[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 65 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2909-S2911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL FRANCIS URBANSKI TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Michael
Francis Urbanski, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael Francis
Urbanski, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the
Western District of Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour
of debate with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided
in the usual form.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I was very gratified yesterday when the
Senate unanimously voted to confirm Arenda Wright Allen as U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, and I am very glad
to be here to speak in support of Virginia's nominee to the Western
District of Virginia, Judge Michael Urbanski.
As I did yesterday, I wish to express my appreciation to the
leadership of both parties in the Senate for scheduling these important
confirmation votes. Filling existing vacancies on our courts is
important to Virginia, it is important to America, particularly in
these cases where the nominees are noncontroversial to either party
and, thus, are able to be brought forward for reasonably quick
confirmation.
One of the bedrock principles in this country is access to justice,
and it can clearly be said that vacancies on our courts create
backlogs, bottlenecks and delays, and justice delayed is obviously
justice denied.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation to the leadership for moving
these two very highly qualified nominees, Arenda Wright Allen, who was
confirmed yesterday, and Judge Michael Urbanski, who will be voted on
shortly.
In that regard, I am proud of the work we have been able to do during
my time in the Senate in finding dedicated, well-qualified jurists from
Virginia to recommend to the President when vacancies do occur on the
Federal bench. When I first arrived in the Senate, Senator John Warner
and I developed a robust, collaborative selection process to review
candidates. Senator Mark Warner and I have continued this thorough,
deliberative process, and we were pleased to recommend Judge Michael
Urbanski to President Obama in June of last year. President Obama first
nominated Judge Urbanski for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia last December. He renominated Judge
Urbanski earlier this year, and Judge Urbanski was reported out of the
Judiciary Committee without opposition on March 10 of this year.
Senator Warner and I jointly reviewed a highly competitive field from
the Western District of Virginia. Judge Urbanski stood out to me
because of the resounding recommendations from the bar associations
which he covers now as a magistrate judge. Those recommendations all
noted Judge Urbanski's incredible work ethic. He has worked tirelessly
as a magistrate judge to ensure the efficient administration of justice
in the Western District of Virginia. He has served in this capacity
since 2004. He also has an outstanding reputation for fairness and a
good judicial temperament. He has contributed to the efficiency of the
Western District of Virginia by being an effective mediator, resolving
a substantial number of disputes without lengthy litigation. He also
recently established a veterans court in the Western District. This
court strives to utilize the many services available to our veterans in
order to try to find alternatives to incarceration from nonviolent
offenders and to break the cycle of recidivism.
I am very proud to say Judge Urbanski is a product of Virginia's
public universities. He graduated from the University of Virginia
School of Law in 1981 and the Nation's oldest university, the College
of William and Mary, in 1978.
Prior to becoming a Federal magistrate judge, Judge Urbanski earned a
reputation as one of the top trial lawyers in western Virginia. He was
the head of the law firm of Woods Rogers' litigation section and
practiced in Roanoke from 1989 to 2004. I have met personally with
Judge Urbanski. I am convinced he has the correct judicial temperament,
intelligence, and dedication to make an excellent district court judge.
I also had the pleasure of meeting with his family, many of his
friends, law clerks, and colleagues. His dedication to his family and
to his community is abundantly apparent.
Though I am proud Virginia has such an exemplary individual to put
forward as a district judge nominee, the Judiciary Committee clearly
shares this view, having voted out Judge Urbanski unanimously. I urge
all my colleagues to support his confirmation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday this Chamber came together to
unanimously confirm Ms. Arenda Wright Allen to serve as a district
judge in Virginia. I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle
for their vote. I am confident that we will give the same support to
another excellent nominee from Virginia under consideration today.
I rise to speak in support Judge Michael Urbanski to serve as the
next U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia.
Judge Urbanski would be appointed to a court that is known for its
rigor and quality. It is a court that requires a highly effective judge
that is sensitive to the details of each case. I think Judge Urbanski
is perfect for this job.
He graduated from the College of William and Mary and the University
of Virginia Law School. He also served as a law clerk for the Honorable
James Turk, a district judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Following his clerkship, he worked in the private sector where he
built experience in antitrust litigation, counseling and
investigations, contract and business tort litigation and intellectual
property litigation.
Since 2004, he has served as a magistrate judge in Roanoke, VA, where
he has built strong connections to the community and a reputation as a
fair and impartial judge.
I would be remiss not to mention the overwhelming support his
candidacy received from the legal community in which he will serve. In
addition, the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia Women Attorneys
Association and the Salem/Roanoke County Bar Association ranked Judge
Urbanski as ``highly qualified'' or ``most highly qualified.''
I again would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member
Grassley for moving Judge Urbanski's nomination through the Judiciary
Committee so that we could consider him today. As I testified at the
hearing, I look forward to casting my vote in support of Judge
Urbanski's nomination and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do the same.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used in quorum
calls during the debate on the Urbanski nomination be charged equally
to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on the
nomination of Michael Urbanski to be a U.S. district judge for the
Western District of Virginia.
[[Page S2910]]
Since we have returned from the April recess, we have done very
little else other than consider judicial nominations. This will be the
third judicial nominee to be confirmed in the last 3 days and the 23rd
confirmed this year. In fact, after today, we will have confirmed six
judges in just 8 days. I know the liberal interest groups have been
pressuring the other side to consider more nominees even though we have
been moving at a very brisk pace this entire Congress, but it is
surprising to me, with all the issues facing the Nation at home and
abroad, that we would spend 2 weeks on the floor considering little
else.
Our economy continues to struggle. Millions of Americans remain out
of work and are unable to find jobs. The unemployment rate remains at
approximately 9 percent. Those who do have jobs are finding it more and
more difficult to get to work as gas prices are over $4 a gallon and
inching even higher. Our Nation is facing significant national security
issues. Every single day, our national debt continues to climb to
unsustainable levels. These are incredibly important issues. I would
not go so far as to say the majority does not care about the issues
facing our Nation. Perhaps they are simply out of ideas. But as
Americans continue to struggle in this economy, it is difficult to
understand why we would spend 2 weeks voting on hardly anything but
judicial nominations.
As I said, the Senate has been moving swiftly this year on those
nominations. We have confirmed 23 nominees in just 49 days. That is a
rate of one judge almost every other day the Senate has been in session
since convening in January.
However, the Senate must not place quantity confirmed over quality
confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal
judiciary and the American people for the Senate to simply rubberstamp
these nominations.
I was surprised during one of our recent debates to hear one of my
colleagues on the committee come to the Senate floor and imply
otherwise. During the debate on the confirmation of Edward Chen, a
reference was made to what was characterized as the Senate's
longstanding tradition--a deference to home State Senators with regard
to the Federal district court nominations. That Senator stated that in
his time in the Senate, where a Federal district court nominee is
backed by the two home State Senators, it is usually almost pro forma
that the nominee is confirmed.
The fact is that home State Senators do have a great deal to say in
who should serve the country on the bench. That is part of the advise-
and-consent process. But there are 100 voices in this body, and we
speak for the American people who come before these jurists. We must
ensure they are fit to serve as impartial arbiters.
I do not consider the confirmation process for a Federal judicial
nominee to be a pro forma process. I will continue to give scrutiny to
all nominees regardless of home State support. I do not consider it
delay or obstruction to fulfill that duty. If the other side chooses to
do so, of course, that is up to them, but I will not simply rubberstamp
those nominees. We will continue to process the nominees fairly and
with the standard to which the people rightly hold us.
I support today's nominee. Michael Francis Urbanski is nominated to
be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia. He
presently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge in the same district.
Judge Urbanski received his BA with high honors from William & Mary
in 1978 and his juris doctorate from the University of Virginia School
of Law in 1981. Upon graduation, he served as a law clerk to the
Honorable James C. Turk of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia. From 1982 to 2004, Judge Urbanski worked in
private practice, first as an associate at the Washington, DC, office
of Vinson & Elkins and then with the firm of Woods Rogers, where he
became a principal in 1989. In 2003, the nominee was appointed to his
present position. In 2010, Chief Judge James Jones appointed the
nominee to chair an advisory committee on the new local rules adopted
in the Western District.
The American Bar Association Committee on the Federal Judiciary has
given Judge Urbanski their highest rating--unanimously ``well
qualified.''
I am pleased to support this experienced nominee, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the nomination
of Michael Francis Urbanski to fill a judicial vacancy on the District
Court for the Western District of Virginia. I thank the majority leader
for scheduling the vote today on this nomination, as well as the vote
yesterday on another nomination to fill a vacancy in Virginia. With
vacancies at 90 in Federal courts throughout the country, I hope that
we can continue to work together in the remaining weeks of this work
period to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs
to fulfill its constitutional role.
Our action to take up and vote on these nominations from Virginia,
and to come to a time agreement to debate and vote on the long-delayed
nomination of Ed Chen to the Northern District of California earlier
this week, show that the delays that have slowed our progress on
nominations are unnecessary.
Judge Urbanski has been a magistrate judge for 7 years on the court
to which has now been nominated. Previously, he was in private practice
in Roanoke, VA, and Washington, DC, and was a law clerk to the Western
District of Virginia Judge James C. Turk. Judge Urbanski's nomination
has the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Webb and
Senator Warner. His nomination was reported unanimously by the
Judiciary Committee over a month ago. I expect that it will be
unanimously confirmed today.
In addition to Judge Urbanski, there remain another 10 judicial
nominations on the Executive Calendar that have been ready for final
Senate action for weeks and, in some cases, many months. Today we
reported another five of President Obama's judicial nominations
favorably. They are now, also, ready to be considered by the Senate.
All of these nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a
demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. They should have an up-
or-down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and
without additional weeks and months of needless delay.
Our ability to make this kind of progress regarding nominations has
been hampered by the creation of what I consider to be misplaced
controversies about many nominees' records. Recently, Republican
Senators have tried to twist nominees' litigation experience against
them. Their partisan attacks are not consistent. Republicans oppose
some nominees by saying that they do not have sufficient litigation
experience. When a nominee has extensive experience and is a successful
trial lawyer, they reverse themselves and complain that the nominee has
too much experience and will be biased by it.
It is difficult to satisfy people whose standards change in order to
explain their opposition. Republicans seem to react this way to
President Obama, his actions and his nominees. Republicans were for a
deficit commission until President Obama was for it; then they voted
against it. They were for action in Libya until President Obama took
action; then they were against it.
They opposed Judge McConnell of Rhode Island supposedly because he
was an excellent trial lawyer. They opposed Judge Chen of California
despite his 10 years as a fair and impartial Federal judge magistrate,
because he was a staff attorney litigating to protect civil rights.
Both of these nominees have assured us that they understand the
difference between being an advocate for a client and serving as a
judge. I have no doubt that they do. Judge Chen demonstrated his
impartiality in 10 years of work as a Federal magistrate judge.
Republicans chose to ignore his demonstrated qualifications and
experience. They likewise ignore the sworn testimony of the nominees at
our hearings and their answers to Republicans own questions. When they
do that, it makes you wonder what is driving their decisions to oppose
these qualified nominees.
These are Republican Senators who demanded that President Bush's
nominees be confirmed despite their ideological commitment to
conservative activism. In those years, Republicans argued that
nominees' careers devoted
[[Page S2911]]
to serving corporate interests and conservative causes were irrelevant
to the Senate's inquiry and that all nominees should be confirmed if
they met basic qualifications. In President Bush's first term, the
Senate regularly considered nominations, confirming 205 to lifetime
appointments. We remain well behind that pace, having been allowed to
consider only 83 of President Obama's nominations in nearly 28 months
of his term.
Senate Republicans are now adopting a much different standard--and a
shifting one at that. It almost seems like whatever might be claimed to
justify strenuous opposition and voting no on an Obama nominee is
justified by the end--opposing the President. That is wrong. That is
wrong because this President has worked hard to consult with Republican
home State Senators. Yet they still oppose them, including President
Obama's first nomination that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana.
Despite Senator Lugar's support, Republicans filibustered that
nomination and delayed it for months. They have filibustered five of
President Obama's judicial nominations to date.
It is wrong because their actions have created a judicial vacancies
crisis that persists to this day. If the 22 judicial nominees
Republicans point to as being confirmed this year, 15 should have been
confirmed last year and were needlessly delayed. One even required
cloture to end an unprecedented filibuster against a Federal trial
court nominee.
With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of
courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be
debating and voting on each of the 15 other judicial nominations
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the
Senate's Executive Calendar. The progress we have started to make these
last 2 weeks is a sign that the Senate can do better to ensure that the
Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to
Americans in courts throughout the country.
I congratulate Judge Urbanski and his family on his confirmation
today.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant Daily Digest editor proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Michael Francis Urbanski, of Virginia, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Virginia?
Mr. MANCHIN. 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 clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats),
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Ex.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Burr
Coats
Cochran
Hutchison
Murkowski
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________