[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 84 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4603-S4608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF AUDREY GOLDSTEIN FLEISSIG, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF LUCY HAERAN KOH, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                  THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF JANE E. MAGNUS-STINSON, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations 
concurrently, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Audrey Goldstein 
Fleissig, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Missouri; Lucy Haeran Koh, of California, to be 
United States District Judge for the Northern District of California; 
and Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, of Indiana, to be United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the nominations will 
be debated concurrently until 5:30 p.m. with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, or their designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is interesting, as the distinguished 
Presiding Officer reported, that we are going to have these nominees. I 
say it is interesting because the Senate is being allowed to confirm 
only 3 of 19 judicial nominations that have been reported unanimously 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee over the past several months, but 
they have been stalled by the Republican leadership.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer is one of the most valued members 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has seen time and time again, we 
vote a nominee out, with every single Republican voting for the person 
and every single Democrat voting for the person. Then the nominee 
spends months waiting because they are being stalled by the Republican 
side of the aisle.
  Of course, it is far more than just an annoyance to the nominees who 
are being stalled. Say, for instance, that someone receives a 
nomination from the President of the United States to become a judge. 
Perhaps they are in a law firm. The partners all come in, congratulate 
the nominee, and say: This is absolutely wonderful. When are you 
leaving?
  Now, as a practical matter this person cannot take on new cases, and 
the law firm has to be hesitant about what they take on so they do not 
have a conflict of interest later on before the Court. One can see how 
almost childish it becomes now to hold up a nominee who, eventually, 
when they are finally allowed to have a vote, will be confirmed 
unanimously or close to unanimously.
  In the meantime, their lives have been disrupted, the judiciary 
itself is put in disarray, people question our judiciary which is 
supposed to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and all of a sudden, looks as 
though it is ping pong.
  The nominees we have here, these three women, were confirmed in early 
March. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I were there. They all 
were reported out without a single objection from the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, in early March. Three exceptional women. And these three 
women have been delayed for this considerable period of time by the 
Republican objections. There is no explanation; no excuse; no reason 
for these months of delay of these women, especially when all members 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic and Republican, voted for 
these three women.
  But they are just 3 of the backlog of 26 judicial nominees awaiting 
final Senate action, and 19 of the 26 were reported by the Judiciary 
Committee without a single negative vote from any Republican or 
Democratic Senator on the committee. This is not fair to the nominees, 
certainly not fair to these three women. It is not fair to any of the 
other nominees. In addition, 6 of the 7 Republicans on the Committee 
voted in favor of nominee Judge Wynn to the Fourth Circuit, and nearly 
half of the Republicans on the Committee supported the nomination of 
Jane Stranch to the Sixth Circuit. It is not fair to these nominees and 
it is not fair to the Federal judiciary. Still Republicans refuse to 
enter into time agreements on these nominations. This stalling and 
obstruction is unprecedented.
  The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President Bush's 
judicial nominees in 2001 and 2002. By this date in President Bush's 
presidency--and I was chairman at that time--the Senate had confirmed 
57 of his judicial nominees, both district court judges and courts of 
appeal.
  Even after the three today will all be confirmed unanimously, the 
comparison will stand at 28 to 57. That is still less than half of what 
we were able to achieve by this date in 2002. I mention that because we 
had a Democratic majority and a Republican President, and we were 
treating President Bush's nominees far more fairly than they are 
treating President Obama's nominees.
  What makes it even worse than playing politics with the independent 
judiciary is that Federal judicial vacancies around the country hover 
around 100. It has been nearly a month since the Senate confirmed a 
judicial nominee. None of the more than two dozen available for 
consideration before the Memorial Day recess were considered. This 
Republican obstruction is unprecedented. This is not how the Senate 
should act, nor how the Senate has conducted its business in the past. 
This is new and this is wrong.
  In May, just before the last recess, the Republican leader implied in 
a statement before this body that the Republican obstruction is merely 
a ``sequencing'' of judicial nominations that ``is acceptable to both 
sides''. That is not true.
  Over the recess, I sent a letter to Senator McConnell and to the 
majority leader concerning these matters. In that letter, I urge as I 
have since last December, that the Senate schedule votes on judicial 
nominees without further obstruction and delays; vote them up or vote 
them down. I called on Republican leadership to work with the majority 
leader to schedule immediate votes on consensus nominations--many of 
which I expect will be confirmed unanimously--and consent to time 
agreements on those which debate is requested. As I said in the letter, 
if there are judicial nominations that Republicans truly wish to 
filibuster--after they argued during the Bush administration that such 
actions would be unconstitutional and wrong--then they should so 
indicate to allow the majority leader to seek cloture to end the 
filibuster. Otherwise it is time to vote.
  I would think that there should also be some respect for the 
committee where every single Republican and every single Democrat voted 
for them. Vote for them. Vote up or vote down. We are not elected to 
vote ``maybe.'' There are only 100 of us for 300 million Americans, and 
the American people expect us to say ``yes'' or say ``no,'' not 
``maybe.'' This delay is a big ``maybe.'' It is wrong. It is unfair to 
these judicial nominees. It is unfair to the independence of the 
Federal judiciary. It is unfair to the people of America. It is 
certainly unprecedented in my 36 years here. I have never seen anything 
such as this.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. LEAHY. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the 
nomination of Judge Fleissig to the Eastern District of Missouri more 
than three months ago, on March 4. She is currently a Federal 
magistrate judge in that district, previously serving as that 
district's U.S. Attorney, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a civil 
litigator. Judge Fleissig earned the highest possible rating--
unanimously well qualified--from the ABA Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary. She has the support of both of her home state 
Senators, Republican Senator Kit Bond and Democratic Senator Claire 
McCaskill.

[[Page S4604]]

  Judge Lucy Koh is nominated to fill a vacancy on the Northern 
District of California determined by the Administrative Office of the 
U.S. Courts to be a judicial emergency. Judge Koh's nomination was 
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no 
dissent on March 4, more than three months ago. If confirmed, she will 
be the first Korean American woman in the Nation to serve as a Federal 
judge. In addition, she would become the first Asian American to serve 
on the district court bench in the 150-year history of the Northern 
District of California. Currently a judge on the Santa Clara County 
Superior Court, Judge Koh previously practiced law at two Northern 
California firms and worked as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. She 
also served in the U.S. Department of Justice and she worked for one 
year as a fellow on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Koh has 
the strong support of both her home state Senators, Senator Feinstein 
and Senator Boxer.
  Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson has been nominated to the Southern 
District of Indiana. If confirmed, Judge Magnus-Stinson will be the 
third female district court judge in Indiana history. The Judiciary 
Committee favorable reported her nomination, by unanimous consent, on 
March 11, nearly three months ago. Judge Magnus-Stinson is currently a 
Federal magistrate judge on the court to which she is now nominated. 
She has 15 years of judicial experience, including 12 years as a judge 
in the major felony division of the Marion Superior Court in 
Indianapolis. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Magnus-Stinson well qualified 
to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
Indiana. Judge Magnus-Stinson has the support of both home state 
Senators, Republican Senator Lugar and Democratic Senator Bayh.
  I congratulate the three nominees who will finally be considered and 
confirmed today.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senate Leaders: I was very disappointed that in his 
     statement last Thursday evening about the lack of progress on 
     filling judicial vacancies Senator McConnell left the 
     impression that the halting pace of Senate consideration of 
     President's Obama's judicial nominations is merely a 
     ``sequencing'' of judicial nominations that ``is acceptable 
     to both sides.'' I do not think that is an accurate 
     description of what has led to only 12 Federal circuit and 
     district court nominees being considered all last year and 
     only 13 so far this year.
       As you know, I have spoken to these matters a number of 
     times over the last several months and have since last 
     December been urging the Republican leadership to agree to 
     consider and approve the noncontroversial nominees and enter 
     into time agreements to debate those they believe require 
     Senate discussion, but to end the obstruction and unnecessary 
     delays.
       As the Senate recessed for Memorial Day, there remained a 
     backlog of 26 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate action. 
     Nineteen of the 26 were reported by the Judiciary Committee 
     without a single negative vote from any Republican or any 
     Democratic Senator on the Committee. In my view the cause of 
     that backlog is Republican refusal to agree to consider these 
     nominations in a timely fashion. In addition, six of the 
     seven Republicans on the Committee voted in favor of Judge 
     Wynn to the Fourth Circuit, and nearly half the Republicans 
     on the Committee supported Jane Stranch's nomination to the 
     Fourth Circuit. I have been supporting Senator Alexander's 
     efforts to get Senate consideration of the Stranch nomination 
     for months.
       The same is true of the two North Carolina nominees to the 
     Fourth Circuit supported by Senators Hagan and Burr. It is 
     Republican refusal to enter into time agreements on these 
     nominations that has preventing their consideration and 
     confirmation by the Senate. In all, 26 judicial nominations 
     are currently being stalled from consideration and 
     confirmation of which only three have been scheduled for 
     consideration next week.
       Senate Republicans have only allowed the Senate to consider 
     25 Federal circuit and district court nominations during the 
     entire Obama presidency. The dozen considered in 2009 was the 
     lowest confirmation total in more than 50 years. The stalling 
     and obstruction is unprecedented.
       The Senate is well behind the pace I set for President 
     Bush's judicial nominees in the second half of 2001 and 
     through 2002. By this date in President Bush's presidency, 
     the Senate had confirmed 57 of his judicial nominees. Despite 
     the fact that President Obama began sending us judicial 
     nominations two months earlier than President Bush had, the 
     Senate has only confirmed 25 of his Federal circuit and 
     district court nominees to date. The comparison is 25 to 57--
     and this is while Federal judicial vacancies around the 
     country remain over 100 with 40 of those vacancies 
     categorized as ``judicial emergency vacancies'' by the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
       During the 17 months that I chaired the Judiciary Committee 
     during President Bush's first two years in office, the Senate 
     confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. Rather than continue 
     that kind of cooperation, Senate Republicans have chosen to 
     delay consideration of virtually every judicial nominee of 
     President Obama's. Judge David Hamilton was unsuccessfully 
     filibustered. The Majority Leader was forced to file cloture 
     to get votes on the nominations of Judge Barbara Keenan and 
     Judge Denny Chin. Both were then confirmed unanimously by the 
     Senate. These are a few of the more than 20 nominations on 
     which the Majority Leader has had to file cloture in order to 
     secure a vote.
       Before the Memorial Day recess in 2002, there were only six 
     judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee left awaiting final consideration by the Senate and 
     they had all been reported within the last week before the 
     recess began. They were each confirmed promptly in the June 
     2002 work period. This year, by contrast, Senate Republicans 
     have stalled nominations reported as long ago as last 
     November and only one of the 26 was reported close to this 
     recess. More than two dozen judicial nominees have been 
     languishing without final Senate action because of Republican 
     obstruction. This is not how the Senate should act, nor how 
     the Senate has conducted its business in the past. This is 
     new and it is wrong.
       The judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar 
     number 26. They were each considered and favorably reported 
     by the Senate Judiciary Committee after a hearing. They are 
     each still awaiting final Senate action because the 
     Republican leadership has refused for some time to agree to 
     their consideration. As I have consistently urged since last 
     December, the Senate should vote on all of them without 
     further obstruction or delay.
       The way to do that is for the Republican leadership to work 
     with the Majority Leader and agree to time agreements on 
     those on which debate is requested. If there are judicial 
     nominations that Republicans truly wish to filibuster--after 
     arguing during the Bush administration that such action would 
     be unconstitutional and wrong--then they should so indicate 
     and the Majority Leader can proceed to that matter and seek 
     cloture to end the filibuster.
       I again urge the Republican leadership, as I have 
     consistently since last December, to work with the Majority 
     Leader to take up and confirm the judicial nominees that are 
     not controversial and can be confirmed without further delay 
     by voice vote or a roll call and to enter into time 
     agreements on the others so that the Majority Leader can 
     schedule their consideration by the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Patrick Leahy,
                                                         Chairman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 
5 minutes from Senator Sessions' time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Gulf Oilspill

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I come today to the floor of the Senate 
to discuss the environmental and economic disaster that is happening 
right now with the oilspill from the British Petroleum and Transocean 
rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
  This past weekend I had the opportunity to be in Pensacola, FL, and 
to walk on the beautiful beaches. The good news is, and the news that 
is not being reported as much as it is should be by the press, our 
beaches are open, they are beautiful, people are out there enjoying the 
Sun and the surf, and it is still safe to go to the beach. It is still 
safe to go fishing in the Gulf of Mexico off the shores of Florida and 
do all of the other things people enjoy doing in our beautiful State.
  Unfortunately, we are starting to see oil wash up onshore. It is 
washing up not in the form so much as a tar ball but sort of a goopy 
substance. We are spotting that on the beach. I have walked on the 
beaches, and it is distressing to see that. When you pick it up and 
touch it, it has sort of a pudding-like consistency. It obviously has 
the touch and feel of oil.
  The concern we have, as this disaster approaches day 50, is, how much 
can this ecosystem bear? How much oil can be spewed into the water 
before it has a tremendously damaging impact upon the beaches in 
Florida? We have already seen what it has done to the

[[Page S4605]]

marshland of Louisiana. Florida has more than 1,200 miles of coastline 
around the State. Potentially, this oil could impact up to 1,000 miles 
if the oil gets itself into the Loop Current and makes its way around 
the southern tip of Florida up the east coast. That is everyone's worst 
nightmare.
  The good news is the people of Florida who are working in city 
government, local government, and State government are doing an 
excellent job to prepare. I had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Mike 
Wiggins of Pensacola, with commission chairman Grover Robinson of the 
Escambia County Commission, as well as Larry Newsome, county 
administrator, who are doing a great job of preparing. There are teams 
of people on the beaches picking up the oil and debris where needed. 
They have folks on standby, ready to go to work if needed in western 
Florida.
  We need to do more. There needs to be a coherent plan on how we are 
going to prevent the oil from coming ashore and to mitigate its impact 
if and when it does. Tourism is tremendously important to Florida. In 
Florida, our environment and economy are inextricably linked. We cannot 
have any more damage than the State can sustain in the marsh or beach 
areas. We do not want oil washing up on the shore all along the coast 
of Florida.
  I have called upon this administration to be more aggressive. I want 
to see the President in Florida. I want to see him more than just a 
couple hours there. I want to see him working through the solutions 
like Governor Jindal is doing in Louisiana, like Governor Crist is 
doing in Florida, like former Governor Jeb Bush did when we had 9 or 10 
hurricanes in 2004 and 2005--on the ground, managing through the 
crisis, pushing people for solutions. It is not enough to have the good 
work of the Coast Guard. And they are doing good work. It is not enough 
to call on the Department of Interior or the Department of Homeland 
Security. We need the President on the ground pushing for those 
solutions. He is a very bright man. He is the President of the United 
States. If he is there, working through these problems the way the 
Governors do, we will get better solutions.
  We need more skimmers off the coast of Florida. I am sure my other 
Gulf State friends would like to see skimmers as well. They prevent the 
oil from coming ashore.
  Are we thinking outside the box? Are we looking for every other 
possible alternative? Are there skimmers that can be brought in, large 
supertanker skimmers such as were used in the Persian Gulf when they 
had oilspills?
  Who is leading the effort to push for new solutions and new ideas? 
Who is vetting all of the possible opportunities presented to clean up 
the oil? We want to see this leadership from the top, from the 
Commander in Chief. The worst-case scenario is that none of the efforts 
going on right now are going to stop the oil from spilling. We have 
this cap collector BP has put on. It is having some success. That is 
good news. Let's hope it has all the success in the world. But if we 
have to wait until the end of the summer for the relief wells to go 
into effect--and what if they don't work as well as intended, what if 
there are setbacks along the way, what if it is the fall--how many tens 
of thousands of barrels of oil are going to spill into the Gulf of 
Mexico? What is the plan? What is being prepared?
  We need to see the President show more leadership. The people of 
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida need that. While BP 
is at fault, this is not a BP problem; this is an American problem. We 
need to see the President more thoroughly involved. The claims process 
has already started. British Petroleum has paid out about $48 million. 
There is now a claims process center in Pensacola. Senator Vitter and I 
have put together a piece of legislation to expedite claims. That 
should get passed by this body. There is a lot we can do here in 
Washington to help relieve the pain of our fellow Floridians and others 
in the gulf. Ultimately, job 1 is to stop the oil from spilling. Job 2 
is to mitigate and prevent the oil from coming ashore. We want to see 
the President of the United States leading the effort.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to spend a couple minutes 
talking about Judge Audrey G. Fleissig, one of the nominees we will 
hopefully be voting on within the hour. This is a woman I have known 
for many years who has an outstanding career in the legal community in 
Missouri. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of 
Missouri and went on to be the first woman to hold the position of U.S. 
attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri. Currently, she serves as 
U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District.
  I could go on about her background as a litigation attorney for 11 
years in one of the most respected law firms in Kansas City. I could 
spend some time talking about how much she loves to teach and how she 
has been a trial advocacy teacher for a good deal of the last 20 years. 
She has taught pretrial practice, trial advocacy, and now evidence at 
the Washington University School of Law, one of the finest universities 
in the country. She was also a student intern to the Honorable Edward 
Filippine, who was a U.S. district judge in the Eastern District of 
Missouri 30 years ago. She has a J.D. degree, a Dean's Honor Scholar 
and an Order of the Coif from Washington University Law School and was 
magna cum laude from Carleton College for her undergrad years.
  She has been one of the stars of the legal community in Missouri, but 
she has also been a mom. She has managed her career while she raised 
children, and her children are now in their twenties. I have such deep 
respect for someone who has done well with the demands of a legal 
career and a judicial career and also done very well on the family 
front.
  She is somebody who believes very much that putting on a robe does 
not mean one exits the community. We have a lot of judges who take that 
particular attitude, especially on the Federal bench, that once they 
become a Federal judge, then they no longer participate in community 
activities that are so important to the health and vibrancy of our 
country, our States, and certainly of our metropolitan areas.
  When she worked with her children as they were growing up, she was 
very active in their schools and tried to instill in them a love of 
reading. Now that her children are grown, she has for the last 10 years 
worked with Ready Readers, a charitable organization that works with 
low-income preschool children, ages 3 to 5, to inspire them to want to 
read. Think about that. She is a U.S. magistrate with a full-time job, 
with a prestigious black robe. With that kind of career, anyone could, 
frankly, take a deep breath and say: I am here. Instead, she has spent 
the last 10 years continuing to volunteer with a charitable 
organization that tries to inspire young children to love to read.
  I have to tell the truth--this is the kind of person we need on the 
Federal bench. Will she be respectful to litigants? Of course. Will she 
understand the rules of evidence? She teaches them at one of the best 
law schools in the country. Does she understand the pressures of 
litigation? Yes. She has been one. But most importantly, does she 
understand there are other needs in the community outside of what goes 
on in the courtroom, and does that inform her as a judge? She will be 
fair. She will work extremely hard. She is known as one of the hardest 
workers in the Federal courthouse in St. Louis.
  It was an honor to recommend her to the President. I am so pleased 
that she reaches this moment in her career where she can become a U.S. 
Federal district judge and provide the kind of atmosphere for justice 
that we hold so dear in this Nation. I know she will be impartial. I 
know she will never let politics dictate a decision. I know the law 
will be her master and that she will listen carefully to the evidence 
and never think she knows best--let the litigants try their cases and 
let the law reign supreme.
  I am proud of her accomplishments. I am proud to support her. I have 
a feeling she will be confirmed by a very wide margin. Don't ask me why 
she

[[Page S4606]]

had to sit around on the calendar for 60 days. I won't go into one of 
my rants about secret holds. I will save that for another day. Today, I 
will say it is time that we take this vote, and I make a prediction it 
won't even be close because there is absolutely no reason this woman 
should not have been on the bench months ago. I look forward to her 
confirmation today.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
for 5 minutes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, there are so many issues on our plate this week: do 
everything in our power to work with our President to stop the oilspill 
in Louisiana, to rescue the fish and wildlife, to try to help the 
fishermen and the people who are so economically hurt by this, in my 
view, unnecessary tragedy. We are also working on jobs and the tax 
extenders bill which is so important so businesses can create jobs. So 
we know we have a lot on our plate.
  I take a couple of minutes to rise in support of a wonderful judicial 
nominee we will be voting on, Judge Lucy Koh. She has been nominated by 
the President to the Northern District Court of California.
  I thank Chairman Leahy and his committee for their work in approving 
this highly qualified nominee, who will be an outstanding addition to 
the Federal bench. I also thank my dear friend, Senator Feinstein, for 
her support of Judge Koh.
  I was so proud to have recommended this nominee to President Obama. 
This nominee was interviewed by my Northern District Judicial Advisory 
Committee, and you can see, after you hear about her, why they were so 
clear she would make a great Federal judge.
  Judge Koh is the daughter of two proud parents who risked much to 
come to this country and provide for their children. Her mother escaped 
from North Korea at the age of 10 by walking for 2 weeks into South 
Korea--a dangerous trek that required her to hide from North Korean 
soldiers along the way. Her father fought against the Communists in the 
Korean war and later immigrated to the U.S. of A. Her dad worked as a 
busboy and a waiter in Maryland while attending Johns Hopkins 
University, later bringing the rest of the family here.
  Judge Koh is the first member of her family to be born in the United 
States of America. It is a fantastic example of the great American 
dream that we try to protect here, hopefully, every day. Her family 
moved to Mississippi, where her mother taught at Alcorn State 
University--the Nation's first historically African-American land-grant 
college. During this time, Judge Koh was bused to a predominantly 
African-American public school, where many of her classmates lived in 
poverty. Her childhood experiences provided inspiration for her to 
pursue a career in the law and work for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
during law school.
  She attended Harvard-Radcliffe Colleges as a Harry S. Truman Scholar, 
graduating magna cum laude. After college, she attended Harvard Law 
School, where she was awarded Best Brief in the school's moot court 
competition.
  Judge Koh has had a diverse career in the practice of law that makes 
her uniquely qualified to serve as a Federal judge. She has worked in 
policy, serving as a fellow for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, and in policy positions at the Justice Department. She 
served as a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where she handled 
financial fraud, narcotics, public corruption, and violent crime cases. 
She received awards for her work as a prosecutor, including a Sustained 
Superior Performance Award and an award from then-FBI Director Louis 
Freeh for her prosecution of a $54 million securities fraud case.
  She was a litigator in private practice prior to becoming a State 
court judge. During her time in private practice, Judge Koh worked on 
complex litigation matters involving securities and intellectual 
property, primarily appearing in Federal court. She led the trial and 
appellate team in the landmark intellectual property case In re 
Seagate, where a new legal standard was established.
  With these credentials, it is easy to see why Governor Schwarzenegger 
appointed her to the California Superior Court in 2008, where she once 
again excelled as a judge, handling a docket of both criminal and civil 
cases.
  Today, she is poised to become the first Asian-American judge in the 
history of the Northern District of California. She will also become 
the first Korean-American woman in U.S. history to serve as a Federal 
judge. A family's dream is poised to become a part of American history 
this very day.
  To Judge Koh and to her family, I extend my most heartfelt 
congratulations on this important and historic day. I know I speak for 
many Californians, especially those in the Korean and Asian-American 
communities, in expressing our great pride in her.
  Support for Judge Koh is diverse. She has been endorsed by a wide 
group of supporters, such as our Governor and former Massachusetts 
Republican Governor William Weld; former Presiding Judge Priscilla 
Gallagher of the Santa Clara County Court; Santa Clara County District 
Attorney Delores Carr, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith; former 
Bush Office of Legal Policy Director Viet Dinh; the National Asian 
Pacific American Bar Association; and the Asian American Justice 
Center.

  I close by congratulating Judge Koh and the other nominees and their 
families, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote to confirm 
these nominees to the Federal bench.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the 
nomination of Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. I joined together 
with Senator Lugar to recommend Judge Magnus-Stinson because I know 
firsthand that she is a highly capable lawyer who understands the 
limited role of the Federal judiciary.
  Before I speak to Judge Magnus-Stinson's qualifications, I would like 
to comment briefly on the state of the judicial confirmation process 
generally. In my view, this process has too often been consumed by 
ideological conflict and partisan acrimony. This is not, I believe, how 
the framers intended us to exercise our responsibility to advise and 
consent.
  During the last Congress, I was proud to work with Senator Lugar to 
recommend Judge John Tinder as a bipartisan, consensus nominee for the 
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Tinder was nominated by 
President Bush and unanimously confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 93 
to 0. It was my hope that Judge Tinder's confirmation would serve as an 
example of the benefits of nominating qualified, nonideological jurists 
to the Federal bench.
  In selecting Jane Magnus-Stinson, President Obama has demonstrated 
that he also appreciates the benefits of this approach. I was proud to 
once again join with Senator Lugar to recommend her to the President, 
and I hope that going forward other Senators will adopt what I call the 
``Hoosier approach'' of working across party lines to select consensus 
nominees.
  I would also like to personally thank Senator Lugar for his 
extraordinary leadership and for the consultative and cooperative 
approach he has taken to judicial nominations. During my time in 
Congress, it has been my great privilege to forge a close working 
relationship with Senator Lugar across many issues. This has been 
especially true on the issue of nominations--when a judicial nominee 
from Indiana comes before the Senate, our colleagues can be confident 
that the name is being put forward with bipartisan support, regardless 
of which political party is in the White House or controls a majority 
in the United States Senate.
  On the merits, Jane Magnus-Stinson is an accomplished jurist who is 
well-

[[Page S4607]]

qualified for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary. She has 
extensive trial experience, having served as a Judge on the Marion 
Superior Court from 1995 to 2007. Judge Magnus-Stinson also has 
valuable experience presiding in federal court, having served as a 
federal Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Indiana since 
2007.
  During this time, she has been recognized as a leader among Indiana 
jurists, serving on the Board of Directors of the Indiana Judicial 
Conference and the Board of Managers of the Indiana Judges Association.
  Judge Magnus-Stinson's devotion to the fair and efficient 
administration of justice has been recognized by her fellow Hoosiers. 
She has been honored as ``Judge of the Year'' by the Indiana Coalition 
Against Sexual Assault and as an ``Outstanding Judge'' by the Indiana 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
  Judge Magnus-Stinson has also shown that she is deserving of the 
public trust. She has demonstrated the highest ethical standards and a 
firm commitment to applying our country's laws fairly and faithfully.
  In recommending Judge Magnus-Stinson, I have the benefit of being 
able to speak from personal experience, as she served as my Counsel 
while I was Governor of Indiana.
  If you ask Hoosiers about my eight years as Governor, you will find 
widespread agreement that we charted a moderate, practical, bipartisan 
course. As my counsel, Jane Magnus-Stinson helped me craft bipartisan 
solutions to some of the most pressing problems facing our state.
  In addition to her insightful legal analysis, I could always count on 
Jane for her sound judgment and her common-sense Hoosier values. Like 
most Hoosiers, she is not an ideologue.
  During her service in state government, Judge Magnus-Stinson also 
developed a deep appreciation for the separation of powers and the 
appropriate role of the different branches of government. If confirmed, 
she will also bring to the federal bench a special understanding of the 
important role of the States in our federal system and will be ever 
mindful of the proper role of the federal judiciary. She understands 
that the appropriate role for a judge is to interpret our laws, not to 
write them.
  As someone who personally knows and trusts Judge Magnus-Stinson, I 
say to my colleagues that she is the embodiment of good judicial 
temperament, intellect, and even-handedness. If confirmed, she will be 
a superb addition to the federal bench. I am pleased to give her my 
highest recommendation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me--and Senator Lugar--in supporting 
this extremely well-qualified and deserving nominee.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support 
for the nomination of California Superior Court Judge Lucy Koh to be a 
U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California.
  Judge Koh is a well-respected lawyer and judge in California. Over 
the course of her career, she has been a State trial judge, an 
intellectual property lawyer, a Federal prosecutor, and a counsel in 
Congress and the Justice Department.
  For the last 2 years, she has been a superior court judge for Santa 
Clara County and has adjudicated cases ranging from criminal 
prosecutions to commercial litigation matters to family law disputes.
  She spent 8 years representing business clients as an intellectual 
property litigator at private law firms in Silicon Valley.
  She spent 3 years prosecuting bank robberies, securities fraud, and 
other Federal crimes as an assistant U.S. attorney in southern 
California.
  And she spent 4 years working in Washington as a special assistant to 
the Deputy Attorney General and a counsel to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  She has received the FBI Director's Award for demonstrated excellence 
in prosecuting a major criminal case and has been named one of the 
``Top 40 lawyers under 40'' by the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business 
Journal.
  As a Judge, the reviews have been equally positive. California 
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, has called her ``an 
exemplary jurist with an unparalleled track record,'' and described her 
approach as ``careful and balanced.''
  She is a talented woman with a solid background in the law. I commend 
Senator Boxer for recommending her for the district court and the 
President for nominating her. I have the utmost confidence that she 
will serve the Northern District of California with distinction as a 
U.S. district judge.
  Judge Koh's confirmation will also be a historic one for our Federal 
courts.
  If confirmed, Judge Koh will be the first Korean American woman ever 
to serve the United States as a Federal district judge, and she will be 
the first Asian-American district judge appointed to the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of California. This is a district that 
serves one of the Nation's largest populations of Asian Pacific 
Americans, but for over 150 years there has not been a district judge 
of Asian Pacific descent on the court. Judge Koh will be the first, and 
her appointment is one for us all to celebrate. I urge my colleagues to 
support her.
  Before I conclude my remarks, I want to call attention to another 
nominee for this district court whom we unfortunately are not voting on 
today.
  Magistrate Judge Edward Chen has also been nominated to be district 
judge for the Northern District of California. Here is the timeline:
  The President first nominated Magistrate Judge Chen on August 6, 
2009. That was over 300 days ago.
  The Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the floor on 
October 15, 2009.
  Although the nomination was pending for 70 days, it was never acted 
on and there was not consent to allow the nomination to be carried over 
into 2010.
  On January 20, 2010, the President renominated Chen, and on February 
4, his nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee once 
again. That was over 120 days ago. Still, he has not received a vote.
  I find this extremely disappointing. In my 17 years on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I have voted against only one district court 
nominee. That was Leon Holmes. I had serious concerns about his views 
on the role of women in society, and I explained my concerns in detail 
in a statement on the floor. I have not voted against any other 
district court nominee.
  Yet in just 17 months of the Obama administration, not one, not two, 
not three, but four district court nominees have come out of committee 
on straight party-line votes. And they are all still pending on the 
floor. I think that is a very unfortunate direction for us to go in.
  Look at the merits of the Chen nomination. I understand that some 
have concerns because he spent time working for the American Civil 
Liberties Union before he became a magistrate judge. But this is a 
nominee with a proven track record. There is no need to ask how he will 
be as a judge--the evidence is in.
  Chen has spent 9 years as a magistrate judge and written over 200 
published opinions. There has not been a single objection in committee 
or on the floor to even one of his decisions.
  In 2008, an impartial Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Review 
Panel reviewed his full record. The Panel unanimously recommended him 
for reappointment.
  Federal prosecutors were ``uniformly positive'' about Chen and called 
his rulings ``balanced'' and ``well reasoned.'' The local civil bar 
called him ``well prepared,'' ``very intelligent,'' and ``decisive.'' 
The judgment was made--he is a very good judge.
  I asked Republican-appointed U.S. district judges who work with Judge 
Chen for their opinions. Again the comments were uniformly positive.
  District Judge Lowell Jensen served as the No. 2 official in the 
Reagan Justice Department. He called Chen ``an excellent jurist and a 
person of high character'' and said Chen's decisions ``reflect not only 
good judgment, but a complete commitment to the principles of fair 
trial and the application of the rule of law.''
  My own bipartisan selection committee in the Northern District 
reviewed Chen at length. He was their consensus choice for the district 
court. A bipartisan selection committee under the Bush administration 
also recommended him. And the American Bar Association has unanimously 
rated him ``well qualified.''
  So this is a nominee with a solid and publicly available track 
record. He has

[[Page S4608]]

strong bipartisan support in the community he has been nominated to 
serve. And he has the support of his two home State Senators.
  It is long past time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh, 
and I also urge consent on a time agreement to let us move forward on 
the nomination of Magistrate Judge Edward Chen.
  Thank you so very much. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, of Missouri, to be Unites States District 
Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina ( Mr. DeMint), 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bayh
     Byrd
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Lincoln
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I can get the attention of the 
Republican leader, I understand on the Republican side there is a wish 
for a rollcall vote on this nomination but not on the next; is that 
correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, yes. 
The thought was that we would have another rollcall on the second 
nominee and a voice vote on the third.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if nobody else seeks recognition, I yield 
back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Lucy Haeran 
Koh, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Northern 
District of California.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from S. Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the 
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?`
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bayh
     Byrd
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Lincoln
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote on the nomination of Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, of Indiana.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jane E. Magnus-Stinson to be United States District Judge for the 
Southern District of Indiana?
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________