secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, called me and told me what they were going to do to try to rescue the banks. and i said, hank, you've got to get to the heart of this. it's the foreclosure crisis. what are you going to do about the people losing their homes? and he said, well, we're not going to do anything except a voluntary program. the voluntary program of the bush administration and out in voluntary program of this administration is not working. there are not enough people who are facing foreclosure who realistically have an option of renegotiating the terms of their mortgage. now, i will credit president bush and president obama with offering to the industry the opportunity to lead. but, frankly, they failed. a few of these banks have done reasonably well if you consider 20% of those eligible being offered mortgage modification something to brag about.

but others are terrible. let me mention one other element that should be noted here. two weeks ago in chicago a group known as naca, and i believe that stands for the national association of consumer attorneys, held an opportunity at mccormick place for those facing foreclosure to come in and try to work out new mortgage terms. i was at another meeting and they invited me to come home and i was stunned as i walked into this huge hall filled with literally thousands of people on a saturday morning. thousands of people facing mortgage foreclosure. on one side of the room sat a large group of about 1,000 people and they were from hispanic families. on the other side of the room another 1,000 people, by and large african-american, with others, asian, whites, and others, but primarily african-american. it is clear to me as you look at the nature of the foreclosure

crisis, that many people in lower income categories, particularly those who have been the targets and predators in the past were preyed upon with these mortgages and now face foreclosure. they are also people who are most likely to lose their jobs. they are in marginal employment and a slowing economy is going to hurt them first. which goes to my point -- not enough's being done. for those who are still working and have a chance to pay on their mortgage, these banks should be stepping up, showing a lot more commitment to renegotiating the terms of their mortgage than they currently are. now, when i offered this change in the bankruptcy code to try to move this process forward, the banking associations -- all of them -- opposed it. only one group, citigroup, supported by efforts. in fact, an interesting thing, mr. president, is that at 1 point in the negotiations, we said to the independent

community bankers, the hometown bankers that we all know, we said we will exempt you because you have such a small part of this problem portfolio, we will exempt you and just go after the large banks that are responsible for this. and the so-called independent community community banks said, no, we don't want any part of it. we are going to stick with our friends, the large banks, which leads me to conclude that the independent community banks should drop the word independent from their title. they're now part of the larger bank operation when it comes to dealing with this foreclosure crisis. much the same can be said for credit unions. given an opportunity to avoid being even part of this conversation about bankruptcy modification and change, they refused to participate as well. so the entire financial industry has stood back and said -- we are not going to support -- with the exception of citigroup -- we are not going to support any

change in the bankruptcy code and, quite honestly, we're not going to do much when it comes to renegotiating the mortgages. mr. president, i don't think this economy's going to get well until we deal with this issue. i can tell you to neighborhoods in chicago and surrounding communities and tell you they're flat on their back because of mortgage foreclosures. it is very difficult, if not impossible, for these communities to come back, these neighborhoods to come back. there's things that we need to do. first, congress should pass legislation to give homeowners who can't afford their mortgage payments the right to remain in their home for a period of time by paying fair market rent to a bank. why not let a family stay in a home rather than let it run down and become a haven for criminal activity and other things when it's vacant? certainly no good assignment for a bank to be told you now have a foreclosed home, cut the grass, and take care of the weeds and put plywood on the windows and

try to keep the bad guys out. that's what most of them face. second, congress should provide funds for cities and states to create mandatory mortgage programs. they did it in philadelphia with some success. we ought to do it here so we can move it toward arbitration, negotiation, and agreements for new modifications on mortgageses. if these services of mortgages some of which have taken billions of dollars in tax payer bailouts refuse to meet the reductions an standards and goals they signed up for under this administration, they should be facing penalties. we gave them taxpayer money to save their banks and some used it for bonuses for their employees and now they won't use it to help homeowners. if there's any justice in america, that needs to change. will i come back with bankruptcy modification? let's see what happens in the next few months. i want to come back to my colleagues in two or three

months, whether did -- and say, whether you supported or opposed the bankruptcy modifications, let's be honest of where we are today and where we need to be tomorrow. that is essential. mr. president, i hope that this situation starts to resolve itself. i hope that some of these banks that hold the mortgageses get serious about those facing foreclosure. it is the only way to get the housing market moveling forward. there was a blip in the housing market, there was a temporary moratorium on foreclosures, leading many to believe there was a turnaround in the foreclosures. i don't believe it yet. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president?

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. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, supreme court of the united states, sonia sotomayor of new york to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided, in one hour alternating blocks of time with the majority controlling the first hour. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: thank you. thank you very much, mr. president. we began debate yesterday on this historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayor of the supreme court. senator reid and senator feinstein and nor menendez, senator whitehouse and senator brown gave powerful statements, powerful statements ins in suppt of judge sotomayor's long

record, a record that makes her a highly qualified nominee and a record that brought about her receiving the highest qualification possible in the american bar association, and i thank those senators for those statements. in the course of my opening statement yesterday, i spoke about the value of real-world judging. among the cases i discussed were two involving the strip searches of adolescent girls, and i spoke about how judge sotomayor and justice ginsburg properly -- properly -- approached those decisions in their respective courts. and judge sotomayor is certainly not the first nominee to discuss how her background shaped her. many recent justices spoke of their life experience as an influential factor in how they approach cases. justice alito in his confirmation hearings described

his experience growing up as a child of italian immigrants saying when i get a case about discrimination, i have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. and i do take that into account. he was praised by every single republican here in the senate for that. chief justice roberts testified at his confirmation hearing, of course we all bring our life experiences to the bench. again, every single republican voted for him. justice owe coroner -- justice o'connor said we're all creatures of our upbringing. we bring whatever we are to the supreme court. we have our life experiences. so that made me a little more pragmatic than some other justices. i like to find solutions that would work. justice o'connor also explained recently, you do have to have an

understanding how some rule you make will apply to people in the real world. i think there should be an awareness of real-world consequences of the principles of the law you apply. just as all democrats voted for justice o'connor, so did all republicans. another supreme court nominee spoke during his confirmation hearing with his personal struggle to overcome obstacles, he made this point: one that required me at some point touched sreurt wastefulry aspect, every level of our country when people who couldn't read or write to people who are extremely illiterate to people who had no money to people who are very wealthy, and added so what i bring to this court, i believe, is an understanding and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum of this country. the republican president who nominated him spoke of his

empathy. of course that nominee was clarence thomas. let me cite one example, the decision by justice thomas that wasn't formed by his experience. in virginia vs. black, the supreme court in 2003 held a virginia statute against cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate was constitutional. at the same time the court's decision also rejected another provision in that statute. justice thomas wrote a heartfelt opinion stating he would have gone even further. in every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. that goes for the sacred and profane. i believe cross-burning is a pragmatic example of the latter. he went on to describe the ku klux klan as a terrorist organization while discussing the history of cross-burning,

particularly in virginia, and the ruralization of racial minorities and others. would anyone deny justice thomas' standing or seek to belittle his perspective on these matters? i suspect not. who would attack him for that as judge sotomayor is now being attacked? i trust no one would. real-world experience, real-world judging, an awareness of the real-world consequences of decisions on val aspects of the law. and here we have a nominee who's had more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in decades and will be the only member of the u.s. supreme court with experience as a trial judge. so i look forward, i look forward to this debate. one of the judiciary committee members is now on the floor, senator klobuchar of maryland, the senior senator from maryland. she's been a leader in support

of this nomination. i know she's here. i see besider the former governor of my neighboring state, new hampshire, then-governor shaheen, now senator shaheen. i know both of them are going to speak, so i'll take no more time. i will yield the floor first to senator klobuchar. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized *fplt ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, mr. president. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those strong remarks on behalf of judge sotomayor, strong remarks for a very strong nominee. more importantly, as chairman of the senate skwraourbgts i want to thank you and -- judiciary committee, i want to thank you and senator sessions for the way you conducted the confirmation hearing, the dignity that was shown to the nominee in that hearing. i think that was very important to the process. we may not have agreed with the conclusions that some of our colleagues reached, but no one can dispute that the hearing was conducted civilly and with great dignity. this is a nominee who shows

great dignity every step of the way. today i will be speaking in support of judge sotomayor's nomination, but first i'm going to be joined by several of my esteemed fellow women senators, including senator shaheen of new hampshire, who is here already. senator stabenow of michigan. senator gillibrand from new york. and senator murray of washington state. we all know that this nomination is history-making for several reasons, but one of them, of course, is that judge sotomayor will be only the third woman to ever join the supreme court of the united states of america. we know she's incredibly well-qualified. she's got more federal judicial experience than any nominee for the past 100 years. that's something that's remarkable. but i do think it's worth remembering what it was like to be a nominee for this court as a woman even just a few years ago. it's worth remembering, for example, that when justice o'connor graduateed from law school, the only offer she got

from law firms -- after graduating from stanford law school -- were for legal secretary positions. justice o'connor who graduated third in her class of law school saw her accomplishments reduced to one question: can she type. justice ginsburg, when she entered harvard law school, she was one of nine women in a class of more than 500. the dean of the law school demanded she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. later she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. nonetheless, both of these women persevered and they certainly prevailed much their undeniable merits triumph those who sought to deny them opportunity. the women who came before judge sotomayor, all those women judges, helped blaze a trail. and although judge sotomayor's record stands on her own, mr. president, she is also standing on those women's

shoulders. i am pleased to recognize several women senators that are here today to speak in support of judge sotomayor and the first is my great colleague from new hampshire, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm delighted to be joined by my neighbor, mr. leahy, in support of senator sonia sotomayor -- in support of sonia sotomayor. this week we have the opportunity to make history, to bring an hispanic and only the third woman to the united states supreme court. senator klobuchar spoke eloquently about the challenges women faced and i'm pleased to say as governor i appointed the first woman to the new hampshire supreme court. i come today to the floor to speak in support of sonia

sotomayor's nomination, however not because of the historic nature of that nomination, but because she is more than qualified to sit on the supreme court. i'm really somewhat perplexed by why the vote on her nomination will not be unanimous. judge sotomayor is immensely qualified. the nonpartisan american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary, which has evaluated the professional qualifications of nominees to the federal bench since 1948, unanimously -- unanimously -- rated sotomayor as well-qualified to be a supreme court justice after carefully considering her integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. her decisions as a member of the second circuit court of appeals are well within the judicial mainstream of our country.

the congressional research services analysis on her opinions concluded she eleads ideological categorization and demonstrates adherence to judicial precedent on issues of facts of a case and avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. described as a political centrist by the nonpartisan american bar association journal, she has been nominated to the federal courts by presidents of both political parties. when president george h.w. bush in 1992 nominated sonia sotomayor to the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york, this senate approved her nomination by unanimous consent. when president clinton in 1998 nominated her to the second circuit court of appeals, this senate voted 67-29 to confirm her on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

her now familiar personal story is no less impressive. the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the highest court of our country will inspire girls and young women everywhere to work hard and to set their dreams high. americans look to lawmakers to work together to make the country stronger. they expect us to put partisanship aside, to advance the interests of the american people. if there is one issue we should be able to come together on, to put aside our differences on, it is the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i look forward to having the opportunity to vote in support of her confirmation with the majority of my colleagues. thank you, mr. president, and thank you, senator klobuchar. i yield back the floor to

senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. having looked at judge sotomayor's whole record, as senator shaheen pointed out, her 17 years on the bench and the fairness and the integrity that she will bring to the job, i am proud to support her nomination. when judge sotomayor's nomination was first announced, i was impressed by her life story, as was everyone else, which all of us know well by now. she grew up in, in her own words, in modest and challenging circumstances, and she worked hard for everything she got. her dad died when she was nine years old, and her mom supported her and her brother. and one of my favorite images as a member of the judiciary committee from the hearing was her mother sitting behind her every moment of that hearing, never leaving her side. the mother that raised her on a nurse's salary, who saved every

penny she had just to buy an encyclopedia britannica for their family. that struck me because i know in our family we also had a set of encyclopedias that had a hallowed place in our hallway and that's what i used to write our reports. she went on to graduate from princeton summa cum laude and phi beta kappa before graduating from law school. she has worked as a private civil litigator, been a district court and appellate court judge, and she's taught law school classes. but one experience of hers in particular resonates with me. immediately after graduating from law school she spent five years as a prosecutor at the manhattan district attorney's office. i want to talk a little bit about that because it's something that she and i have in common. i was a prosecutor, myself, mr. president. you know what's that like to have that duty. i was a prosecutor for

minnesota's largest county. as a prosecutor after you interacted with victims of crime, after you've seen the damage crime does to individuals in our communities, after you've seen defendants who are going to prison, and we know their families are losing them, sometimes forever, you know that the law is not just an abstract subject. it is not just a dusty book in a basement. the law has a real impact on the real lives of real people. it also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. no matter how many years may pass, you may never forget some of the very difficult cases. for judge sotomayor, we know this is the case of the serial killer turned burglary. for me it was the case of taisha edwards, an 11-year-old girl with an unforgettable smile.

she was at home doing her homework when a bullet went through a window and killed her. as a prosecutor, you can't just know the law, you have to know the people. you have to know the families. you have to know human nature. as judge sotomayor's former supervisor said, she is an imposing figure in the courtroom. someone who could weave together a complex set of facts, enforce the law an never lose sight of whom she was fighting for. as her old boss robert morgenthau said, she is a fearless an effective prosecutor. before i turn this over to my colleague, the senator from michigan, who has just arrived, i think it would be interesting for people to hear a little more about judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor. and you can hear this firsthand from her own colleagues. this was a letter sent in from dozens of her colleagues that actually worked with her -- worked with her when she was a

prosecutor. it wasn't her bosses necessarily. this is what they said in the letter -- they said we served together during some of the most difficult years in our city's history. crime was soaring, a general sense of disorder preveiled in the streets and the popular attitude was that increasing violence was inevitable. sonia sotomayor, they say in this letter, began as a rookie in 1979, working long hours prosecuting an enormous caseload of misdemeanor. she was so challenged herself that she was among the first in her starting class to be selected to handle felonies. she prosecuted a wide variety of felony cases including serving as a co-counsel in a trial. throughout awful this she impressed us -- this is from her colleagues, as one who was singularly determined in fighting crime and violence.

for sonia, service as a prosecutor was a way to bring order to the streets of the city she dearly loves. they go on -- we are proud to have served with sonia sotomayor. she solemnly adheres to the rule of law and believes that it should be applied equally and fairly to all americans. as a group, says this group of dozens of prosecutors who were her colleagues, as a group we have different world views and political afill aitionz, but our support for sonia is entirely nonpartisan. and the fact that so many of us have remained friends with sonia over three decades sparks, well, we think it speaks of her warmth and collegiality. mr. president, i see that my colleague from michigan has arrived. i will continue my statement when she is -- has completed hers. but i'm proud to have senator stabenow, the senator from michigan, here to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor.

i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i'm so pleased to be here with the senior senator from minnesota, and have appreciated her wonderful words about judge sotomayor, as well as her advocacy on behalf of minnesota we have a lot in common between minnesota and michigan and so it's always a pleasure to be with the senator from minnesota. mr. president, i rise today to strongly support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor as the next justice of the supreme court. over 230 years ago alexander hamilton called experience that best oracle of wisdom. and his words continue to ring true today. judge sotomayor has over 17 years of experience on the federal bench. she will be the most experienced

supreme court justice in over 100 years. our lifetime. but it isn't just her years of experience that will make her a great justice. it will be the experience of a uniquely american life. the american dream. she was raised in a south bronx housing project where her families instilled in her values of hard work and sacrifice. at the age of 9, her father, a tool and dye worker, died tragically. after that, her mother, a nurse, raised her the best she could. i would say she did a pretty good job. her mom urged her to pay attention in school. she pushed sonia to work hard and get good grades, which she did. she studied hard, graduated at the top of her class in high school. it was through education that doors opened for judge se r fore

sotomayor, as they have opened for millions of other americans. after law school, she went to work as assistant district attorney in new york prosecuting crimes like murders an robberies and -- and robberies and child abuse. she later went into private practice as a civil litigator working in parts of the law related to real estate, employment, banking, and contract law. in 1992 she was nominated by president george h.w. bush and confirmedly the senate unanimously to serve as a district court judge. she performed admirably. and president clinton, having been nominated first by a republican and then again by a democrat, president clinton elevated her to the second circuit court of appeals. it is in part due to this

enormous breadth of experience as a prosecutor, a lawyer in private practice, as a trial judge, as an appeals court judge that the american bar association has given her their highest rating of well qualified. judge sotomayor's story really is the american story. the young person born into poverty can work hard, take advantage of opportunities and then succeed brilliantly and rise to the very top of their profession. judge sotomayor is really an inspiration to all of us. she's a role model for millions of young people of every race, class, creed, and background living in america today. last november we demonstrated that every child in america really can grow up to be president of the united states.

judge sotomayor proves that with hard work and dedication they can be a supreme court justice too. mr. president, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm judge sotomayor. thank you very much. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota's recognized. ms. klobuchar: i thank the senator from michigan for her strong words in favor of this very strong nominee. as i was talking about earlier, i was the -- it was the experience that judge sotomayor brings to the bench as a prosecutor. for me it means she meets one of my criteria for a nominee, because i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that laws and the criminal justice system have on real people's lives. from her first day in the manhattan d.a.'s office, judge sotomayor talked about and

understood how it was important to be the law, it's about people and not just the law. but when you talk about people, it means that you have to look at their cases and it means you have to look at the law and it means you have to look at the facts. and one of the things that we learned in the hearings was that sometimes judge sotomayor had to make very difficult decisions. when she was a prosecutor she had to turn down some cases, although she was by all accounts more aggressive than a lot of other prosecutors and took on some cases that many wouldn't. when she was a judge she sometimes had to turn down cases and turn away victims, like the case involving the crash of the t.w.a. flight. and she actually disagreed with a number of other judges in there and said as much as she found the victims' families in that case to be incredibly sympathetic that the law took her somewhere else. that the facts and the law meant something else. you can see that in a number of her cases where -- which is part of the reason people don't think of her -- who look at her record

as a judicial activist, they look at her as a judicial moderate. someone in her own words who has fidelity to the law. now, what are we looking for in a supreme court justice? well, i think actually one of sonia sotomayor's old bosses, robert morgenthau said it best. he came and testified on her behalf. he said this quote many years ago about what he was looking for when he tried to find prosecutors for his office. and he said we want people with good judgment. because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. he said i also want to see somes signs of humility in anybody that i hire. we're giving young lawyers a lot of power and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance. these are among the very same qualities that i look for in a supreme court justice. i too am looking for a person with good judgment. someone with intellectual curiosity and independence, but who also understands that her

decisions affect the people before her. with that, i think comes a second essential quality, quality of humility. i'm looking for a justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility that she will be given if confirmed, a justice who understands the gravity of the office and who respects the very different roles that the constitution provides for each of the three branches of government, something that judge sotomayor was questioned on extensively in the hearing an made very clear that she respects those three different roles for the three different branches of government. finely, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. a supreme court justice must interpret the laws without fear or favor. i'm convinced that judge sotomayor meets all of these criteria. she has been a judge for 17 years. 11 years as an appellate judge and six years as a trial judge. president george h.w. bush, gave her the first job she had as a federal judge in the southern

district of new york. her nomination to the southern district was enthusiastically supported by both new york senators, democratic senator daniel patrick moynihan and republican senator d'amato. she was nominated by george h.w. bush, supported by a republican senator and confirmed unanimously by this senate. judge sotomayor, a i noted before, has more federal judicial experience than any nominee in the past 100 years. and i think the best way to tell what kind of justice she'll be is to look at what kind of judge she's been. one person who knows a little bit about something about sonia sotomayor is a judge -- as a judge is louie freeh, the former director of the f.b.i., who served as a judge with her before he was the director of the f.b.i. and he he actually came, a republican appointee again, he came and testified for her at her hearing. and he didn't just testify based

on a review of her record. he testified based on is his own -- on his own personal experience. he was a mentor when she arrived as a new judge. i want to read from the letter that he submitted to the judiciary committee. louis freeh writes -- it is with tremendous pride of a former colleague that i recommend wholeheartedly that you confirm sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme court. judge sotomayor has the extensive experience and the judicial qualities that make her imminently qualified for this ultimate honor and i look forward to watching her take place her -- her place on the nation's highest court. freeh goes on to say, i first met judge sotomayor in 1992 when she was appointed to the united states district court for the southern districts of new york. as the then newest judge in the storied courthouse at foley square in lower manhattan, she followed the tradition of having the newly minted judge mentored

by the last arriving member of the bench. despite the questionable wisdom of this practice, he went on, i had the privilege of serving as judge sotomayor's point of contact for for orientation ando help her get under way as she took on a full, complex civil and criminal case docket. into this very pressurized and unforgiving environment were a new judge's every word, decision, writing and questioning were scrutinized and critiqued by one of the harshest professionals imaginable, judge sotomayor distinguished herself as a highly competent judge who is open-minded, well-prepared, properly demanding of the lawyers who came before her, fair, honest, diligent in following the law. and with that rare and valuable combination of legal intellect and street smarts. louis freeh, republican appointed judge, goes on to say,

"to me, there is no better measure by which to evaluate a judge than the standards of the former chief judge of the united states district court of minnesota." mr. president, i like this part. "and nationally renowned american jurist, edward j. debit. judge debate was appointed to the federal bench by president eisenhower and became one of the country's leading trial judges and teachers of judges. a standard jury instruction book, debit and blackmun as well as the professional's most coveted awardoutstanding judges. the debit award bears his name." freeh goes on to say, "i recently had the honor of participating in the dedication of a courtroom named for judge debit. the lawyers who spoke in tribute to judge debit very ably described the critical character

eufgz which -- characteristics which define great judges. rather than discuss his decisions, particular rulings or sound bite analysis which could have been parsed from fact-specific cases which crossed his docket, they focused on those ultimately more profound judicial qualities." and he goes on to talk about those qualities of a good judge. judging takes more than mere intelligence, always take to the bench prepared, call them as you see them. he then goes on to say, "judge sotomayor would have gotten an a-plus from the judge from central casting -- judge debit, former judge from the state of minnesota." i think that says it all. you have louis freeh here testifying in behalf of judge sotomayor. as i read earlier, you have dozens of her former colleagues, republicans, democrats, independents, writing about what kind of a prosecutor she was.

every step of the way she impressed people. and i see we're now being joined by the senator from new york, my distinguished colleague who will also be speaking in favor of judge sotomayor. she actually -- senator gillibrand had the distinguished honor to introduce judge sotomayor when she so eloquently spoke at the hearing. and it's very, very -- i'm very honored to have her join us here today. so with that, mr. president, i will turn this over to senator gillibrand. and i do ask for the record, since i am giving my remarks about judge sotomayor in five or six different pieces as my colleagues come, that my remarks be combined as one set speech. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: thank you, and i turn it over to senator gillibrand. mrs. gillibrand: i'm very grateful to the senior senator from minnesota.

thank you for your kind words. thank you for your extraordinary advocacy on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor. your words and real belief in her contributions is extremely important. so thank you. i stand today to speak on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor and lend my strong support to her nomination to the united states supreme court. judge sotomayor will bring the wisdom of all her experiences to bear as she applies the rule of law and will grace the supreme court with the intelligence, judgment, clarity of thought and determination of purpose that we have come to expect from all great justices on the court. much has been made of judge sonia sotomayor's remarkable personal story. there has been great import afforded the characterization of the wise latina. clearly the life lessons and experiences of justices inform

their decisions, as has been noted during the confirmation processes time and time again. justice antonin scalia discussed his being a racial minority in his understanding of discrimination. justice clarence thomas indicated that his exposure to all facets of society gave him the -- quote -- "ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum of this country." end of quote. justice samuel alito described his parents growing up in poverty as a learning experience, and his family's immigration to the united states as influencing his views on immigration and discrimination. as americans, we honor the diversity of our society. as our esteemed jurists have noted, the construct of the court is shaped by the diverse experiences and viewpoints of each of its justices. however, sonia sotomayor's ethnicity or gender alone does

not indicate what sort of supreme court justice she will be. rather, it is judge sotomayor's experience and record that more fully informs us. the breadth and depth of her experience makes her uniquely qualified for the supreme court, her keen understanding of case law and importance of precedent is derived from working in nearly every aspect of our legal system as a prosecutor, corporate litigator, civil rights advocate, trial judge and appellate judge. with confirmation, judge sotomayor will bring to the supreme court more federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years and more overall judicial experience than any justice in 70 years. as a prosecutor, judge sotomayor fought the worst of society's ills. from murder to child pornography to drug trafficking. judge sotomayor's years as a corporate litigator exposed her

to all facets of commercial law, including real estate, employment, banking, contracts and abling is i law. her pro bono work for the puerto rican legal defense fund demonstrates her commitment to our constitutional rights and the core value that equality is an inalienable american right. on the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york, judge sotomayor presided over roughly 450 cases, earning a reputation as a tough, fair, and thoughtful jurist. as an appellate judge, judge sotomayor participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 published opinions. as evidence of her integrity of her decisions and adherence to precedent, only seven cases were brought up for review by the supreme court, reversing only three of her authored opinions, two of which were closely divided. in an analysis of her record

done by the brennan center for justice, the numbers overwhelmingly indicate that judge sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the second circuit. judge sotomayor has been in agreement with her colleagues more than 94% of the constitutional decisions have been unanimous. she has voted with the majority over 98% of constitutional cases. when judge sotomayor was voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional nearly 90% of the cases. when she has voted to overrule lower court agency, her decisions -- or lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with judge sotomayor's decisions to overrule a lower court decision in over 94% of

the cases. judge sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedent, her unyielding belief in the rule of law, and our constitution. i strongly support the nomination of judge sotomayor, and i firmly believe that she will prove to be one of the finest jurists in american history. i urge my fellow senators to join me in voting for her confirmation. thank you, mr. president. ms.-- ms. klobuchar: mr. president? i want to thank the senator from new york for her fine remarks. as she was talking, i realized she is a pioneer of sorts being the first woman senator from new york who took over as senator with two very small children. i have seen them, and they are small and babies. and she's been able to manage and do a fine job in her role as senator while being a pioneer as a mother at the same time in the

state of new york. and with that, it is a good segway to introduce my colleague from the state of washington, patty murray, one of the first women to serve in the united states senate. and she -- i love her story because when patty started running for office, she was working on some school issues, and she went to the legislature. one of the elected hrerts actually said to her, how do you think you're ever going to get this done? you're nothing but a mom in tennis shoes. she went on to wear those tennis shoes and wear them right to the floor of the united states senate. with that, i'm proud to introduce to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor, my colleague from the state of washington, patty murray. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. and i thank the senior senator from minnesota for all of her work in helping to move this critical and important nomination through the united states senate. and i am here to join her in support of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. you know, the united states

supreme court is the final arbiter of many of our nation's most important disputes. and as the constitution provides for a lifetime appointment to this court, supreme court justice has a tremendous opportunity to have a profound effect on the future of the law in america. that is why the constitution directs that the senate is responsible for providing advice and consent on judicial nominees. so i take my responsibilities in this nomination and confirmation process very seriously. but, mr. president, i take a special personal interest in supreme court nominations, was actually watching the supreme court confirmation hearing many years ago that inspired me to challenge the status quo and run for the united states senate. i was deeply frustrated by the confirmation hearings of then-nominee clarence thomas. and i believe that average americans, people all over this country did have a voice in the

process. there were important questions, questions that needed to be answered that were never even raised to the nominee. so, i have worked for years to be a voice for those average americans when it comes to judicial appointments and make sure those questions are asked. now, i've had the opportunity to meet in person with judge sotomayor and ask her the questions that will affect all americans, including working families in my home state of washington. i've examined her personal and professional history, and i've studied her 17-year record on the federal bench. i followed her progress through the senate judiciary committee and watched her answer a number of difficult questions. and with all of this information and her answers in mind, i am very pleased and proud to support her nomination. by now, many americans have heard the remarkable story of judge sonia sotomayor. she's truly an embodiment of the american dream.

although many americans today have now heard of her story, some points, i think, bear repeating. judge sotomayor is the daughter of puerto rican parents. her father died when she was just nine years old, and she and her brother were raised by her mother in a public housing project in the bronx. sotomayor's mother, who was a nurse, worked extra hours so that she could pay for her schooling and buy a set of encyclopedias for her children. after she gad waited from high school, judge sotomayor attended college at princeton and law school at yale. she spent five years prosecuting criminal cases in new york, seven years in private law practice, and 17 years as a federal judge on the united states district court and court of appeals. judge sotomayor's story is an inspiring reminder of what is achievable with hard work and the support of your family and your community.

of course, a compelling personal story of triumph in tough circumstances is not itself enough. mr. president, i have long used several criteria to evaluate nominees for judicial appointments. are they ethical and honest? are they qualified? are they going to be fair and independent and even handed in administering justice? and will they protect the rights and liberties of all americans? i am confident that judge sotomayor meets those criteria. she has 17 years of federal judicial experience and unanimously received the highest rating of the american bar association which called her well-qualified based on a comprehensive evaluation of her record and her integrity. and she has directly answered questions about her personal beliefs and prior statements. she's been clear with me, with the judiciary committee, and the american people that her own biases and personal opinions

never play a role in deciding cases. more importantly, her 17 years on the bench stand as a testament to that fact. judge sotomayor has demonstrated her independence of she was nominated to the federal district court by president george h.w. bush and appointed to the united states court of appeals by president clinton. judge sotomayor has received rave reviews from her fellow judges on the second circuit, both republicans and democrats, as well as strong support from a diverse cross section of people and organizations from across the political spectrum. finally, mr. president, it's clear to me that judge sotomayor is committed to protecting the rights and liberties of all americans. she understands the struggles of working families. she understands the importance of civil rights. and her record shows a strong respect for the rule of law and that she evaluates each case

based on its particular facts. having followed the criteria by which i measure all judicial nominees, i am confident that judge sotomayor will be a smart, fair, impartial, and qualified member of the united states supreme court. i believe that any individual or group from my home state could stand before her and receive fair treatment. and that she will -- will well serve the interest of justice and the public as our next supreme court justice. so, mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor to enjoin with many of my women colleagues in the senate and let the people of washington state know that after reviewing her qualifications and her record and reviewing her testimony, i am very proud to stand and support this nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i first want to thank the senator from washington for her excellent remarks on behalf of

judge sotomayor. during this hour, we've heard from several of my colleagues, all strongly supporting judge sotomayor. and i have talked, first of all, about her growing up and her difficult circumstances. i spoke about her work as a prosecutor and the support she's received from her prosecutorial colleagues. talked about her work as a judge and read extensively from a letter from louis freeh, former director of the f.b.i. and former judge. and now on the final part of my talk here, i wanted to address some of the other issues that have been raised with respect to judge sotomayor. i have to say, mr. president, i woke up this morning to the radio on my clock radio and heard one of my colleagues who decided that he was not going to support her in his words because of the empathy standard. and i kind of put the pillow over my head and i thought, you know, he must not have been sitting in the hearings. because she was specifically asked by one of the other

senators about how she views the cases. and he specifically asked her if she agreed with president obama if you should use your heart as well as the law. she said, actually, i don't agree with that. i look at the law and i look at the facts. so people can say all kinds of things about her, if they'd like, but i suggest they look at her record. my colleagues in the senate are entitled to oppose her nomination, if they wish. that's their prerogative. but i'm concerned that some people keep returning again and again to some quotes in speeches, a quote that she actually said, a phrase that she didn't mean to offend anyone, and she should have put it differently. when you have 17 years of a record as a judge, what's more important? 17 years as a record of a judge or one phrase that she basically said was not the words she meant to use. what's more important? in the words of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are

not entitled to your own facts. so let's look at the facts of her judicial record. this nominee was repeatedly questioned -- and i sat there through nearly all of it. she was questioned for hours. she was questioned for days about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judging. but, again, the facts don't support these claims. in race discrimination cases, mr. president, for example, judge sotomayor voted against plaintiffs 81% of the time. she also handed out longer jail sentences than her colleagues as a district court judge. she sentenced white collar criminals to at least six months in prison, 48% of the time. whereas her other colleagues did so only 34% of the time. and in drug indications, 5.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison -- 85.5% of convicted drug offenders received a prison sentence from

judge sotomayor sotomayor compared to 79% of her colleagues' cases. a few weeks ago i was at the minnesota airport and a guy came up to me and ask if i was going to vote for that woman? i said, what do you mean? she said that judge. i said i actually went to -- i want to meet her first. this is before i met her. i said i want to ask some questions before i make a decision. he said i don't know how you do that. because she always let's her feelings get in front of the law. this guy needs to hear the statistics. he needs to hear the statistics that senator gillibrand was talking about. the statistics when she served on the bench with a republican-appointed colleague, 98% of the time they made the same decision. i guess you could say that the republican-appointed judges are letting their feelings get in front of the law. 95% of the time sided with a republican-appointed judge colleague. during the hearing judge

sotomayor was questioned about the death penalty and her use of the foreign law i'd say this, this was repeatedly mentioned that she might use foreign law to decide a death penalty case. what do we have as facts and evidence? there was one case of the death penalty came before her and she rejected the claim of someone who wanted to say that the death penalty wouldn't apply when she was a district court judge. and she never cited foreign law. there was no mention of france or any kind of law anywhere in that decision. those are the facts in her judicial record. in no place has she ever cited foreign law to help her interpret a provision of the united states constitution. you know, i believe that about everything in a nominee's professional record is fair game to consider. afterall, we are obligated to determine whether to confirm someone for an incredibly important lifetime position. that's our constitutional duty, and i take it seriously. with that said, when people focus on a few items and a few

speeches that judge sotomayor has given phrases which she has basically said she would have said differently if she had another opportunity, you have to ask yourself, again, did those statements, are they outweighed by the record? are they outwayed by the facts? check out these endorsements, mr. president of people who looked at her record and looked at how she's come out on decisions. you have an endorsement from the national district attorney's association supporting her. you have the support from the police executive research forum. you have the support from the national fraternal order of place. not exactly a raging liberal organization. you have the support of the national sheriff's association. again, these are the facts. these are the facts that my colleagues should be looking at. you have the support from international association of chiefs of police. you have the support of the major city's chief association. she has the support of the national association of police

organizations. she has the support of the association of prosecuting attorneys. she have letters supporting her from the detectives, from the national black prosecutors association from the national organization of black law enforcement executives and the list goes on and on and on. those are the facts. unanimous, top rating from the a.b.a., american bar association. those are the facts. i believe if we want to know what kind of a justice sonia sotomayor will be, our best evidence is to look at the kind of judge she's been. and i wanted to address one more thing that i mentioned at the judiciary hearing when she voted our votes for judge sotomayor, and that's been a point that irritated me and there have been stories and comments, mostly anonymous, about judge sotomayor's judicial temperment. according to one source, judge sotomayor developed a reputation

of asking tough questions at oral arguments and sometimes being brisk and curt with lawyers not prepared to answer them. well, where i come from asking tough questions, mr. president, and having little patience for unprepared lawyers, is the very definition for being a judge. as a lawyer you owe it to the bench and your clients to be as well prepared as you ploibl can be. when justice ginsberg were asked about the anonymous comments of judge sotomayor recently she rhetorically asked -- has anyone watched i scalia or breyer on te bench? surely we've come to a time, mr. president, when we can appoint as many to the point gruff female judges as we've confirmed to the point gruff mail judges. we've come a long way, as you can see from my colleagues that came here during the last hour. we know that when sandra day o'connor graduated from law school 50 years ago, the only position she was offered was for

the position at a law office as legal secretary. judge sotomayor faced similar obstacles. we have come a long way. i hope that my colleagues will also come a long way and look at record, look at the facts. as i've said, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. in short, mr. president, i'm proud to support judge sotomayor's nomination, and i believe she will make an excellent supreme court justice. she knows the law, she knows the constitution. but she knows america too. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the republican time for the next hour -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the republican time for the next hour be allocated as follows: 15 minutes to myself, 15 minutes to senator martinez, 10 minutes to senator bond, and 10 minutes to senator cornyn. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: i thank the president. mr. president, i rise today to express my thoughts on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be the united states supreme court justice.

votes on the supreme court nominees are among the most important cast by a senator and these nominations warrant a full and indeptd debate. we are, afterall, considering the lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. i won't spend much time this morning going through the impressive background of judge sotomayor because i think all members agree that her experience and her academic credentials meet the threshold of what the american people expect in a supreme court justice. as an alumnus of two of the most prestigious schools in the nation, with a lengthy judicial, judge sotomayor is certainly a quality nominee for the post. i'm also sure that she has inspired many throughout her noble career. more important than the ivy league schools and the length of public service, however, is the judicial record of a nominee and the decisions she's made during her tenure on the bench.

while many see a lengthy judicial record as something that could only be considered a positive factor in determining a nominee's suitability to serve in the highest court in the land, others, including myself, and many of my constituents, see it as an opportunity for a panna rammic view into the decision-making process of a nominee. just as i looked into the background and experience of judge roberts and judge alito, i did the same thing with judge sotomayor. and with all of the years she's served on the federal bench, she has plenty of case material to examining and -- to examine and consider. among the most important factors to determine one's suitability to the high court is the nominee's understanding an appreciation for the role they're about to take object on. other than having the ultimate say in the judicial branches analysis of the case at hand, the proverbial last word, it's

no different than a judge's role on any lower court. i believe a judge's role is to adhere to the longstanding case precedent and to apply the law according to a strict interpretation of the constitution. let me say let me say that again because i believe it's too important to go unheard. i believe a judge's role is to adhere to the long-standing case precedent and apply the law according to the strict interpretation of the united states constitution. that's my understanding of the judge's role in our country. others may have different views, and they certainly are entitled to them. as i've said, i'm troubled by her decisions in cases where she has appeared to rely on something other than well-settled law to come to a decision. my fear is that she was unable to separate her personal belief

system from that of the letter of the law. in our one-on-one mtings, judge sotomayor gave me her assurances that she would stick to the letter of the law. her judicial record indicates otherwise. particularly in a couple of very significant places and recent occurrences. and while my colleagues have mentioned both of them prior to me stating them again, today i think they bear repeating. both cases highlight how judge sotomayor adheres to applicable state precedent. first the ricci decision. i think it is important to look at her decision in ricci v. destefano. this is a case where she dismissed the claim of 19 white firefighters and one hispanic firefighter who alleged reverse discrimination based on the new

haven's connecticut's decision not to use the results of a promotional exam because not enough minorities would be eligible for promotion. in the ricci case, she rejected the firefighters' claim. and in a one h-f paragraph opinion, when questioned about it in the confirmation hearing, she maintained she was bound by precedent. potentially and ultimately legal landmark case warning a -- warranting a careful and thorough review of the facts at hand in the law to be interpreted, and judge sotomayor dismissed the claim in one paragraph. clearly a case with issues involving race and discrimination deserve more than a one-paragraph explanation and analysis. even the obama justice department could not defend her actions and submitted a brief to the supreme court on the matter. in it, they agreed that the decision by judge sotomayor should be vacated and that further proceedings on the case

were warranted. this is the justice department of the obama administration. when the supreme court issued their opinion in the case, they stated that the precedent relied on for her decision did not exist. did not exist. when pressed in the confirmation hearing about her decision, she avoided citing the particulars and simply explained that she was following established supreme court and second circuit precedent. the most troubling thing for me to grasp about this response is the supreme court says in their reversal of her decision that precedent for ricci did not exist at all. it was a 5-4 decision by the supreme court, but all nine justices disagreed with her reasoning, a unanimous rejection of her argument by the supreme

court. the supreme court said precedent did not exist. maloney vs. cuomo, a second amendment case, another decision of judge sotomayor that troubles my impression of her ability to separate her own beliefs from that of the letter of the law. and it was just decided this year. so recently in fact that it has not even had a chance to be reviewed by the supreme court of the united states. not to rehash the facts of the case in too much detail, but maloney vs. cuomo, judge sotomayor was faced with determining whether an individual right -- in this case, the right to bear arms -- could be also enforced against a state. she decided that the maloney case, after the historic heller decision, specifically concluded

without any explanation that the right to bear arms is in fact not a fundamental right, a conclusion that no other court has ever reached. as a matter of fact, i cosigned an amicus brief which supported the argument that the right to bear arms were a fundamental right and one that could not be taken away by government without the highest standard of review. this was the argument that ultimately favored the supreme court in their decision. to me, a lawyer, her decision in maloney stands directly contrary to what the supreme court had just concluded in the heller case. so not only did the supreme court set the precedent, she ignored the precedent of heller in the ruling of the maloney

case. how could judge sotomayor so distinctly and so openly come to the conclusion that bearing arms was not in fact a fundamental right when the supreme court just months before ruled the opposite way? where did her reasoning come from? well, i'm troubled by the lack of deference and adherence to the high court's decision, and it leads me to call into question the commitment she made to me in a one-on-one meeting. actions in this case -- actually decisions speak much louder than rhetoric. they're just two very recent clear examples of where her record as a judge, while lengthy, caused me to call into question her ability to apply case precedent to come to a decision that will affect the lives of north carolinians and the whole nation. these two decisions i've just cited are not examples of

missteps early in her career or decisions based on the lack of experience. these are decisions that judge sotomayor made more than after 17 years of experience on the federal bench. these are decisions made within the last year or so by a seasoned federal judge who's being considered for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of the united states of america. my esteemed colleague from north carolina mentioned in her speech supporting judge sotomayor that the late senator jesse helms, who was a dear friend of mine, supported the nomination of judge sotomayor to be a judge on the second circuit court of appeals. when senator helms -- when senator helms did not have -- when he reviewed her nomination, however, was the benefit of judge sotomayor's judicial

record during her decade of service on the appellate court. it is imperative that all members of the senate look at the cases that judges have decided and not just say they have been through the confirmation process in the senate, therefore it should be automatic the second time. their decisions weigh on the relevance of their nomination and on their confirmation. now, i'm sure her impressive academic and professional resume influenced senator helms, and i'm sure he gave her the benefit of the doubt without any questions, or reason to question how she might rule on the bench. i have and the senate has. the benefit of reviewing judge sotomayor's actual decisions as a circuit judge in addition to her statements to the record. i have the benefit of seeing if she stuck to the letter of the

law as she stated she would do in her testimony when nominated for the appellate court in 1998. and she's not. she has not stuck to the letter of the law. in 1998 she said in response to a question from the current ranking member of the judiciary committee -- and i quote -- "sir, i do not believe we should bend the constitution under any circumstance. it says what it says. we should do honor to it." unquote. well, quite frankly, mr. president, i believe that she bent the constitution when she ruled in the maloney case that the rights -- the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right of the american people. i have repeatedly said that the decisions made by the supreme court affect the lives of every american. after taking into consideration

judge sotomayor's answers to my questions, reviewing her decisions that appear to have departed from the normal principles of jurisprudence, i find little predictability in her decisions and the implications they might have. i'm concerned by the several examples where i believe judge sotomayor strayed from the rules of strict statutory construction and legal precedence and went with her own deeply held beliefs while providing little in the way of explanations. therefore, mr. president, i am unable to support her nomination to the supreme court. i realize that at the conclusion of the next several days, judge sotomayor has the votes to be a chief justice to the supreme court. and i will continue to watch the

decisions that she makes based upon the answers she provided to me. but as most, if not all, have stated, this is a lifetime appointment. the debate that happens over the next 48 hours will determine in many cases whether a change might happen in this nomination. we cannot end this debate without the realizeation that we will live for generations to come. with the decisions of this court, the next court, and the next court. and it will be just as incumbent on members of the united states senate in the future to make sure that those nominees are debated thoroughly, that their records are reviewed in great detail and that their pledge to

protect the constitution of the united states of america and to follow it as a justice is upheld. my hope is that i'm incorrect about how judge sotomayor will in fact use the constitution. today i announce that i will vote against her. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. martinez: mr. president, i rise today also to speak on the nomination of judge sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states, and i'm happy to have this opportunity for i view this historic moment in many, many ways. the confirmation of a supreme court nominee is really one of

the most solemn and unique duties in our constitutional system of government. the framers recognizing the risk of abuse inherent in a lifetime judicial appointment created a process that brings together all three branches of the federal government. the constitution, article 2, section 2, requires that a nominee to the federal court must be selected by the president -- and then i quote -- "with the advice and consent of the senate." so these moments must be appreciated and approached with a great deal of thoughtfulness and respect. this is all the more true when the appointment is to our highest court, the supreme court of the united states. there was a time when members of the senate seemed to better understand their role, where senators expected a president of the other party to pick a judge who would likely be different than someone they would have picked. and there's a couple of examples

i'd like to use. justice ginsburg, a very talented person who served as general counsel to the aclu, not likely to have been someone selected by a republican president. but, yet she was confirmed with 95 votes. republicans knew that she would be a liberal justice, but she was also well qualified for the judge. that's another example, and that's justice antonin scalia. he was picked by a republican president and received 98 votes. every democrat knew or probably should have known that they were voting for a conservative. but they also understood that then-judge scalia was incredibly qualified and should be serving on the united states supreme court given that he had been nominated by a president and had the requisite qualifications, which is really in the essence of what this confirmation process is and should be about.

but things have changed since those votes. they've changed from what is historically acceptable and what has been the long historic tradition of the senate when it comes to senate confirmations of judicial nominees. over the past decade, i believe the senate has lost sight of its role to advice and consent. i'll notice another example, miguel estrada and chief justice roberts illustrate have politics have been permitted to overwhelm the question posed to the senate, is this nominee qualified? do you give your advice an consent? my colleagues will recall that mr. estrada was first nominated by the first president bush to the d.c. circuit in may of 2001. he was unanimously rated well qualified for the bench by the

american bar association. mr. estrada had an impressive history and personal story and res. may. -- resume. he was a native of honorus, graduated magna cum laude and received his law degree from harvard in 1986 where he was a member of the harvard law review and clerked for supreme court justice -- justice kennedy. mr. president estrada entered private practice and was a well-respected lawyer working in a new york law firm. served as assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york where i believe our nominee also served. then mr. estrada took a job in the george h. administration as an assistant solicitor general. what do they do? they prepare and argue cases before the supreme court. what could be a better training ground in addition to a prior clerkship for a court -- for a court member than to be a

solicitor general? as a long-time attorney, i always admired greatly those who served in that office because they were the very best of the very best. but politics intervened. he was branded a conservative. through the course of an unprecedented seven cloture votes, democrats in this body filibustered her nomination. time and again filibustered his nomination. it lingered for 28 months until he finally exhausted, wanting to get on with his life, knowing that he needed to be able to continue to do work for clients, that he couldn't continue to be in a limbo where he was for 28 months because of the misguided notion that he was just too conservative. it was ok to filibuster him and for 28 months hanging, dangling in the wind. that was not right. it was not the -- for the

supreme court. some feared that it might be. he might have been the first hispanic serving in the supreme court nominated by, perhaps, a republican president. while the nominations of chief justice roberts and justice alito ended quite different than mr. estrada. during the debates of roberts and alito, then senator barak obama declared each man to be qualified to sit on the supreme court. then judge john roberts, senator obama said, and i quote -- "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind judge roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court of the land." to which i would then say, so why won't you vote for him? he then said of judge alito -- quote -- "i have no doubt that judge alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. he is an intelligent man and accomplished jurist, thereon is

no indication that he's not man of great character." now despite the emphatic statements of confidence, then senator obama voted against confirmation. and why? because of his perception that their philosophy would not allow him to vote for them. given this record some of my colleagues conclude that what is good for the goose is good for the grander. that because of -- gander. because of these recent presidents and despite her qualification, they still might vote against judge sotomayor's nomination. i couldn't disagree more heartly. it is my hope starting today we will no longer do what was done to miguel estrada. that beginning today no member will pursue a course an come to the floor of this chamber to argue against the confirmation of a qualified nominee. so what about our current nominee? what makes her qualified? well, first, i think we do have in judge sotomayor a very historic moment and opportunity.

it will be the first hispanic to serve on the highest court of this land. it is a -- a momentous and historic opportunity. but that's not good enough. what makes her qualified? well, i think that experience, knowledge of the law, temperment, the ability to apply the law without bias. these qualifications should override all over considerations when the senate fulfills its role to advise and consent to the president's nominee as dictated by the constitutional charge that we have. these are really the standards by which we, as a body, should determine who is qualified to serve on any federal court including the highest court of the land. these are the standards i have used in evaluating judge sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. she has the experience. she knows the lawsm she has the proper temperment. and here's something that's very important, her 17-year judicial

record overwhelmingly indicates that she will apply the law without bias. and that's really very important. because, you know, we could find someone who really is facially qualified, but whose views might be for some reason so outside the mainstream, so different than what the norm of our jurisprudence would be, that it might presentedder them, while factually qualified, unqualified. that they could not be relied on to look at the case and apply the facts and the evidence and apply the law to the evidence presented, that they would not follow the law, that they would not be faithful to their oath. because of their views would be so extreme. so outside the mainstream. so completely beyond what would be the norm or considered to be the norm. but here in this person we have a 17-year record. she has written thousands of

opinions. and these opinions ought to provide the body of law of what she does as a judge, not what she said to a group of students one day trying to encourage them in their lives and what they might be doing. not what someone might have from reading an opinion and perhaps not agree with. it is not whether we agree with her outcomes or not, whether her opinions have a reason, had a foundation in law, whether they were reasonable and whether she based them on law and evidence that are supported by sound, legal thinking. even her worst critics cannot cite a single instance where she strayed from sound judicial thinking. i believe she will serve as an outstanding associate justice to the united states supreme court. and that she will be a terrific role model for many, many young people in this country.

where i've had to have my opportunity to pick -- were i to have my opportunity to pick, i would have chosen someone different from judge sotomayor. that's not my job. i don't get to select judges. i get to give advice an consent. we sometimes confuse the role of the senate. elections have consequences. some of her writings might indicate that her philosophy might be more liberal than mine. that is what happens in elections. when i was campaigning for my colleague and their friend, john mccain, i knew it would be important because there would be vacancies to the court and i knew i would be much more comfortable with a nominee that john mccain would nominate than one that my former colleague and friend president president obama would nominate. the president has the obligation, the responsibility to choose his own nominees. our job is to give advice an consent. -- and consent.

the president has chosen a nominee and my vote for her confirmation will be based solely and wholly on relevant qualifications. judge sotomayor is well qualified. she's been a federal judge for 17 years. she has the most experience of any person, judicial experience, on the bench experience of any person nominated for the court in a century -- in 100 years, there hasn't been anyone who has been on the bench with such a distinguished record for such a long period of time. and that's why, by the way, her record is really her judicial decisions. we don't have to wonder. we don't have to sit around and try to divine whether some day she will answer the siren call to judicial activism as i heard someone say on the floor of the senate. it might give you an excuse to vote against someone who is otherwise qualified. the fact is with a 17-year

record, you should have a pretty good idea if that si ren call was answered now. to my estimation it hasn't been. she received the highest possible rating from the judicial bar association for a judicial candidate. equal to that of miguel estrada and chief justice roberts and justice alito. she was an outstanding lawyer and as a prosecutor beings she was a tough one. her 17-year judicial record reflects that, while she may be left of center, she is certainly well within the mainstream of legal thinking. her mainstream approach -- her mainstream approach is so mainstream that it has earned her the support of the united states chamber of commerce as well as the endorsement of several law enforcement an criminal justice organizations. she's been endorsed by the

national fraternal order of police, the national sheriff's association and the international association of chiefs of police. i dare say she'll be a strong voice for law and order in our country. now, i disagree with judge sotomayor about several issues. i would expect to have disagreements with many judicial nominees of the obama administration, but probably fewer with her than some that i might see in the future. although i might disagree with some of her rulings, we know she has a commitment to well-reasoned decisions, decisions that seek with restraint to apply the law as written. i do believe that she will rule with are restrain. that has been her judicial history and philosophy. her view in her panels maloney v. cuomo opinion is too narrow and contrary to the founder's

intent. i know that there is significant and well-reasoned disagreement among the nation's appellate courts on this issue. in other words, not out of the mainstream. on this issue i accept the idea that reasonable people may differ. this debate raises critical and difficult issues regarding the role of federalism in the application of fundamental constitutional rights. but the confirmation process is not the proper place to relitigate this question nor is judge sotomayor's judicial record on this issue outside the mainstream. i believe that her statements on the role of international law and american jurisprudence reflect the view that is too expansive. yet her judicial record indicates that in practice she has given only limited, if any weight, to foreign court decisions. now, for example, in cr

craellv.croll, involving the hague convention on international child abduction, judge sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion which she held that the courts of the foreign nations interpreting the same convention, we were -- quote -- "not essential to her reasoning." i believe that some of her statements that she made on her speeches about the role of one's personal experience are inconsistent with the judicial oaths requirement that judges set aside their personal bias when making those decisions. and there are several of my colleagues to say these statements demonstrate that judge sotomayor has had a judicial activist in hiding. this is not supported by the facts. we can throw it out there, but it's not supported by the facts. the relevant facts, her 17-year judicial record shows that she has not allowed her personal biases to influence her jurisprudence. they can talk about her

speeches, but they cannot talk about a single, solitary opinion in 17 years on the bench where that type of a view has been given life. where that type of a view has found itself into the pages of a single one of her opinions. i would rather put my trust and my expectations for the future on her 17-year record of judicial decisions than i would on one or two speeches as she might have given over 10 or 15 years. those who oppose judge sotomayor have yet to produce any objective evidence that she has allowed her personal bias to influence her judicial decision making. moreover, in her testimony before the judiciary committee, she reiterated her fidelity to the law that as a justice she would adhere to the law regardless of the outcome it required. so based on my review, her judicial record, her testimony before the judiciary committee,

i am satisfied that judge sotomayor is well qualified to sit on our nation's highest court. i intend to vote for her confirmation and i intend to also be very proud of her service on the supreme court of the united states where i think, again, she will serve a -- a very historic and unique role to many people in this nation who i know will look to her with great pride. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bond: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: mr. president, i rise today to speak on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states. few positions carry more honor or solemn duty than becoming a justice of the highest court of the greatest democracy. also, few duties carry more honor or solemn responsibility than giving advice and consent on who should become a justice of the highest court. the walls of the supreme court form the vessel that holds the

great protections of our liberty. the black robes give life to the constitution's freedoms and flourishing of our ideas and beliefs. if the congress is the heart of democracy, walk to the drumbeat of the people, then the supreme court is our soul, guiding us on what is wrong and what is right. in my role as a senator voting to fill that vessel, issuing those robes, i always look to the constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent. it's an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator when i voted for or against legislation before this body. indeed, if the constitution means for us merely to vote on nominees by simple supermajorities, they could easily have said so. if we were meant to do nothing more than cast a vote based on whether we agree or disagreed with a nominee, where should we be then? would the hauls of government be empty every time a president faced a congress of the opposite party? would the cabinet sit empty because of partisan divide? would vacancies to the supreme court go unfilled because a majority of one party simply

disagreed with the president of another? of course, that could not have been the intent of the framers. what kind of justices would we have when nothing more than partisan majority divides? when a senate controlled by the opposite party allow only the most moderate of voices or justices with no voice at all? we would approve only justices that said nothing or wrote nothing with which the majority disagreed? if some are saying that a democratic president should not have a liberal justice, does that mean a republican president should not have conservative justices? that's not something i could support. for i surely supported judicial conservative justices such as roberts, alito, thomas, and bo bork. and certainly justice scalia, had i been in the senate at the time. that's the kind of justice i support, a judge who calls balls and strikes like an umpire, not letting their own personal view bias the outcome of that trial. the statute of justice is blindfolded for a reason. you cannot tip the scales of justice with prejudice or bias

or belief. but i've supported justices with whom i've disagreed on this philosophy. justices pryor and ginsburg come to mind. they take a more active role in shaping their decisions to fit an ideal of their own vision. supported these nominees of a democratic president, as did 86 of my colleagues for justice breyer. 95 of my colleagues for justice ginsburg. i hope those votes do not reflect a time that has slipped away when partisanship did not infect every facet of our political life. i could not forget that time, as regrettably president obama did when he was in the senate. i could easily say, as senator obama said, that i disagree with a nominee's judicial approach and that allows me to oppose the nominee of a different party. luckily for president obama, i do not agree with senator obama. i reject the obama approach to nominees. while i reject the way that senator obama approached nominations, that does not mean that i support the way judge

sotomayor approaches judging. i disagree that civil rights of a firefighter mean so thatle they do not deserve -- so little that they do not deserve even a full opinion before an appeals court. i disagree that we should inspire with suggestions that wisdom has anything to do with the sex of a person or the color of their skin. i disagree that judges should ever consider foreign law when looking for meaning in the u.s. statutes and constitution. i disagree that the second amendment's protection of an individual right to bear arms does not apply to states. but i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself a well-qualified jurist. i do agree that she has proven herself as a talented and accomplished student, federal prosecutor, corporate litigator, federal trial judge and federal appeals court judge. she has the backing of many in the law enforcement community, including the fraternal order of police, the national sheriffs association, and the national association of district attorneys. i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself as a leader

of her community who inspires the pride and hopes of a growing and large portion of our american melting pot. i do agree that judge sotomayor has proven herself as a symbol of breaking through glass ceilings, and i do agree that my choice for president did not win the last election and that our people's democracy has spoken for the change and they're getting it. elections do have consequences. now, hearing the call of that decision of our democracy does not mean that i support the president and everything he's proposed. i do not agree with the stimulus that has meant only more government spending and national debt, as unemployment continues to rise. i do not agree with cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy taxes, kill millions of jobs without even changing the climate because china and india refuse to do the same. i do not agree with a government takeover of health care that would force millions of americans off their current health care, drive health care costs even higher for families,

ration care, restrict access to the latest cures and treatments, and put health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients. but i do agree that the country is tired of partisanship infecting every debate. the country is tired of actions by a congress becoming a political battle. and so while i do not follow the hypocrisy of many of my democratic colleagues who refuse to -- refused to support justice roberts and alito because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy and now suggest that republicans not do the same. i respect and agree with the legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote "no." but i will follow the direction of the past and my hope for the future with less polarization, less confrontation, less partisanship. my friends in the party can be assured that i will work as hard as anybody to ensure that the next presidential election has consequences in the opposite direction. for my conservative friends, the best way to ensure that we have conservative judges on the bench

is to work to see that we elect presidents who will nominate them. then we can resume filling the bench with more judges like justices roberts and alito, scalia, thomas. for my liberal friends, i hope they remember this day, when another qualified nominee before the senate who is conservative. the standards set by senator obama should not govern the senate. as for judge sotomayor, she has accomplishments and qualities that have always meant senate confirmation for such a nomination. the senate has reviewed her nomination and has asked her its questions. there's been no significant finding against her. there's been no public uprising against her. i do not believe that the constitution tells me that i should refuse to support her merely because i disagree with her on some cases. i will support her, i'll be proud for her, the community she represents, and the american dream she shows is possible. i will cast my vote in favor of

the nomination of judge sotomayor and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would like to address the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. as well. i've spoken about this nomination several times, both here on the senate floor and on the senate judiciary committee on which i serve. i've shared what i admire about judge sotomayor, including her long experience as a federal judge, her academic background, which is stellar, and her record of making decisions that, for the most part, are within the judicial mainstream. i've also explained before why i will vote against this nomination, and i'd like to reiterate and expand on some of

those comments here today, as all of us are stating our intrengsz this historic vote which i suspect will be held sometime tomorrow. firsts, i cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the united states supreme court who will restrict several of the fundamental rights and liberties in our constitution, including our bill of rights. based on her decision in the maloney case, judge sotomayor apparently does not believe that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. indeed, she held in that case that the second amendment did not apply to the states and local jurisdictions that might impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. and then based on her decision in the didden v. village of port chester case, she apparently does not believe that

the takings clause of the fifth amendment protects private property owners when that private property is taken by government for the purpose of giving it to another private property owner, in this case, a private developer. i'm very concerned when the government -- the government's power to condemn properly -- condemn property for a private purpose conflicts with the stated intention of the framers of the constitution that the right of condemnation of private property only extend to public uses and then and only then when just compensation is paid. and then based upon her decision in the ricci case -- this is the new haven firefighter case -- which calls into question her commitment to ensure that equal treatment applies to all of us when it comes to our jobs or promotions without regard to the color of our skin. indeed, in that case, because of her failure to even acknowledge the seriousness and novelty of

the claims being made by the new haven firefighters, she gave short stloift those claims -- short shrift to those claims in an unpublished -- unpublished order and denied frank ricci, ben vargus and other new haven firefighters an opportunity for a promotion even though they excelled in a competitive race-neutral examination because of the color of their skin. fortunately the supreme court of the united states saw fit to overrule judge sotomayor's judgment in the firefighter case and millions of americans became aware, perhaps for the first time, of this notorious decision and what a morass some of our laws have created when, in fact, distinguished judges like judge sotomayor think they have no choice but to allow people to be denied a promotion based upon the color of their skin for fear of a disparate impact lawsuit even when substantial evidence is missing that such a disparate

impact lawsuit would, in fact, have any merit or likely be successful th. mr. president, i cannot vote to confirm a nominee who has publicly expressed some very radical legal theories percolating in the faculty lounges of our nation's law schools. we all heard this during the confirmation hearings. frankly, judge sotomayor's explanations were unconvincing. previously she has said there is no such thing as neutrality or objectivity in the law. merely a series of perspectives. thus, i think under mining the very concept of equal justice under the law. if the law is not neutral, if the law is not objective, then apparently according to her at least at that time the law is purely subjective and outcomes will be determined on which judge you get regard than what the law says. she has said in one notorious

youtube video that it is the role of judges to make policy on the court of appeals. she has said that foreign law can get the creative juices flowing as judges interpret the united states constitution. and she has said that ethnicity and gender can influence a judge's decision and judges of a particular ethnicity or gender can actually make better decisions than individuals of a different gender and ethnicity. third, i cannot vote to confirm a judicial nominee who testified before the judiciary committee that her most controversial decisions were guided by precedent when her colleagues on the second circuit and, indeed, the justices of the united states supreme court who reversed her, said just the opposite. or who testified that she meant the exact office of what she

said when she said something controversial and was trying to explain that. or a person who testified that she had no idea what legal positions the puerto rican legal defense fund was taking even though she chaired the litigation committee of its border of drs. of -- its board of directors. the hearings before the senate judiciary committee have a very important purpose. and that purpose is informed by article 2 of the united states constitution to provide advice and consent on nominations. it's not to serve as a rubber stamp. i heard colleagues say elections have consequences and the president won. well, that's obvious. that's evident. the elections have consequences and that the president obama won. but that does not negate or erase the obligation each united states senator has under the same clause and article of the constitution to provide advice and consent based on our best

judgment and good conscience. in the case of judge sotomayor the question becomes, what will she do with the immense power given to a member of the united states supreme court? what impact will she have on rights and liberties over the course of a lifetime -- which, of course, this appointment is for life. in short, the question is, what kind of judge will she be on the supreme court where her decisions are no longer reviewed by a higher court as they were as a federal district court or court of appeals justice. the question is, will she be the judge she has been as a lower court judge making decisions which, by and large, have been in the mainstream with some notable exceptions and i've talked about? or will she be untethered? will she be judge sotomayor of some of her more radical speeches and writings which cause me concern? the answers to these questions,

i regret, are no clearer after the hearings than they were before. the stakes, i believe, are simply too high to confirm someone who could redefine the law of the land from a liberal perspective. mr. president, i respect different views of different senators on this nomination and i have no doubt that judge sotomayor will be confirmed. but i am unwilling to abdicate the responsibility i believe i have as united states senator when it comes to voting my conscience and expressing my reservations. the united states senate developed our confirmation process for a very important purpose: to learn more about the individual nominees. but over the last several weeks we've also learned more, i think, about a rising consensus with regard to what we should expect from a judge. i'd like to highlight two important lessons that we've learned this summer. one this is encouraging to me

and one that is worrisome. let's start with the good news. i believe that republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee -- indeed judge sotomayor herself -- seemed to say the appropriate judicial philosophy for nominees to the federal bench is one that expresses fidelity to the law and nothing else. over years we have been debating whether we have an only understanding of the constitution or some evolving constitution even though that can be interpreted in different ways even though the words on the pain read exactlonthe papere went back and forth on the merits and judicial activism, judges imposing their views as opposed to interpreting the law passed by congress or in a written constitution. on many occasions our disagreements over judicial philosophy were anything but sill. and dignifyd.

i think of the nomination of miguel estrada, to the second highest court in the land. although an immigrant himself from honduras who did not speak english when he came to the united states but who graduated there the top universities and law schools in this country, he was filibustered seven times and denied an up-or-down vote. one member of the judiciary committee, disparaging mr. estrada emphasis character called him a stealth missile with a nose cone out of the right wing deep silo. and samuel alito, an italian american, proud of his heritage who had to defend himself before the judiciary committee against false charges of bigotry, accusations which left his wife in tears. and then clarence thomas, perhaps the one we all remember

the best, an african-american nominee to the united states supreme court who described his experience before the judiciary committee this way: this is a circus, a national disgrace. and from my standpoint as a black american, it's a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks. now, these nominees, mr. president, were accused at various times of certain offenses even though the real crime as we all know was a crime of conscience. they dared to be judicial conservatives, a philosophy that the nominee that we're talking about here today and senate democrats now appear to embrace. i hope these days of the unfair and uncivil and undignified scwk scwk hearings are behind us. i hope our hearings are more respectful of the nominees, as was this hearing for judge

sotomayor. she, herself, proclaimed she could not have received fairer treatment. and i appreciated her acknowledging the fairness and dignity of the process. i hope the thought crimes of yesterday have now become the foundation for a new bipartisan consensus; that the views that judge sotomayor affirmed at her hearing that we affirm both as republicans and democrats and the views judge sotomayor rejected, we rejected as both republicans and democrats. let me give an example of this new what appears to be a bipartisan consensus on appropriate judicial misany for philosophy.judge sotomayor saidt of the founders was set forth in the constitution. it is their words that are the most important aspect of judging. you follow what they said in their words and you apply it to the facts you are looking at.

i can't think of a better expression of a modest and judicially restrained philosophy that i embrace that what judge sotomayor said at the hearing and both republicans and democrats appeared to be pleased with that statement. we agreed that foreign law has no place in constitutional interpretation. notwithstanding we are earlier statements judge sotomayor said at the hearing "foreign law cannot be used as a holding or precedent or to bind or influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law." now, as i said, notwithstanding her earlier statements, i agree with that estimate that she made at the hearing and i believe both republicans and democrats were satisfied with that statement, as well. we agreed that empathy or what's in a person's heart, to borrow a phrase from then senator oh bomb, should not influence the

decision -- senator oh bomb, should not influence the decisions of a judge. we were surprised when judge sotomayor rejected president obama's standard and said she wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does. judges can't rely on what's in their heart, she said, they don't determine the law; congress makes the law. the job of a judge is to apply the law so it's not the heart that compels conclusion of cases but the law. i agree with that statement and republicans and democrats alike appear to embrace that statement of an appropriate judicial philosophy. no one defended the statement that then senator obama regarding empathy or what was in a person's heart. i was encouraged to see that. supporters of judge sotomayor appear willing to accept her statements that i've just quoted at the judiciary committee at face value. i hope they're right.

i really do. i certainly intend to take my colleagues' agreement with these statements at face value and i expect future nominees to the federal judiciary will conform to this new consensus articulated by judge sotomayor at her hague. her -- at her hearings and embraced in a bipartisan fashion by members of the judiciary committee. i have no question about the outcome of this vote on judge sotomayor but i regret for the reasons i stated because i cannot reconcile her previous statements with her testimony at the judiciary committee that i wish judge sotomayor well as she serves on the united states supreme court. i hope my concerns i have raised here and the uncertainty i have about what kind of justice she will be, she will prove those concerns unjustified by the way she distinguishes herself as a pen of the united states supreme court. i hope her tenure will

strengthen the court and fidelity to the constitution. i congratulate her and loved ones on her historic achievement. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: