[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S587-S589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF JOEL A. PISANO, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE UNITED STATES 
             DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nomination will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Joel A. Pisano, of New 
Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Joel A. Pisano, of New Jersey, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Inhofe
     Smith (NH)
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     Mack
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I understand, under the previous order, 
the distinguished Senator from Florida is to be recognized next. Seeing 
him on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
continue, without him losing his place in the order, for up to 4 
minutes in reference to the judicial nominations we just confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we begin the 2d session of the 106th 
Congress, we should think about the challenge we face with respect to 
our constitutional responsibility to work with the President to provide 
the many Federal judges who are desperately needed around the country.
  Today I thank our Democratic leader, but I also particularly thank 
the majority leader, both longtime friends. They moved forward Senate 
consideration of two of the seven judicial nominations that were 
favorably reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee last year.
  I know that had the distinguished majority leader not taken the 
earlier parliamentary action he did today, this would not have 
happened. I thank him for doing that.
  I note the heavy vote on both these nominees. One had a vote of 96 
votes. The other had a vote of 95 votes. Perhaps more relevant, there 
were only two votes against them. I would love to win elections by 
those kinds of margins in my home State of Vermont.
  The point is that these distinguished jurists have been held up for 
some time. Yet when they finally come to a vote, we find an 
overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats are for them.
  I hope that we might proceed to prompt action on the remaining five 
judicial nominations on the Senate calendar, as well. Having confirmed 
Judge Ambro and Judge Pisano, I wish we were proceeding, as well, on 
the confirmations of Kermit Bye to the Eighth Circuit, Judge George 
Daniels to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 
Tim Dyk to the Federal Circuit, and Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard 
Paez to the Ninth Circuit.
  I hope that the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, and the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and I can find a 
way to consider each of the judicial nominations reported last year to 
the Senate by the Judiciary Committee.

[[Page S588]]

  Last October, Senator Lott committed to working with us, and I 
commend him for that. Also, in November, he announced he would press 
forward for votes on the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Marsha 
Berzon to the Ninth Circuit by March 15. In that regard, not only do I 
commend him for pushing forward, but I commend the distinguished 
Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, for their 
steadfast support of these nominees. They are now in line to receive 
Senate action. We should do the same with all the others.
  Then there is the question of the 31 judicial nominations pending in 
the Judiciary Committee. In fact, 29 not yet had hearings, although we 
now have some planned.
  I am challenging the Senate to regain the pace it met in 1998 when 
the committee held 13 hearings and the Senate confirmed 65 judges. That 
would still be one fewer than the number of judges confirmed by a 
Democratic Senate majority in the last year of the Bush administration 
in 1992. In fact, in the last 2 years of the Bush administration, a 
Democratic Senate majority with a Republican President confirmed 124 
judges. We now have a Democratic President with a Republican-controlled 
Senate, and it would take 90 confirmations this year alone for the 
Senate to equal that total.
  Let me show a chart. These are Presidential election years. This is 
what we have done on nominations: 64 in 1980; 44 in 1984; 1988, with a 
Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-control Presidency, 42; 
in 1992, with the Democrats in control of the Senate and with a 
Republican President, we confirmed 66 judges; but then 4 years later 
with a Republican Senate and a Democratic President, it dropped to only 
17 judges without a single judge confirmed to the federal courts of 
appeals; and now we have confirmed 2 judges so far this year.
  I hope we can do better. I hope we will say that 1996 was an anomaly 
and the Senate will very much take its duties seriously.
  Let these judges have a vote. If Senators do not want them, vote 
against them. But as we have seen, oftentimes even when they are held 
up, if they can finally get a vote, they are overwhelmingly confirmed 
by the Senate.
  Over the last 5 years, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed the 
following: 58 federal judges in the 1995 session; 17 in 1996; 36 in 
1997; 65 in 1998; and 34 in 1999. In one year, 1994, with a Democratic 
majority in the Senate, we confirmed 101 judges. With commitment and 
hard work many things are achievable. I am not demanding that the 
Senate confirm 101 judges this year, as we did in 1994, or 90 or 80 or 
even 70. But I do challenge the Republican-controlled Senate to hold at 
least 13 hearings and confirm at least 65 judges, as it did in 1998.
  We failed to reach those goals last year when the Judiciary Committee 
held barely half that number of hearings and confirmed barely half that 
number of judges. A confirmation total of 65 at the end of this year is 
achievable if we make the effort, exhibit the commitment and do the 
work that is needed to be done. We cannot achieve this goal if we wait 
several more weeks before holding hearings or wait several weeks 
between hearings. To hold at least 13 hearings requires the Committee 
to begin holding hearings right away and to hold hearings at least 
every other week for the entire session.
  I am continuing to work with Chairman Hatch so that all of the 
nominees submitted to us get a fair hearing before the committee and a 
fair up-or-down vote before the Senate.
  We begin this year with 79 judicial vacancies, more than existed when 
the Republican majority took control of the Senate five years ago and 
over 50 percent more than when the Senate adjourned in 1998. Over the 
last 5 years we have actually lost ground in our efforts to fill 
longstanding judicial vacancies that are plaguing the Federal courts.
  Moreover, the Republican Congress has refused to consider the 
authorization of the additional judges needed by the federal judiciary 
to deal with their ever increasing workload. In 1984, and in 1990, 
Congress responded to requests by the Chief Justice and the Judiciary 
Conference for needed judicial resources. Indeed, in 1990, a Democratic 
majority in the Congress created scores of needed new judgeships during 
a Republican administration.
  Three years ago the Judicial Conference of the United States 
requested that an additional 53 judgeships be authorized around the 
country. Last year the Judicial Conference renewed its request but 
increased it to 72 judgeships needing to be authorized around the 
country. Instead, the only Federal judgeships created since 1990 were 
the nine District Court judgeships authorized in the omnibus 
appropriations bill at the end of last year.
  If Congress had timely considered and passed the Federal Judgeship 
Act of 1999, S. 1145, as it should have, the Federal judiciary would 
have over 150 vacancies today. That is the more accurate measure of the 
needs of the Federal judiciary that have been ignored by the Congress 
over the past several years and places the vacancy rate for the Federal 
judiciary at over 16 percent--151 out of 915. As it is, the vacancy 
rate is almost 10 percent--79 out of 852--and has remained too high 
throughout the 5 years that the Republican majority has controlled the 
Senate.
  Especially troubling is the vacancy rate on the courts of appeals, 
which continues at 15 percent--27 out of 179--without the creation of 
any of the additional judgeships that those courts need to handle their 
increased workloads.
  Most troubling is the circuit emergency that had to be declared four 
months ago by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit. I recall when the Second Circuit had such an emergency 2 years 
ago. Along with the other Senators representing States from the 
Circuit, I worked hard to fill the five vacancies then plaguing my 
circuit. The situation in the Fifth Circuit is not one that we should 
tolerate; it is a situation that I wished we had confronted by 
expediting consideration of the nominations of Alston Johnson and 
Enrique Moreno last year. I hope that the Senate will consider both of 
them promptly in the early part of this year.
  I deeply regret that the Senate adjourned in November and left the 
Fifth Circuit to deal with the crisis in the federal administration of 
justice in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi without the resources that 
it desperately needs. I look forward to our resolving this difficult 
situation promptly this session. I will work with the majority leader 
and the Democratic leader to resolve that emergency at the earliest 
possible time.
  With 27 vacancies on the Federal appellate courts across the country 
and 73 percent of the judicial emergency vacancies in the Federal 
courts system in our appellate courts, our courts of appeals are being 
denied the resources that they need, and their ability to administer 
justice for the American people is being hurt. There continue to be 
multiple vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Six vacancies out of 28 
authorized judgeships is too many; perpetuating five judicial emergency 
vacancies, as the Senate has in this one circuit, is irresponsible. We 
should act on these nominations promptly and provide the Ninth Circuit 
with the judicial resources it needs and to which it is entitled.
  I am likewise concerned that the Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits are 
suffering from multiple vacancies.
  I look forward to Senate action on the long-delayed nominations of 
Judge Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon and Tim Dyk. I continue to urge the 
Senate to meet our responsibilities to all nominees, including women 
and minorities, and look forward to prompt and favorable action on the 
nominations of Judge Julio Fuentes to the Third Circuit, Judge James 
Wynn, Jr. to the Fourth Circuit, Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit, 
and Kathleen McCree Lewis to the Sixth Circuit.
  Working together the Senate can join with the President to confirm 
well-qualified, diverse and fair-minded judges to fulfill the needs of 
the Federal courts around the country. I urge all Senators to make the 
Federal administration of justice a top priority for the Senate this 
year.
  Mr. President, I see my distinguished friend from Florida on the 
floor. I thank him for his courtesy. I commend the distinguished senior 
Senator from New Jersey for giving us such a fine nominee. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 6 minutes

[[Page S589]]

without the Senator from Florida losing any of his time. I thank him 
for his willingness to allow this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a good day for New Jersey. I 
am so pleased the Senate has confirmed the appointment of an 
outstanding citizen of our State, Joel Pisano, for a seat on the U.S. 
District Court for New Jersey. He is a competent, thorough, well-
thought-of individual. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for 
their help in moving Mr. Pisano's nomination through the Judiciary 
Committee and their support of his nomination. I recommended him in 
June of 1999. I am grateful to hear he was confirmed by a vote of 95 to 
2.

  Joel Pisano has outstanding credentials. He is going to be an 
excellent addition to our district court. The backlog of cases is very 
high. It takes a long time for people to bring their cases and have 
them adjudged. Joel Pisano will be an excellent addition to our bench 
and help move that caseload fairly and rapidly.
  He has served as a magistrate judge since 1991. He is already 
performing many of the duties of a district court judge, including jury 
and nonjury trials. He has managed pretrial proceedings in about 600 
civil cases, so he is used to controlling the large caseload of a 
Federal court. He has also dealt with a wide variety of different 
cases--patent and trademark cases, environmental cleanup disputes, 
antitrust and securities litigation, employment discrimination cases, 
and civil RICO matters.
  I did a lot of personal research, as I have on all of the 
recommendations I have made to the Federal bench, and I was so pleased 
to hear of the unanimous approval of Mr. Pisano as a candidate for the 
Federal bench.
  He has a reputation for competence, energy, and commitment that 
perfectly fits the profile of an excellent candidate to sit on the 
Federal district court bench.
  He has consistently impressed everyone who appears before him and who 
works with him in his capacity for fairness and his thorough 
understanding of the law.
  I heard not one critical note from the people I spoke to--lawyers, 
judges, those who make up much of the legal community in the State of 
New Jersey.
  Prior to his appointment as a magistrate, Mr. Pisano was a partner in 
a distinguished law firm. In the 13 years he spent representing 
clients, he developed an expertise in a wide variety of areas, in both 
civil and criminal matters.
  Mr. Pisano appeared in court almost every day and tried 150 cases to 
conclusion. He also managed the litigation section of his firm, which I 
think was an early indication of the supervisory skills that have 
served him so well as a magistrate.
  Magistrate Pisano's depth of experience and organizational skills are 
exactly what we need at a time when staggering caseloads are making it 
more and more difficult for our Federal judges to spend as much time 
with each case as they would wish.
  He will tackle his new responsibilities with energy to spare. I am 
pleased the Senate confirmed him. I am honored that I brought him to 
the attention of the Senate. I believe he will serve as one of our most 
outstanding judges in the district court.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida and yield the floor.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate, by a 95-
2 vote, has confirmed Joel Pisano as a district court judge for the 
District of New Jersey.
  Judge Pisano is an excellent choice to fill the district court seat 
created with the confirmation of Marion Trump Barry to the third 
Circuit Court of Appeals this past summer. He is extremely well-
respected in New Jersey for his commitment to public service, as well 
as for his depth and breadth of knowledge of the law.
  A graduate of Lafayette College and later of Seton Hall University 
Law School, Judge Pisano has had a varied and distinguished legal 
career. He served for 4 years as a public defender in New Jersey, 
before moving into private practice as a partner with a well-respected 
New Jersey law firm for 14 years.
  In 1991, Judge Pisano was appointed to be a U.S. Magistrate Judge in 
Newark, New Jersey. In that capacity, he ably presided over a number of 
high profile cases, including that of a former Mexican deputy attorney 
general who was charged with laundering $9.9 million in drug payoffs.
  In a 1995 survey of attorneys who practice in New Jersey before 
Federal judges, Judge Pisano was praised for his skills in managing 
cases and his efficiency in moving a calendar quickly. His ``street-
wise'' nature and prior experience as a trial attorney were said to 
serve him well on the bench.
  Judge Pisano's 8 years as a magistrate judge have prepared him for 
his promotion to the district court. He has an understanding of, and 
the training for, the responsibilities and challenges he will face as a 
district court judge. I am confident that he will serve us all well in 
his new role.
  In conclusion, I just want to say how pleased I am that Joel Pisano 
has been confirmed by the Senate as a district court judge for the 
District of New Jersey. I am sure that he will be a superb addition to 
the bench.

                          ____________________