[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4905-S4910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Elena Kagan
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our Nation recently celebrated Memorial
Day, honoring the sacrifice and the service of our brave men and women
in uniform. Yesterday was Flag Day, and before too long we will
celebrate the Fourth of July.
I wish to speak about Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to
the Supreme Court. I thought it might be good to set the record
straight about some of the charges being leveled at President Obama's
nominee to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Those
intent on opposing this nomination--just as they seem to undercut the
President no matter what he does--have searched high and low to find a
basis to oppose this intelligent and accomplished nominee.
I understand the partisanship, but I disagree with it. A Supreme
Court nominee is there for all the country, not for one political party
or the other, and most nominees will serve long after the Senators who
voted for the nominee are gone.
I do not think it is good for the country to make it this partisan.
After the American people elected President Obama, leaders of the
Republicans urged massive resistance from the outset. They have talked
about wanting him to fail and have done everything they could to
undermine his efforts to rescue our economy from the worst downturn
since the Great Depression, to reform health care for all Americans, to
lower taxes for Americans making less than $250,000 a year and to
reform Wall Street so that we never again suffer the kind of greed and
profiteering that put our economy at risk.
When the Senator from Alabama became the ranking Republican on the
Senate Judiciary Committee last year, he lamented the way nominees were
treated. He said:
What I found was that charges come flying in from right and
left that are unsupported and false. It's very, very
difficult for a nominee to push back. So I think we have a
high responsibility to base any criticisms that we have on a
fair and honest statement of the facts and that nominees
should not be subjected to distortions of their record.
I agree with that statement and very much regret the distortion of
Dean Elena Kagan's record as dean of the Harvard Law School. No one
should have attacked her unfairly for following the law while seeking
to honor Harvard's nondiscrimination policy. No one should be
misrepresenting her views and smearing her character or questioning her
commitment to our men and women in uniform. Yet that is what has been
happening repeatedly since her nomination.
In fact, some of these same smears were considered last year in
connection with her nomination to be Solicitor General. She received a
bipartisan vote of approval then. I was hoping that would put it to
rest. Instead, some continue to accuse her of an anti-military bias and
violating the law. They say that she ``barred the U.S. military from
coming on the Harvard Law School campus,'' that she ``kicked the
military off Harvard's campus,'' that she ``disregard[ed] the law . . .
in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war,'' that
she was punishing and taking actions against our military men and
women, that she condemned the U.S. military, that she acted in a way
that was ``not lawful,'' and that she ``violated the law.'' That is
incorrect. I would have thought, and certainly had hoped, that since
the facts are known, these misstatements would not be repeated.
Regrettably, this has not been the case.
The unfair attacks that have been leveled at this nominee are all the
more reason for her to have a chance to respond. Anyone who has a sense
of fairness would not be raising questions and contending they still
have concerns while at the same time seeking to delay her an
opportunity to respond. Those who have been all too willing to attack
this nominee during the last four weeks, and who purport to know her
thoughts and her heart, should not be seeking to delay her opportunity
to set the record straight and defend her character and good name.
Those who unfairly characterize her as anti-military and, in effect,
anti-American and unpatriotic, owe her the opportunity to respond. And
she will this month when we have our hearings.
Let's be clear on the facts. Dean Kagan did not ban the military from
Harvard's campus. Harvard's students always had access to military
recruiters. The facts are that military recruitment remained steady
throughout Dean Kagan's tenure, it even increased during the brief time
that the military was restricted from using Harvard's Office of Career
Services, OCS. Unfortunately, these facts will not prevent some critics
from claiming that she kicked military recruiters off campus when she
did no such thing. This is not debatable.
What is debatable is the wisdom of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
policy. In my opinion, the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy forces good
and capable people to choose between compromising their integrity and
being barred from military service. At a time when we need a strong and
skilled military more than ever, our existing policy
[[Page S4907]]
makes the Armed Forces less effective. As Admiral Mullen, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said, ``allowing gays and lesbians
to serve openly would be the right thing to do.'' I agree. The current
policy needlessly robs our Armed Services of the talents and commitment
of countless people, and it should be changed. Every member of our
military should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the
mission, without regard to sexual orientation. Rejecting the
discrimination that results from the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy is
long overdue.
Does this statement here on the floor of the Senate make me anti-
military? Of course not. Does Admiral Mullen's position on the policy
make him anti-military? Of course not. He is a distinguished four-star
admiral. Did Dean Kagan's comments on the policy render her anti-
military? Not on your life. Anyone at all familiar with her record
knows better. Veterans from Harvard Law School have come to her
defense. They know and recall her support of them and their service to
the country. They know of the dinners and meetings she held with
veterans.
I am confident that a fair reading of her record will show she was
supportive of our military, our veterans, and Harvard law students who
wished to serve in the military. So let's stop the misstatements and
the overheated rhetoric. Let's show her the respect she deserves.
In her speech at West Point 3 years ago, Dean Kagan spoke of being in
awe of the courage and the dedication of those who were preparing for
the military. She went on to speak directly to the issue, saying:
I have been grieved in recent years to find your world and
mine, the U.S. military and U.S. law schools at odds, indeed,
facing each other in court on one issue. That issue is the
military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. Law schools,
including mine, believe that employment opportunities should
extend to all their students, regardless of their race or sex
or sexual orientation. And I personally believe that the
exclusion of gays and lesbians from the military is both
unjust and unwise. I wish devoutly that these Americans could
join this noblest of all professions and serve their country
in this most important of all ways. But I would regret very
much if anyone thought that the disagreement between American
law schools and the U.S. military extended beyond this single
issue. It does not. And I would regret still more if that
disagreement created any broader chasm between law schools
and the military. It must not because of what we, like all
Americans, owe to you.
Hers were not the words of someone who is anti-military. There should
be no place in America for discrimination. We ask our troops to protect
freedom in places around the globe. It is time to protect the basic
freedoms and equal rights at home.
I commend the House of Representatives for passing legislation just
last month to end this discriminatory policy, and the Senate Armed
Services Committee for doing so, as well. Congress is moving forward to
adopt the policy of nondiscrimination that Harvard Law School had
adopted and that Dean Kagan supported. I have long supported
similar legislation in the Senate. I believe this is an important issue
worthy of an up-or-down vote by the Senate. Regrettably, like so many
steps forward in legislation to protect equality throughout our
history, the repeal of this discriminatory policy will likely be
filibustered by a recalcitrant minority.
I also find it ironic that those Republican Senators most critical of
the nominee have filibustered and voted against funding for our troops
and against services for our veterans. When the American people hear a
Republican Senator criticizing Elena Kagan's respect and support for
the military, they might ask whether that Senator filibustered the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. Led by the
Republican leadership, more than 30 Republican Senators did. Even after
their filibuster was defeated, most Republican Senators proceeded to
vote against the bill and the authorities it provided our military.
Likewise, when the Senate considered the consolidated appropriations
bill to provide funding for veterans and military construction, again
led by the Senate Republican leadership, more than 30 Republican
Senators sought to filibuster and stall that funding. Even when their
filibuster was broken, more than 30 Republican Senators voted against
that bill to provide the necessary funding for services to our
veterans.
Also obscured by the blinders worn by her critics are the following
facts: Harvard Law School adopted its nondiscrimination policy in 1979,
long before Elena Kagan ever attended Harvard Law School as a student
let alone before she became an acting professor and ultimately its
Dean. Like almost every other law school in America, Harvard requires
employers to sign a statement that they do not discriminate. Only after
an employer confirms its nondiscrimination employment policy and hiring
practice can the employer use the logistical assistance of the Harvard
Law School's Office of Career Services. This office merely facilitates
recruitment by scheduling interviews and distributing student resumes
to employers. It does not provide physical space on campus for
employers to conduct interviews. In fact, private law firms typically
conduct interviews off campus.
In 1994, Congress adopted the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy as
part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This law prohibited
gays and lesbians from serving openly in our military. Two years later,
in 1996, Congress passed the so-called ``Solomon Amendment'' as part of
the National Defense Authorization Act. This statute allows Federal
funds to be denied to universities that have ``a policy or practice''
that ``prohibits, or in effect prevents'' the military's access to
students on campuses for purposes of military recruiting. In order to
deny Federal funds under the Solomon amendment, the Secretary of
Defense must determine that a university has such a policy or practice,
``transmit a notice [of such determination] . . . to Congress'' and
``publish in the Federal Register a notice of the determination and the
effect of the determination on the eligibility of the [university] for
contracts and grants.''
The Solomon amendment did not directly prohibit a law school from
applying its nondiscrimination policy to military recruiters. It did
not make such an action a crime. The Solomon amendment gave
institutions a choice between satisfying the Secretary of Defense's
requirements on military recruitment or risk foregoing certain Federal
funds. Senator Sessions acknowledged this very point when he said last
year, ``well, let me say, that amendment didn't order any university to
admit anybody or to allow anybody to come on campus.'' In fact, it is
not a criminal statute but an attempt to use the threat of a Federal
funding cutoff as leverage.
In 1998, the Air Force determined that Harvard's alternative
arrangement for military recruitment facilitated by the HLS Veterans
association, in lieu of OCS, complied with the Solomon amendment. In
2002, under the Bush administration, the Air Force reversed course and
enter into a new and contradictory determination that the arrangement
no longer satisfied the Solomon amendment. It threatened Dean Robert
Clark, a Republican and Dean Kagan's predecessor, with a cutoff of
millions of dollars. In response, Dean Clark ``regrettably'' allowed
military recruiters to use OCS while continuing to emphasize his strong
opposition to ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''
In 2003, Solicitor General Kagan became the first woman to serve as
dean of the Harvard Law School when she succeeded Dean Clark. For the
first few years in this position she maintained the law school's
nondiscrimination policy that all employers, with the sole exception of
the military, had to follow to use the Office of Career Services. She
continued to allow the military access to OCS, despite the fact that it
could not sign a nondiscrimination statement. However, she also
repeatedly voiced her opposition to the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
policy, as Dean Clark had, calling it ``a moral injustice of the first
order.''
Also in 2003, the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.,
FAIR, an association of law schools, began a lawsuit challenging the
Solomon amendment and seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining its
enforcement. On November 5, 2003, the district court denied the
injunction and FAIR appealed to the court of appeals for the Third
Circuit. On January 12, 2004, in her capacity as a law professor, Dean
Kagan joined more than 50 other Harvard law professors to support an
amicus brief backing FAIR's appeal to the
[[Page S4908]]
Third Circuit. Unlike FAIR, which argued that the Solomon amendment
violated the first amendment, the brief she joined made the more modest
argument that the Department of Defense had misinterpreted the law. The
amicus brief argued: (1) that the Solomon amendment did not apply to
generally applicable nondiscrimination policies, like Harvard's, that
did not specifically target the military; and (2) it only required that
schools give military recruiters ``entry'' and ``access,'' not
necessarily equal access.
Noting the confusion surrounding the legal requirements of
eligibility for Federal funding under the Solomon amendment, Congress
amended the statute in October, 2004. The effect of those changes was
not settled until the Supreme Court decided the case in 2006.
On November 29, 2004, the Third Circuit concluded, 2-1, in an opinion
joined by Reagan appointee Judge Walter Stapleton, that the ``Solomon
Amendment violates the First Amendment by impeding the law schools'
rights of expressive association and by compelling them to assist in
the expressive act of recruiting.'' The Third Circuit's opinion did not
address the Harvard law professors' amicus brief.
From the beginning of her tenure until November 30, 2004, Dean Kagan
had allowed the military to use OCS. Only after the Third Circuit
concluded that the Solomon amendment was unconstitutional did Dean
Kagan return to Harvard's prior policy of excluding the military from
OCS. However, like her predecessors, Dean Kagan continued to allow
military recruiters entry to the campus and facilitated interviews on
campus through the HLS Veterans Association. This special arrangement
was in place only for a few months in 2005.
In May 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Third Circuit's
decision. During that summer, while the government appeal was pending,
the Pentagon informed Harvard University that its Federal funds were in
jeopardy if it continued to restrict military recruiters from OCS
services. The Pentagon never notified Congress nor published in the
Federal Register that Harvard was not compliant with the Solomon
amendment.
On September 20, 2005, Dean Kagan reinstated the military's exception
from Harvard's nondiscrimination policy and again granted it access to
OCS. Dean Kagan's decision to lift the military's restriction from OCS
was long before the Supreme Court held oral argument on December 6,
2005, or decided the case.
The day after reinstating the military's use of OCS, Dean Kagan was
one of 40 Harvard law professors to sign onto an amicus brief to the
Supreme Court. As they did before the Third Circuit, the Harvard law
professors argued that the Pentagon had misinterpreted the Solomon
amendment and that properly read, the amendment ``rules out policies
that target military recruiters for disfavored treatment, but it does
not touch evenhanded anti-discrimination rules that incidentally affect
the military.'' The Supreme Court rejected their argument. On March 6,
2006, the Supreme Court also reversed the Third Circuit and upheld the
constitutionality of the Solomon amendment.
Let's be clear. She did not break the law. She did not violate the
law. She did her best to follow the law, even a law that led to
discriminatory consequences with which she strongly disagreed. She
engaged in legal action and participated in a legal challenge to the
interpretation and application of the law by the Bush administration
and reversed an earlier interpretation by the Air Force. Yet this legal
action is what some now claim amounted to illegal conduct. That is
incorrect.
Recently there was an op-ed in the Washington Post by Walter
Dellinger dated May 14, 2010, that discusses this issue. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, May 14, 2010]
How I Know Kagan Isn't Anti-Military
(By Walter Dellinger)
The nomination of an anti-military leftist to the Supreme
Court would make for a riveting story. But in the case of
Elena Kagan, it's just not true.
When Kagan became dean of Harvard Law School in 2003,
Harvard, like virtually every other law school, had a long-
standing policy that the assistance of its placement office
was available only to employers that would interview and
consider hiring any student. Employers that insisted on
``pre-screening'' students for high grades or other criteria
were not eligible for the school's placement assistance, nor
were recruiters who declined to hire students on the basis of
race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. The placement
office, in other words, is there to serve the career
aspirations of all students.
Under Kagan's predecessor at Harvard, the highly respected
corporate scholar Robert C. Clark, military recruiters
acknowledged that they were not able to comply with the
school's generally applicable anti-discrimination policy and
could not use the placement office's services. In 2002, the
Bush administration asserted that a federal provision called
the Solomon Amendment required the law school to grant
military recruiters an exemption from its anti-discrimination
policy. Faced with a threatened cutoff of federal funds to
the whole university, Clark announced that the placement
office would begin assisting military recruiters. When Kagan
became dean in 2003, she continued this practice.
In November 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit held that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional,
which meant there was no longer an enforceable, federally
mandated exception to the law school's anti-discrimination
policy. Kagan announced that military recruiters were once
again ineligible for assistance from the school's placement
office. In the fall of 2004, after the Justice Department
challenged the 3rd Circuit decision and the Supreme Court
agreed to review the lower court's ruling, Kagan announced
that the school would once again comply with the government's
demand for placement-office support for military recruiters.
On the basis of this unremarkable application of an
established anti-discrimination policy, Kagan has been
accused of harboring an ``anti-military'' animus. Some
critics have falsely equated Harvard's anti-discrimination
policy with the anti-military and anti-ROTC policies favored
by some campus leftists in the 1970s. Those policies,
however, were categorically different: They were directed at
the military. In contrast, the anti-discrimination policies
applied before, during and after Kagan's tenure as dean were
in no way intended to single out the military but were
applied in an evenhanded way to all prospective employers.
It was also far from clear that Harvard even violated the
Solomon Amendment. That law withheld federal funding from any
school that has a policy of denying military recruiters
access to the campus ``in a manner equal in quality and
scope'' to other recruiters. Neither the text of the law nor
its history (targeting anti-ROTC and anti-military rules)
compelled the conclusion that the law was violated by an
anti-discrimination policy applicable to all recruiters.
When some groups challenged the constitutionality of the
Solomon Amendment, Kagan joined a majority of her faculty
colleagues in a friend-of-the-court brief that I drafted as
their counsel, urging the court to exercise judicial
restraint and avoid ruling on the constitutional issue by
simply holding that it was not clear that Congress intended
to preclude the evenhanded application of anti-discrimination
policies. There were no dissents from the chief justice's
opinion dismissing this statutory argument. We knew that it
would be a difficult sell for the court because the actual
party to the case wanted to seek a constitutional ruling, a
course we thought imprudent and unwise. As the oral argument
showed, a number of justices thought the Harvard brief raised
a very serious question. For today's debate, the key point
about the brief that Kagan joined is that it urged a prudent
course, arguing that ``sound principles of judicial restraint
counsel that this Court should resolve the question of
statutory coverage before turning, only if necessary, to
constitutionality.''
No action Kagan took as dean remotely suggests anything but
the greatest respect for the military. Even when the law
school's anti-discrimination policy effectively precluded
placement-office assistance to military recruiters, she
permitted student veteran groups to use law-school premises
to facilitate military recruitment of Harvard students. At no
point were military recruiters ever barred from the campus or
banned from recruiting Harvard law students. And military
veterans who entered Harvard Law School when Kagan was dean
have praised her efforts to ensure they were welcomed and
respected for their service.
Separately, it is true that as dean, Kagan expressed strong
personal opposition to the ``don't ask, don't tell''
restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the military.
But that is not an anti-military position. Rather, it is the
position now shared by many senior military leaders and the
commander in chief.
Mr. LEAHY. Finally, I find it ironic: Here is this very pro-military
nominee who is being criticized as somehow being anti-military, being
criticized by some of the same Republican Senators who have
filibustered and voted against funding for our troops and against
services for our veterans. I think most people see through that.
Mr. President, we are required to vote at what time?
[[Page S4909]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is voting at about 11:50 a.m. when
all time is expired.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
nomination of Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. I joined together with Senator
Lugar to recommend Judge Walton Pratt 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 Walton Pratt'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 U.S. Senate by a vote
of 93-0. It was my hope that Judge Tinder's confirmation would serve as
an example of the benefits of nominating qualified, non-ideological
jurists to the Federal bench.
In selecting Tanya Walton Pratt, 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 U.S. Senate.
I should also note that Judge Walton Pratt is a historic nominee. If
confirmed, she will be our State's first African-American Federal
judge. While this day is long overdue, I hope that her confirmation
will inspire Hoosier children of all backgrounds to pursue their dreams
and show them that, in America, anything is possible if you study hard
and play by the rules.
On the merits, Tanya Walton Pratt is an accomplished jurist who is
well-qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary. She
has extensive trial experience, having served as, a judge on the Marion
Superior Court since 1997. For much of this time, she served in the
criminal division, handling major felonies and presiding over dozens of
jury trials per year. More recently, she has played a critical role in
the probate division, presiding over adoption cases and placing
children in loving homes.
During this time, Judge Walton Pratt has been recognized as a leader
among Indiana jurists. She has served as chair of the Marion County Bar
Association and on the executive committee of the Marion Superior Court
System. Among other accolades, she has been honored as ``Outstanding
Judge of the Year'' by the Indiana Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Judge Walton Pratt has 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. She
understands that the appropriate role for a judge is to interpret our
laws, not to write them.
Tanya Walton Pratt is also a recognized leader in our community. She
has also been honored with numerous awards including the Career
Achievement Award from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and the Key to
the City of Muncie.
I can say with confidence that Tanya Walton Pratt is the embodiment
of good judicial temperament, intellect, and evenhandedness. If
confirmed, she will be a superb and historic 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.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, Brian Jackson and Elizabeth Erny Foote
are outstanding candidates for judgeships in Louisiana's Middle and
Western Districts. I was honored to recommend Brian Jackson and Beth
Foote to the President last year.
These two well-qualified, noncontroversial nominees are sorely needed
in the districts they have been nominated to serve, where courts are
facing unacceptable backlogs and sitting judges are overwhelmed with
unmanageable caseloads. Ms. Foote and Mr. Jackson have been eager for
this body to let them get to work serving justice to the people of
Louisiana since they were reported by the Judiciary Committee on March
18. I am relieved to see that their long journey toward confirmation is
drawing to a close.
Brian Jackson is an exemplary public servant with a distinguished
record as an attorney and prosecutor. He has extensive Federal
experience, having worked for the Department of Justice for 16 years.
From 1992 to 2002, he served as first assistant U.S. attorney and U.S.
Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana. As the first assistant
U.S. attorney, he managed or litigated a variety of civil and criminal
cases. Because of his leadership, he was selected in 2001 to be the
interim U.S. attorney for the Middle District pending the confirmation
of President Bush's nominee.
Prior to becoming an assistant U.S. attorney, he served as an
associate deputy attorney general in Washington, DC. In this role, he
was as a principal adviser to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General on civil rights and criminal justice policies. In 1992 he was
honored as the recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Equal
Employment Opportunity for his leadership in this area.
Since 2002, he has distinguished himself in private practice in the
firm Liskow and Lewis, where he is a shareholder. He is currently chair
of the firm's government investigations and white collar crime groups
and he is on Liskow and Lewis' board of directors and is the immediate
past chair of the firm's diversity committee.
In addition to this distinguished career in private practice, Brian
has also been extremely active in public service. He has graciously
served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations, including
Catholic Charities of New Orleans, The Pro Bono Project, Teach for
America for the South Louisiana Region, and The Metropolitan Crime
Commission, for which he served as vice chair. Additionally, he has
given back to the legal community by serving on the board of directors
for the New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
Finally, Brian's impressive academic credentials have also prepared
him to serve Louisiana's Middle District. He received his bachelor of
science, Xavier University in 1982. He received his J.D. from the
Southern University School of Law in 1985 where he served as editor-in-
chief of the Southern University Law Review and his master's of law
with concentration in international and comparative law from Georgetown
University Law Center in 2000.
With these credentials, firm roots Louisiana's Middle District, and a
long and impressive career in the U.S. Department of Justice, Brian
Jackson is truly ready to hit the ground running as district court
judge.
Elizabeth Erny Foote is an experienced attorney with 30 years of
experience in Federal litigation. She is a partner in the Smith Foote
Law firm in Alexandria, LA, where she primarily practices civil
litigation. She has had extensive experience in Federal court
throughout her career, having litigated in all three Federal Court
Districts of Louisiana, in addition to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeal.
In addition to this outstanding private practice, Beth has proven her
dedication to the legal profession through her service to the Louisiana
State Bar Association.
In addition to this outstanding private practice, Beth has proven her
dedication to the legal profession through her service to the Louisiana
State Bar Association, with which she has been actively involved since
1985
[[Page S4910]]
and is currently the immediate past president. In 1994, she became the
first woman to serve as an officer in the Louisiana State Bar
association when she was elected treasurer. The same year she received
the President's Award for outstanding service.
Beth is truly a respected civic leader throughout Louisiana. In
addition to her contributions to the legal field, she has demonstrated
her commitment to justice and equality through a number of nonprofits
and government initiatives. Her prestigious awards and honors include:
the 2004 Alexandria Human Relations Commission Award for her efforts in
promoting better understanding and quality of life in her community,
the 2004 Louisiana Heroine Award presented by the Louisiana Association
of Nonprofit Associations, the 2000 Central Louisiana Woman of the
Century Award, and the 1996 Central Louisiana Women Business Owners'
``Business Owner Woman of Excellence'' Award.
Finally, Beth's impressive academic credentials have prepared her to
serve Louisiana's Western District. She received a bachelor of arts
from Louisiana State University in 1974, a master's of arts from Duke
University in 1975, and a J.D. from Louisiana State University Law
School in 1978. She has also been an adjunct professor at the Paul M.
Hebert Law Center at LSU, teaching courses in appellate advocacy.
I believe Beth's principled commitment to the field of law, her
impressive 30-year career as an attorney, her extensive Federal
litigation experience, and her esteemed statewide reputation make her
an excellent nominee for judge for Louisiana's Western District.
The time to confirm these two noncontroversial nominees is far
overdue. I urge my colleagues to confirm these nominees without further
delay so that they may begin the important work the people of Louisiana
need them to do.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be
yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the first
nominee.
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 Tanya Walton Pratt, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Indiana?
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), and the Senator from
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. LeMieux) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Ex.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Boxer
Byrd
LeMieux
McCaskill
Roberts
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, the majority leader,
is recognized.
____________________