[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.
____________________