[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1566-S1574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there are many reasons why the Senate is
known as one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies. This Chamber
has seen some of the most important debates and votes since the
beginning of our Republic. As a freshman Senator--I know my colleague,
the Presiding Officer, is also a freshman Senator and soon we will be
joined by a series of freshman Senators and my good friend, the Senator
from Illinois, is here as well--I think we have all been struck by how
much history has been made in this very Chamber.
I am reminded, as we saw last evening some of the exchanges between
the majority leader and the Republican leader, there is still an awful
lot that I at least feel, as a newcomer, I have to learn. But one thing
has become clear to me since being sworn in a little over a year ago.
Some of the very safeguards that were created to make this a serious
and responsible deliberative body have been abused in a way that
damages this institution. In some instances, this abuse also runs
contrary to our national interest.
This became very clear to me several weeks ago during the nomination
and voting on Justice Barbara Keenan. Senator Jim Webb, my colleague,
and I had the honor of nominating Virginia Supreme Court Justice
Barbara Milano Keenan to the Federal Appeals Court for the Fourth
Circuit. She is one of the most highly regarded jurists in Virginia.
She received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. She
was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously last October, and
then her nomination ground to a halt, first for weeks and then for
months. In fact, her nomination was filibustered, if you can call it
that. I recall in school thinking the filibuster
[[Page S1567]]
was something that was only going to be used on rare occasions of
issues of national concern to make sure minority rights were protected.
Justice Keenan was filibustered, in effect, because one Senator
placed a hold on her. Consequently, cloture had to be filed. That was
despite the strong endorsement Justice Keenan had received from our new
Republican Governor, Governor McDonnell. I appreciate his support of
Justice Keenan.
A funny thing happened when we forced the vote both on cloture and
the nomination: She was confirmed unanimously. Filibustering a nominee
who gets a unanimous vote, something is not right with that. That is
not the way this body is supposed to work.
This experience was truly an eye-opener for me. I see dozens of
executive branch nominees caught up in this web. My understanding is,
right now, in the second week of March, literally the Obama
administration has 64 nominees pending. These are nominees where,
despite overwhelming committee votes, they have languished on the
calendar for months, often because one Senator has a completely
different gripe about a completely unrelated issue.
The Presiding Officer knows, she and I were both Governors, we were
both CEOs. I think it is incredibly important, whether you are a
Governor, whether you are a CEO of a private company, and particularly
if you are the President of this great country, you ought to be able to
have your management team in place, clearly, 14 months after the
inauguration of President Obama.
I certainly do not believe the Senate should be a rubberstamp for
nominees. Far from it. In cases where there is legitimate disagreement
about qualifications of any particular nominee, I am all for having a
debate and then a straight up-or-down vote. But that has not been the
case. It has not been the case with Justice Keenan, and I am going to
cite one other individual today, and I know my other colleagues are
going to be citing others.
The individual I wish to talk about is Michael Mundaca. He has been
nominated by President Obama to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Tax Policy--a very important job in crafting tax and revenue
policies. He is both highly qualified and well respected, having worked
previously at high levels of the Treasury Department and in the
international tax department of Ernst and Young. He has a law degree
from UC Berkeley School of Law and was executive editor of the
California Law Review.
As I understand it, Mr. Mundaca's nomination was approved
overwhelmingly, 19 to 4, in the Senate Finance Committee before
Christmas. Since then, he has been denied a vote in this body, not over
any substantive concerns. If there is a concern about Mr. Mundaca's
qualifications, a Senator ought to come and make that case, and we
ought to have a debate. No, that is not the reason. It is because one
Senator or group of Senators has decided to try to leverage this
nomination to some other end. To me, that is simply not fair.
This morning--I see my colleagues starting to arrive--many Senators
who are relatively new to the body will take to the floor. We are the
new guys and gals, the freshmen and the sophomores. Maybe we do not
understand all the rules and traditions. We basically spent our first
year trying to learn those rules and traditions.
But one of the issues that has united us in all coming here this
morning is because the nomination process is broken, and we are asking
all our colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to come together, not as
partisans but as Americans.
In the last four Presidential terms, there have been two Democrats
and two Republicans holding the White House. I am confident we would be
here regardless of who occupies the White House because a President
deserves his or her management team to be in place 14 months after
inauguration. If there are problems with their nominees, they ought to
be debated and brought to the floor and discussed, not simply left in
limbo. We need to start doing our job and start voting up or down on
these nominees who are languishing on the Senate calendar.
I see my colleague who is much more experienced than this freshman,
my good friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. I now yield 4 minutes to
my friend, Senator Whitehouse.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the Senator.
The last 2 years have seen the American economy on the brink of
collapse, battered by an economic maelstrom not seen since the Great
Depression and now slowly--too slowly--recovering its strength.
President Obama's Recovery Act led the way, and we have seen its
benefits over the last year with job losses slowing significantly. He
inherited an economy losing, I think, 700,000 jobs a month, and it is
now back to nearly break even.
An essential element of this recovery has been encouraging thriving
export markets. Last week, President Obama laid out his plan to double
exports in 5 years, an initiative which could create up to 2 million
jobs. As the President said: ``In a time when millions of Americans are
out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.''
But for international trade to function, our government must
participate fully in international trade negotiations, advocating fair
and open trading rules that allow American businesses to compete and
export.
Yet a single Senator, the Republican Senator from Kentucky, has
blocked the President's nominees for two key trade positions--nominees
who cleared the committee with strong, positive votes. Michael Punke,
nominated as Deputy Trade Representative to Geneva, and Islam Siddiqui,
nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, deserve an up-or-down
vote in the Senate.
In this economic crisis, why in the world would a Senator hold up
such important appointments for our exports and for our economy,
hobbling this administration's ability to fully participate in
international trade talks?
The Senator from Kentucky has told us why: to try to force U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk to file a complaint regarding Canada's recently
passed antismoking law. Yes, believe it or not, the Senator from
Kentucky is blocking the appointment of critical U.S. international
trade officials to try to force the administration to put pressure on
Canada to change its antismoking law.
I am sure the tobacco industry is important in the Senator's home
State, and protecting home State jobs is important. But hampering our
ability to negotiate our trade agreements in this time of economic
distress is not the way to do it. The Senator's hold is particularly
ironic and unproductive, since trade officials, such as these nominees,
are the ones charged with negotiating resolutions to trade issues such
as the one that appears to motivate the Senator from Kentucky.
Ambassador Kirk recently commented that the absence of these officials
is having a significant impact and indicated the situation is causing
some countries to question our commitment to serious trade talks. ``We
would be greatly advantaged not only just from the manpower and
intellectual strength these two individuals bring, but I think it would
help us regain some of our credibility,'' is what Ambassador Kirk said.
Let's be clear. The Senator from Kentucky has said he does not have
any objection to these nominees. He is only blocking the nominations as
leverage against the President and Ambassador Kirk. That is pure
obstructionism.
It is these kinds of political power plays--one Senator actually had
70 nominees on hold--that lead to such cynicism in the country about
our ability to work together and get things done. When a Senator blocks
basic governmental action--action that all agree is of national
importance--for purely parochial and political reasons, the public
rightly wonders what is going on.
If the Senator from Kentucky disagrees with the Canadian Legislature,
fine, he should voice that disagreement publicly and try to persuade
the President of the merits of his point of view. He is welcome to do
that. Instead, he has chosen to add to the obstructionist tactics that
are poisoning this Chamber and preventing the Government of the United
States from doing its business. That may serve the immediate political
goals of his party, but it is wrong for our country and it is wrong for
all Americans who depend on an effective U.S. Government. I urge the
Senator from Kentucky to release his holds.
[[Page S1568]]
I yield the floor back to Senator Warner from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of Senator
Whitehouse and his pointing out one more example of a qualified nominee
who needs to be voted on up or down.
I now call upon my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator
Burris.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and
the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. It is a pleasure for me to
join in this very important discussion in the Senate.
I am proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this morning
to discuss some of the obstructionism we have seen from the other side
on a number of Presidential nominations. It is the duty of this Senate
to provide advice and consent on more than 2,000 government officials
appointed by the President of the United States. These individuals
range from Cabinet level officers to agency administrators,
ambassadors, Federal judges, and more. They are tasked with leading
important agencies and offices such as the Transportation Security
Administration, our diplomatic missions around the world, and various
law enforcement organizations.
These nominees generally make it through committee on near-unanimous
bipartisan votes. They are extremely dedicated public servants who
stand ready to defend our national security, advance our shared
interests, and carry out the important work of the American people. But
when these nominations come out of the committee, they invariably hit a
roadblock. They hit a stone wall. They are stalled the moment they come
to the Senate floor. That is because my Republican friends are holding
up dozens of these nominations.
Scores of important offices remain vacant because of the same
partisan tactics of distraction and delay that we have seen time and
time again from the other side. It is not that my Republican colleagues
have any problems with the qualifications of the nominees themselves.
They enjoy bipartisan support in committee. They carry the high esteem
of both Democrats and Republicans. When we are finally able to break
the filibuster and have an up-or-down vote, these individuals are
almost always confirmed unanimously, as the judge from Senator Warner's
State of Virginia was, with a vote of 99 to 0. It was senseless for
that nomination to be held up for that long.
But thanks to the same old political games, it is difficult to get
cloture on these nominations so we can get a floor vote in the first
place. The same Republican Senators who vote in favor of these nominees
in committee--the same Senators who later support them on the floor--
try to keep us from moving forward as a full Senate. This is
obstructionism at its worst. This is pure politics at the expense of
the American taxpayers.
This is a waste of our time and effort, and the American people
deserve better. They sent us to Washington to solve big problems--to
create jobs, to reform health care, to strengthen our educational
system. But my Republican friends are not interested in working
together to confront these challenges. Instead, they drag their feet on
noncontroversial things such as Presidential nominations in hopes of
scoring political points. They bring this body to a standstill just so
they can advance a partisan agenda. Meanwhile, dozens of important
Federal agencies are without leadership at the highest levels.
Thousands of government employees are working without the public
servants who have been appointed to lead them--all because of
Republican political games.
So I would ask my good friends from the other side of the aisle to
abandon these tactics of distraction and delay. Let's have a
substantial debate about the issues, not an argument over procedure.
Let's stop wasting time and start working together to solve the
problems we face. In the meantime, let's confirm these nominees so they
can take up their appointed offices and begin to serve the American
people.
I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues from the
freshman and sophomore classes to point out the obstruction that we are
seeing from the other side of the aisle in holding up these executive
branch nominees. It is unfortunate, with so many challenges facing this
country, that we have to be on the floor of the Senate today talking
about obstructionism rather than talking about what we can do to
address the real issues facing this country.
One of those important issues has to do with how we get this economy
going again. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside
of the United States; and for American companies to grow and expand, to
create jobs, we have to increase exports of goods and services. That is
the simple reality.
There are several actions we need to take to help American companies
compete overseas. Tomorrow, for example, I am going to be back on the
Senate floor talking about what we can do to strengthen the Small
Business Administration's export lending and promotion services.
Certainly another thing we need to do is to protect the interests of
American companies and workers in the trade arena.
As we have already heard from Senator Whitehouse, that is why it is
unconscionable that the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to be
Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Michael Punke, is being
held up by a single Senator.
Senator Tester came to the floor last week to ask Senator Bunning to
stop blocking Mr. Punke's confirmation. Now, after reading yesterday's
New York Times, I felt compelled to also speak about the hold on this
confirmation. Yesterday's story in the paper reported on China's
aggressive filing of complaints with the WTO. In the last 12 months,
China filed more complaints with the WTO than any other country, even
though it is cleaning the clock of every country on the planet,
including the United States, when it comes to trade.
China racked up a nearly $200 billion trade surplus with the rest of
the world last year. Its trade imbalance with the United States is 4 to
1. Yet the top position of the United States at the WTO--you guessed
it, the position that Mr. Punke has been nominated for--is being held
up, is still vacant because there is one Senator who is unhappy with
Canada's tobacco law.
That is right. As Senator Whitehouse has already told us, the hold on
Mr. Punke has nothing to do with whether he is qualified to be
ambassador to the WTO. His confirmation was unanimously recommended by
the Finance Committee 3 months ago. No, this critical post remains
vacant because one Senator--Senator Bunning--is angry that Canada
banned flavored cigarettes as a way to combat teen smoking.
I certainly understand the tobacco industry fears the Canadian law
will be interpreted broadly to ban American-blend cigarettes. But
blocking the confirmation of our WTO ambassador over this issue at this
time, when expanding exports is critical to our economic recovery, is
counterproductive, and it is an abuse of Senate rules. The point has
now been made. So now is the time for Senator Bunning to lift this hold
so we can confirm Mr. Punke and we can get this critical position
filled and make sure that American businesses have a level playing
field when it comes to exports.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in the
freshman and sophomore classes today to highlight a recurring problem
in the Senate--the Republican holds on the confirmations of crucial
executive branch nominees. These are not controversial people, as you
will hear from what I am going to tell you from my part of the story
today and what you have heard from some of my colleagues.
As a former prosecutor and the manager of a prosecutor's office of
more than 400 people, I know from personal experience how important it
is to have a strong leadership team in place. Only with a strong
leadership team can an executive implement his or her vision. In our
current economy, a vision for increased trade and export promotion is
particularly important, and the President has one.
[[Page S1569]]
Earlier this year, he announced a plan, widely supported by CEOs of
large and small corporations, to double American exports overseas in
the next 5 years. Export promotion is a topic that is of special
interest to me, as I chair the Subcommittee on Competitiveness,
Innovation and Export Promotion.
I truly believe if we are to move this economy again, we have a world
of opportunity out there. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers
are outside of our borders. This is a different world with growing
buying power in countries such as India and China, where instead of
just importing goods we can be making stuff again; we can be sending it
out so that customers in these other countries can be buying it.
Look at the numbers. A diversified base of customers helps a business
weather the economic ups and downs. According to research, businesses
that export grow 1.3 percent faster--and they are nearly 8.5 percent
more likely to stay in business--than companies that don't export.
These are the facts. So it is hard to believe, when we have a laser
focus on the economy right now, when that is all I hear about from the
people of my State, that my friends on the other side of the aisle are
holding up the President's nominees for positions that promote American
exports abroad. It makes absolutely no sense.
Right now, Republican holds are blocking votes on the confirmations
of Michael Punke, nominated to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, and
``Isi'' Siddiqui, nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator. These
nominees have five decades of experience in international trade between
the two of them, including extensive private sector and government
work. They work with Democrats and they work with Republicans. They
just want to get this economy moving again. But our friends on the
other side of the aisle are placing holds on them at the very time when
we all know this is the direction in which we need to move. These are
exactly the type of people who could help expand American agricultural
and small business exports and grow our economy.
These two nominees have been fully vetted and received strong
bipartisan support in their Finance Committee hearings. They were
recommended by the Finance Committee to the full Senate by a vote of 23
to 0--including the affirmative vote of the Senator who has since
placed a hold on Mr. Punke. No one would believe this. The reason for
the hold? The Senator in question wants Mr. Punke to commit to forcing
Canada to repeal parts of an antismoking law passed by the Canadian
Parliament.
So we have people in Rhode Island, in Illinois, in Minnesota, in New
Hampshire who are looking for jobs, and they know that a key part of
this is to increase exports to be able to sell our goods to other
countries. Yet these guys are placing a hold on the very people who can
get this work done because they are concerned about a law passed by the
Canadian Parliament. It is too good to be true but, sadly, it is true.
Holding these nominees in limbo has dire consequences for our ability
to promote American products abroad. Our international partners
actually use the absence of Mr. Punke and Dr. Siddiqui as an excuse to
stall progress on serious negotiations. You know what they say. They
say: You don't have your guys in place. You don't have your people in
place, so we are not negotiating with you, America.
Blocking these nominees gives cover to other nations that want to
keep the United States from getting fair market access in the global
trading system for American agriculture, manufacturing, and services.
A coalition of 42 food and agricultural groups wrote Senators Reid
and McConnell in January to call for quick approval. They said: U.S.
food and agricultural exports are under assault in many markets with
trading partners erecting even more barriers in recent months. It has
to stop.
In the United States, we further export promotion policy through a
variety of different executive agencies, and Republicans aren't just
holding up USTR reps, they are also holding up Eric Hirschhorn, the
nominee to head up the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce
Department. This is the division at Commerce that screens exports to
make sure national security, economic security, cyber-security, and
homeland security standards are upheld when we export sensitive
technologies.
The head of this bureau engages in strategic dialogues with high-
level government officials from key transshipment countries such as
Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates in order
to prevent sensitive technologies from being diverted to China, Iran,
and North Korea. Leaving this position unfilled sends a negative
message to the domestic exporting community, to our allied governments,
and it hurts our security. Why would we want to leave this position
unfilled?
Mr. Hirschhorn has spent more than 30 years involved in issues
related to export control. As an author of numerous articles and ``The
Export Control and Embargo Handbook,'' which is widely recognized as
the leading text on the issue, Hirschhorn displays an unparalleled
understanding of the importance of export control systems and work.
These are a few examples of the pivotal positions being held up by
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If you are going to talk
the talk about moving this economy, about exports, about trade, about
getting our goods out there, building things again, then you should
walk the walk. You should not be holding up Siddiqui and Punke and
Hirschhorn. These are noncontroversial people. Nobody watching C-SPAN
has ever heard of them before. They are not in the middle of some
controversial mess. They are trying to get our country moving again.
That is what this is about. For people who are trying to get jobs,
trying to move this country, they need people in place in the
government to help them. Take those holds off, get this moving, put
these people in place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Oregon is
recognized.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to decry the attack of my
Republican colleagues on the executive branch of the United States of
America. The Constitution, which we are sworn to uphold, calls for a
balance of power between three branches of government--the executive
branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. In it, it
gives us a certain ability to test the fitness of high appointees to
the executive branch. That is the advise and consent clause of the
Constitution.
The Constitution does not have a delay and obstruct clause. It has an
advise and consent clause. That means we have the responsibility, on a
timely basis, to review high appointees to the executive branch and
give our opinion. If we vote a person down, then indeed that nomination
does not go forward.
What we have here is not a sincere application of advise and consent.
We have a systematic effort underway to undermine the credibility and
the capability of the President's team here in America.
This is a list of nominations that is being held up. This is not one
nomination here and one nomination there. These are dozens and dozens
of key appointees who will make the executive branch operate. Let's
look at some of these. The Federal Election Commission, the Department
of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the National Labor
Relations Board, the Legal Services Corporation, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Army, the Executive Office of the President, the
Amtrak Board of Directors, the National Transportation Safety Board,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the Department
of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of State,
the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
National Council on Disability, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Fellow Americans, I think you get the picture that this is a list in
a systematic effort to undermine the ability of the executive branch to
do its job. If we simply look back at the nominations on which we have
had to file cloture and hold a vote in this Chamber, two-thirds of
those nominees have passed by more than 70 of this body.
[[Page S1570]]
Many of them had 80 or 90 votes because there was no sincere objection
to this individual, be it he or she, in a number of these departments.
But it was a systematic effort to delay the capability of the executive
branch of the United States of America. That is unacceptable. We are
not empowered as a Chamber, in this Constitution, to delay and obstruct
and prevent the executive branch from doing its job.
I call upon my Republican colleagues who are conducting this attack
on the President and his team to honor their constitutional
responsibilities to advise and consent, to take this list and if there
are a couple of key nominees that you have serious concerns about, then
indeed let's have that debate here on the floor. But these dozens need
to be set free to do their job. That is how the balance of powers is
envisioned in the Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to raise questions
about why the Republicans in the Senate are holding up a number of
nominations. We have heard some of that articulated this morning by a
number of our colleagues. I have a specific example of what this kind
of obstruction leads to. It is with regard to a circuit court
nomination, in this case a judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. This is someone I have known a long time, someone I have
known to be not only capable to do the job a U.S. Court of Appeals
judge must do, but also someone who has demonstrated his ability on the
district court for many years. The person I am speaking of is Judge
Thomas I. Vanaskie, who has been nominated for a position on the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.
As I said, I have known him a long time. He is someone who has been a
legal scholar, someone who has a long and distinguished career on the
Federal bench as well as a career as an advocate when he was practicing
law.
I ask unanimous consent a fuller statement of his record and resume
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
biography
Judge Vanaskie's biography highlights both his scholarly
and professional accomplishments and the high esteem in which
he is held by his colleagues in the legal profession. He
graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where he was also an honorable
mention All-American football player, a first team Academic
All-American, the college's outstanding male student athlete,
and the recipient of the highest award given to a graduating
student.
At Dickinson School of Law, from which he graduated cum
laude in 1978, Judge Vanaskie served as an editor of the Law
Review and received the M. Vashti Burr award, a scholarship
given by the faculty to the student deemed ``most
deserving''.
After graduating, Judge Vanaskie served as a law clerk for
Judge William J. Nealon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Vanaskie practiced law for two highly regarded
Pennsylvania firms before his appointment to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in
1994.
He became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and
completed his seven-year term in 2006.
He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the
Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference
of the United States where he served as Chair for three
years. He has also participated in several working groups of
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, mostly
recently on the Future of District CM/ECF Working Group,
tasked with determining the design and development of the
next generation of the federal judiciary's electronic case
filing program.
He is an adjunct professor at the Dickinson School of Law
and has also been active in civic and charitable efforts in
his hometown of Scranton.
accolades
Lawyers who have appeared before Judge Vanaskie have
expressed tremendous respect for his intellectual rigor and
the disciplined attention he brings to the matters before
him.
One attorney who has tried over a dozen cases before Judge
Vanaskie has described him as ``objective, fair, analytical,
dispassionate, extraordinarily careful, and very respectful
of appellate authority.'' This same practitioner said that he
has not always agreed with Judge Vanaskie's decisions, but he
has always felt that his rulings reflected what the Judge
considered to be the most appropriate result, and the result
that he was obligated to impose under the law.
U.S. District Judge William J. Nealon, for whom Judge
Vanaskie clerked has described him as ``superbly qualified .
. . He's outstanding . . . He's brilliant. He's objective.
And he's tireless . . .''
Judge Vanaskie recognizes that for many citizens, his
decisions will be the final word on their claims. He treats
people with respect and honors their right to be heard. His
deep understanding of and respect for the law will serve him
well in ruling on cases and authoring opinions that will be
influential in the Third Circuit and beyond.
career highlights
In 2008, Judge Vanaskie presided over the first known
court appearance of aging mobster Bill D'Elia where he
pleaded guilty to two federal felonies. He later sentenced
``Big Billy'' to serve in federal prison.
Late last year, Judge Vanaskie sentenced the former
Superintendent of the Pittston Area School District to 13
months in federal prison and a $15,000 fine for accepting
$5,000 cash in kickbacks from a contractor he supported in
obtaining a contract with the school district. The case is
part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and the IRS and
is being prosecuted by a team of federal prosecutors.
He ruled that the government could not deport Sameh
Khouzam, a native of Egypt and a Christian, because the State
Department did not review Egyptian diplomatic assurances that
Khouzam would not be tortured upon his return. ``The fact
that this matter implicates the foreign affairs of the United
States does not insulate the executive branch action from
judicial review,'' the Judge wrote. ``Not even the president
of the United States has the authority to sacrifice . . . the
right to be free from torture . . .''
He presided over the trial and sentencing of an Old Forge
man who spent more than $413,000 that he stole from victims
of an investment scam. ``You stole these people's money,''
said the Judge. ``I can't sugarcoat it.''
Mr. CASEY. Judge Vanaskie graduated with high honors from Lycoming
College and was an honorable mention All-American football player
there. He attended the Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania,
graduated with honors in 1978, was editor of the Law Review, clerked
for Judge William Nealon, who was then the Chief Judge for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. Judge Vanaskie went on to have a
distinguished career as a lawyer. He got to the Middle District Court,
the U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994, became the Chief
Judge, just like Judge Nealon, the judge he served. Judge Vanaskie
became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and his 7-year term as
Chief Judge was completed in 1996.
He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Information
Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
where he served as Chair for 3 years.
I will submit for the Record, as I mentioned before, what many people
have said about him in addition to his record. I will read one of those
at this moment. Judge Nealon, someone who has been on the District
Court of Pennsylvania, the Middle District, for more than a generation,
since 1962--here is what that judge said about Judge Vanaskie. He said:
He is superbly qualified, he is outstanding, he is
brilliant, he is objective and he is tireless.
There is not much more you could say that would be higher praise than
that from not only a colleague but someone who has had decades of
experience presiding over complex matters in the district courts.
In my own judgment, Judge Vanaskie demonstrated, when he was on the
district court, the kind of legal acumen and scholarship and commitment
to the rule of law that made him stand out on the district court. I
know I personally have experience with that; I appeared before him. I
remember in particular trying a case in front of him. He is someone I
knew very well for many years, someone I had great respect for, but
also someone I knew personally. Despite that personal connection, I do
remember him ruling against me on a number of objections. That alone is
testament to his integrity. It is widely shared.
When you consider all of that legal experience, unquestioned ability
on the district court, unquestioned ability to handle very complex
matters that prepared him to serve on the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals and that he was voted out of committee close to unanimously--I
think there were three votes against him. I will doublecheck this, but
I think the vote was 16 to 3. I will make sure we check that for the
Record.
Having said all that, I cannot understand why our friends on the
other side
[[Page S1571]]
of the aisle would want to hold up someone who has such a brilliant
record, who is committed to being and has already demonstrated a
commitment to be a fair-minded judge, someone who will set aside their
personal points of view, their personal biases, to rule on matters that
come before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It does
not make much sense when you consider the support he has received. But
it seems, as on so many of these nominations, the impediment here is
not a set of questions, not a set of unresolved issues. The impediment
is too many Senators on the other side of the aisle who want to use the
nomination process to achieve political objectives. That, in my
judgment, is what is happening.
What they should do for the American people is set aside those
political objectives and get people confirmed, just as they would hope
that their nominees, people they support under a Republican President,
would be confirmed.
This is just one example, but I think a very telling example, of what
our friends are doing when they hold up a judge who has that kind of
record of service, of commitment to justice and the rule of law. I
think it speaks volumes about what is happening in the Senate on
nominations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the gridlock
in the Senate and the effect it has on our ability to do our jobs as
legislators. If you talk to the average person on the street, he or she
will probably tell you that Americans are pretty frustrated with their
government right now. People think government does not work and that
politicians care more about fighting with each other than they do about
helping American families.
Some days I can hardly blame the people who hold this opinion. We are
now in the second year of President Obama's administration and we have
only just begun to fill the spots in the executive and judicial
branches because of filibusters, holds, and other procedural tactics
that have delayed an extraordinary number of people. We had no Under
Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department despite the
fact that our country has just experienced arguably the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression. We have no Assistant Secretary for
Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services. You would
think when we have been considering health care reform legislation in
the past year, it might be helpful to confirm an Assistant Secretary
for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services.
There are so few members of the National Labor Relations Board, the
Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the NLRB's current
decisions have any legal standing, yet we have failed to confirm a
single one of President Obama's three nominees.
In one of the most egregious examples of obstructionism, the Senate
failed to vote on the appointment of the first nominee for
Transportation Security Administration Chief, the person charged with
keeping our Nation's airlines safe. In the interim, a terrorist tried
to attack Northwest flight 253. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nominee
eventually withdrew himself from consideration, saying he was
``obstructed by political ideology.''
I have said it before and I will say it again: I have no problem with
standing on principle. Our first President, George Washington,
supposedly once said we pour House legislation into the senatorial
saucer to cool it. Whether or not that story is true, the Senate has
long served as the cooling Chamber, the place where reason and
thoughtful debate occur in our Congress. The filibuster is a key tool
for the way the minority can stand up to a majority that is acting
irrationally in the heat of the moment. So I have no problems with my
colleagues threatening to filibuster nominees or legislation that they
actually oppose.
That is what the Founders intended. The Senate has an important role
to play in giving the President its advice and consent on nominations.
I take that role very seriously. But too often my colleagues filibuster
nominees they actually support in an effort to extract other promises
or just to slow the Senate down.
In February, the Senate finally confirmed the noncontroversial
administrator of the General Services Administration after 9 months.
The vote was 94 to 2. Similarly this month, my colleagues forced a
cloture vote, they forced a cloture vote to approve a judicial nominee
for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then confirmed
unanimously, 99 to 0.
Yet we are forced to vote for a filibuster. That is nuts. This is a
perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the
Senate. It used to be the filibuster was reserved for matters of great
principle. Today it has become a way to play out the clock. Some of my
colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method
possible to keep the Senate from doing anything then they are in
creating jobs or helping Americans struggling in a difficult economy.
They seem to actually want the government to fail. Why else delay
things you actually agree with? No wonder Americans are frustrated with
the government. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the Senate
to stop playing politics or pursuing personal agendas and start
approving well-qualified nominees without forcing unnecessary delay.
For our government to function the way it is supposed to, it needs to
have personnel. Let's give the executive branch and the judicial branch
the people they need so we can help government function in the way it
is supposed to and reassure Americans that government does work for
them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise, along with my
colleagues this morning, to draw attention to the growing dysfunction
exacted on this institution's ability to confirm both judicial and
executive branch nominees.
Having served five terms in the House of Representatives, I have come
to expect a certain amount of political revelry and combat. While I was
honored to serve in the House, and I have fond memories of the often
raucous debates there, I had high expectations that the Senate would
truly be a place of deliberation and bipartisan goodwill.
Of late, however, it seems the worst political gamesmanship has
infiltrated the Senate. Perhaps the proverb ``the grass is always
greener on the other side'' applies here, but I do have to tell you, I
think the level of gridlock we have faced in the last year is
unprecedented.
We have seen roadblock after roadblock as we have tried to exercise
one of the most basic functions of the Senate, that of making sure we
have a full complement of Federal judges and ensuring the departments
and agencies of the sitting administration are filled with competent
public servants.
In contrast, by this date during President Bush's first term in
office, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had confirmed twice as
many circuit and district court nominations. The obstruction of present
judicial nominees is all the more galling when you note that they were
reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent.
Two weeks ago today, we were forced to invoke cloture on Barbara
Milano Keenan to be U.S. circuit judge. Her nomination was held up for
months. We finally had to say enough is enough and shut off the
filibuster. When we finally voted on cloture, it was invoked 99 to 0,
meaning not a single Senator was willing to stand and oppose the
nominee.
You know in your State, Mr. President, this is the kind of
superficial partisanship the American people are fed up with. In
addition to judicial nominees, President Obama's executive branch
appointments have suffered from a similar kind of gamesmanship. One
would be hard-pressed to find one single department in this
administration whose work has not been interrupted by phony delays.
Let me give you an example. After having invoked cloture and overcome
a filibuster on Martha Johnson to be the Director of the General
Services Administration, not a single Senator was willing to stand in
opposition to the nominee. Cloture was invoked and she was confirmed by
a 96-to-0 margin.
I know partisanship is rampant in this town, but the American people
deserve to know what is happening in the
[[Page S1572]]
Senate. We are reaching a heightened level of imprudence, the kind
George Washington warned us about in his farewell address in 1796.
In outlaying the principle we first all have an obligation to govern,
Washington stated, ``All obstructions to the execution of the national
laws [ . . . ] with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or
awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities
are destructive of this fundamental principle.''
As I close, the American people know this town causes grown men and
women to bicker and fight like children. Children have an excuse, they
are children. We are not. We can do better, and I urge my colleagues to
set aside their partisan differences, end this gridlock, and begin
working together for the good of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.
I am joining my freshman colleagues on the floor to express my
amazement at the difficulty this body is having conducting even the
simplest legislative functions.
When I came to Washington last year from the North Carolina State
Senate, I was certainly under no illusions that the process here would
be lightening fast. In fact, I believe strongly we should take the time
to make reasoned judgments about legislative and executive branch and
judicial nominees. The American people are better served when we take
the time to make the best decisions.
But there is a difference between taking time for reasoned judgment
and impeding progress for the sole purpose of delay. There currently
are 67 executive branch nominations awaiting action by the full Senate.
Every one of these has been approved by the committee of jurisdiction,
many having been approved unanimously. Thirty-one of those sixty-seven
nominees were approved in committee last year and have been waiting for
months for action by the full Senate.
One individual awaiting action by the Senate, Michael Punke, has been
nominated to be our ambassador to the World Trade Organization. He was
approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in December.
As my colleagues know, the member countries of the WTO are currently
engaged in a round of trade talks that could have enormous implications
for American workers and industries. Would it not make sense to have
the best possible American representation at those talks? Should we not
want someone there who is advocating forcefully on behalf of our
American workers, producers, and businesses?
It has been reported the delay in considering this particular
nomination is connected to a concern one Senator has regarding a recent
tobacco law passed in the Canadian Parliament. Well, I represent the
largest tobacco State in the country. I will be honest, I understand
the concerns of my fellow tobacco-State Senator regarding this
legislation.
But I guess I have not been here long enough to understand how
concerns with Canadian tobacco legislation lead you to the conclusion
that you should prevent the United States from being represented in
international trade negotiations. How are we supposed to address our
issues with Canada and all trading partners when our seat at the table
is empty? That is just one example. The calendar is full of nominees
who deserve a vote.
In fact, there are two judicial nominees on the calendar from North
Carolina who would be easily confirmed should they come up with for a
vote, Jim Wynn and Al Diaz, nominees for the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. They were both approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
January. But truth be told, we have not just been waiting since
January, we have been waiting since 1994.
There has been an opening for a North Carolina judge on the Fourth
Circuit since 1994. Partisan politics has gotten in the way of filling
that vacancy time and again. Finally, we have not one but two qualified
judges, supported by both myself and Senator Burr. Let's bring them up
for a vote.
The government cannot function without qualified appointees in place.
Let's stop the delays and bring these nominees up for a vote so they
can get on with the business of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to call on the Senate to do
something the rest of the American people are doing, our job. Most of
President Obama's nominees to the executive branch and our Federal
courts are not even remotely controversial. The country needs them on
the job, and their responsibilities, their careers, and the stress on
their families should not be caused by holds and other pointless
delays.
We face serious challenges as a nation. Unemployment and
underemployment rates are unacceptably high. Our courts have
unprecedented backlogs. We are fighting two wars and have the
persistent threat of terror that casts a shadow over our security.
We need a functioning Federal Government. The American people expect
this. Yet some in this body are too tied up in ``politics as usual'' to
get our government working again. Rather than making sure we get the
government up and running by allowing our votes on key administration
nominees, the Senate is mired in perpetual stalling, failing to perform
its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Qualified
people nominated to hold key positions in the administration are
languishing in the Senate because of procedural abuses. These should
end.
I have introduced a resolution which would help address some of these
abuses. My resolution would bring holds by one Senator outside the
shadows, time limit them, and place requirements that, after 2 days,
holds must be bipartisan to continue.
These commonsense improvements ought not be necessary. But in today's
Senate, unfortunately, they are. I fully support scrutinizing all
positions requiring confirmation. In fact, that is why my suggested
resolution actually says, if you have bipartisan support--and there
might be a reason to look at it other than just pure politics--I think
we should look at it.
But useless delay is not getting us anywhere. I am not asking for a
rubberstamp from anyone. But a desire to assert leverage over the
administration or a desire to frustrate the government's efforts to
work for the American people is unacceptable for holding up nominees.
Too often we have seen nominees held for months only to be confirmed
by overwhelming margins. Judge Barbara Keenan was recently confirmed to
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the breathtakingly close vote of
99 to 0. This was after her nomination was held up for 4 months
following approval by the Judiciary Committee.
There are currently 16 other judicial nominees who, similar to Judge
Keenan, have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are awaiting
floor time. Unfortunately, they are subject to partisan and meritless
delays. The result is, our district and appellate courts will continue
to be backlogged and justice will not be served in communities all
across the United States of America.
Judicial nominations have a sad history of partisanship in recent
years. The delays and games that have replaced the Senate's role to
advise and consent have now bled into all executive branch nominations
at unprecedented levels.
Just last month, the media reported 80 nominees were being held up by
one Senator. These holds included the Under Secretary for Military
Readiness and top officials at the Departments of State and Homeland
Security. These holds were unrelated to the actual nominee and solely
concerned parochial and political interests. Our national security
should never be subjugated to one Senator's politics.
We also had the President's nomination to the Transportation Security
Administration tied up and ultimately withdrawn because of partisan
bickering unrelated to his responsibilities to secure our airports.
This is unacceptable. Does it no longer matter whether there is someone
at the helm of the agencies responsible for securing our airports?
How is this acceptable behavior in the Senate? It would not be
acceptable
[[Page S1573]]
behavior around my kitchen table. If it is not acceptable there, it
should not be acceptable here. There are too many examples of
qualified, noncontroversial nominees, such as Martha Johnson, the GSA
Administrator with impeccable qualifications whose nomination was held
for 9 months. Yet she was confirmed by a 96-to-0 vote once the hold on
her nomination was removed.
These nominations are being blocked even though they have broad
bipartisan support.
I urge my colleagues to remove their holds on noncontroversial
administration nominees and allow confirmation votes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many Senators are speaking on the Senate
floor today about the Republican delays and obstruction of President
Obama's nominations to fill critical posts throughout the executive
branch.
Republicans have engaged in a partisan effort to block scores of
nominations, preventing up-or-down votes in the Senate. This Republican
effort has prevented the Senate from considering well-qualified public
servants like Professor Chris Schroeder, who was first nominated by
President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by
voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the
Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months. Not a single
Republican explained the reason for the delay.
Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's
nomination into the new session. It was returned to the President with
no action. President Obama nominated Professor Schroeder again this
year, and again his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee
with Republican support. An esteemed scholar and public servant who has
served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee
and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across
the political spectrum.
We treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal
Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President
Obama's, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We
confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96
to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his
nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast
Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June. It
is time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
In addition to the many executive branch nominees currently stalled
on the Senate calendar, there are 18 judicial nominees that have been
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee--most of them
unanimously--who await Senate consideration. That is more nominees than
the total of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees--
17--that have been confirmed since he took office. This sorry state of
affairs is the result of a Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and
delay that has existed throughout President Obama's time in office. The
casualties of this effort are the American people who seek justice in
our increasingly overburdened Federal courts.
By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had
confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district court nominations. That was a
tumultuous period in which Senate Democrats worked hard to make
progress with a staunchly partisan Republican President. It included
the period of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks upon the Senate.
In contrast, the Senate has confirmed just 17 Federal and circuit court
nominees--just 17--during President Obama's first term.
We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and
district court nominees during this Congress, which would be easily the
lowest in memory. That number stands in sad contrast to the 100 judges
we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee for 17 months
during President Bush's first term. When we were reviewing the judicial
nominees of a President of the other party, and one who consulted
across the aisle far less than President Obama has, we confirmed 100
judges in just 17 months. President Obama is in his 14th month and
Senate Republicans have allowed only 17 Federal circuit and district
court judges to be confirmed. We are 24 behind the pace we set in 2001
and 2002.
The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 35 of President
Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees to the Senate for
final consideration and confirmation. Eighteen of those nominees are
still awaiting a vote by the Senate. The Senate can more than double
the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by
considering the other judicial nominees already before the Senate
awaiting final action. We should do that now, without more delay,
without additional obstruction. There are another five judicial
nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week.
They will bring the total awaiting final action by the Senate to 23.
Confirming them without unnecessary delay would put us back on track.
While Republican Senators stall, judicial vacancies continue to
skyrocket. Vacancies have already grown to more than 100, undoing years
of our hard work repairing the damage done by Republican pocket
filibusters of President Clinton's judicial nominees. When I chaired
the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's last year in office, we
reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a
presidential election year.When President Bush left office, we had
reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits. As matters stand
today, judicial vacancies have spiked and are being left unfilled. We
started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts
since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive
judgeship bill were still being filled.
More than 30 of the vacancies on our Federal courts today are
classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' This is another reversal of our
hard work during the Bush administration when we reduced judicial
emergencies by more than half. Those vacancies have now increased
dramatically, encumbering judges across the country with overloaded
dockets and preventing ordinary Americans from seeking justice in our
overburdened Federal courts. This is wrong. We owe it to the American
people to do better.
President Obama deserves praise for working closely with home State
Senators, whether Democratic or Republican, to identify and select
well-qualified nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet
Senate Republicans delay and obstruct even nominees chosen after
consultation with Republican home State Senators. President Obama has
worked closely with home State Republican Senators, but Senate
Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly. Last year,
President Obama sent 33 Federal circuit and district court nominations
to the Senate, but the Senate confirmed only 12 of them, the fewest
judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more
than 50 years.
Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of
Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite support
for his nomination from the senior Republican in the Senate, Dick Lugar
of Indiana. Republicans delayed for months Senate consideration of
Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit despite the
endorsement of both her Republican home State Senators. When
Republicans finally agreed to consider her nomination on January 20,
she was confirmed unanimously. Whether Jeffrey Viken or Roberto Lange
of South Dakota, who were supported by Senator Thune, or Charlene
Edwards Honeywell of Florida, who was supported by Senators Martinez
and LeMieux, virtually all of President Obama's nominees have been
denied prompt Senate action by Republican objections.
I noted when the Senate considered the nominations of Judge Christina
Reiss of Vermont and Mr. Abdul Kallon of Alabama relatively promptly
that they should serve as the model for Senate action. Sadly, they are
the exception rather than the model. They show what the Senate could
do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are
delayed. When the Senate does finally consider them, they are confirmed
overwhelmingly.
In December, I made several statements in this Chamber about the need
for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee. I
[[Page S1574]]
also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle and
made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on those judicial
nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without
dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and vote on the others.
I have recently reiterated my proposal and urged Senate Republicans to
reconsider their strategy of obstruction. There is no justification for
these nominations to be dragged out week after week, month after month.
The last time the Senate considered judicial nominations was weeks
ago. Indeed, on March 2, the Republican filibuster and obstruction of
the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth
Circuit Judge had to be ended by invoking cloture. Senate Republicans
would not agree to debate and vote on her nomination and the majority
leader was required to proceed through a time consuming procedure to
end the obstruction. The votes to end debate and on her confirmation
were both 99 to 0. That nomination had been reported in October. So
after more than 4 months of stalling, there was no justification,
explanation or basis for the delay. That is wrong. That was the 17th
filibuster of President Obama's nominations.
The 18 judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration are: Jane
Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas
Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny
Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Justice Rogeriee
Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James
Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert
Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward
Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; Justice Louis
Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Nancy
Freudenthal, nominated to the District of Wyoming; Denzil Marshall,
nominated to the Eastern District of Arkansas; Benita Pearson,
nominated to the Northern District of Ohio; Timothy Black, nominated to
the Southern District of Ohio; Gloria M. Navarro, nominated to the
District of Nevada; Audrey G. Fleissig, nominated to the Eastern
District of Missouri; Lucy H. Koh, nominated to the Northern District
of California; Jon E. DeGuilio, nominated to the Northern District of
Indiana; Tanya Walton Pratt, nominated to the Southern District of
Indiana; and Jane Magnus-Stinson, nominated to the Southern District of
Indiana. Twelve of the 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary
Committee without opposition; one had a single negative vote. The
stalling and obstruction should end and these nominations should be
considered by the Senate and voted upon without further delay. When
they are, they, too, will be confirmed overwhelmingly.
I also want to highlight my concern about the new standard the
Republican minority is applying to many of President Obama's district
court nominees. Democrats never used this standard with President
Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. In 8
years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district
court nomination by a party-line vote. That was the controversial
nomination of Leon Holmes, who was opposed not because of some litmus
test, but because of his strident, intemperate, and insensitive public
statements over the years. During President Obama's short time in
office, not one, not two, but three district court nominees have been
reported on a party-line vote as Senate Republicans look for any reason
to oppose every nomination. I hope this new standard does not become
the rule for Senate Republicans.
Of the 17 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed, 14
have been confirmed unanimously. That is right. The delay and
obstruction is so baseless that when votes are finally taken, they are
overwhelmingly in favor and most often unanimous. There have been only
a handful of votes cast against just three of President Obama's
nominees to the Federal circuit and district courts. One of those,
Judge Gerry Lynch of the Second Circuit, garnered only three negative
votes, and 94 votes in favor. Judge Andre Davis of Maryland was stalled
for months and then confirmed with 72 votes in favor. Judge David
Hamilton was filibustered in a failed effort to prevent an up or down
vote.
So why all the obstruction and delay? It is part of a partisan
pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless
demand that the Senate go slow. The practice is continuing. There have
already been 17 filibusters of President Obama's nominees. That is the
same number of Federal circuit and district nominees the Senate has
confirmed during the entirety of the Obama administration. And that
comparison does not include the many other nominees who were delayed or
who are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to
agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees.
I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their destructive strategy
and to work with us to provide final consideration without further
delay to the 18 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar
awaiting final action. We can make real progress if they will join with
us and we work together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
____________________