Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to make some observations about the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program, more commonly known as cash for clunkers. When Congress first passed this program in June, I evaluated the merits and the arguments and chose to support it, because I believed it would provide a prompt shot in the arm to our ailing economy. I continue to believe that the program's goals of reducing the environmental impact of automobiles on the road and producing economic stimulus are good ones. However as we debate whether to infuse this program with another $2 billion I would urge that we be patient and wait until all the facts are in, before rushing forward with a tripling of the program's overall cost. Significant claims have been made about the average increased fuel economy and resulting financial savings that will result from car purchases made through the program. The administration has used these claims to push for the program's expansion, yet Federal agencies have not yet made available--to the American people and to the Congress--the appropriate data to support these claims. If you have picked up a newspaper in the past few weeks, the sudden popularity of the program is clear. Newspaper headlines have consistently noted the program is rapidly running out of money and that car purchases are well above where they were at this time last year. In my own State of Vermont, car dealers have reported having difficulty keeping up with demand for new cars that meet the program's requirements. But while we know that cars are moving off sales lots and onto the road, we have yet to receive enough details about the current sales data to know the true story of whether this program is working as intended. Recent reports on the program have indicated that funding was about to run out, yet the number of actual car sales through the program was far lower than the program allowed for. Further, many dealers have noted that hundreds of thousands of dollars in program vouchers from the government have yet to be paid. If this is in fact the case, we should demand that the management of this program be ironed out before pumping billions more into it. Are we sure that this the best way to spend $2 billion right now, if it is to be spent? There are many worthy and pressing purposes to which such significant sums could be allocated. Positive indications about the direction of the economy are emerging. Today we learned that the number of Americans filing for unemployment dropped to its lowest level since January. The Cash for Clunkers Program may prove to be a factor in helping our country emerge from this recession, and I certainly hope that is the case. But the public release of information about this car rebate program is necessary to ensure that both the Congress and the American people can make well-informed judgments about the merits of continuing this program in these economically challenging times. If the administration is unwilling or unable to provide this information before the Senate votes on additional funding, I will be unable to support the program's expansion.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is fitting that we in the Senate take note of the retirement of Ron Edmonds of the Associated Press, a veteran news photographer who has long and superbly documented public life in the Nation's Capital, including here on Capitol Hill. If by chance we have not seen Ron himself over the years on the White House driveway or in the Senate's hearing rooms and hallways, we all surely recognize his work. His images, in the parlance of photographers, have bracketed the history of our era, from marches on Washington, to the attack on President Reagan's life--a photograph for which Ron Edmonds was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography. By now he has covered the White House for 28 years and captured the news in images of so many Presidents. He entered the world of photography in the day of celluloid film and concluded his career after having helped usher in the age of digital news photography. I am grateful to have known Ron during his long career. I wish him and his family our congratulations and our best wishes. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Ron Edmonds' farewell message to his AP associates.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a man who has been serving the U.S. Senate for almost 35 years. Now that is how I and many other Senators may begin remarks about a colleague who is retiring. My remarks today are indeed about a colleague but not about a fellow Senator. These remarks are about Senate Historian Richard Baker, an important member of the Senate community who has made the Senate a better institution during his tenure. Remarkably, until 1975 the U.S. Senate did not have a Historical Office charged with preserving the institutional memory of this great body. Dick Baker is the original and only Director and the Chief Historian for the past 34 years. Under his leadership, the Historical Office of the Senate has worked to recover, catalogue and preserve the history of the Senate. Building this office from the ground up required Dick Baker and his team to collect and maintain records on current and former Senators, record oral histories, document important precedents, statistics and Senate activities. And as a photographer I must point out that this work included the cataloging and preservation of a huge trove of Senate-related photographs. From the beginning, Dick Baker knew his responsibility at the Historical Office was not only to preserve the history of the Senate but to make it more accessible. That included providing access to records for members, staff, media and scholarly researchers. He exposed more of the Senate and its rich history to the general public through exhibits in the office buildings, presenting materials via the Web and working with C-SPAN to incorporate Senate history into its programming. And as an author, Dick Baker disseminated information with his publications on Senate history, including a biography of the former Senator from New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson. His greatest impact on me, however, and I believe the Senate as a whole, has been his placing of our work here in proper context. Most Senators and I look forward to the historical ``minutes'' that he presents at the opening of many of our caucus lunches. He has also been accessible to me and other Senators in providing presentations of the Senate history at many different venues. My staff and I thoroughly enjoyed a presentation he provided to us on the history of the Vermont Senate delegation. His alacrity and care for describing Senate history has reminded all of us about the significance of our work here. As much as visitors feel the weight of history when they enter this building, it is no less important for those of us who represent them to be well aware of the 200-year history of the Senate. It is important to remember that although great men and women preceded us, and even greater ones will undoubtedly follow, our words and actions will continue to echo through these halls long after we are gone. Dick has reminded us of that regularly, and for that we thank him and wish him well.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the Bove family of Burlington, VT, on receiving a prestigious honor from the National Association of Specialty Food Trades. In particular, I congratulate Mark Bove, President of Bove's, and his brother Rick, on receiving the Gold Sofi Award in the Outstanding Pasta, Rice and Grain category. Bove's Restaurant opened on Pearl Street in Burlington in 1941 and has been a local favorite for generations. Marcelle and I enjoyed many of Bove's Italian specialties while we were dating. I was a student at Saint Michael's College, and Marcelle at the Jeanne Mance School of Nursing. To this day, Bove's continues to be a favorite among college students, and many return to the restaurant as alumni during their reunion weekends. Much to our delight, Mark Bove began bottling his family's outstanding sauces for sale in grocery stores and now also sells Bove's specialties, including meatballs and lasagna, at retail sites around our country. When I come home from a long day in the Senate, I am delighted that Marcelle and I can still enjoy a dinner from Bove's, just as we did as students years ago. We have also enjoyed sharing their great dishes with other Senators and their staff at the annual Taste of Vermont in Washington. Once again, I congratulate the Bove family for this high honor. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a July 6 article from the Burlington Free Press printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act of 2009. I want to thank Senators Chambliss and Pryor for joining me to introduce this legislation. As the cochairs of the United States Senate Reserve Caucus, Senators Chambliss and Pryor have worked hard for the brave men and women of the United States Reserves. Over the past decade, our country has relied on the National Guard and Reserves more than at any other time in recent history. The Guard and Reserves provide an invaluable contribution to our Nation's military, our national security, and disaster relief efforts. In recent years the National Guard and Reserves have demonstrated their position as a keystone to our military operations, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stepped forward repeatedly to answer the call-to-duty at a tempo not seen in decades. At the same time, the support from the Guard and Reserves for homeland duties has been at an all time high. The Guard and Reserves have provided crucial support to our Governors and States during natural disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, they have assumed additional roles in homeland security as our country has adopted new policies following the attacks of September 11, 2001. This new era for the Guard and Reserves prompted Congress and the Department of Defense to review many existing and but outdated policies. The 95-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which I cochair along with Senator Bond, plays an integral role in the review and implementation of new policies. I have worked closely with groups like the Reserve Officers Association, ROA, to ensure that the National Guard and Reserves have access to more affordable health care, a greater influence in the military, adequate training facilities and supplies, and shorter troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since its founding in 1922, the ROA has worked on behalf of the National Guard and Reserves and their families. For over 85 years, ROA has remained committed to its original mission, to ``support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National security.'' The Reserve Officers Association represents the Reserve Components officers for the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the Air and Army National Guard, Public Health Service, and the officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This legislation would update the Reserve Officers Association's Federal Charter to reflect two recent changes in the organization. First, it would add the position of ``president elect'' to its constitution and bylaws. Second, it would expand the ROA from only three national executive committee members to include three representatives from each of the seven branches of the uniformed services. The Reserve Officers Association's charter has not been modified since 1998 and this legislation would update it to correctly reflect the current operation of the organization and enable ROA to continue its good work. The Reserve Officers Association has provided a voice to the men and women that serve our country in the National Guard and Reserves. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to show their support for the brave members of the National Guard and Reserves by enacting this legislation swiftly. 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 pleased to introduce the Reserve Officers Association Modernization Act of 2009. I want to thank Senators Chambliss and Pryor for joining me to introduce this legislation. As the cochairs of the United States Senate Reserve Caucus, Senators Chambliss and Pryor have worked hard for the brave men and women of the United States Reserves. Over the past decade, our country has relied on the National Guard and Reserves more than at any other time in recent history. The Guard and Reserves provide an invaluable contribution to our Nation's military, our national security, and disaster relief efforts. In recent years the National Guard and Reserves have demonstrated their position as a keystone to our military operations, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stepped forward repeatedly to answer the call-to-duty at a tempo not seen in decades. At the same time, the support from the Guard and Reserves for homeland duties has been at an all time high. The Guard and Reserves have provided crucial support to our Governors and States during natural disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, they have assumed additional roles in homeland security as our country has adopted new policies following the attacks of September 11, 2001. This new era for the Guard and Reserves prompted Congress and the Department of Defense to review many existing and but outdated policies. The 95-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which I cochair along with Senator Bond, plays an integral role in the review and implementation of new policies. I have worked closely with groups like the Reserve Officers Association, ROA, to ensure that the National Guard and Reserves have access to more affordable health care, a greater influence in the military, adequate training facilities and supplies, and shorter troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since its founding in 1922, the ROA has worked on behalf of the National Guard and Reserves and their families. For over 85 years, ROA has remained committed to its original mission, to ``support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National security.'' The Reserve Officers Association represents the Reserve Components officers for the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the Air and Army National Guard, Public Health Service, and the officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This legislation would update the Reserve Officers Association's Federal Charter to reflect two recent changes in the organization. First, it would add the position of ``president elect'' to its constitution and bylaws. Second, it would expand the ROA from only three national executive committee members to include three representatives from each of the seven branches of the uniformed services. The Reserve Officers Association's charter has not been modified since 1998 and this legislation would update it to correctly reflect the current operation of the organization and enable ROA to continue its good work. The Reserve Officers Association has provided a voice to the men and women that serve our country in the National Guard and Reserves. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to show their support for the brave members of the National Guard and Reserves by enacting this legislation swiftly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joi Chaney of the Democratic policy committee be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we began debate yesterday on this historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, Senator Menendez, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Brown gave powerful statements--powerful statements--in support 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 from the American Bar Association. I thank those Senators for their 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. I spoke about how Judge Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg properly--properly--approached those decisions in their respective courts. Judge Sotomayor is certainly not the first nominee to discuss how her background has shaped her character. Many recent Justices have spoken of their life experiences as an influential factor in how they approach cases. Justice Alito, at his confirmation hearings, described his experience as 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 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 O'Connor echoed these statements when she said recently: We're all creatures of our upbringing. We bring whatever we are as people to a job like the Supreme Court. We have our life experiences . . . So that made me a little more pragmatic than some other justices. I liked to find solutions that would work. Justice O'Connor explained recently: You do have to have an understanding of how some rule you make will apply to people in the real world. I think that there should be an awareness of the real-world consequences of the principles of the law you apply. Just as all Democrats voted for Justice O'Connor, so did all Republicans. I recall another Supreme Court nominee who spoke during his confirmation hearing of his personal struggle to overcome obstacles. He made a point of describing his life as: One that required me to at some point touch on virtually every aspect, every level of our country, from people who couldn't read or write to people who were extremely literate, from people who had no money to people who were 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. That is the definition of empathy. That nominee, of course, was Clarence Thomas. Indeed, when President George H.W. Bush nominated Justice Thomas to the Supreme Court, he touted him as: A delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. Let me cite one example of a decision by Justice Thomas that I expect was informed by his experience. In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court, in 2003, held that Virginia's statute against cross burning, done with an attempt to intimidate, was constitutional. However, at the same time, the Court's decision also rejected another provision in that statute. Justice Thomas wrote a heartfelt opinion, where he stated he would have gone even further. He began his opinion: In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred . . . and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic 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 brutalization of racial minorities and others through terror and lawlessness. Would anyone deny Justice Thomas his standing or seek to belittle his perspective on these matters? I trust not. Who would call him biased or attack him as Judge Sotomayor is now being attacked? I trust no one would. Real-world experience, real-world judging, and awareness of the real-world consequences of decisions are vital aspects of the law. Here we have a nominee who has 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. I look forward to this debate. One of the Judiciary Committee's newest members is now on the floor, Senator Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota. She has been a leader in support of this nomination. I see beside her the former Governor of my neighboring State of New Hampshire, then-Governor Shaheen, now Senator Shaheen. Both of them are going to speak, so I will take no more time. I yield the floor, first, to Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, many independent studies that have closely examined Judge Sotomayor's record have concluded that hers is a record of applying the law, not bias. For example, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously found Judge Sotomayor to be ``well qualified''--its highest rating-- after conducting a thorough evaluation that included an examination of her integrity and freedom from bias. The Chair of the Standing Committee testified, ``the committee unanimously found an absence of any bias in the nominee's extensive work,'' and described Judge Sotomayor's opinions as ``show[ing] an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge's personal views.'' Numerous other studies from groups such as the Congressional Research Service, the New York City Bar Association, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the National Association of Women Lawyers, and the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, have reached similar conclusions. These studies were entered into the record during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Nothing in these studies or in her 17 year record on the bench raises a concern that Judge Sotomayor would substitute feelings for the command of the law. Judge Sotomayor's critics attack her by pretending that President Obama does not respect the Constitution and the rule of law. They are wrong. They attack him for using the word empathy to describe one of the qualities he is looking for in a judicial nominee. He has never said that empathy is intended to override the rule of law. It is, nonetheless, ironic that the Senate Republican leader has criticized Judge Sotomayor for not being more empathetic and ruling for Frank Ricci, Ben Vargas, and the other plaintiffs despite the well-settled law in the Second Circuit which she applied in that case. They attack her by misconstruing what empathy means. Empathy is understanding and awareness. That is what Justice Alito was testifying about at his confirmation hearing. That is what Justice Thomas was testifying about when he said that what he would bring to the Supreme Court ``is an understanding and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum of this country.'' Justice Alito and Justice Thomas were not testifying that they would be biased. What the partisan critics do not appreciate is that the opposite of empathy is indifference and a lack of understanding. Empathy does not mean biased or mean picking one side over another, it means understanding both sides. When she was designated by the President, Judge Sotomayor said: ``The wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect, and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench. I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government.'' It took a Supreme Court that understood the real world to see that the seeming fair-sounding doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was a straightjacket of inequality. We do not need more conservative activists second guessing Congress and who through judicial extremism override congressional judgments intended to protect Americans' voting rights, privacy rights and access to health care and education. In her widely misconstrued speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor said: ``[J]udges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.'' That parallels what Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing when he testified about ``the ideal in the American justice system'' and judges ``doing their best to interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according to the rule of law'' and not substituting their own personal agenda. Those who spent days asking Judge Sotomayor to explain what she meant in a partial quotation from that speech about the decisions reached by a ``wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences'' miss that she begins that statement with the words, ``I would hope.'' They miss that her statement is aspirational. She would ``hope'' that she and the other Hispanic women judges would be ``wise'' in their decisionmaking and that their experiences would help inform them and help provide that wisdom. Judge Sotomayor's critics have ignored her modesty in not claiming to be perfect, but rather in aspiring to the greatest wisdom and fairness she can achieve. These critics also miss that Judge Sotomayor was pointing out a path to greater fairness and fidelity to law by acknowledging that despite the aspiration she shares with other judges, there are imperfections of human judging. By acknowledging rather than ignoring that while all judges seek to set aside their personal views, they do not always succeed, and we can be on guard against those views influencing judicial outcomes. Judge Sotomayor has described herself as ``an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.'' In her opening statement at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing she spoke about witnessing the ``human consequences'' of judicial decisions. She testified that her judicial decisions ``have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the large interest of impartial justice.'' We have a long and important tradition in the law of seeking justice and fairness and equity. Judge Sotomayor spoke about the meaning of the word ``justice'' a decade ago and said: ``Almost every person in our society is moved by that one word. It is a word embodied with a spirit that rings in the hearts of people. It is an elegant and beautiful word that moves people to believe that the law is something special.'' In this country, the law is special, and it is special because of what it protects and what it can do. In England there were separate law courts and chancery courts. But, in the United States we have combined these functions to be performed by all of our Federal judges. We all talk about the importance of judges following the law. Yet we should remember that the law that judges must follow includes the reconstruction amendments and particularly the 14th amendment, which transformed the rule of law and the role of judges and Congress in the United States. In the aftermath of the bloody, tragic Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed to give the courts and the Congress a more active role in defining and protecting civil rights. The complete abolition of slavery was only a part of its grand purpose. It was driven by a profound desire to arm the newly freed slaves--and all Americans--with the rule of law--set forth in the grand phrasing of the equal protection, due process, and privileges or immunities clauses--to guarantee their equal rights against invidious governmental discrimination. The 14th amendment does not supplant but reinforces the historical equitable powers of our courts to redress problems. It is not just the statutes Congress writes, but also the precedent and interpretations of the courts that make up the law. We have a strong common law tradition in that regard. And we have a powerful equitable tradition that ensures that fairness and justice are done. We need judges who appreciate when and how to use their equitable powers. Judges who follow the law are empowered to enjoin illegal behavior, as the Supreme Court did in its historic series of orders enjoining the States and others from segregating schools on the basis of race. This does not mean that our courts have the power to remedy every problem in America. They do not. In addition, they can abuse their power, as I think the Supreme Court did when it intervened in the Presidential election in 2000 and determined its outcome. But, we should never forget that it is through its equitable powers that the Supreme Court and most other courts in this country are able to do justice and to ensure fairness and equity. In that regard, I believe that the experience and wisdom Judge Sotomayor has gained from an extraordinary life will benefit all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress made dramatic changes to our immigration laws that were intended to strengthen barriers to entry to the United States for those believed to be engaged in terrorist activity. This was a laudable goal, but as with so much of the Federal Government's response to the September 11 attacks, fear overtook reason and sound judgment. Rather than limit the scope of changes to the law, Congress passed vastly overbroad revisions to the definition of terrorist activity, resulting in harm to asylum seekers and refugees. As a result, many who deserve and are otherwise eligible for protection under our laws have suffered needlessly. The post-September 11 changes to the law expanded bars to entry for those accused of providing ``material support'' to terrorist organizations, or who are believed to have engaged in ``terrorist activity.'' The new definition of terrorist organization was so broadly written that an individual who was forced at gunpoint to provide medical or other assistance, no matter how slight, to any group of two or more people acting against the law of their country, are considered to have materially supported a terrorist organization. As a result, those who bravely fought repressive governments in their home countries, and those who joined the United States in opposing despots, can now be called terrorists and barred from protection in our Nation. I have worked for years to restore common sense to the bars in our immigration laws that apply to material support for terrorism. Unfortunately, as a result of the previous administration's inaction, and slow progress within the new administration, these laws remain a stain on the reputation of the United States as a leader in the cause of human rights. The time to end the terrible consequences of these laws is long overdue. I called upon the previous administration to exert leadership in solving the longstanding problems associated with these restrictions to admission to the United States. I worked with Senator Kyl to provide the Bush-Cheney administration with the authority to implement waivers so that those deserving of our protection were not wrongly denied sanctuary in the United States. Little was done with the authority we provided. We can and must do better. Today I renew these calls for leadership in the new administration. I call on President Obama to take the steps necessary to implement the authority granted by Congress to protect bona fide refugees and asylees. I recognize that the waiver authority Congress provided to the executive branch resulted in some positive changes in recent months. The executive branch is granting waivers to those whose ``support'' under the overly broad definition of terrorist organization was provided only under duress. Some others, whose support was provided to groups exempt from the definition of terrorist organization, are also being granted protection. But that is not enough. The third tier of the law's definition of terrorist organization continues to ensnare those deserving of our protection who pose no legitimate threat to the United States. Currently, over 7,000 individuals who were granted refugee status or asylum, and who have since petitioned the Government for lawful permanent residence, are on hold and in legal limbo because the agency has not implemented the authority granted under law. These are individuals whom our Government has already screened and deemed eligible for protection under the same set of facts now being held against them to erroneously claim that they are threats to the United States. And in some cases, these are people that bravely stood by the United States in Iraq and elsewhere. Saman Kareem Ahmad served as a translator for the U.S. Marines in Iraq. He came to the United States on a special visa, supported by the Marine captain with whom he served, and with commendations from GEN David Petraeus. But because he had served with the Kurdish democratic party in Iraq in opposing Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ahmad was initially denied a green card because he was deemed to have been part of a terrorist organization under the law's definition. It took press reporting and congressional oversight to resolve this injustice. Such a result is at odds with our values. As the result of legislation Senator Kyl and I sponsored, and which became law, the agency was directed to establish a process for exempting certain groups from the material support bars. In practice, an individual who is granted refugee status or asylum is eligible to later petition to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence. Yet, rather than apply the exemption authority granted under law, the agency appears to assume the terrorism bars apply in many of these cases, and then holds the cases until it determines whether the individual applicants are eligible for a waiver. This is not what Congress intended. A significant percentage of the more than 7,000 pending cases are petitions from refugees or asylees who were previously admitted to the United States. They are being penalized for actions that took place prior to their admission to the United States, often for activity that was not barred at the time, and which they disclosed prior to lawful admission to our nation. These individuals should be granted a presumption of admissibility, assuming no other factors of inadmissibility apply to their cases. Equally troubling is the effect of agency inaction on individuals in removal proceedings. Asylum seekers in removal proceedings are not considered for a waiver of the terrorism-related bars unless and until a final order of removal is issued. This inefficient system forces asylum seekers to engage in a lengthy appeals process if they believe they have a valid claim for relief. Reviewing such cases for waivers at the early stages of removal proceedings will lead to more efficient operations within the agency and the immigration courts. It will also save genuine asylum seekers from unnecessary anguish and enable them to more quickly integrate into American society. I intend to work in earnest with the Obama administration to solve this problem once and for all. If the executive branch is unwilling or unable to make the needed administrative changes to policy, then I will introduce legislation once again. Should legislation be necessary, I expect the administration and the agencies to work with me in a constructive manner to restore common sense and fairness to our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to clarify the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act and how it applies to free medical clinics. In my home State of Vermont, free clinics provide important health care, and in these tough economic times they provide an essential safety net for many people. Free clinics in Vermont and around the country are struggling to pay medical malpractice insurance premiums, due to an ambiguity in the Federal law. Current law provides for physicians who volunteer in free clinics to receive medical malpractice coverage under the Federal Torts Claims Act, FTCA, but it is unclear whether other professionals serving the community in free clinics are also covered. Existing Federal law explicitly provides more comprehensive FTCA coverage to community health centers, including coverage for their boards, employees, contractors and officers. But free clinics currently must purchase malpractice insurance for their board members, employees, contractors and officers. Purchasing this coverage diverts thousands of dollars annually from each of the free clinics in the country. These are funds that could be directed to providing necessary healthcare to the uninsured. This is especially true in States like Vermont, where free clinics make a significant impact serving those in rural areas. Additionally, by removing this financial burden for free clinics, the impact of organizations like Volunteers in Medicine, which assists in setting up and staffing free clinics, will be that much greater. In clarifying current law, and at minimal expense to the Federal Government, we can increase the effectiveness of free clinics that serve and care for so many Americans. This legislation would make it clear that FTCA coverage should be the same for community health centers and free clinics. Both of these institutions deserve our help and play a fundamental role in our communities. It is my understanding that this clarification would not dramatically raise medical malpractice defense costs of the Federal Government because free clinics do not perform high risk procedures like surgeries or births. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the important work that free clinics provide our communities. 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 introducing legislation to clarify the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act and how it applies to free medical clinics. In my home State of Vermont, free clinics provide important health care, and in these tough economic times they provide an essential safety net for many people. Free clinics in Vermont and around the country are struggling to pay medical malpractice insurance premiums, due to an ambiguity in the Federal law. Current law provides for physicians who volunteer in free clinics to receive medical malpractice coverage under the Federal Torts Claims Act, FTCA, but it is unclear whether other professionals serving the community in free clinics are also covered. Existing Federal law explicitly provides more comprehensive FTCA coverage to community health centers, including coverage for their boards, employees, contractors and officers. But free clinics currently must purchase malpractice insurance for their board members, employees, contractors and officers. Purchasing this coverage diverts thousands of dollars annually from each of the free clinics in the country. These are funds that could be directed to providing necessary healthcare to the uninsured. This is especially true in States like Vermont, where free clinics make a significant impact serving those in rural areas. Additionally, by removing this financial burden for free clinics, the impact of organizations like Volunteers in Medicine, which assists in setting up and staffing free clinics, will be that much greater. In clarifying current law, and at minimal expense to the Federal Government, we can increase the effectiveness of free clinics that serve and care for so many Americans. This legislation would make it clear that FTCA coverage should be the same for community health centers and free clinics. Both of these institutions deserve our help and play a fundamental role in our communities. It is my understanding that this clarification would not dramatically raise medical malpractice defense costs of the Federal Government because free clinics do not perform high risk procedures like surgeries or births. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the important work that free clinics provide our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation has a proud history of diversity and a commitment to justice and equal rights for all Americans. The promise of equal rights is a foundational freedom of our democracy. Today we re-introduce important legislation to protect Americans from discrimination in the workplace. I am proud to again cosponsor the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I thank Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Merkley for their leadership and commitment to an issue that has practical significance in the daily lives of millions of our fellow Americans. American workers should be evaluated on the basis of how they perform, not on irrelevant considerations, such as their race, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. It is a question of fundamental fairness. In these difficult economic times, I can think of nothing more fundamental than equality in the workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit workplace discrimination by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, Federal law protects against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin or disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. It is long overdue for Congress to extend these protections to American workers. Senator Kennedy introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in previous sessions of Congress, and with his leadership, it has consistently maintained strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, partisan politics have prevented passage of the measure. It goes against our country's basic values to fire someone based on who they are or what they look like, and we should not tolerate discrimination in the workplace. I hope that this year Congress will have the ability to finally pass this straightforward civil rights measure. My home State of Vermont has played a constructive role in America's journey to build a more just society. Vermont added sexual orientation to the list of protected categories in its antidiscrimination in employment law in 1992, and added gender identity protection in 2007. Twenty-one other States have also taken the lead to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with 13 of those States also banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. But it is clear that more still deeds to be done. In 30 States, it remains legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation and in 38 States, to do so based on gender identity. Americans' civil rights should be protected no matter where they live, which is why I am proud to once again cosponsor this bill, as I have every time it has been introduced in the Senate. I believe the passage of this legislation is long overdue and it is a step in the right direction toward creating equality in the workplace. I urge my fellow Senators to come together to support this important, bipartisan bill without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation has a proud history of diversity and a commitment to justice and equal rights for all Americans. The promise of equal rights is a foundational freedom of our democracy. Today we re-introduce important legislation to protect Americans from discrimination in the workplace. I am proud to again cosponsor the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and I thank Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Merkley for their leadership and commitment to an issue that has practical significance in the daily lives of millions of our fellow Americans. American workers should be evaluated on the basis of how they perform, not on irrelevant considerations, such as their race, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. It is a question of fundamental fairness. In these difficult economic times, I can think of nothing more fundamental than equality in the workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit workplace discrimination by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, Federal law protects against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin or disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. It is long overdue for Congress to extend these protections to American workers. Senator Kennedy introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in previous sessions of Congress, and with his leadership, it has consistently maintained strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, partisan politics have prevented passage of the measure. It goes against our country's basic values to fire someone based on who they are or what they look like, and we should not tolerate discrimination in the workplace. I hope that this year Congress will have the ability to finally pass this straightforward civil rights measure. My home State of Vermont has played a constructive role in America's journey to build a more just society. Vermont added sexual orientation to the list of protected categories in its antidiscrimination in employment law in 1992, and added gender identity protection in 2007. Twenty-one other States have also taken the lead to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with 13 of those States also banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. But it is clear that more still deeds to be done. In 30 States, it remains legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation and in 38 States, to do so based on gender identity. Americans' civil rights should be protected no matter where they live, which is why I am proud to once again cosponsor this bill, as I have every time it has been introduced in the Senate. I believe the passage of this legislation is long overdue and it is a step in the right direction toward creating equality in the workplace. I urge my fellow Senators to come together to support this important, bipartisan bill without further delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, on the floor. We have also discussed this. Senator Sessions and I will open the debate, as the leader has said. I suggest everybody on this side check with the staff to set up a list. Again, I urge people to come at the time they said. I agree with the leader, if they do not, we go to the next person and finish it up. I hope it will not be the case we will be in long quorum calls and then everybody says let's talk. I think the leaders have set a fair schedule, and we should go forward.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, also himself a member of the Judiciary Committee. He sat through and participated in all of the hearings on Judge Sotomayor. When the Judiciary Committee began the confirmation hearing on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, in my opening statement I recounted an insight from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I did this because it is often quoted by President Obama, the man who nominated her. The quote is: Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Each generation of Americans has sought that arc toward justice. Indeed, that national purpose is inherent in our Constitution. In the Constitution's preamble, the Founders set forth to establish justice as one of the principal reasons that ``We the people of the United States'' joined together to ``ordain and establish'' the Constitution. This is intertwined in the American journey with another purpose for the Constitution that President Obama often speaks about. We all admit it is the unfinished goal of forming ``a more perfect Union.'' Our Union is not yet perfected, but we are making progress with each generation. That journey began with improvements upon the foundation of our Constitution through the Bill of Rights and then it continued with the Civil War amendments, the 19th amendment's expansion of the right to vote for women, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 26th amendment's extension of the vote to young people. These actions have marked progress along the path of inclusion. They recognize the great diversity that is the strength of our Nation. Judge Sotomayor's journey to this nomination is truly an American story. She was raised by a working mother in the Bronx after her father died when she was a child. She rose to win top honors as part of one of the first classes of women to graduate from Princeton. She excelled at Yale law school. She was one of the few women in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office in the mid-1970s. She became a Federal trial judge and then the first Latina judge on a Federal appeals court when she was confirmed to the second circuit over a decade ago. I might note on a personal basis, I am a member of the bar of the second circuit, as well as the Federal District Court of Vermont. That is the circuit I belong to as a member of the Vermont bar. I know how excited we were in the second circuit when she became a judge. She is now poised to become the first Latina Justice and actually only the third woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has broken barriers along the way. She has become a role model to many. Her life journey is a reminder to all of the continuing vitality of the American dream. Judge Sotomayor's selection for the Supreme Court also represents another step toward the establishment of justice. I have spoken over the last several years about urging Presidents--I have done this with Presidents of both political parties--to nominate somebody from outside the judicial monastery to the Supreme Court. I believe that experience, perspective, an understanding of how the world works and how people live--how real people live and the effect decisions will have on the lives of people--these have to be very important qualifications. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and the Diana Levine cases to understand the impact each Supreme Court appointment has on the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. In the Ledbetter case, five Justices on the Supreme Court struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our country. In effect, they said we can pay women less than men for the exact same work. Congress acted to protect women and others against discrimination in the workplace more than 40 years ago, yet we still struggle to ensure that all Americans, women and men, receive equal pay for equal work. It took a new Congress and a new President to strike down the immunity the Supreme Court had given to employers who discriminate against their workers and successfully hide their wrongdoing. The Supreme Court had allowed them to do that. We changed that again. I remember the pride I had when I stood beside President Obama when he signed his first piece of legislation into law, the Lilly Ledbetter law, which says something that every one of us should know instinctively in our heart and soul: that women should be paid the same as men for the same kind of work. But for all the talk about ``judicial modesty'' and ``judicial restraint'' with the nominees of a Republican President at their confirmation hearings, we have seen a Supreme Court these last 4 years that has been anything but modest and restrained. I understand decrying judicial activism when judges have simply substituted their judgment for that of elected officials. That is what we have seen these last few years from the conservative members of the Supreme Court. When evaluating Judge Sotomayor's nomination, I believe Senators should consider what kind of Justice she will be. Will she be in the mold of these activists who have gutted legislation designed to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs and in voting, laws meant to protect the access of Americans to health care and education, and laws meant to protect the privacy of all Americans from an overreaching government? I think not and I hope not. The reason I think not and hope not is I have been looking at what kind of judge she has been for the last 17 years and that is not the kind of judge she has been for 17 years. Keep in mind, this is a nominee who has had more experience on the Federal court than any nominee to the Supreme Court in decades. What we see is she has applied the law to the facts of the cases she has considered. She has done that while understanding the impact of her decisions on those before the court. Those who struggle to pin the label of judicial activist on Judge Sotomayor are met by her very solid record of judging based on the law. She is a restrained, experienced, and thoughtful judge who has shown no bias in her rulings. The charge of some Senate Republican leaders that they fear she will show bias is refuted over and over again in her record of 17 years. In fact, her record as a judge is one of rendering decisions impartially and neutrally. No one has pointed to decisions that evidence bias. No one has shown any pattern of her inserting her own personal preferences into her judicial decisions. No one can because that does not exist. That is not who she is nor is it the type of judge she has been. As her record demonstrates and her testimony before the Judiciary Committee reinforced, she is a restrained and fair and impartial judge who applies the law to the facts to decide cases--the kind of judge that any one of us who practiced law would want to appear before, whether we were plaintiff or defendant, government or respondent, rich or poor. Ironically, the few decisions for which she has been criticized are cases in which she did not reach out to change the law or to defy judicial precedent; in other words, cases in which she refused to ``make law'' from the bench. In her 17 years on the bench there is not one example, let alone a pattern, of her ruling based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. She has been true to her oath. She has faithfully and impartially performed her duties under the Constitution. As a prosecutor--a distinguished prosecutor--and then as a judge, she has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over another. In fact, she testified directly to this point. She said: I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interest of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice. About 12 years ago in a case called City of Boerne v. Florida, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that Congress had passed to protect religious freedom. Since then, an activist conservative group of Justices has issued a number of rulings that further restricted the power of Congress under section 5 of the 14th amendment. They have limited other important Federal statutes such as the Violence Against Women Act, and they have done this by using a test created out of whole cloth, without any root in either history or in the text of our Constitution. Scholars across the political spectrum have criticized the Supreme Court's rulings in this line of cases, including Judge Michael McConnell and Judge John Noonan, Jr., both Republican appointees to the Federal bench. Let's have some history. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives fighting a civil war to end the enslavement of millions of Americans. After the war, we transformed our founding charter, the Constitution, into one that embraced equal rights and human dignity through the reconstruction amendments by not only abolishing slavery but also by guaranteeing equal protection of the law for all Americans and prohibiting the infringement of the right to vote on the basis of race. But these reconstruction amendments to our Constitution are not self- implementing. Both the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution contain sections giving Congress the power to enforce the amendments. Congress acts to secure Americans' voting rights when it passes statutes like the Voting Rights Act pursuant to its authority to implement the 14th and 15th amendment's guarantees of equality. Congress acts to ensure the basis for our democratic system of government when we provide for implementation of this principle. In contrast to the resistance that met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965--something that brought about enormous debate in this country--3 years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives came together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This overwhelmingly bipartisan effort sought to preserve the rights of all Americans to equal access to the democratic process. I stood with President George W. Bush when he proudly signed that restoration. But earlier this year, I attended the oral argument in a case challenging the constitutionality of the reenacted Voting Rights Act. It appeared from the questions posed by the conservative Justices that they were ready to apply the troubling line of rulings in which they have second guessed Congress in order to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, one of this country's most important civil rights laws. Lacking a fifth vote for such a seismic shift, the constitutional ruling was avoided. But I remain concerned that the Supreme Court nonetheless remains poised to overturn other decisions made by Congress in which we decide how best to protect the rights and well-being of all American people. I believe Judge Sotomayor will be a Justice who will continue to do what she has done as a judge for the last 17 years. I believe she will show appropriate deference to Congress when it passes laws to protect the freedoms of Americans. I also believe she will have an understanding of the real world impact of the Supreme Court's decisions, which will be a welcome addition. When she was designated by the President, Judge Sotomayor said: The wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as the views of my colleagues on the bench. I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government. Well, it took a Supreme Court that understood the real world to see that the seemingly fair-sounding doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was in reality a straitjacket of inequality and it was offensive to the Constitution. We had ``separate but equal.'' For years in this country, we had segregation. We had segregation in our schools. It was a blight on the idea of a colorblind Constitution. And all Americans have come to respect the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of racial discrimination and inequality in Brown v. Board of Education. That was a case about the real-world impact of a legal doctrine. But just 2 years ago, in the Seattle school desegregation case, we saw a narrowly divided Supreme Court undercut the heart of the landmark Brown v. Board decision, a decision that was unanimous. The Seattle school district valued racial diversity and was voluntarily trying to maintain diversity in its schools. By a five-to-four vote, the conservative activists on the Court said that program was prohibited. That decision broke with more than half a century of equal protection jurisprudence, and I believe it set back the long struggle for equality in this country. Justice Stevens wrote that the Chief Justice's opinion twisted Brown v. Board in a ``cruelly ironic'' way. I think most Americans understand that there is a crucial difference between a community that does its best to ensure that schools include children of all races and one that prevents children of some races from attending certain schools. I mean, real-world experience tells us that. Those of us who are parents, grandparents, we know this. Justice Breyer's dissent criticized the Chief Justice's opinion as applying an ``overly theoretical approach to case law, an approach that emphasizes rigid distinctions . . . in a way that serves to mask the radical nature of today's decision. Law is not an exercise in mathematical logic.'' Actually, I might say, if it were, we could just have computers on our Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren, a Justice who came to the Supreme Court with real-world experience as a State attorney general and Governor, recognized the power of a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board. The Roberts Court, in its narrow desegregation decision 2 years ago, ignored the real-world experience of millions of Americans and chose to depart from the most hallowed precedents of the Supreme Court. I am hopeful and confident that when she serves as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, Sonia Sotomayor, a woman from the South Bronx who has overcome so much, will be mindful of the real-world experiences of Americans. Those critics who devalue her judicial record and choose to misconstrue a few lines from speeches, ignore the aspiration behind those speeches. In fact, Judge Sotomayor begins the part of the speech so quoted by critics with the words ``I would hope.'' She would ``hope'' that she and other Latina judges would be ``wise'' in their decision-making and that their experiences would help inform them and help provide that wisdom. I hope so, too. Just as I hope that Justices Thomas' early life leads him to, as he testified in his confirmation hearing, ``stand in the shoes of other people.'' And I hope that Justice Alito's immigrant heritage, as he too discussed in his confirmation hearing, helps him understand the plight of the powerless in our society. Judge Sotomayor also said in her speeches that she embraced the goal that: ``[J]udges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.'' I am going to be saying more about this as we go along, but I would note that her critics missed that Judge Sotomayor was pointing out a path to greater fairness and fidelity to the law by acknowledging that despite the aspirations of impartiality she shares with other judges, judges are human. Her critics seem to ignore her modesty in claiming not to be perfect. I would like to know which one of the 100 U.S. Senators could claim to be perfect. There are some who could; I am not one of them. By acknowledging that judges come to the bench with experiences and personal viewpoints, they can be on guard against those views influencing judicial outcomes. By striving for a more diverse bench drawn from judges with a wider set of backgrounds and experiences, we can better ensure that the decisions of the Court will be freer of limited viewpoints or narrow biases. All Supreme Court nominees have talked about the value they will bring to the bench from their backgrounds and experiences. That diversity of experience is a strength, not a weakness, in achieving an impartial judiciary. A more diverse bench with a better understanding of the real world impact of decisions can help avoid the pitfalls of the Supreme Court's decisions these last years. Let me point to just one example because judges--just as Senators bring their experience to this body--judges do, too. Judge Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that heard a case involving strip searches of adolescent girls in a juvenile detention center. The parents of two female children challenged Connecticut's blanket strip search policy for all those admitted to juvenile detention centers as a violation of the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. Two of the male judges on the Second Circuit upheld the strip searches of the young girl. In dissent, Judge Sotomayor cited controlling circuit precedent describing what is involved in the strip searches of these girls who had never been charged with a crime--keep in mind that they had never been charged with a crime--and without any basis for individual suspicion. She said that courts ``should be especially wary of strip searches of children, since youth is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage.'' She also emphasized that since many of these girls had been victims of abuse and neglect, they may be more vulnerable mentally and emotionally than other youths their age. The Supreme Court recently decided a similar case, the Redding case. They found that school officials violated the fourth amendment rights of a young girl by conducting an intrusive strip search of her underclothes while looking for the equivalent of a pain reliever many of us have in our medicine cabinet. During oral arguments in that case, one of the male Justices compared the search to simply changing for gym classes. Several of the other Justices answered with laughter--not the reaction I would have if that was my adolescent daughter. And Justice Ginsburg, the lone female Justice on the Supreme Court, described the search as humiliating to young girls. She spoke out. She did not join in that laughter. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that case by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Souter, the Justice whom Judge Sotomayor is nominated to replace, wrote the opinion for the Court. Of course, that position mirrored that of Judge Sotomayor. I suspect that it was Justice Ginsburg's understanding of the intrusiveness of the strip search of the young girl that ultimately prevailed. Can we say our life experience bears no weight in what we do? Among the very first purposes of the Constitution is ``to establish justice.'' It is a purpose that has animated the improvements we have made over generations to our Constitution. It is a purpose engraved in the words over the entrance of the Supreme Court. These words are in Vermont marble, and they say, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' All the dozens and dozens of times I have walked into the Supreme Court, up those steps straight out across from this Chamber, I have always paused to read those words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Is that not what we should stand for? I hope and believe Judge Sotomayor understands the critical importance of both fairness and justice. A decade ago, she gave another speech in which she spoke about the meaning of justice. She said, ``Almost every person in our society is moved by that one word. It is a word embodied with a spirit that rings in the hearts of people. It is an elegant and beautiful word that moves people to believe that the law is something special.'' I believe Judge Sotomayor will live up to those words when she is confirmed, as she will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The senior Senator from Vermont will vote for that confirmation. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to salute Richard ``Dick'' Pembroke, of North Bennington, VT, for his years of service and dedication to the State of Vermont. Dick has been chosen as this year's honoree at the fourth annual Living History Day that will be held August 9, 2009. Dick's friends and family will pay tribute to him in downtown Bennington, for his many achievements and contributions to Bennington and to the State of Vermont. I have had the good fortune to have known Dick for many years. Born and raised on a family farm in my hometown of Montpelier, Dick and I also share St. Michaels College in Vermont as our alma mater. He is a good friend and I am delighted for him and the recognition that he is being given. In honor of Dick Pembroke, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Bennington Banner's story, ``Pembroke will be honored August 9 as `Living History,' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to inform the Senate about a Vermonter whose work has been a unique and meaningful contribution to the Burlington International Waterfront Festival, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of French explorer Samuel de Champlain's arrival at Lake Champlain. Vermont poet David Lusk is using his craft to recreate experiences that are inspired by the surrounding Vermont communities, the lake's natural history, the more than 300 documented shipwrecks, and the rare prehistoric artifacts that lie on the lake's floor. Mr. Lusk's poems also draw from maritime literature and his visits to the shipwrecks that he has taken with guides from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum. He intends to create a collection of poems called ``Lake Studies: Meditations on Lake Champlain.'' Mr. Lusk says the poems strive to ``reflect our mutual associations with these mysteries and to suggest something of our own psychological complexity in the process.'' Below is a poem that Mr. Lusk shared with those attending the opening ceremony at the Burlington Waterfront on July 2, 2009, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain's explorations. I ask that the text of his poem be printed in the Record. Sunset on Mallet's Bay (By David Lusk) For just an instant as the sun reclines between wooly clouds and profound, lavender pillows of the mountains a flock of sheep will appear to cross the glimmering road of iridescent silver creasing the broad back of the lake. See--here they come, the little sheep, huddled together, afraid. --for L.J. and Beth

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate St. Albans VT, native John LeClair for being chosen as a 2009 inductee into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame. John LeClair had a remarkable amateur and professional hockey career. The first American-born player to record three consecutive 50-goal seasons in the National Hockey League, LeClair played 16 years in the NHL--with stops in Montreal, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh--and he helped the Montreal Canadiens capture the Stanley Cup in 1993. He registered 406 goals and 413 assists for 819 points in 967 career games, which ranks him 13th on the NHL's alltime points list among American-born players. LeClair also was a 2-time Olympian, where he netted 34 career points, 22-12, 31 games in a Team USA uniform. Most hockey fans remember LeClair for his dramatic two game-winning goals in overtime during the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals, for being a member of the dreaded ``Legion of Doom'' line with the Philadelphia Flyers, and for leading Team USA to a Silver Medal in the 2002 Winter Olympics. Vermonters. though, go further back with their native son. After his high school graduation from Bellows Free Academy in St. Albans, the Montreal Canadiens drafted LeClair with the 33rd pick in the 1987 entry draft. Instead of immediately going to the NHL, LeClair chose to attend the University of Vermont, where he thrilled Catamount fans for four, exciting seasons. Less than a week after playing his final collegiate game, LeClair signed with Montreal and hit the ice with the Canadiens right away. While LeClair quickly went on to stardom and fame in the NHL, he always enjoyed a loyal following back home. Many Vermonters are naturally Canadiens fans because Montreal is so close to Vermont, but it was amazing to see how many people converted to Flyer fans when LeClair moved to Philadelphia and Penguin fans when he moved to Pittsburgh. I remember that no matter whether it was hockey season or not, it seemed like you couldn't walk down the street in St. Albans or Burlington or Rutland without seeing someone wearing some sort of Flyers paraphernalia, which stood out because of the team's distinguishing orange and black colors. Once again, I congratulate John LeClair on this high honor of being selected as a member of the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a July 29 article from the Burlington Free Press printed in the Record. The material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Burlington Free Press, July 29, 2009] LeClair to Enter U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame--St. Albans Native is Among Class of '09 Colorado Springs, Colo.--Former University of Vermont and NHL star John LeClair of St. Albans, Vt., will be inducted into the United States Hockey Hall of Fame. USA hockey's 2009 class was announced Tuesday, and it also includes former NHL players Tony Amonte and Tom Barrasso, the 1998 U.S. Olympic women's team and the late Frank Zamboni, inventor of the storied ice resurfacing machine. The date of the induction ceremony will be announced in August. During an NHL career that included five seasons with the Montreal Canadians, 10 with the Philadelphia Flyers and two as a Pittsburgh Penguin, LeClair registered 406 goals and 413 assists for 819 points in 967 career games. The winger helped Montreal win the Stanley Cup in 1993, was the first American-born player with three straight 50-goal seasons from 1995 to 1998, and was on USA's silver-medal team at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. LeClair is also a member of UVM's Hall of Fame. He netted 56 goals and 60 assists in four years as a Catamount. Amonte scored the winning goal against Canada in the deciding game of the first World Cup of Hockey in 1996. Barrasso won two Stanley Cups as a goalie for the Pittsburgh Penguins. The 1998 U.S. Olympic Women's team won the gold medal at the Winter Games in Nagano, Japan.