[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.
____________________