[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 180 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7898-S7902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Violence Against Women
Mr. President, I am pleased that on Wednesday, Senator Crapo and I
will introduce the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2011. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA,
has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to
combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. I am honored to help lead the effort to see it reauthorized.
Since its passage in 1994 no other piece of legislation has done more
to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The resources
and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these
reprehensible crimes. They have improved the response of law
enforcement and the justice system. They have provided essential
services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law
that has saved countless lives and it is an example of what we can
accomplish when we work together.
Years ago, when I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the
destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days
before VAWA when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a
joke and there were few if any services for victims. I looked around
desperately trying to find somewhere to help the victims. There were no
services. I had to call people to volunteer. My wife and I oftentimes
paid for the expenses of taking care of victims.
It was the same everywhere around the country. We have come a long
way since then, but there is much more that we can do. I would love to
say there is no more domestic violence, and we do not need this, but we
know there are thousands upon thousands of cases that have to be
resolved.
Over the last few years the Judiciary Committee has held several
hearings on VAWA in anticipation of this reauthorization. We have heard
from people from all over the country. They have told us the same
things I hear from service providers, experts and law enforcement
officials in Vermont: While we have made great strides in reducing
domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain.
There is more work to be done.
The victim services funded by VAWA play a particularly critical role
in these difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job
or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make
it harder for victims to rebuild their lives.
At the same time, State budget cuts are resulting in fewer available
services. Just this summer, Topeka, KS, took the drastic, almost
unbelievable step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city
did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. In other words,
no matter how badly someone is beaten or abused or violated, they say:
Sorry we cannot prosecute this case. We cannot afford to.
We have to do better than that. How do we tell a battered, bruised
and beaten victim: Sorry, change the locks on your door or try not to
stay at home because they usually come back and do it again; but there
is nothing we can do to help you? I cannot believe this country has
come to that.
Budgets are tight, but it is unacceptable to turn our backs on these
victims. For many, the programs funded by the Violence Against Women
Act are nothing short of a lifeline. I mean just that, a lifeline,
because it has saved lives.
The reauthorization that Senator Crapo and I will introduce on
Wednesday will reflect the ongoing commitment of Congress to end
domestic and sexual violence. It seeks to expand the law's focus on
sexual assault to assure access to services for all victims of domestic
and sexual violence and to address the crisis of domestic and sexual
violence in tribal communities, among other important steps.
It also responds to these difficult economic times by consolidating
programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability
measures to ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and
effectively.
The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has
consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. I am
honored to work with Senator Crapo to build on that foundation. I hope
Senators from both parties will vote to quickly pass this critical
reauthorization to provide safety and security for victims across
America.
All anyone has to do is read the transcripts of some of the hearings
we have had on this issue. Where people like the distinguished
Presiding Officer and myself and others who served in law enforcement
or served as prosecutors--we know it goes way beyond just statistics.
These are people who have been violated, who turn to their country, to
their government for help, for safety. Don't let the Senate say: No. We
are going to close the door in your face.
I see the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, and I will
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and
colleague, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for his
kindness.
Mr. President, as the Speaker sometimes says in the House, it is
really a high honor and great personal privilege--with the emphasis on
``personal''--to come to the floor of the Senate to give my strong
support to the nomination of Judge Christopher Droney of West Hartford,
CT, to serve as U.S. Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. I say it is a high honor because I have profound
confidence based on Judge Droney's service as a private attorney, a
U.S. attorney, and now for quite a while as a member of the district
court in Connecticut. I have great confidence that he will make an
excellent addition to this very important court, the U.S. court for the
Second Circuit.
I say it is a great personal privilege to be able to speak on behalf
of his nomination because, as the occupant of the chair, my colleague
from Connecticut, knows well, I have known Chris Droney for a long time
now. He and his brother John have been very good friends of mine, great
supporters, great sources of counsel, great friends. Both are graduates
of the College of Holy Cross. The older brother John, who has less of a
judicial temperament than the younger brother Chris--fortunately, we
are approving Chris here for the court, not John. But John tells me,
having been to Holy Cross, it is still
[[Page S7901]]
politically acceptable to note that the graduates of Holy Cross
consider themselves Crusaders. Both John and Chris Droney have been
crusaders for what is right in the best sense of the word. I value
their personal friendship. We have gone through a lot together, not
just in politics, but I have seen their families grow.
I have gotten to know their families. I know what they are made of.
We have gone through the natural lifecycle tragedies of losing parents,
et cetera, together.
Chris Droney is a person of real depth and real ability and will make
an excellent judge. So I stress the personal part because it adds a
dimension that you and I both, Mr. President, have had the opportunity
to have, which is, beyond the resume of Chris Droney, which I am going
to mention in a moment, there is a person here, and he is a person who
exemplifies what we mean when we talk about a judicial temperament, who
we know has a great intellect, tremendous legal acumen, who we know is
hard-working, and who we know brings common sense to everything he has
done.
I mentioned John Droney just because they go together as brothers,
and there is nothing that matters more to John--the older and obviously
less attractive of the two--than the pride he has in his brother's
achievements, though John himself, of course, has been a very
successful and distinguished member of the bar in Connecticut. So let
me focus on the younger brother, who is the subject of our
consideration today.
I mentioned that Judge Droney attended the College of Holy Cross in
Massachusetts, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 1976. He went
on to attend the University of Connecticut Law School, where he was the
notes and comments editor on the Law Review, and earned his J.D.--
doctor of jurisprudence--in 1979.
After graduating from law school, he worked in private practice as a
litigation associate handling a range of matters, mostly civil at that
point. In 1983, he became a partner at the well-respected law firm of
Reid and Riege in Hartford, where he represented clients in a wide
range of civil matters, including commercial disputes, personal injury
actions, property claims, and intellectual property matters. Judge
Droney personally tried cases in the Connecticut Superior Court, the
U.S. district court in Connecticut, and argued appeals in the
Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts and in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court for which he is being
considered today.
During this period, Judge Droney, like his brother, was involved in
public life in Connecticut and served, in his case, on the town council
of West Hartford as deputy mayor from 1983 to 1985 and as mayor from
1985 to 1989.
In 1993, President Clinton nominated Chris Droney to be the U.S.
attorney for the District of Connecticut, where he served with great
distinction and affect until 1997. As U.S. attorney, he initiated new
cooperative law enforcement efforts against gangs, health care fraud,
and financial fraud, in addition to personally trying some major cases
in Connecticut and across New England and successfully arguing cases
before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals--again, the court he is
being considered for today in a vote that will occur shortly.
Judge Droney was selected by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to
serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys in
which he was one of 17 U.S. attorneys selected to assist the Department
of Justice on a range of pressing matters.
In 1997, after 4 years as U.S. attorney, Chris Droney was nominated
to the district court in Connecticut by President Clinton and I might
say for the second time was confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Since
then, as a district court judge, he has presided over numerous Federal,
civil, and criminal trials and has consistently demonstrated sound
judgment and great legal acumen in his many decisions covering an array
of complex and sensitive matters. Judge Droney's career speaks to a
profound commitment to the rule of law and the credibility of the legal
system.
I know there is a tendency to want to find out, is this judge a
liberal, is he a conservative, is he a conservative? I don't think you
can put a label on Judge Droney. Some might say he is a moderate.
Others might say he is an Independent. I think he is known as somebody
who is fair and will take every case as it comes along and decide it on
the merits.
So now he has been nominated to serve on the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. I want to personally express my thanks first to President
Obama for submitting his nomination for this very esteemed court and
secondly to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, both of whom
have been kind enough to be on the floor and speak on his behalf,
Senator Leahy, who is chairman of the committee, and Senator Grassley,
the ranking member. I was particularly grateful for Senator Grassley's
comments about Judge Droney's capabilities. This is a good man who
believes in the law and is tremendously experienced.
Incidentally, he sat as a visiting judge on the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals and has actually written, I believe, five opinions for the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals already. So this is somebody who will
hit the ground running with the support of the Senate this afternoon.
I will repeat what I said at the beginning. It is not only a high
honor and one that I don't take lightly but also a great personal
privilege to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge
Christopher Droney of Connecticut to be a member of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that the order for the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow the senior
Senator from Connecticut--rising now as the junior Senator from
Connecticut--for the same purpose: to urge my colleagues to approve
Christopher Droney as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I
also would like to join in thanking the chairman and ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee for bringing this nomination to the floor.
Incidentally, I wish to join in Senator Leahy's very eloquent remarks
on the Violence Against Women Act, which I too will support after it is
introduced. The reauthorization is very much needed, particularly at
this point in our history, and I thank him for taking the leadership on
this issue as on so many.
I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for championing this
nomination, and I thank our colleague, the majority leader, Harry Reid,
who is extraordinarily insightful and sensitive to the importance of
judicial nominations since he is a lawyer himself--and a very skilled
and able one--and has supported this nomination.
Today is a very meaningful one for me personally, almost a magical
and very momentous moment to stand in this historic and hallowed place
and participate in the approval of a man whom I have known for more
than 30 years to a position of the utmost importance, a position of
trust and responsibility as important as any in this land, and a person
of supremely well-recognized qualifications and experience for this
position. Indeed, his life has been almost a preparation for this
chapter in his career.
I am privileged and honored to have been a colleague and friend and
professional ally of his for more than 30 years. I have known him since
his graduation from law school in 1979. We were in litigation together
in private practice. When I was U.S. attorney for Connecticut and later
attorney general, we worked together. Indeed, when he was U.S.
attorney, following my service, we were partners in law enforcement in
a number of cases. I had the direct and immediate experience of seeing
many of his prosecutions, his intensity of commitment not just to a
successful investigation and prosecution but his commitment to doing
justice, which is the highest calling of a prosecutor--indeed, of any
lawyer.
[[Page S7902]]
When he became a judge, I had the honor of appearing before him,
presenting witnesses, arguing cases, and to have firsthand experience
again with the quality of his professional work.
I have to admit my office as attorney general did not win every case.
We lost some. But whether we won or lost, we emerged from those
experiences with an unqualified respect for the quality of his fact-
finding, his scholarship and, again, his commitment to doing justice.
He has demonstrated as a district court judge the qualities I know he
will bring to the court of appeals: extraordinary scholarship and
intellect, an adherence to precedent, a careful analysis of the law, a
thoughtfulness and responsiveness in the questions he asks, and an
insight into the factual record as well as the truthfulness of
witnesses. He has what I consider to be the most important
qualification for any judge, which is a capacity for growth, for
learning and listening. He is, above all, a good listener, a sensitive
and responsive listener. He has indeed the qualities that are
exemplified by the man he will be replacing--Guido Calabresi--a judge
known to the senior Senator from Connecticut as well as myself; indeed,
a teacher of mine when I was at Yale Law School and I believe very
possibly of the senior Senator as well--a person of exquisite
sensitivity and sensibility and common sense. Those are the qualities
of Christopher Droney: sensibility, sensitivity and common sense, and
he shares with Guido Calabresi the grace of writing and sense of
history that are so important to the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate time has expired.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am proud to join in supporting this nomination. I
wish him well, and I ask my colleagues to join in approving him when
the vote is taken. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the nomination of Judge
Christopher Droney.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Christopher Droney, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Second Circuit?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms.
Landrieu), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Ex.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--12
Begich
Blunt
DeMint
Harkin
Kirk
Landrieu
Menendez
Murkowski
Paul
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
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.
____________________