[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 33 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1318-S1322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        Government Shutdown Pay

  I would like to add a comment on another matter--the Boxer-Casey bill 
that was passed here and sent over to the House. The bill says that if 
there were to be a shutdown of government, which I know nobody wants, 
but if there were to be one, Members of Congress should not get their 
pay. They should not get their pay and they should not get retroactive 
pay because this is a very basic responsibility we have--to keep the 
government running, to make sure Social Security recipients receive 
checks on time, and disabled veterans, too, and make sure Superfund 
sites are cleaned up and the NIH continues functioning so they can find 
cures for the diseases that plague our families.
  It is fair to say the two parties have different views on how to 
approach the deficit. The party I am proud to belong to believes--and 
we showed it under the leadership of Bill Clinton--we can balance the 
budget but not threaten job creation. We did it under Bill Clinton, but 
we did it smartly, we did it wisely, and the millionaires did pay their 
fair share, as opposed to some of the proposals in H.R. 1 that came out 
of the House that at the minimum would cost, according to the 
economists, 200,000 jobs. We have heard estimates of 800,000 jobs. We 
cannot afford to lose that many jobs just as this economy is getting to 
the point where jobs are being created in decent numbers.
  Yes, we need to trim the deficit, and yes, we have to make sure we do 
not knock this economic recovery off track. Therefore, it is essential 
that the parties work together because if we each just stay in our 
camps, we are never going to get anything done.
  Let's do this in a wise way. It is true that we had an election and 
the House changed hands. Guess what. The Senate didn't, and the White 
House is not up for election for 2 more years, so you cannot go around 
saying there was an election and the election said that the Republicans 
get everything they want. That just does not make any sense.
  Having come back from that election, I want to say it was about 
jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs. My opponent essentially asked every morning, 
every noon, and every night: Where are the

[[Page S1321]]

jobs? And that was a fair question. I said to her and I said to my 
people in California: We are not creating jobs at a fast enough pace; 
we have to do better. As I stand here, how could I ever betray what I 
said in the campaign and vote for a plan that would cut between 200,000 
and 800,000 jobs, the Republican plan from the House?
  We have to get our act together here and meet somewhere in the 
middle. If you look at the Republican plan, I think it was $100 billion 
off the President's budget. Our plan is about, now, $50 billion off of 
the President's budget. We have met them more than halfway. Let's get 
this thing done. If we get this done and do it in responsible way, yes, 
we will get this deficit on the right path. But to hold out this idea 
that we are going to go after just 12 percent of the budget and the 
things the people really rely on, the roads and the bridges and the 
highways and education and cleaning up Superfund sites and the FBI and 
all the things we rely on--to go after that one small part of the 
budget and decimate it the way H.R. 1 would do would be 
counterproductive.
  It is a job killer that hurts the middle class, and we cannot go that 
way. Having said all of this, I am sure we are going to see a vote on 
H.R. 1. I am pretty sure we are going to see a vote on H.R. 1, and I do 
not think it is going to get enough votes to pass. Then we will take 
the proposal of the Democrats that Vice President Biden has put forward 
and see what that does. If neither gets the requisite number of votes, 
we are going to have to keep talking. But we cannot continue with these 
2-week extensions. It is absolutely irresponsible. Imagine taking 
billions of dollars out of the Federal budget every 2 weeks. It is 
going to be tens of thousands of jobs in every one of our States that 
are lost.
  In summing up, I hope the Speaker of the House over there will take 
up our bill quickly, make sure that Members of Congress are not treated 
any better than anybody else. And we will hopefully avert a shutdown. 
But if there is one, we are treated like every other Federal employee, 
no budget, no pay.
  I am very grateful to the Judiciary Committee for giving us the 
opportunity to vote for Anthony Battaglia who is going to make a great 
judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of 
the nomination of Magistrate Judge Tony Battaglia to be a Federal 
district judge in the Southern District of California.
  Judge Battaglia is a highly regarded jurist in the San Diego area. 
For more than 17 years, he has served as a magistrate judge. He has 
seen more than 20 cases to verdict or judgment, has managed both 
individual and large class action suits, and has presided over matters 
ranging from environmental claims to commercial contract disputes to 
criminal and civil rights cases.
  Outside of the courtroom, Judge Battaglia has generously given his 
time to train and educate other lawyers and judges by, for example, 
writing extensively in local bar journals and leading instructional 
workshops and seminars across the country.
  He has been appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to represent 
magistrate judges across the country on the Judicial Conference. He has 
served as president of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. And 
he has been president of the San Diego County Judges Association.
  Prior to his appointment to the bench, Battaglia was an equally well 
regarded litigator--first with the law offices of John Marin, then as a 
sole practitioner, and finally as a partner in the firm of Battaglia, 
Fitzpatrick, & Battaglia.
  During almost two decades in private practice, he tried 23 cases to 
verdict and handled more than 125 arbitrations.
  His accolades as an attorney included serving as president of the San 
Diego Bar Association and president of the San Diego Trial Lawyers 
Association, as well as being named Outstanding Trial Lawyer by the San 
Diego Trial Lawyers Association.
  Judge Battaglia will bring to the district court a wealth of 
experience as an attorney, as well as a top-notch record as a judge.
  I commend Senator Boxer for recommending him for this position, and I 
am very pleased to support his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we continue in our efforts to 
lessen the burden our overworked courts currently face. We are about to 
confirm three more judicial nominees. Two of the three nominees we will 
vote on tonight are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. With 
our action today, in only 22 days the Senate has been in session, the 
Senate has confirmed 10 nominees.
  With these votes tonight, we will have confirmed 19 percent of 
President Obama's judicial nominees submitted in this Congress. This 
pace far exceeds the progress made at this point in the 108th Congress, 
which was the beginning of the third year of President Bush's 
Presidency. At this point, the 108th Congress had confirmed only 4 of 
the 48 nominations sent to the Senate, about an 8 percent confirmation 
rate.
  Our fast pace on the floor is matched by our rapid pace in committee. 
We held our third nominations hearing this past Wednesday. We have now 
heard from 13 judicial nominees and have reported 16 favorably. Our 
work in committee and on the floor indicates a cooperative effort 
between me, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and our leadership. 
It is an indication of the progress that can be made when the President 
nominates consensus nominees.
  We will continue in our efforts, but again, I would remind everyone 
that while we in the Senate are doing our part, the administration must 
also be engaged in this process. I would note that 24 of the 41 vacant 
seats deemed to be judicial emergencies have no nominee. Of the 
additional 54 vacancies, 28 have no nominee.
  I am perplexed as to why the President would ignore these pending 
vacancies and instead spend time and resources to send up a nomination 
for a seat that will not be vacant for some time. I refer to the 
President's nomination, on February 16, 2011, of Scott Skavdahl, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming. This seat 
will not be vacant until July 24, 2011, when the current judge will 
retire. I do not understand the administration's priorities when it 
comes to judicial nominations. Instead of focusing on nominations for 
future vacancies, I would hope the administration would use some common 
sense and direct its efforts towards nominating individuals for seats 
which are at least currently vacant.
  With regard to the nominees on whom we will vote this evening, let me 
say a few words about each.
  Judge Joseph Battaglia is nominated to be a U.S. district judge for 
the Southern District of California. He presently serves in that 
district as a U.S. magistrate judge. He was first appointed to that 
position in 1993. In addition to serving as a magistrate judge, Judge 
Battaglia has served on the Judicial Conference of the United States 
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, on the Ninth Circuit 
Executive Board of Magistrate Judges, and as a Magistrate Judge 
Observer on the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. In 2009, Judge 
Battaglia was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts as Magistrate Judge 
Observer to the Judicial Conference of the United States.
  Judge Battaglia received his B.A. from the U.S. International 
University and his J.D. from California Western School of Law. He spent 
almost two decades working in private practice, and also acted as an 
arbitrator for the San Diego Superior Court, serving on many panels. 
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Well-Qualified.''
  This evening, we will also vote on two nominees to the Central 
District of Illinois. Both of these vacancies are considered to be 
judicial emergencies.
  Judge James E. Shadid received his B.S. from Bradley University and 
his J.D. from the John Marshall Law School. Upon admission to the 
Illinois bar, Judge Shadid opened his own law practice. He maintained 
his law practice until 2001, when he was appointed by the Illinois 
Supreme Court to fill a vacancy on the Tenth Judicial Circuit. He was 
elected to a full term in 2002 and re-elected in 2008.
  While in private practice, he served as a part-time public defender 
at the

[[Page S1322]]

Peoria County Public Defender's Office. He also served an assistant 
attorney general for the State of Illinois. He was appointed by 
Governor Jim Edgar to serve as a commissioner of the Court of Claims in 
Illinois. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary rated Judge Shadid as ``Qualified'' by a substantial 
majority, while a minority rated him ``Well Qualified.''
  Also nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy for the Central 
District of Illinois is Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Judge Myerscough 
received her B.A. with honors, from Southern Illinois University, and 
her J.D. from Southern Illinois School of Law. Upon graduation from law 
school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Harold A. Baker of 
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
  Judge Myerscough was in private practice for approximately 6 years 
before being elected as an associate circuit court judge for the 
Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois. Judge Myerscough later became a 
circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. In 1998 she was elected as an 
appellate court justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth 
District. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Myerscough as ``Qualified.''
  I congratulate these three nominees and wish them well in their 
public service as a U.S. district judge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wanted to alert Senators that 
we will most likely be voting somewhere around 5:30. We are still 
working on an agreement about yielding back time, but I thought people 
would like to know that.
  The other thing I wish to note is to first urge my colleagues to 
confirm the judges before us tonight, and then I wish also to briefly 
say a few words about the third vote we are going to be taking in this 
sequence.