Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, one of our most powerful tools to combat domestic violence and other crimes perpetrated against women and families. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. This landmark legislation filled a void in Federal law that left many victims without the help they needed. In commemorating this milestone, I would like to recognize the leadership of Vice President Joe Biden. His dedication to eliminating violence against women and families was vital to our success in passing the original legislation and subsequent reauthorizations. I am proud to have worked with him on this important matter for nearly two decades. As a prosecutor in Vermont earlier in my career, I witnessed the devastating impact of domestic violence and sexual assault. I saw how it affects people from all walks of life, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class or sexuality. Our Nation has made remarkable progress since that time in recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes, and we have responded with better laws, social support, and coordinated community resources. Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, domestic violence reporting rates by women have increased by as much as 50 percent, and reporting rates by men have risen by 37 percent. At the same time, the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men. These are huge improvements, and we should be proud of the work we have accomplished together. There is, of course, more work to be done. Millions of women, men, children, and families continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of crime, violence and suffering. Earlier this year, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on the ongoing importance of VAWA. We heard from individuals around the country who shared with us the impact the law has had on their lives and the continuing need to strengthen it. We have been hearing for some time about important steps we can take to enhance VAWA, which is why at the beginning of this year I introduced the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2009, a bill to make several needed corrections and improvements to VAWA. Among other important changes, this bill would bolster privacy protections for victims of domestic violence and offer greater help in rural and tribal areas. These improvements would ensure that the law is as effective and strong as it was intended to be and that it meets the needs of those it seeks to protect. We were able to report this bill from the Judiciary Committee in May but with an amendment that has complicated further progress. On this 15th anniversary, it is important that we pause to celebrate what we have accomplished. There is no doubt we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, but we know more work remains to be done. I look forward to working together with other Senators, the Obama-Biden administration, and experts in the field to ensure that VAWA remains a vital resource for prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, and, most importantly, the women and families who are threatened with violence and abuse.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the past decade we have witnessed tremendous development in the way video content is made available to consumers. Today, as a result of digital technology, we can watch movies, television programs, and other video not only on our television sets, but also on our computers, phones, and other mobile devices. In order to maximize the potential of digital content, Congress must ensure that our copyright and communications laws are modernized and updated to accommodate the digital revolution. Today, I join with Senators Sessions, Kohl, Hatch, and Kyl in introducing the Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009. Our legislation will reauthorize, modernize, and simplify important portions of the statutory license used by satellite providers that will otherwise expire at the end of this year. The transition to digital television requires Congress to modernize the statutory copyright licenses that allow cable and satellite providers to retransmit the content of local broadcast stations. In February, many stations across the country, including those in Vermont, made the digital transition and can now offer multiple programming channels over a single, crystal-clear digital signal. In June, the remaining broadcast stations across the country completed the digital transition. The current statutory licenses, however, are based on the now outdated analog standard. In our reauthorization, we seek to ensure that the licenses work properly in the digital world. In June 2008, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a report on the statutory licenses, and offered recommendations on how to improve the current system. The Copyright Office's principal recommendation was to move toward abolishing the compulsory licenses, in particular the distant signal licenses. Short of that, the Copyright Office offered suggestions on how to harmonize and streamline the licenses. The legislation we introduce today draws on the recommendations of the Copyright Office and takes important steps toward limiting future reliance on the section 119 distant signal license used by satellite providers. This legislation will move locally oriented elements out of the distant signal license--such as the special exception that allows Vermonters in the State's southern-most counties to receive Vermont broadcast stations by satellite--and place them into the section 122 license, which facilitates the retransmission of local content with the consent of the broadcaster. The bill will also fix an anomaly in the distant signal license, which will make it easier for satellite providers to serve local markets that are missing a network affiliate. Making these changes will improve the ability of satellite providers to deliver a full complement of network stations to consumers, as well as make it easier for them to offer local stations. In Vermont, these changes will have the additional benefit of fostering competition between DISH Network and DirecTV, by allowing DISH to offer Vermont broadcast stations in southern Vermont, a service DirecTV provides today. The legislation also adds a new provision to the local license that will allow satellite providers such as DISH to import a missing network station from an adjacent market when the local market is not served by all four principle networks, after the provider first obtains the station's consent. This new provision will make it more likely and reasonable for DISH to launch local service in these markets, which is good for local broadcasters, good for satellite providers, and good for consumers. These changes will not only improve the satellite licenses, but will begin the process of phasing out the distant signal license as satellite providers offer local service in more markets. As the distant signal license fades, Congress should follow the Copyright Office's suggestion and move ultimately toward a market-based system, in which statutory licenses are unnecessary. One further step we can take toward a marketplace model this year is to allow broadcast stations to opt-out of the statutory licenses. All non-broadcast channels carried by cable and satellite providers, such as ESPN and the USA Network, are able to aggregate a complex series of content rights, and negotiate for carriage in the free market. Local broadcasters should be permitted to do the same if they, too, are able to aggregate the necessary rights to license directly to cable and satellite providers. This is a proposal I expect the Judiciary Committee to examine as the bill moves through the mark up process. I encourage all industry participants to work with the Committee so that we can address any concerns about this market-based approach. Short of repealing the compulsory licenses, the Copyright Office recommended harmonizing the cable and satellite licenses in order to create regulatory parity between the two industries. The section 111 license used by cable, for instance, is based on FCC rules that have long since been repealed, and the license itself has not been significantly updated since it was established more than 30 years ago. The arcane nature of the cable license can at times produce unintended results, such as cable companies paying copyright holders for content that consumers do not actually receive. This is referred to as the phantom signal problem. In contrast, satellite companies pay a flat, per subscriber rate based on consumers actually receiving a broadcast station. Comprehensive reforms to section 111 that aim to modernize the statute and create regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers would address these disparities. We take a more modest approach in the bill we introduce today. The legislation contains an amendment that will resolve the phantom signal issue. I appreciate that members of the content community and the cable system came together to find a solution on which they can all agree. The Satellite Television Modernization Act is one component of the reauthorization. Portions of the expiring law are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and I look forward to working with the leadership of that Committee, and our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to enact legislation that once again improves the law by fostering competition, protecting broadcasters, and improving service to consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during the past decade we have witnessed tremendous development in the way video content is made available to consumers. Today, as a result of digital technology, we can watch movies, television programs, and other video not only on our television sets, but also on our computers, phones, and other mobile devices. In order to maximize the potential of digital content, Congress must ensure that our copyright and communications laws are modernized and updated to accommodate the digital revolution. Today, I join with Senators Sessions, Kohl, Hatch, and Kyl in introducing the Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009. Our legislation will reauthorize, modernize, and simplify important portions of the statutory license used by satellite providers that will otherwise expire at the end of this year. The transition to digital television requires Congress to modernize the statutory copyright licenses that allow cable and satellite providers to retransmit the content of local broadcast stations. In February, many stations across the country, including those in Vermont, made the digital transition and can now offer multiple programming channels over a single, crystal-clear digital signal. In June, the remaining broadcast stations across the country completed the digital transition. The current statutory licenses, however, are based on the now outdated analog standard. In our reauthorization, we seek to ensure that the licenses work properly in the digital world. In June 2008, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a report on the statutory licenses, and offered recommendations on how to improve the current system. The Copyright Office's principal recommendation was to move toward abolishing the compulsory licenses, in particular the distant signal licenses. Short of that, the Copyright Office offered suggestions on how to harmonize and streamline the licenses. The legislation we introduce today draws on the recommendations of the Copyright Office and takes important steps toward limiting future reliance on the section 119 distant signal license used by satellite providers. This legislation will move locally oriented elements out of the distant signal license--such as the special exception that allows Vermonters in the State's southern-most counties to receive Vermont broadcast stations by satellite--and place them into the section 122 license, which facilitates the retransmission of local content with the consent of the broadcaster. The bill will also fix an anomaly in the distant signal license, which will make it easier for satellite providers to serve local markets that are missing a network affiliate. Making these changes will improve the ability of satellite providers to deliver a full complement of network stations to consumers, as well as make it easier for them to offer local stations. In Vermont, these changes will have the additional benefit of fostering competition between DISH Network and DirecTV, by allowing DISH to offer Vermont broadcast stations in southern Vermont, a service DirecTV provides today. The legislation also adds a new provision to the local license that will allow satellite providers such as DISH to import a missing network station from an adjacent market when the local market is not served by all four principle networks, after the provider first obtains the station's consent. This new provision will make it more likely and reasonable for DISH to launch local service in these markets, which is good for local broadcasters, good for satellite providers, and good for consumers. These changes will not only improve the satellite licenses, but will begin the process of phasing out the distant signal license as satellite providers offer local service in more markets. As the distant signal license fades, Congress should follow the Copyright Office's suggestion and move ultimately toward a market-based system, in which statutory licenses are unnecessary. One further step we can take toward a marketplace model this year is to allow broadcast stations to opt-out of the statutory licenses. All non-broadcast channels carried by cable and satellite providers, such as ESPN and the USA Network, are able to aggregate a complex series of content rights, and negotiate for carriage in the free market. Local broadcasters should be permitted to do the same if they, too, are able to aggregate the necessary rights to license directly to cable and satellite providers. This is a proposal I expect the Judiciary Committee to examine as the bill moves through the mark up process. I encourage all industry participants to work with the Committee so that we can address any concerns about this market-based approach. Short of repealing the compulsory licenses, the Copyright Office recommended harmonizing the cable and satellite licenses in order to create regulatory parity between the two industries. The section 111 license used by cable, for instance, is based on FCC rules that have long since been repealed, and the license itself has not been significantly updated since it was established more than 30 years ago. The arcane nature of the cable license can at times produce unintended results, such as cable companies paying copyright holders for content that consumers do not actually receive. This is referred to as the phantom signal problem. In contrast, satellite companies pay a flat, per subscriber rate based on consumers actually receiving a broadcast station. Comprehensive reforms to section 111 that aim to modernize the statute and create regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers would address these disparities. We take a more modest approach in the bill we introduce today. The legislation contains an amendment that will resolve the phantom signal issue. I appreciate that members of the content community and the cable system came together to find a solution on which they can all agree. The Satellite Television Modernization Act is one component of the reauthorization. Portions of the expiring law are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and I look forward to working with the leadership of that Committee, and our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to enact legislation that once again improves the law by fostering competition, protecting broadcasters, and improving service to consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last Friday was the eighth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and we solemnly remembered the thousands of innocent lives, of many nationalities and religions, that were so cruelly and indiscriminately destroyed on that infamous day. It was a defining moment for our country, and since then we have sought to address the shocking intelligence and security failures that enabled the perpetrators to so brazenly enter this country and carry out those attacks, as well as to track down the masterminds of that atrocity and to destroy al-Qaida and other terrorist networks that have become a global menace. We all recognize the threat that violent extremists pose to Americans, as well as to citizens of other countries, and the imperative of countering it. This should not be a matter of partisan politics, but of working together in a common purpose for the sake of law abiding people everywhere. I supported many of the initiatives of the Bush administration, as I have the Obama administration, to make our borders more secure, to improve our intelligence gathering, to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. But there have been strong differences over what tactics to use, and the effectiveness of military force to combat violent extremism in countries where we are widely seen as invaders or occupiers. No issue has generated more controversy than the Bush Administration's abuse of detainees, whether at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, other secret detention facilities around the world, or through the use of ``extraordinary rendition'' whereby prisoners were secretly delivered to the custody of foreign security forces whose use of torture was well documented. These policies and practices, conceived and supported at the highest levels of the Bush administration, justified by Department of Justice lawyers who made a mockery of the law, and steadfastly defended as recently as last week by former Vice President Cheney, were abhorrent. They were also dangerous. They violated our international legal obligations, caused grave harm to our reputation as a country devoted to the rule of law, endangered our service men and women who every day face the risk of capture and mistreatment by our enemies, and caused deep embarrassment among the American people who, for generations, have taken pride in the image of our country as a defender of human rights and the highest moral values. Last Friday, these issues and concerns were eloquently addressed in a timely piece in The Miami Herald by two distinguished retired senior U.S. military officers, Charles C. Krulak, who was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999, and Joseph P. Hoar, who was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. I urge all Senators to read it, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my dear friend from Mississippi for his kind words. I know they will be appreciated by the Kennedy family. Madam President, when I heard the Senator from Mississippi, and before him the Senator from Illinois, the Senator from California, the Senator from Massachusetts, and others who have spoken, it brought back so many memories. On August 26, very early in the morning, we heard the news about Senator Kennedy. Marcelle and I knew that day was coming. We knew the day was coming and that we would lose a close friend of over 35 years, but our farmhouse in Vermont was still filled with grief upon the learning of the news. We walked back and forth on the road in front of the house, looking out over the mountains and finding it hard to put into words how we felt. We left Vermont to come down and join Vicki, such a dear and wonderful person, and all of Senator Kennedy's family at the memorial service in Boston, where so many offered touching stories of how they remembered Senator Kennedy. Ted Kennedy, Jr., gave an incredibly moving tribute to his father. I told him afterward that was the kind of eulogy Senator Kennedy would have liked. It was so Irish. Ted Kennedy, Jr., made us all laugh, and he made us all cry, almost in the same sentence. How Irish, how Kennedy, but how true were the emotions of every man and woman in that church--from the President, to the Vice President, to former Presidents, to Senators, to Members of the House, to close friends, and to so many of the Kennedy family. I think of being sworn into this body as a 34-year-old nervous Senator. One of the first people who came up to shake my hand after being sworn in was Ted Kennedy, then Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker. I was awed to think I was in the presence of such people. After serving with Ted for 35 years and speaking with him almost every single day, I look over at his desk, at something I have seen over the 35 years when we have lost colleagues, but I don't know of any time it has hurt so much to see the black drape across the desk, to see the vase of white flowers. I went by there yesterday and just put my hand on the desk. I will admit I was overcome with emotion and left the floor. I have so many memories, as we all do, of my friendship with Ted. Senator Durbin spoke about how Ted Kennedy had a way of--no matter who you were, if you had tragedy in your family or an illness or something had happened, he would call or write, and he would offer help. It made no difference who you were. I was very close to my father. He had met Ted a number of times. When my father passed away, virtually the first telephone call my mother received that morning was from Ted Kennedy. I remember my mother taking comfort in that. Senator Kennedy's office is just one floor below mine in the Russell Senate Building. We both have stayed there all these years. On many occasions, especially when he was going for a vote, we could hear his great laugh echoing down the halls, and it would change our whole mood, our whole day. We often talked about the bond of the New England Irish and spoke about that again when we came back from Pope Paul John II's funeral and refueled the plane in Ireland. It was like following the Pied Piper at Shannon Airport. There were paintings of President Kennedy there. The Senator from Iowa remembers that. As we walked through, Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd were telling Irish stories. There are memories of when Ted was walking the dogs outside of Russell Building, and we would talk and chat, saying: How is your family? How is this one or that one? After Ted died, one of our newspapers in Vermont had a front-page picture that my wife Marcelle had taken back in 1968. It showed a young Ted Kennedy in Vermont campaigning for his brother Robert and talking with an even younger State attorney. We talked about Robert Kennedy-- the two of us--and I gave that photograph to Ted a few years ago because I found it in my archives. He chuckled and talked about how young we looked, and then he asked for another copy so he could sign one to me. That day we sat there and talked about his brothers-- obviously, the President, John Kennedy; Senator Robert Kennedy; and also his brother, Joe Kennedy, who had died. I talked about being interviewed by Robert Kennedy, who was Attorney General, when he invited me down to the Department of Justice. I was a young law student, and he talked to me about the possibility of a career in the Department of Justice. That talk meant so much to me, and his brother told me how independent the Department of Justice must be, even from the President of the United States. We never have enough time in this body, and a rollcall started and that conversation stopped. But I remember every bit of that so much. I remember after that time we campaigned for Robert Kennedy, the next time I saw him was here when I was a Senator-elect. As a former young prosecutor, I walked into his office with trepidation and almost thinking I was going into the inner sanctum. I was going to talk with him about what committees I might go on. This great voice said: Good morning, Senator. Coming from him, I turned around, assuming another Senator was walking in behind me, and I realized he was talking to me. Ted's wonderful wife Vicki was part of a small book club, and my wife Marcelle was in that. The days they would meet, Ted would come up and put his arm around my shoulder and say, ``Patrick, we are in trouble today. Our wives are meeting, and tonight we are going to get our marching orders.'' You know what, Madam President. He was right. All of the years I served on the Judiciary Committee, until this past year, I sat beside him. I am going to miss him on that committee. I am going to miss his help and advice. I am going to miss him on the Senate floor because not having him with us in the Senate is going to make a huge difference in negotiations on legislation, whether it is on a current issue of health care reform or any other issue. I remember one meeting with Ronald Reagan when he was President. The President turned to Ted--and several of us, Republicans and Democrats, were meeting with him--and said, ``Thank goodness you're here, Ted. You are bringing us together.'' That difference extended beyond our shores. He personally made such a difference in bringing peace to Ireland and ending apartheid in South Africa. I remember going with President Clinton after the peace agreement, and everybody--while they would thank the Prime Minister of Ireland and Great Britain and President Clinton, they all wanted to come over and thank Ted Kennedy. His sense of history and of our country and his firm and constant belief in America's promise and America's future was inspiring. His willingness to spend time with the most junior Senators as with all others of both parties made him a Senator's Senator. I think every single Senator, Republican or Democrat, would agree he was a Senator's Senator. It is easy in politics to appeal to the self-interests in each of us. Ted Kennedy appealed to the best in us, to the American verities that are written not on water but in stone. He appealed to our sense of justice, to our sense of responsibility to each other, and to our uniquely American sense of hope and possibility. In the Senate, he labored to help reach bipartisan progress on health care, education, civil rights, voting rights, immigration reform, and so much more. Madam President, the powerful have never lacked champions. Ted Kennedy was a champion for ordinary Americans and for those who struggle, those who do not have a champion. He believed everyone in this great land deserved the opportunity to pursue the American dream. I thought last night at the President's speech--I talked before the speech with Mrs. Kennedy and after the speech with Senator Kennedy's three children. It was just impossible to fully put into words how much I miss him. Marcelle and I miss our friend dearly, but we know it was a privilege to call him our friend. It was a privilege to serve alongside such a public servant dedicated as he was to making better the lives of millions of his fellow Americans. It is a sad passing of an era, but Ted Kennedy would also tell us it is a time to look to the future. Madam President, I close with this. I always thought when I left the Senate I would say farewell to this body and Ted Kennedy would be here to wish me Godspeed. I wish him Godspeed.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if information is power, then an informed public is certainly an ingredient that helps make government work better and more responsively for the people. I have always had a keen interest in technology and the Internet, so it has been encouraging to see the commitment and skill that the Obama administration has invested in applying information technology to the functions of government. One of the clearest examples of this has been in the innovative release of data about funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the so-called economic stimulus package. It is all the more encouraging to see the way these efforts have spawned complementary initiatives by private foundations and entrepreneurs. As a Vermonter I am especially proud that a project called ThisWeKnow.org became a top-three finalist in the Apps for America 2: The Data.gov Challenge, sponsored by The Sunlight Foundation, which asked contestants to produce Web applications to showcase the benefits of sharing Federal Government data with the public. ThisWeKnow.org, along with the other two finalists, showcased their Web sites this week in the Nation's Capital, at the Gov 2.0 Expo Showcase. ThisWeKnow.org was selected as one of the three finalists out of 47 applications submitted. ThisWeKnow.org was built by GreenRiver.org and Intellidimension of Brattleboro, VT, to empower citizens to enter in their locations and to explore data related to their communities from across Federal agencies. Their site offers citizens one-stop shopping for information available to them about their own towns, States and communities. The public's right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. By using technology, a site such as this can provide citizens with access to data that is relevant to them and that can enable and encourage them to make informed decisions. This site is designed to make what was once a difficult and time-consuming process into a faster and more streamlined experience. ThisWeKnow.org was designed and developed by Michael Knapp, managing director of GreenRiver.org, and Derrish Repchick, vice president of Product Development at Intellidimension, who are in Washington to attend the Gov 2.0 events this week. Although they did not win the grand prize, we congratulate them for all of their hard work and their public spirit, and encourage them to continue their efforts to promote a more accessible and open government. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a September 8 article from The Brattleboro Reformer be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the SEC's Failure To Identify the Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi Scheme and How To Improve SEC Performance.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 2:15 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oil and Gas Tax Provisions: A Consideration of the President's FY2010 Budget Proposal.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Iraq: Report from the Field.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Follow the Money: An Update on Stimulus Spending, Transparency, and Fraud Prevention.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 10, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a comprehensive bill to address the resource needs of the Federal judiciary by authorizing additional courts of appeals and district court judgeships. This good government bill will improve the effectiveness of our Federal courts and provide Federal judges with the tools to promptly render the justice that Americans so desperately need. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 establishes 12 new judgeships in six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts across the country. The legislation I introduce today is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which identified the judiciary's resource needs during the completion of its biennial survey in March. Last Congress, I joined Senator Hatch and 20 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to introduce this legislation. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted to report the bill to the Senate last year. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill before the end of the last Congress. We used to consider judgeship bills at six year intervals. It has been 19 years since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships, as well as 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, case filings in the Federal appellate courts have increased by 42 percent, and case filings in the district courts have risen by 34 percent. Congress has authorized only a few additional district court judgeships and extended a few temporary judgeships. We should pass a comprehensive judgeship bill in this Congress that will ease the strain of heavy caseloads that has burdened the courts and thwarted the administration of justice. Last year, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, was 472 per judgeship. This figure is well above the Judicial Conference's standard of 430 weighted filings per district court judgeship. In the 25 district courts that would receive additional judgeships under this bill, the weighted filings averaged 573 per judgeship, and 10 courts had caseloads near or above 600 weighted filings per judgeship. Today, the national average circuit court caseload per three judge panel has reached 1,104 filings. That statistic approaches the record number of 1,230 cases recorded in 2005 and far exceeds the 773 average circuit court caseload filings recorded in 1991. Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. To address the excessive caseloads that burden Federal courts, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 would add nine permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would help to alleviate the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. The bill would also add 13 temporary district court judgeships, three temporary circuit court judgeships, and would extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships. If those caseloads do not increase, when the next judge in that circuit or district retires they will not be replaced. After years of debate and Federal courts struggling to adjudicate cases despite the overwhelming burden of heavy caseloads, the time to enact a comprehensive Federal judgeship bill is long overdue. The ability of Federal courts to effectively administer justice will continue to be challenged unless adequate resources are provided. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 responds to the increasing workload of the Federal judiciary, and it is long overdue. I thank Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Brown, Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Shaheen, Inouye, Akaka, and Kerry for their support. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to give this legislation their serious consideration and support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a comprehensive bill to address the resource needs of the Federal judiciary by authorizing additional courts of appeals and district court judgeships. This good government bill will improve the effectiveness of our Federal courts and provide Federal judges with the tools to promptly render the justice that Americans so desperately need. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 establishes 12 new judgeships in six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts across the country. The legislation I introduce today is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which identified the judiciary's resource needs during the completion of its biennial survey in March. Last Congress, I joined Senator Hatch and 20 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to introduce this legislation. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted to report the bill to the Senate last year. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill before the end of the last Congress. We used to consider judgeship bills at six year intervals. It has been 19 years since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships, as well as 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, case filings in the Federal appellate courts have increased by 42 percent, and case filings in the district courts have risen by 34 percent. Congress has authorized only a few additional district court judgeships and extended a few temporary judgeships. We should pass a comprehensive judgeship bill in this Congress that will ease the strain of heavy caseloads that has burdened the courts and thwarted the administration of justice. Last year, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, was 472 per judgeship. This figure is well above the Judicial Conference's standard of 430 weighted filings per district court judgeship. In the 25 district courts that would receive additional judgeships under this bill, the weighted filings averaged 573 per judgeship, and 10 courts had caseloads near or above 600 weighted filings per judgeship. Today, the national average circuit court caseload per three judge panel has reached 1,104 filings. That statistic approaches the record number of 1,230 cases recorded in 2005 and far exceeds the 773 average circuit court caseload filings recorded in 1991. Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. To address the excessive caseloads that burden Federal courts, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 would add nine permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would help to alleviate the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. The bill would also add 13 temporary district court judgeships, three temporary circuit court judgeships, and would extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships. If those caseloads do not increase, when the next judge in that circuit or district retires they will not be replaced. After years of debate and Federal courts struggling to adjudicate cases despite the overwhelming burden of heavy caseloads, the time to enact a comprehensive Federal judgeship bill is long overdue. The ability of Federal courts to effectively administer justice will continue to be challenged unless adequate resources are provided. The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 responds to the increasing workload of the Federal judiciary, and it is long overdue. I thank Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken, Harkin, Bingaman, Murray, Brown, Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Shaheen, Inouye, Akaka, and Kerry for their support. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to give this legislation their serious consideration and support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, among the most gratifying aspects of the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for me was meeting her mother Celina. Anyone who knows their story knows how much Justice Sotomayor owes to her mother. She paid tribute to her mother during her opening statement at the confirmation hearing last month when she poignantly said: ``I want to make one special note of thanks to my Mom. I am here today because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother Juan and me. Mom, I love that we are sharing this together.'' One of the good things about the hearing was that Americans were able to meet Celina Sotomayor, a woman admired across America. I will never forget her own participation at that hearing. She sat just behind her daughter, nodding in agreement when her daughter spoke. She followed the questions and answers, the give-and-take. She was focused, protective and justifiably proud of her daughter. Justice Sotomayor's story is her story too. Justice Sotomayor's triumph is her triumph too. This confirmation is the realization of the American dream that she lived and for which she worked, sacrificed and overcame adversity. She is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the many Senators who took part yesterday in the historic debate over the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In fact, the distinguished Presiding Officer was one who introduced her to the Judiciary Committee and also spoke eloquently in the Chamber yesterday. I am hopeful that today will not only conclude the debate, but we will then vote on her confirmation and vote favorably. Senator Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota, a very active member of the Judiciary Committee, led a group of five women Senators in a powerful opening hour of debate yesterday. The distinguished Presiding Officer was one of them, and it also included Senators Shaheen, Stabenow, and Murray. Their speeches were very moving. Several Judiciary Committee Senators gave strong speeches of support for Judge Sotomayor's nomination, including Senator Schumer, Senator Specter and Senator Cardin. Senator Franken, the newest Member of the Senate and newest member of the Judiciary Committee, gave his first Senate speech. Most of us follow the tradition of waiting for our first Senate speech to make sure it is on a matter of some moment. In his case, it was as momentous a matter as one could pick, the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Senator Franken eloquently spoke on her behalf. We heard from Senator Lautenberg; Senator Dodd, my neighbor in the Senate, both in the row I sit and also in my Senate office, and a good friend. Senators Baucus, Merkley, Akaka, Lieberman, Casey, Wyden, and Bennet all spoke for her. Statements of support for Judge Sotomayor yesterday came from both sides of the aisle. On the Republican side, Senator Martinez, who has been a strong supporter of Judge Sotomayor, gave a particularly moving speech. Senator Bond, a former Governor, former attorney general, and one who has appointed judges, joined him in announcing his intent to vote for this well-qualified nominee. My neighbors from New England, Senators Collins and Snowe, also spoke in favor of her nomination. The troubling thing yesterday was to hear some critics of hers making unfounded insinuations about the integrity and character of this outstanding nominee. That is wrong. She is a judge of unimpeachable character and integrity. These critics have also chosen to ignore her extensive record of judicial modesty and restraint from 17 years on the Federal bench. Instead they have focused on and mischaracterized her rulings in a handful, out of more than 3,600, of cases. That is interesting, out of 3,600 cases, they could find only a tiny handful to criticize, and they can criticize those only by mischaracterizing them. Let me go to one area in particular. Some Republican Senators have twisted Judge Sotomayor's participation in a unanimous Second Circuit decision that applied a 123-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent to reject a challenge to a New York State law of restriction on chukka sticks, a martial arts device. What she was doing was following the precedent of the Supreme Court; again, one of the reasons why it was a unanimous decision of the Second Circuit. Some have trumped up a straw man by ignoring the facts of Judge Sotomayor's decision. It is easy to come to a conclusion if you ignore the facts and the law and just go to your conclusion. Of course, that doesn't make it right. They ignored the facts of her decision. They ignored the developing state of second amendment law, and they ignored Judge Sotomayor's testimony during her confirmation hearing, recognizing the individual right to bear arms that is guaranteed by the second amendment. In fact, in joining the per curiam decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, Judge Sotomayor followed and applied the holding of the Supreme Court that the second amendment provides individuals with the right to keep and bear arms. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year, I applauded the Court for affirming what so many Americans already believe. The second amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. The Heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our Bill of Rights. Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. In fact, most would say they have the least restrictive gun laws. One does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Vermont, if they don't have a felony conviction. But Vermonters are trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely, and we do. I am a native Vermonter. I have lived there all my life. I find Vermonters do conduct themselves safely and responsibly. Similar to many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms. I have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms the second amendment protects. In fact, I own many firearms. Similar to other rights protected by our Bill of Rights, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is one I cherish. Fortunately, I live in a rural area in Vermont. I can set up targets and use my backyard as an impromptu pistol range and often do. The Supreme Court's decision in Heller recognized that the second amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms against Federal restrictions. So before we go off using talking points and ignore what she did or ignore what she said, I thought it might be good to kind of spoil the rhetoric by actually going to the facts. The facts are these. At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor repeatedly affirmed her view of the second amendment guarantees as set forth in the Heller decision. This seems to be ignored by some who criticize her. In fact, I asked a question on it because it is important to me as a Vermonter, as a Senator and certainly as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In response to my question, she testified: I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller. Judge Sotomayor reaffirmed that statement in answers to questions from Senators Kyl, Coburn, and Feingold. Judge Sotomayor testified in response to a question from Senator Kyl: The decision of the Court in Heller . . . recognized an individual right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government. Judge Sotomayor testified in response to Senator Coburn: In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized an individual's right to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In response to Senator Feingold, Judge Sotomayor testified about Heller: [T]he Supreme Court did hold that there is . . . an individual right to bear arms, and . . . I fully accept that. Judge Sotomayor participated on a Second Circuit panel in a case called Maloney v. Cuomo that was decided earlier this year in which the unanimous panel--let me emphasize, the unanimous panel--recognized the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment against Federal law restrictions. Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, said in his opinion in the Heller case that the Heller case expressly left unresolved and explicitly reserved as a separate question whether the second amendment guarantee applies to the States and laws adopted by the States, whether the State of Vermont or any other State. In doing so, the Court left in place a series of Supreme Court holdings from 1876 to 1894 that the second amendment does not apply to the States. I mention this because there are those who want Justices to not be activists but to be traditionalists. Going back to 1876 to 1894 recognizes a tradition of this country. The question posed to Judge Sotomayor and the Second Circuit in Maloney involved a challenge by a criminal defendant to a New York State law restriction on a martial arts device called nunchucks or chukka sticks, not firearms. Indeed, in that case the appellant had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, agreed to the destruction of the nunchucks as part of the plea, and the charge of possession of the nunchucks in violation of New York law had been dismissed. The Second Circuit considered the case on appeal from a denial of a subsequent declaratory judgment case. In declining to overrule the trial judge--the trial judge would not set aside the State law against nunchucks--the Second Circuit panel emphasized that its decision was dictated by Supreme Court precedent, holding that: ``Where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.' '' Had the Second Circuit acted otherwise, it would have been seen as judicial activism and an unwillingness to adhere to Supreme Court precedent. That is something that every single Member of this Chamber has said judges should do, follow Supreme Court precedent. Now Judge Sotomayor is criticized for doing what a Circuit Court of Appeals judge is supposed to do; that is, follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. She seems to be caught in a Hobson's choice. Had she violated that rule, had they acted otherwise, had they refused to follow Supreme Court precedent, I am sure she would be attacked as being a judicial activist. Come on. Let's be fair. When we have had nominees by Republican Presidents, we have heard over and over again how Republicans want these people because they follow precedent. Here, some Republicans are attacking Judge Sotomayor because she did follow precedent, because she did do what a Court of Appeals judge is supposed to do. In fact, the approach taken by the Second Circuit decision in Maloney was adopted by some of the most respected, very conservative jurists in the country. Judges Easterbrook and Posner, both renowned conservatives, people whom I hear quoted by the Republican side over and over again, serve on the Seventh Circuit. They agreed with the Second Circuit panel. This may sound like it is getting into the weeds, but what I am saying is, judges of all stripes ruled the same way. In National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, they cited the Second Circuit in Maloney. Judges Easterbrook and Posner refused to ignore the direction of the Supreme Court to implement Supreme Court holdings, even if the reasoning in later opinions undermines their rationale and, instead, ``leave to [the Supreme Court] the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.'' What I am saying is, conservative judges, liberal judges, and moderate judges such as Judge Sotomayor all came to the same conclusion: You have to follow precedent. It may sound like I am doing a tutorial for a law school class, but I thought rather than having the rhetoric, let's go to the facts and let's go to the law. Because both the facts and the law are irrefutable. If Republican Senators wish to criticize, let them criticize Justice Scalia for the Supreme Court's decision in Heller to limit its application against Federal Government restrictions and expressly reserve for another Supreme Court decision whether to incorporate the Second Amendment right against the States. Judges Easterbook, Posner and Bauer of the Seventh Circuit and Judges Pooler, Sotomayor and Katzmann of the Second Circuit all followed Justice Scalia and the holdings of Supreme Court precedent. Petitions for certiorari have been filed in both Maloney and National Rifle Association and are currently pending before the Supreme Court. A third, related decision by a panel of the Ninth Circuit is being reconsidered en banc by that Court of Appeals. Republican Senators insisted during the Roberts and Alito hearings that a Supreme Court nominee must avoid making predictions about how she might rule in a case that is likely to come before the Supreme Court. Yet Republican Senators have now reversed their approach to demand that Judge Sotomayor ignore these standards and commit to how she intends to rule on these cases and this issue if confirmed. Recognizing that she would be unable to say how she would rule, I asked Judge Sotomayor whether she would approach these matters with an open mind and she assured us that she would. I do not see how any fair observer could regard her testimony as hostile to the Second Amendment personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognizes. The question of incorporation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights against the States is not merely likely to come before the Court; petitions to decide it are currently pending before the Supreme Court. There are well-recognized limits to how much a judicial nominee can say during her confirmation hearings. Nominees do not answer questions about cases or issues pending before the Supreme Court. It is striking that many of those who today criticize Judge Sotomayor's adherence to these limits strongly defended them just a few years ago, when a Republican President was doing the nominating. A 2005 Senate Republican Policy Committee Report commissioned by Senator Kyl concluded that ``the preservation of an independent judiciary'' depends on a nominee's ability to avoid signaling how she will rule on upcoming cases. According to this report: It is inappropriate for any nominee to give any signal as to how he or she might rule on any issue that could come before the court, even if the issue is not presented in a currently pending case. If these novel ``prejudgment demands'' were tolerated, the judicial confirmation process would be radically transformed. Senator Kyl's Republican Policy Committee Report raised concerns that ``no judge can be fair and impartial if burdened by political commitments that Senators try to extract during confirmation hearings'' and concluded that ``nothing less than judicial independence and the preservation of a proper separation of powers is at stake.'' Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Grassley, Coburn and Hatch referred to these restrictions on a nominee's ability to answer questions during the Senate's consideration of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. During the Senate's consideration of the Roberts nomination, Senator Sessions said: Judges apply the facts to the legal requirements of the situation, and only then make a decision. [Judge Roberts] refused to make opinions on cases that may come before him. Of course, he should not make opinions on that . . . He should not be up there making opinions on the cases. That is so obvious. At that time, Senator Cornyn shared their view and strongly defended Republican nominees who refused to discuss legal issues that might arise in the future. He said: It undermines a nominee's ability to remain impartial once he or she becomes a judge if he or she has already taken positions on issues that might come before him or her on the bench. . . . In other words, just because some Members may ask these questions does not mean the President's nominee should answer them. In accordance with long tradition and norms of the Senate in the confirmation process, they should not answer them. At the beginning of confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Senator Grassley said: ``The fact is that no Senator has a right to insist on his or her own issue-by-issue philosophy or seek commitments from nominees on specific litmus-test questions likely to come before that Court.'' Senator Coburn criticized those Senators whom he said planned to vote against the Roberts nomination for his failure to state positions on specific issues: ``The real reason they will be voting against John Roberts is because he would not give a definite answer on two or three of the social issues today that face us. He is absolutely right not to give a definite answer because that says he prejudges, that he has made up his mind ahead of time.'' In 2005, Senator Hatch noted the ethical restrictions on a nominee's ability to answer questions and said: I have said Senators on the Judiciary Committee can ask any question they want, no matter how stupid the question may be. . . . But the judge does not have to answer those questions. In fact, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, judges should not be opining or answering questions about issues that may possibly come before them in the future. Both Judge Roberts and Judge Alito followed their advice and did not answer questions with any specificity about cases that could come before the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts testified during his hearing: ``I think I should stay away from discussions of particular issues that are likely to come before the Court.'' During his hearing, Judge Alito testified: I think it's important to draw a distinction between issues that could realistically come up before the courts and issues that . . . are still very much in play . . . that's where I feel that I must draw a line, because no issues that could realistically come up, it would be improper for me to express a view, and I would not reach a conclusion regarding any issue like that before going through the whole judicial process that I described. I asked Judge Sotomayor during her hearing whether, if not bound by Second Circuit or Supreme Court precedent, on whether second amendment rights should be considered ``fundamental rights,'' she would keep an open mind in evaluating that legal question. Her response to me was straightforward. She said: You asked me whether I have an open mind on that question. Absolutely. She said: I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a Justice on the Supreme Court. She could not have gone any further without prejudging the question Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller left open, one that is currently pending before the Supreme Court. In response to a question from Senator Coburn, Judge Sotomayor testified: ``In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized an individual's right to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. . . . The Maloney case presented a different question. That was whether that individual right would limit the activities that States would do to limit the regulation of firearms.'' Judge Sotomayor also told Senator Coburn at the hearing: ``I can assure your constituents that I have a completely open mind on this question. I do not close my mind to the fact and the understanding that there were developments after the Supreme Court's rulings on incorporation that will apply to this question or be considered.'' In response to a question from Senator Sessions on how she would come down on the question of incorporation of the Second Amendment, Judge Sotomayor testified: ``I have not prejudged the question that the Supreme Court left open in Heller . . . of whether this right should be incorporated against the States or not.'' She also answered Senator Sessions' questions about the panel decision in Maloney: Well, when the Court looks at that issue, it will decide is it incorporated or not. And it will determine by applying the test that it has subsequent to its old precedent, whether or not it is fundamental and hence, incorporated. But the Maloney decision was not addressing the merits of that question. It was addressing what precedent said on that issue. The only other case in which Judge Sotomayor was involved as an appellate judge involving a Second Amendment contention was a case in which an illegal alien was convicted of distribution and possession with intent to distribute approximately 1.2 kilograms of ``crack'' cocaine and of illegal possession of a firearm while an illegal alien. In that case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, decided in 2004--before the Supreme Court's decision in Heller--involved an attempt to overturn a jury conviction. The defendant in that case claimed he had received ineffective assistance from his lawyer because his possession of the firearm in New York did not provide probable cause for seizure and arrest was rejected by a unanimous panel of the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit unanimously rejected this claim. In so doing, the panel quoted in a footnote to language from an earlier Second Circuit decision decided before Heller or Maloney. This is not unlike a number of cases in which Judge Sotomayor has upheld police actions when undertaken in good faith. So I am disappointed by recent news accounts that the National Rifle Association has decided to ``score'' the vote on confirming Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. They did this in response to pressure from the Republican leader. In fact, this is the first time in the history of the NRA that it has ``scored'' a Supreme Court confirmation vote. The irony of this is, if she had been nominated by a Republican President, they would all be supporting her with her record. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of my statement, a copy of the July 24 letter from four members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who have consistently earned high ratings from the NRA, to the NRA's executive vice president and executive director.

Mr. LEAHY. Congressmen Joe Baca, Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes, and John Salazar wrote: [W]e are disappointed by the NRA's opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not merited by either Judge Sotomayor's record or hearing testimony. In their letter, they point out that at her hearing Judge Sotomayor ``emphasized that she has an `open mind' on the question of incorporation and `has not prejudged' the issue.'' In fact, they said: Judge Sotomayor has said more than either of the two previous Supreme Court nominees about the Second Amendment-- specifically, she said that it confers an individual right, as recognized by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision. The letter continues: ``Even more troubling, it appears you are holding Judge Sotomayor to a different standard than you held Judges Roberts and Alito when they were nominated to the Court, or for that matter, any previous nominee to the Court. The double standard you have set for Judge Sotomayor is a disservice to all members of the NRA, particularly those who are Hispanic'' and that ``we are mystified as to why the NRA is characterizing Judge Sotomayor as hostile to the rights of gun owners and evaluating Judge Sotomayor by a different standard than that to which you have held previous Supreme Court nominees.'' I think it is a double standard. When Justices Roberts and Alito were nominated by a Republican President, Republicans did not have this standard. When this woman was nominated by a Democratic President, suddenly they change the standard. All I am saying is, they ought to follow the same standards they followed when President Bush nominated the two men he did now, when President Obama has nominated this woman to the Supreme Court. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for Judge Sotomayor from a large number of prosecutors, including the National District Attorneys Association.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for Judge Sotomayor from a broad cross section of law enforcement agencies, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Sheriff of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Mr. LEAHY. I urge each Senator to vote his or her own conscience in connection with this historic nomination. Exhibit 1 Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, July 24, 2009. Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association of America, Fairfax, VA. Chris Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association of America, Fairfax, VA. Dear Messrs. LaPierre and Cox: As Members of Congress whose strong support for the rights of gun owners has earned us consistently high ratings from the NRA, we are disappointed by the NRA's opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not merited by either Judge Sotomayor's judicial record or hearing testimony. Even more troubling, it appears that you are holding Judge Sotomayor to a different standard than you held Judges Roberts and Alito when they were nominated to the Court, or for that matter, any previous nominee to the Court. The double standard you have set for Judge Sotomayor is a disservice to all members of the NRA, particularly those who are Hispanic. We support the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. She is eminently qualified by her experience as a prosecutor, district judge and 12 years on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Her judicial record is one marked by modesty and restraint, prompting the New York Times to write that her ``judicial opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence'' and are ``models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles.'' (Adam Liptak, ``Nominee's Rulings Are Exhaustive But Often Narrow,'' May 26, 2009). And we believe that the historic act of putting the first Hispanic Justice on the Court, particularly one so well qualified for the job, is an important step for our country. Judge Sotomayor has said more than either of the two previous Supreme Court nominees about the Second Amendment-- specifically, she said that it confers an individual right, as recognized by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision. Judge Sotomayor was then asked repeatedly to discuss her position on incorporation, even though there is now a circuit split on the issue and there are petitions pending asking the Supreme Court to take the issue. Judges are prohibited by ABA rules from commenting on pending cases, making it inappropriate for Judge Sotomayor to state a definitive view. Nonetheless, at the hearing on her nomination, she emphasized that she has an ``open mind'' on the question of incorporation and has ``not prejudged'' the issue. Conversely, when now-Chief Justice Roberts testified at his confirmation hearing facing a similar circuit split prior to the Heller decision on the issue of the individual right to bear arms, he declined to discuss the issue at all, saying only: ``That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.'' And now- Justice Alito was not even asked a question about the subject. Yet the NRA voiced no opposition to these candidates who were less forthcoming on issues of importance to us. Your letter cites two cases as evidence that Judge Sotomayor is hostile to the Second Amendment. Your analysis of those cases is either mistaken or deliberately misleading. United States v. Sanchez-Villar, on which Judge Sotomayor was a member of the panel, was decided in 2004, four years before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision was consistent not just with 2nd Circuit precedent, but with the weight of authority at the time; in 2004, every circuit but the Fifth that had considered the question had similarly concluded that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right. Your letter fails to mention either fact. Your characterization of Maloney v. Cuomo is similarly erroneous. First, Maloney did not involve firearms at all. The degree to which it was not considered an important case at the time can be gleaned from the fact that no outside entity or organization, including the NRA, filed an amicus brief in that case, in contrast to the multiple amici filed in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago. Second, the Maloney court did not reject the concept of incorporation; it recognized the prerogative of the Supreme Court, which in Heller explicitly did not overrule prior precedent on incorporation. The panel wrote, ``[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.'' Two of the most renowned conservative jurists in the country, Judges Posner and Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, recently endorsed the Second Circuit panel opinion in Maloney. In National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, Judge Easterbrook's opinion explicitly stated that the court ``agree[d] with Maloney.'' Even Mr. Maloney himself said the decision in this case was appropriate: ``I did not expect to win . . . it was clear to me that they had a very solid basis for saying that the Second Amendment is not incorporated and that essentially they are powerless to do anything about it, they had a defensible position there.'' Mike Pesca, ``High Court May Review Personal Weapons Ruling,'' NPR Legals Affairs, June 1, 2009. In conclusion, we are mystified as to why the NRA is characterizing Judge Sotomayor as hostile to the rights of gun owners and evaluating Judge Sotomayor by a different standard than that to which you have held previous Supreme Court nominees. We are concerned that your opposition will alienate Hispanic NRA members and dismayed that you may unnecessarily force some well-intentioned Senators to choose between disappointing the NRA or infuriating their Hispanic constituents. We hope that you will reconsider your position on Judge Sotomayor. Sincerely, Joe Baca, Silvestre Reyes, Solomon P. Ortiz, John T. Salazar.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see Senator Lincoln on the floor, one of my most distinguished colleagues, and I yield to her.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind comments. As he knows, I made similar comments about him this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I reiterate them here today. We did decide, both Senator Sessions and I, at the beginning of this process that we would try to make sure everybody was heard. We may have different outcomes on how everybody would vote, but everybody was heard. That has been done. I compliment the leaders of the Senate for doing that. We are about to conclude Senate consideration of this nominee. I thank those Senators who evaluated this nomination fairly. I thank especially those Republican Senators who have shown the independence to join the bipartisan confirmation of this historic nomination. I thank all Senators on both sides of the aisle who spent hours and hours and days and days in our hearings. Some critics have attacked President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor by contending he picked her for the Supreme Court to substitute empathy for the rule of law. These critics are wrong about the President; they are wrong about Sonia Sotomayor. Let's leave out the rhetoric and go to the facts. When the President announced his choice of Judge Sotomayor 10 weeks ago, he focused on the qualities he sought in a nominee. He started with ``rigorous intellect'' and ``a mastery of the law.'' He then referred to recognition of the limits of the judicial role when he talked about ``an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.'' That is what President Obama said. Then he went on to mention experience. He said: Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court. Then the President concluded by discussing how Judge Sotomayor has all these qualities. The President was looking not just for lawyerly ability, but for wisdom--for an understanding of how the law and justice work in the everyday lives of Americans. In a subsequent radio and Internet address, the President reiterated the point when he said: As a Justice of the Supreme Court, she will bring not only the experience acquired over the course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated over the course of an extraordinary journey--a journey defined by hard work, fierce intelligence, and the enduring faith that, in America, all things are possible. President Obama did not say that he viewed compassion or sympathy as a substitute for the rule of law. In fact, he has never said he would substitute empathy for the rule of law. That is a false choice. The opposition to this nomination is based on a false premise. When she was first named, Judge Sotomayor said: ``I firmly believe in the rule of law as a foundation for all our basic rights.'' Judge Sotomayor reiterated time and time again during her confirmation hearing her fidelity to the rule of law. She said: Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of the judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge. Those who, after 4 days of hearing, would ignore her testimony, should at least take heed of her record as a judge. Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated her fairness and impartiality during her 17 years as a judge. She has followed the law. There is no record of her substituting her personal views for the law. The many independent studies that have closely examined Judge Sotomayor's record have concluded it is a record of applying the law, not bias. What she has said, and what we should all acknowledge, is the value her background brings to her as a judge and would bring to her as a Justice, our first Latina Justice. Judge Sotomayor is certainly not the first nominee to discuss how her background has shaped her character. Justice O'Connor has acknowledged, ``We are all creatures of our upbringing. We bring whatever we are as people to a job like the Supreme Court.'' Everybody knows that, just as all 100 of us bring who we are to the Senate. Many recent Justices have spoken of their life experiences as influential factors in how they approach the bench. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, nominated by Republican Presidents, did so famously at their confirmation hearings, and then they were praised by the Republican side of the aisle for doing so. Indeed, when the first President Bush nominated Justice Thomas to the Supreme Court, he touted him as an ``intelligent person who has great empathy.'' Some of those choosing to oppose this historic nomination have tried to justify their opposition by falsely contending that President Obama is pitting empathy against the rule of law. Not so. Not so. This President and this nominee are committed to the rule of law. They recognize the role of life experience not as a substitute for the law or in conflict with its mandates, but as informing judgment. What is really at play is not a new Obama ``empathy standard'' with respect to judicial selection, but a double standard being applied by those who supported the nominations of Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. Judge Sotomayor's career and judicial record demonstrate that she has always followed the rule of law. The point is, we don't have to guess at what kind of a judge she has been. She has had more experience on the Federal court, both trial level and appellate level, than any nominee in decades. She will be the only member of the U.S. Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge. We don't have to guess. There are well over 3,000 cases, so we don't have to guess. Attempts at distorting that record by suggesting that her ethnicity or her heritage would be the driving force in her decisions as a Justice of the Supreme Court are demeaning to women and all communities of color. I have spoken over the last several years about urging Presidents from both political parties to nominate someone from outside the ``judicial monastery.'' I believe that experience, perspective, an understanding of how the world works and people live, and the effect decisions will have on the lives of people are very important qualifications. By striving for a more diverse bench drawn from judges with a wider set of backgrounds and experiences we can better ensure there will be no prejudices and biases controlling our courts of justice. All nominees have talked about the value they will draw on the bench from their backgrounds. That diversity of experience and strength is not a weakness in achieving an impartial judiciary. I have voted on every member of the current U.S. Supreme Court. I have participated in the hearings of all but one of them, and that one I voted on the nomination having watched the hearing. I have sat in on the hearings of Justices no longer there, either because of retirement or death. I have conducted hundreds of nomination hearings--everything from courts of appeals judges, Federal district court judges, and Department of Justice appointees. I have been ranking member on two Supreme Court nominations and conducted this one. I mention that to thank the Senator from Alabama for his cooperation during it. After those hundreds of hearings, you get a sense of the person you are listening to. I met for hours with Judge Sotomayor, either in the hearing room or privately. You learn who a person is, you really do, in asking these kinds of questions. You have to bring your own experience and your own knowledge to what you are hearing. There are only 101 people in this great Nation of 300 million people who get a say as to who is going to be one of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. First and foremost, it is the President who makes the nomination, but then the 100 of us in the U.S. Senate who must follow our own conscience, our own experience, our own abilities in deciding whether we will advise and consent to that nomination. It is an awesome responsibility, and we should do it not because we are swayed by any special interest group of either the right or the left. In fact, I have a rule--my office knows it very well--that in Supreme Court confirmations I will not meet with groups on either the right or the left about it. I will make up my mind through those hours and days and the transcripts of the hearing. I would urge all Senators to do that. I think it is unfortunate if any Senator of either party were to make up their mind on a Supreme Court nominee based on pressure from special interest groups from either the right or the left. That is a disfavor to those hundreds of millions of Americans who don't belong to pressure groups of either the right or the left. They expect us to stand up. That is what we should do on Judge Sotomayor. This is an extraordinary nominee. I remember when President Obama called me a few hours before he nominated her. I was with our troops in Afghanistan, and he explained what he was going to do in a few hours. We talked about that and we talked about Afghanistan, but we talked especially about her. He said, you know, there are Web sites already developing opposed to her. And within hours, we had leaders calling her racist, bigoted, or being affiliated with a group akin to the Ku Klux Klan. Fortunately, Senators on neither side joined with that. We are almost at a time for a vote. I would hope every Senator would search his or her conscience and ask whether they are voting for this nominee based on their oath of office, based on their conscience, or are they reflecting a special interest group. When the Judiciary Committee began the confirmation hearings on this Supreme Court nomination, and when the Senate this week began its debate, I recounted an insight from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which is often quoted by President Obama. ``Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' It is distinctly American to continually refine our Union, moving us closer to our ideals. Our union is not yet perfected, but with this confirmation, we will be making progress. Years from now, we will remember this time when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor and when our Nation took another step forward through this historic confirmation process. I urge each Senator to honor our oath, our Constitution, and our national promise by voting his or her conscience on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to serve as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I will proudly vote for her. Mr. President, I see the Republican leader is here, and I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has concluded consideration of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and has confirmed her as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The consideration of a nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is one of our most consequential responsibilities. The consideration of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor has been a credit to the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate. We could not give this process the attention it deserves without the help of dedicated staff. For 2\1/2\ months, the staff of the Judiciary Committee has worked long hours dutifully to help Senators in their review. I wish to thank the following members of the majority staff in particular: Jeremy Paris, Erica Chabot, Kristine Lucius, Roscoe Jones, Shanna Singh Hughey, Maggie Whitney, Sarah Hackett, Michael Gerhardt, Elise Burditt, Noah Bookbinder, Stephen Kelly, Kelsey Kobelt, Matt Virkstis, Anya McMurray, Juan Valdivieso, Curtis LeGeyt, Zulima Espinel, Tara Magner, Roslyne Turner, Erin O'Neill, Sarah Guerrieri, Brian Hockin, Joseph Thomas, Leila George-Wheeler, Laura Safdie, Kathleen Roberts, Aaron Guile, Matt Smith, Lydia Griggsby, Patrick Sheahan, Scott Wilson, Dave Stebbins, Sarah Hasazi, Kiera Flynn, Bree Bang-Jensen, Tom Wheeler, Eric Poalino, Brad Wilhelm, Lauren Rosser, Chuck Papirmeister, and Bruce Cohen. I also thank my staff for their hard work on this nomination, in particular, Ed Pagano, David Carle, Jennifer Price, and Kevin McDonald. I commend and thank the hard-working staffs of the other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for their tremendous contributions to this effort. I also want to extend considerable thanks to the Democratic leadership and floor staff, in particular Serena Hoy, Mike Spahn, Stacy Rich, and Joi Chaney. I also commend and thank Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, and his staff, in particular, Brian Benczkowski, Elisebeth Cook, Danielle Brucchieri, and Lauren Pastarnack, for their hard work and professionalism.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.