[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 120 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5285-S5288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 95, 230, 232, 254, 255, 256, 257, 265, 266, 267, 268, 
269, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, and 
Calendar Nos. 291 through 323, and nominations placed on the 
Secretary's Desk in the Air Force, Army, Foreign Service, Marine Corps, 
and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the 
Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the Senate 
has failed to take significant steps before the August recess to 
address the serious crisis of judicial vacancies on courts around the 
country. Last August, Senate Republicans left 17 judicial nominations 
pending and consented to confirm only four Federal circuit and district 
court nominations before the recess. I noted at that time what a 
serious blow that was to our ability to make progress addressing the 
judicial vacancies crisis that had already persisted for well over a 
year. Today, as the Senate recesses with judicial vacancies still near 
90 as they were a year ago, the Senate is doing even worse, confirming 
only 4 judicial nominations of the 24 nominees already considered by 
the Judiciary Committee and awaiting a Senate vote.
  Last week, I urged the Senate to confirm the two dozen judicial 
nominations already fully considered by the Judiciary Committee and 
ready for final action by the Senate. Of them, 20 were unanimously 
reported, without a single negative vote. Many have been pending 
without final action for months. I am, again, disappointed as Senate 
Republicans continue to delay these much needed and long awaited 
confirmations.
  Even though Federal judicial vacancies have remained near or above 90 
for more than 2 years, the Senate's Republican leadership has refused 
to consent to vote on these qualified, consensus nominations, leaving 
16 of the 20 unanimously reported nominees in limbo. This is not the 
way to make real progress. The American people should not have to wait 
more weeks and months for the Senate to do its constitutional duty and 
ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to 
Americans around the country.
  In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more 
promptly. They were not forced to languish for months. In the second 
year of the Bush administration, in 2002, before the August recess the 
Senate moved ahead to confirm a dozen judicial nominees. The next year, 
with a Republican Senate majority, Senate Democrats consented to seven 
confirmations before the August recess. With the delays that have been 
backlogging confirmations for years now, we have 20 unanimously 
reported judicial nominees who could all have been confirmed before 
this recess. Regrettably, 16 will not go forward today because 
Republicans refuse to consent.
  At a time when judicial vacancies remain near 90, these needless 
delays perpetuate the judicial vacancies crisis that Chief Justice 
Roberts wrote of last December and that the President, the Attorney 
General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country have 
urged us to join together to end. The Senate can and should be doing a 
better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to 
provide justice to Americans around the country.
  Just last week, the Congressional Research Service released a report 
that confirms what many of us have been saying for some time: This is 
the longest sustained period of historically high vacancy rates on the 
Federal judiciary in the last 35 years.
  This is hardly surprising. Republican obstruction kept the total 
confirmations in the first year of the President's term to the lowest 
total for a first year in more than 50 years, when only 12 judicial 
nominees were allowed to be considered. Republican obstruction kept the 
2-year total of confirmations to the lowest total in 35 years, for the 
first 2 years of a President's term, with only a total of 60 Federal 
circuit and district court nominations confirmed during the course of 
those entire first 2 years of the Obama administration. Accordingly, 
judicial vacancies have perpetuated needlessly and caused needless 
delay on consensus nominees.
  We are seeing it, again, this week as we approach the August recess 
in the third year of the Obama administration. In the 17 months I 
chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the 
Senate confirmed 100 of his Federal circuit and district court 
nominees. It looks like it will take twice as long to reach 100 
confirmations of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court 
nominees. President Obama has been in office for 31 months and only 95 
of his Federal circuit and district court nominees have been confirmed. 
There are two dozen more that are stalled, awaiting final Senate 
action. By the August recess in the third year of the Bush 
administration, the Senate had confirmed 143 Federal circuit and 
district court judges. This year, the comparable number is only 95.
  It is not accurate to pretend that real progress is being made in 
these circumstances. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees 
are being delayed and it is the American people and the Federal courts 
that are being made to suffer. This is another area in which we must 
come together for the American people. There is no reason Senators 
cannot join together to finally bring down the excessive number of 
vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation 
for far too long.
  I have always taken seriously the responsibility of the Senate to 
make sure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs. Senate 
Republicans had pocket-filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's 
judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial 
vacancies skyrocketed to more than 110. Despite that, in the 17 months 
I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years 
in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial 
nominees; during the next 24 months, with a Republican majority in the 
Senate, confirmed 105 more, for a total of 205 confirmed judges during 
President Bush's first term. We have a long way to go for the Senate to 
be as productive as we were during President Bush's first term.
  We were able to lower vacancies dramatically during President Bush's 
years in office, cutting them in half during his first term. The Senate 
has reversed course during the Obama administration, and with 
Republican objections slowing the pace of confirmations, judicial 
vacancies have been at crisis levels for over 2 years. Over the 8 years 
of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial 
vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. They now stand at 88 vacancies. The 
vacancy rate--which we reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent by this 
date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4 
percent in 2008--is back above 10 percent.
  Time and time again over the last 2\1/2\ years, I have urged the 
Senate to come together and work to address this crisis. At the 
beginning of this year, I called for a return to regular order in the 
consideration of nominations. We

[[Page S5286]]

have seen that approach work on the Judiciary Committee. I have thanked 
the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, many times 
for his cooperation with me to make sure that the committee continues 
to make progress in the consideration of nominations. His approach has 
been the right approach. Regrettably, it has not been matched on the 
floor, where the refusal by Republican leadership to come to regular 
time agreements to consider nominations has put our progress--our 
positive action--at risk.
  Republican obstruction has led to a backlog of two dozen judicial 
nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. More than half 
of the judicial nominations on the calendar would fill judicial 
emergency vacancies. Yet, due to Republican objections, we have lost 
another opportunity to make progress by confirming consensus 
nominations.
  Before the Memorial Day recess, I urged that the Senate to take up 
and vote on the many consensus judicial nominations then on the 
calendar and ready for final action. But Republican Senators would not 
agree to consider a single one. With nearly 20 judicial nominees 
available to the Senate for final action, only 1 was considered before 
the July 4 recess. In fact, the Senate has now considered only 11 
nominations in the last 10 weeks and has only confirmed a total of 18 
judicial nominees who had their hearings this year.
  Senate Republicans have departed from the Senate's traditional 
practice by refusing to confirm even unanimous, consensus nominees. I 
still await an explanation from the other side of the aisle why these 
nominations could not be considered and confirmed. Republican 
leadership should explain to the people and Senators from Tennessee, 
South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Maine, New York, 
Arkansas, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania why there continue to be 
vacancies on the Federal courts in their States that could easily be 
filled if the Senate would do its constitutional duty and vote on the 
President's nominations. These judicial nominees have the support of 
Republican home State Senators. In fact, there are multiple nominees 
still pending from Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Yet those nominees still 
wait for months on the Senate's calendar without explanation for the 
damaging delays, leaving the people of those States to bear the brunt 
of having too few judges.
  All 24 of the judicial nominations on the calendar have been 
favorably reported by the Judiciary after a fair but thorough process. 
We review extensive background material on each nominee. All Senators 
on the committee, Democratic and Republican, have the opportunity to 
ask the nominees questions at a live hearing. Senators also have the 
opportunity to ask questions in writing following the hearing and to 
meet with the nominees. All of these nominees have a strong commitment 
to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. 
They should not be delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being 
so thoroughly and fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.
  Last week, the president of the American Bar Association, Stephen 
Zack, wrote to the Senate leaders ``to urge [them] to redouble [their] 
efforts to fill existing judicial vacancies promptly so that the 
federal courts will have the judges they need to uphold the rule of law 
and deliver timely justice.'' He wrote:

       As lawyers who practice in federal courts across this 
     nation, ABA members know firsthand that long-standing 
     vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access 
     to the courts and create strains that will inevitably reduce 
     the quality of our justice system and erode public confidence 
     in the ability of the courts to vindicate constitutional 
     rights or render fair and timely decisions.

  Mr. Zack's concerns echo those of Chief Justice Roberts, the 
President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges 
around the country who have also urged us to join together to end the 
judicial vacancies crisis. The Senate can and should be doing a better 
job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide 
justice to Americans around the country.
  The four nominees the Senate will consider today like so many others 
left on the calendar have the strong support of their home State 
Senators--Republicans and Democrats--and all were reported unanimously 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Kathleen Williams was first nominated over a year ago to fill a 
judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. Her 
nomination has the support of both of her home State Senators--Senator 
Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and Senator Rubio, a Republican--and was 
reported without objection by the Judiciary Committee on May 12. Ms. 
Williams has been the Federal public defender for the Southern District 
of Florida for 15 years, having been appointed five times by the 
Eleventh Circuit, most recently earlier this year. Ms. Williams was 
previously a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida, 
and she also worked in private civil litigation. Her balance of 
experience as a prosecutor and as a public defender providing legal 
services to thousands of defendants who cannot afford their own 
attorney will serve her well on the Federal bench.
  Sara Darrow was nominated over 8 months ago to fill a judicial 
vacancy in the Central District of Illinois. Ms. Darrow has the 
bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Senator Durbin, a 
Democrat, and Senator Kirk, a Republican. Ms. Darrow has been a 
prosecutor for over 12 years, working as a State's Attorney for 
Illinois and later as a Federal prosecutor in Illinois and Iowa. She is 
currently chief of the violent crimes unit in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the Central District of Illinois. Her nomination was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection on May 12.
  Nelva Gonzales Ramos was nominated in January of this year to fill a 
judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Texas. Her 
nomination has the strong support of both her Republican home State 
Senators, Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and was reported by the 
Judiciary Committee without objection May 12. She has served for over 
12 years as a State judge in Texas, where she has presided over more 
than 1,200 cases. Judge Ramos has been reelected twice by the people of 
Texas to serve as a State judge. Prior to joining the bench, she also 
had a successful career as a litigator in private practice.
  Richard Brooke Jackson was first nominated over 10 months ago to fill 
a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of Colorado. He is 
currently the chief judge for the First Judicial District in Colorado, 
where he has served for over 13 years, earning recognitions as the 
``Best State Judge in Colorado'' in 2010. Prior to joining the bench, 
Judge Jackson practiced law for 26 years in Denver, CO, where he was 
made a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Judge Jackson's 
nomination has the strong support of both of his home State Senators, 
Senator Udall and Senator Bennet, and was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee without objection on May 12.
  The Senate's failure to take action and vote on 20 of the 24 judicial 
nominees reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and reported favorably to 
the Senate is yet another in a long line of missed opportunities to 
come together for the American people. This is not how the Senate has 
acted in years past with other Presidents' judicial nominees. Vacancies 
are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is 
the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to 
suffer.
  I hope that when we return from the August recess, Senators can 
finally join together to begin to bring down the excessive number of 
vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation 
for far too long. We can and must do better.
  I ask unanimous consent that a recent letter from the President of 
the American Bar Association and a recent column by Professor Carl 
Tobias be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     American Bar Association,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 28, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On 
     behalf of the

[[Page S5287]]

     American Bar Association, I am writing to urge you to 
     redouble your efforts to fill existing judicial vacancies 
     promptly so that the federal courts will have the judges they 
     need to uphold the rule of law and deliver timely justice.
       There is no priority higher to the Association than to 
     assure that we have a fully staffed and fully operating 
     federal bench. That is why I have used my position as ABA 
     president this past year to speak out repeatedly about the 
     urgent need to fill existing vacancies.
       We commend the Congress for starting the session by 
     instituting procedural changes and approaching the 
     confirmation process with a fresh sense of urgency, which has 
     helped restore regular order to the process. As a result, the 
     President has made 87 judicial nominations and the Senate has 
     regularly scheduled up-or-down votes and confirmed 31 
     nominees this session.
       However, no significant reduction in the high number of 
     vacancies has been achieved: there are only 4 fewer vacancies 
     on the federal bench today than there were January 1 of this 
     year, and 10 percent of the authorized judgeships remain 
     vacant. During the past two years--since August 2009--the 
     vacancy rate has fluctuated, but it has never dropped below 
     10 percent.
       Thirty-eight of the present vacancies have existed for so 
     long and created such untenable workloads for the remaining 
     judges on the courts that the seats have been declared 
     judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
     Courts. As lawyers who practice in federal courts across this 
     nation, ABA members know firsthand that long-standing 
     vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access 
     to the courts and create strains that will inevitably reduce 
     the quality of our justice system and erode public confidence 
     in the ability of the courts to vindicate constitutional 
     rights or render fair and timely decisions. In Arizona, for 
     example, the Speedy Trial Act has been temporarily waived, 
     and criminal defendants wait up to 6 months for a trial, 
     while businesses and individuals wait up to 2 years before 
     their cases are heard.
       We realize that the aging of our federal judiciary has 
     contributed to the growing vacancy crisis. In July alone, 10 
     new vacancies were created through death, retirement and 
     elevation, and we already know that an additional 11 
     vacancies will arise before the end of this year solely as a 
     result of planned retirements. According to Department of 
     Justice estimates, 60 new vacancies will be created through 
     attrition each year for the next decade. Obviously, progress 
     toward reducing vacancies requires a confirmation rate that 
     outpaces the attrition rate; at present, it is barely keeping 
     abreast of it.
       The inescapable conclusion is that despite good intentions 
     and modest progress, the current pace of nominations and 
     confirmations is inadequate to the job. To achieve a 
     significant and lasting reduction in the vacancy rate, both 
     the Administration and the Senate need to engage in a 
     concerted and sustained effort to expedite the process; there 
     is an obvious starting point.
       We believe the positions of both Senator Leahy and Senator 
     Grassley with regard to the pending consensus nominees 
     provide useful guidance: Senator Leahy has long urged swift 
     action and up-or-down votes on all consensus nominees, and 
     Senator Grassley, recently attesting to Republican 
     ``cooperation and positive action,'' observed, ``We are 
     moving forward on the consensus nominees.''
       At present there is a backlog of 24 nominees awaiting a 
     floor vote, 20 of whom were reported out of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee on voice vote with no recorded 
     opposition. We urge you as Majority and Minority Leaders to 
     schedule immediate up-or-down votes on these 20 consensus 
     nominees before the Senate adjourns for the upcoming August 
     recess.
       Swift confirmation of these nominees would provide 
     immediate relief to some of the most overburdened courts and 
     would lower the vacancy rate to approximately 8 percent. 
     Longterm permanent progress, however, will require more than 
     this one-time fix. To effect lasting change, we also continue 
     to urge the President and members of the Senate to act with 
     common purpose to fill judicial vacancies promptly throughout 
     this Congress so that the federal courts will not be deprived 
     of the judges they need to do their important work.
           Sincerely,
     Stephen N. Zack.
                                  ____


                      [From FindLaw, Aug. 1, 2011]

             Confirming Circuit Judges in the 112th Senate

                            (By Carl Tobias)

       When President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United 
     States Courts of Appeals experienced vacancies in fourteen of 
     the 179 judgeships. Thus, it was critical that the 
     administration promptly fill those openings. The White House 
     has instituted many practices to facilitate appointments. 
     However, numerous seats remain vacant and more have opened, 
     as judges have retired or assumed senior status, so the total 
     is presently nineteen. A trenchant example is the August 2009 
     Sixth Circuit nomination of Nashville practitioner Jane 
     Branstetter Stranch. Because the empty appellate seats 
     undermine the judiciary's expeditious, economical and fair 
     disposition of appeals and Ms. Stranch had waited thirteen 
     months for a floor vote, the Senate ultimately approved her 
     last September. Now that the 112th Senate has concluded its 
     first seven months and Obama has proffered nominees for ten 
     of the appeals court openings, he must swiftly nominate 
     excellent candidates for the remaining vacancies, while the 
     upper chamber must expeditiously confirm the appellate 
     nominees. Indeed, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the 
     Minority Leader, should agree on a floor debate and vote for 
     Sixth Circuit nominee Bernice Donald before the August recess 
     because she is a well qualified, uncontroversial District 
     Judge whom Obama nominated last December 1.
       There are a few reasons for the empty judgeships. For 
     instance, President George W. Bush ineffectively attempted to 
     fill Sixth Circuit openings. He rarely consulted with 
     senators from jurisdictions with vacancies or tapped 
     consensus picks. Two Michigan Sixth Circuit posts lacked 
     judges for a decade and were only filled when the parties 
     reached a 2008 compromise.
       Obama has invoked several measures to promptly fill all the 
     current openings. He rapidly consulted home-state elected 
     officials before actual nominations. Most officers have 
     cooperated with the White House and promptly suggested 
     candidates who are very smart, ethical, independent and 
     diligent and have balanced temperament. The White House 
     specifically consulted Tennessee Republican Senators Lamar 
     Alexander and Bob Corker, who agreed to support Ms. Stranch. 
     The President nominated the lawyer in August 2009, while the 
     Judiciary Committee afforded her an October hearing at which 
     the Tennessee senators appeared and voiced their support. The 
     committee reported Stranch on a 15-4 vote in November 2009. 
     The nominee then languished on the Senate floor for ten 
     months.
       Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary Committee 
     Chair, worked on securing Ms. Stranch's Senate floor 
     consideration. For instance, Leahy cooperated with Senator 
     Alexander in requesting that Senator McConnell work with 
     Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Majority Leader, to swiftly 
     arrange the nominee's debate and vote. On July 20, 2010, 
     Senators Leahy and Alexander worked together on the floor. 
     Leahy lauded Ms. Stranch's capabilities, emphasized her 
     protracted wait and sought unanimous consent to consider the 
     nominee. Senator Alexander agreed that ``Jane Stranch is a 
     well-qualified nominee [and] is the longest pending circuit 
     court nominee'' and asked for a prompt vote. Senator 
     McConnell stated that some Republicans voted against Ms. 
     Stranch in committee and that he would attempt to have the 
     Senate act on her soon. One week later, President Obama asked 
     that McConnell cooperate in filling the ``vacancies that 
     continue to plague the judiciary'' and seemingly alluded to 
     Ms. Stranch when he observed that nominees have been 
     ``waiting up to eight months to be confirmed.''
       Obama meticulously picked Stranch as his first nominee for 
     the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, 
     and Tennessee, because she had assembled a stellar record as 
     a Nashville attorney over three decades. The nominee earned 
     the highest ABA ranking of well qualified from a minority of 
     its committee and a rating of qualified from a substantial 
     majority. Notwithstanding Stranch's excellent background, the 
     chamber failed to hold her floor debate and vote before the 
     Senate recessed last August. However, the chamber agreed to 
     schedule a vote the day that the Senate returned. After brief 
     debate, senators finally approved Stranch 71-21.
       Openings in more than ten percent of the federal appellate 
     judgeships show that President Obama must expeditiously 
     proffer nominees for all nineteen vacancies and the Senate 
     ought to swiftly confirm them. Jane Branstetter Stranch's 
     experience demonstrates that there is no reason for delay. 
     Senator McConnell must specifically agree to a floor vote for 
     Judge Donald prior to the August recess because she has been 
     waiting eight months. Quickly filling the empty posts is 
     essential because the courts need all of their judges to 
     deliver justice.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm four 
nominees to be U.S. district judge. Three of these seats, the vacancy 
for the Southern District of Texas, the vacancy for the Southern 
District of Florida and the vacancy for the District of Colorado, have 
been designated as judicial emergencies. With the votes today, we will 
have confirmed 33 article III judicial nominees. Twenty-one of those 
confirmed have been for judicial emergencies.
  We continue to make great progress in processing President Obama's 
judicial nominees. As we head into our August recess, the Senate has 
confirmed 62 percent of President Obama's nominees since the beginning 
of his Presidency. That is not including the two the Supreme Court 
Justices nominated by President Obama. As my colleagues are aware, 
those nominations consumed a considerable amount of time in the 
committee and on the Senate floor.
  During this Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings on 
more than 75 percent of the President's judicial nominees. During the 
comparable time period for President Bush, only 70 percent of President 
Bush's nominees

[[Page S5288]]

had hearings by this time. We have also reported 61 percent of the 
judicial nominees, which is comparable to President Bush's nominees.
  I support these nominations and congratulate each of them. I would 
like to say a few words about each one of the nominees.
  Sara Lynn Darrow is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
Central District of Illinois. Ms. Darrow graduated from Marquette 
University in 1992 and received her J.D. degree from St. Louis 
University School of Law in 1997. From 1997 to 1998, Mrs. Darrow worked 
in the law offices of Clarence Darrow, a small general practice firm in 
Rock Island, IL. She became an assistant State's attorney in 1999, 
where she handled juvenile, misdemeanor, and felony traffic cases. Upon 
promotion in 2000, she handled felony cases and serious juvenile abuse 
cases. In 2003, Mrs. Darrow began work as an assistant U.S. attorney, 
prosecuting Federal crimes including drug conspiracy, gun, 
racketeering, child exploitation, fraud, and bankruptcy. She has 
prosecuted approximately 300 defendants and tried 10 cases to verdict 
before a jury.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Ms. 
Darrow a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating.
  Nelva Gonzales Ramos is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
Southern District of Texas. After graduation from the University of 
Texas School of Law in 1991, Judge Ramos began her career as an 
attorney at Meredith & Donnelly in Corpus Christi. She worked primarily 
in personal injury litigation, employment litigation, and insurance 
defense. In 1997, she resigned from the firm to enter duty as a 
municipal court judge. During her campaign for district court judge 
during 1999 to 2000, she briefly worked as a solo practitioner. During 
this time, she practiced primarily personal injury but also family and 
criminal law. While in private practice, she tried approximately 17 
cases to judgment or verdict.
  Judge Ramos was appointed as a municipal court judge for Corpus 
Christi in 1997 where she had a criminal docket. She presided over 500 
cases that went to verdict or judgment. When she announced her 
candidacy for district court judge in 1999, she resigned from this 
position as required by the city charter. In 2001 she was elected as 
district court judge for the 347th Judicial District. She was reelected 
in 2004 and in 2008. As district court judge, she has presided over 
1,200 cases that went to verdict or judgment. While serving as a 
district court judge she helped establish a domestic violence court, 
and served as the local administrative judge for the Nueces County 
district courts. In this capacity she presided over meetings of the 
district court judges, ensured compliance with local rules, appointed 
committees regarding court management, and handled assorted other 
administrative tasks regarding the court.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a split 
rating of ``Qualified''--substantial majority--and ``Well Qualified''--
minority.
  Kathleen M. Williams is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
Southern District of Florida. She received her B.A. in 1978 and her 
J.D. in 1982 from the University of Miami School of Law. Ms. Williams 
began her legal career in 1982 as an associate attorney at Fowler, 
White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot. At Fowler White, she 
participated in insurance defense litigation defending insurance 
companies, city and county interests, hospital trusts and corporations.
  From 1984 to 1988, Ms. Williams served as an assistant U.S. attorney 
in the Southern District of Florida. While an assistant U.S. attorney, 
she prosecuted individuals on charges ranging from simple narcotics and 
weapons matters to complex money-laundering and RICO Litigation. In 
1988, Ms. Williams returned to the private sector as an associate 
attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. While at Morgan, Lewis, & 
Bockius, she represented financial institutions, government 
contractors, and multinational corporations in labor litigation and 
white collar criminal defense matters.
  In 1990, Ms. Williams joined the Federal Public Defender's office as 
the chief assistant public defender, where she represented persons 
accused of violating Federal criminal statutes but who cannot afford to 
retain an attorney. In 1995, she was appointed to be the public 
defender for the Southern District of Florida, where she continues to 
serve. As a Federal public defender she has litigated a wide range of 
matters including immigration, complex fraud, and national security. 
She was also appointed to be the acting Federal public defender for the 
Middle District of Florida from 1999 to 2000.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given her the 
rating of majority ``Well Qualified'' and Minority ``Qualified.''
  Richard Brooke Jackson is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
District of Colorado. Judge Jackson received his A.B., magna cum laude, 
from Dartmouth College in 1969 and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard 
Law School in 1972. Following law school, Judge Jackson joined the firm 
of Holland & Hart as an associate, where he focused on a combination of 
commercial litigation and personal injury litigation. In 1978, he 
became a partner and opened the Washington, DC, office of the firm. 
Additionally, he served on a number of committees within the firm and 
was chairperson of the litigation department. His pro bono work focused 
on personal injury claims and occasional representation in criminal 
defense and family law matters.
  In 1998, he was appointed to serve as district judge for the First 
Judicial District of Colorado. As a district judge, he handled a mixed 
docket of criminal, civil, and domestic relations cases. In 2003, he 
was appointed chief judge.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge 
Jackson the rating of unanimous ``Well Qualified.''