[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2757-S2761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone knows 
that the Republicans have an addition to the Violence Against Women Act 
that we think will strengthen it.
  For instance, there are a couple of additions from what we talked 
about yesterday. We got a letter today from the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children. 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:

                                               National Center for


                                 Missing & Exploited Children,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2012.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: As you know, the National Center 
     for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) addressed the issue 
     of sentencing for federal child pornography crimes in our 
     testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 
     2011. The 1.4 million reports to NCMEC's CyberTipline, the 
     Congressionally-authorized reporting mechanism for online 
     crimes against children, indicate the scope of the problem. 
     These child sex abuse images are crime scene photos that 
     memorialize the sexual abuse of a child. Those who possess 
     them create a demand for new images, which drives their 
     production and, hence, the sexual abuse of more child victims 
     to create the images.
       Despite the heinous nature of this crime, the federal 
     statute criminalizing the possession of child pornography has 
     no mandatory minimum sentence. This, combined with the 
     advisory nature of the federal sentencing guidelines, allows 
     judges to impose light sentences for possession. Congress 
     passed mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes of receipt, 
     distribution, and production of child pornography. We don't 
     believe that Congress intended to imply that possession of 
     child pornography is less serious than these other offenses. 
     NCMEC feels strongly that possession of child pornography is 
     a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, 
     we support a reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this 
     offense.
       As we have previously testified, child protection measures 
     must also include the ability to locate non-compliant 
     registered sex offenders--offenders who have been convicted 
     of crimes against children yet fail to comply with their 
     registration duties. The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead 
     federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives. 
     Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the 
     authority to serve administrative subpoenas in order to 
     obtain Internet subscriber information to help determine the 
     fugitives' physical location and apprehend them.
       Thank you for your efforts to protect our nation's 
     children.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ernie Allen,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this letter says that they strongly 
support two provisions in our substitute bill. It says we have a 
mandatory minimum for protection of child pornography, and they feel 
strongly that possession of child pornography is a serious crime that 
deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, a reasonable mandatory minimum 
for this offense would be in order.
  I stated yesterday, about a situation where a judge gave a 1-day 
sentence to an individual who was in possession of hundreds of images 
and videos of 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. Really, 1 day? Mr. 
President, this is America. I can't even imagine that would be the 
case.
  Our amendment strengthens the underlying bill by saying we would have 
a mandatory minimum of 1 year. My goodness, I think that is a minimum 
this body would want to adopt.
  We also want to make sure we can locate registered sex offenders who 
abscond. The letter we have put into the Record says law enforcement's 
efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to 
determine the fugitives' physical location and apprehend them. Here are 
two stories, and our bill would strengthen the ability to help these 
situations.
  Johnny Burgos was convicted in New York for rape and assault of a 
minor. Following his release from prison, he registered as a sex 
offender in New

[[Page S2758]]

York, but he left. Although he seemed to be constantly on the move, the 
U.S. Marshals in the New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force 
believed he was living in Pennsylvania. They attempted to obtain the 
records from cell phone companies, insurance companies, and the New 
York and Pennsylvania Departments of Motor Vehicles. But because it was 
necessary to get grand jury subpoenas for these records, the process 
took too long and the investigation suffered. In the interim, he is 
believed to have committed another sexual assault in Maryland. Our bill 
would strengthen the capabilities for the U.S. Marshals Service to get 
that information on a timely basis.
  This story is even worse, Mr. President. Joseph Duncan, shortly after 
his release from custody in 2005, absconded from Minnesota and traveled 
across country to Idaho, where he kidnapped Dylan and Shasta Groene 
from their home in the middle of the night. In the course of the 
kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the 
mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a hammer. He then took 
the children to remote campgrounds across State lines into Montana, 
where he brutally abused them and later killed Dylan--a child. He was 
essentially lost by three States, and no one even knew where he was to 
look for him.
  Our bill strengthens the U.S. Marshals Service's capabilities to 
attach to wherever these thugs might be who are doing these heinous 
crimes. I also add that our bill has a strengthening of the rape kit 
issue that Senator Cornyn is trying to get to be able to offer as an 
amendment to Senator Leahy's bill, the majority's bill. Senator Cornyn 
has been trying for a long time to strengthen the ability to stop this 
backlog and get the rape kit issue addressed so we can have the 
evidence to get the perpetrators so they will not commit these crimes 
against other innocent people such as Dylan and Shasta Groene.
  I hope we will be able to have a modest one amendment, and my 
substitute, so we will be able to go to conference with a strong 
strengthening of the underlying bill, which I intend to support. I am 
going to support the Violence Against Women Act, even if it falls short 
in these areas. But why not strengthen it in these areas so that all of 
us know we have done the best we can to send a bill to the House for 
its consideration, and then a conference committee where we can pass 
this bill without further delay.
  When the regular order comes back, I want to speak in favor of the 
two Texas judges on whom we are going to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak further about the Violence 
Against Women Act because I believe the Leahy-Crapo, et al, bill has 
the best balance possible to protect the most people possible.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are finally going to vote on the 
nominations of Gregg Costa and David Guaderrama to fill judicial 
emergency vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and 
Western Districts of Texas. Both of these nominees to fill judicial 
emergency vacancies have the support of their home state Republican 
Senators. Their nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary 
Committee over four and a half months ago. Senator Cornyn, who is on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly supports both of these 
nominees. The senior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, supports 
these nominees. There was a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. 
Still it has taken another four and one-half months to get them before 
the Senate for final consideration.
  These are judicial emergency vacancies. I mention that because these 
are more examples of what I have been concerned about for the last few 
years. Senate Republicans have refused to move promptly to confirm 
consensus nominees. These are not ideologically driven nominees. These 
are nominees, like so many of President Obama's nominees, who are 
highly qualified. They enjoy bipartisan support, but they are made to 
wait and wait before finally being able to be confirmed.
  This is a destructive development. It is a new practice in the 
Senate. I can say this as one who has served here during the 
Presidencies of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, 
Clinton, George W. Bush, and now President Obama. This new practice has 
kept the Senate behind the curve. It has kept Federal judicial 
vacancies unfilled. It has overburdened the Federal courts and has kept 
Americans from getting prompt justice.
  It should not have taken this long for these two nominees to receive 
a vote. They could and should have been confirmed last year. It is 
nearly May, and the Senate is still only considering judicial 
nominations that should have been confirmed last year. There are 24 
judicial nominees ready for final Senate consideration. Several are 
still pending from last year. That means 150 million Americans affected 
by more than 80 judicial vacancies would see a vacancy in their 
district or circuit court filled if the Senate would only be allowed to 
vote on those 24 nominees.
  The lack of real progress during the last three and one-third years 
is in stark contrast to the way in which we moved to reduce judicial 
vacancies during the last Republican presidency. During President 
Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 
75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 
110 vacancies. As Chairman, I worked with Senate Republicans to confirm 
100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 
months. We expedited consideration of consensus nominees and ended the 
vacancies crisis. In contrast, despite his selecting qualified nominees 
and working with Senators from both sides of the aisle, President Obama 
has seen judicial vacancies remain above 80 for nearly three years.
  At this same point in the Bush administration, we had reduced 
judicial vacancies around the country to 45. Today they stand at 81. 
And by August 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to just 28 vacancies. 
Despite 2004 being an election year, we were able to reduce vacancies 
to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil 
and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax 
letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically driven 
judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly 
confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies.

  In October 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked 
to reduce judicial vacancies and were able to get back down to 34 
vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding 
expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 
2008.
  We lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly as Senate 
Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. The 
vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the 
first term of President Bush.
  The Senate is 32 behind the number of circuit and district court 
confirmations at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. 
We are 65 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the 
end of President Bush's fourth year.
  I wish to share with the Senate and the American people a chart. This 
compares vacancies during the terms of President Bush and President 
Obama. I mention this because, look at where the vacancies were when 
President Bush came in. For a short time, I was chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee when President Bush was President. Even though 60 
nominees had been pocket-filibustered of President Clinton's, I said we 
were going to change this routine. Look how quickly I brought the 
vacancies way down under President Bush. I then worked with Republicans 
to bring them down further, even though they didn't move as fast on 
President Bush's nominees as I had. When I was chairman, I continued to 
bring it down.
  Then what happened when President Obama came in? All of a sudden they 
said: This was great that you brought down the vacancies under 
President Bush. We are glad to have the vacancies under President Bush 
come down, but now the vacancies are going to come back with President 
Obama.
  This is another way to demonstrate what I have been saying. See how 
sharply the line slopes as we reduced vacancies in 2001 and 2002, when 
I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. See where we were in April 
2004 having reduced judicial vacancies to 45 on the

[[Page S2759]]

way to 28 in August. By comparison, see how long vacancies have 
remained above 80 and how little comparative progress we have made. 
Again, if we would just be allowed to vote on the 24 judicial nominees 
ready for final action we could reduce vacancies to under 60 and make 
instant progress.
  The American people deserve better. Our courts need qualified Federal 
judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times 
that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable 
for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to 
suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover 
the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have 
to wait three years before a judge hears the case. When two small 
business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait 
years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  Some Senate Republicans seek to divert attention by suggesting that 
these longstanding vacancies are the President's fault for not sending 
us nominees. Let me remind my colleagues that of the 81 current 
vacancies that exist, several of them are without a nomination because 
this President is trying to work with home state Senators, including 27 
vacancies involving a Republican home state Senator who has refused to 
either recommend a candidate or agree to a judicial nominee. There are 
seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot 
proceed because Republican Senators have not returned blue slips.
  More importantly, there are 24 outstanding judicial nominees that can 
be confirmed right now who are being stalled. Let us act on them. Let 
us vote them up or down. When my grandchildren say they want more food 
before they finish what is on their plate, my answer is to urge them to 
finish the food already on their plate before asking for seconds or 
dessert. To those Republicans that contend it is the White House's 
fault for not sending us more nominees, I say let us complete Senate 
action on these 24 judicial nominees ready for final action. If we 
could vote on the 24 judicial nominees ready for final action there are 
more nominees working their way through Committee, and the Senate can 
act responsibly to help fill more of the vacancies plaguing some of our 
busiest courts.
  Today, we can finally fill two emergency vacancies with superbly 
qualified nominees. Gregg Costa is nominated to fill a judicial 
emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District 
of Texas, where he is already well-known and well-respected for his 
service as a Federal prosecutor. Prior to becoming a Federal prosecutor 
in 2005, Mr. Costa worked in private practice in Houston, Texas, was a 
Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General, and clerked for 
Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. The 
ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. 
Costa ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating.
  Judge David Guaderrama is nominated to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 
where he has served as a Magistrate Judge since 2010. He previously 
served four terms as a state court judge in El Paso, Texas, and for 
seven years as the Chief Public Defender in El Paso County. While on 
the state bench, Judge Guaderrama implemented the first adult criminal 
Drug Court and the first Access to Recovery program in El Paso County. 
Judge Guaderrama began his legal career in 1979 as a solo practitioner 
and from 1980 to 1986 was a partner with the firm of Guaderrama and 
Guaderrama.

  These are two qualified nominees from Texas. They were passed out of 
our committee last year. They should have been confirmed before we 
recessed last year. Even typical consensus, noncontroversial nominees 
like these two have been delayed for no good reason. In fact, we have 
24 judicial nominations currently before the Senate.
  I have heard them say the President has to send up more nominees. Why 
don't we confirm the 24 who are on the calendar? Then we have others 
working through the committee process. In fact, 10 of those nominations 
that have been pending the longest are all to fill judicial emergency 
vacancies. Every single Democrat in this body has signed off on them.
  Again, I show this chart to show how quickly Democrats moved, while 
Republicans did not move as quickly as they did for President Bush's 
nominees. We did that with President Ford. We did that with President 
Carter. We did that with President Reagan. We did that with the first 
President Bush and also with President Clinton--except for the 60 who 
were pocket-filibustered by the Republicans. And we did that, as I have 
shown here, with President Bush. Why does it have to be a different 
situation for President Obama? Why can't we treat President Obama the 
way we did all these other Presidents I have mentioned, since I have 
been here--the way we did President Ford's nominations and all the 
others?
  I cannot understand what it is or why President Obama has to be 
treated differently. It is not fair to him. More important, Mr. 
President, it is not fair to the Federal judiciary. These vacancies 
mean there are millions of Americans--150 million Americans who are in 
districts or States with judicial vacancies. That means justice 
delayed. If justice is delayed, justice is denied.
  We can and should do better. Maybe some believe there is an advantage 
to taking partisan shots at President Obama. I disagree. They should do 
as we have done in the past and help the Federal judiciary. That should 
be kept out of partisan politics. It is to all of our advantage. When 
people go before a court in this country, they are not asked whether 
they are a Republican or Democrat. They are coming to seek justice. 
They should be allowed to have that. Let's speed up.
  I will vote for these two judges. The Senator from Texas will vote 
for these two judges. But they were ready to be voted on way last year. 
It is time to get moving.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Gregg 
Costa and David Guaderrama for their nominations to the Federal 
district bench.
  I want to say that Mr. Costa--and I will mention this again--asked 
not to be confirmed until after the case that he was working on was 
finished. His case was the prosecution of Robert Allen Stanford, who 
swindled so many Texans and other Americans out of money they had 
invested. Frankly, he was all over the country in his representation.
  Mr. Costa asked not to be confirmed until he could finish that case 
because it was complicated and he was the lead on it.
  So there has been no delay on our part at all on his nomination. As I 
understand it, we have confirmed the same--roughly the same--number of 
district judges as President George Bush and President Clinton did in 
their first terms. To my knowledge, we are not holding up nominations 
at all.
  In fact, of course, Senator Cornyn and I both highly recommended Mr. 
Costa and Mr. Guaderrama to the President for his nomination because we 
have a process that assures we nominate to the President the most 
qualified people to fill these spots. We have a bipartisan legal 
committee that vets them comprised of people who know the legal 
community in Texas, and so, therefore, they know the reputations of 
these lawyers, and our committee system has worked very well. I have 
served on it with Senator Gramm, as I have with Senator Cornyn, and we 
agree on the quality of these nominees. So I don't think there is a 
delay, and I am very pleased to be able to have nominated these two 
fine lawyers to the President.
  I would like to talk first about Mr. Costa, who did ask to wait for 
his confirmation, but now he is ready because the case he was working 
on was decided. Mr. Costa will be serving in the Southern District in 
Galveston, TX, where I was born. Mr. Costa was born in Baltimore, MD, 
and grew up in Richardson, TX. He attended Dartmouth College, where he 
graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in government and then 
continued his studies at the University of Texas School of Law where he 
served as editor-in-chief of the Texas Law Review and received his 
juris doctorate with highest honors in 1996.
  Mr. Costa's professional career includes being a law clerk for 
Supreme

[[Page S2760]]

Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2001, as well as his current 
position serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Houston. As the co-
lead counsel for the United States in the prosecution of Robert Allen 
Stanford, Mr. Costa secured a conviction of 13 charges of conspiracy, 
wire, and mail fraud. Mr. Costa has been credited by his colleagues as 
the glue that held the case together. His dedication to this case and 
these victims shows the core of his character. The fact he asked for a 
delay in his confirmation because he wanted to finish this case and 
assure that convictions would be obtained makes me proud and pleased to 
support his nomination to the Federal bench.
  I am also pleased to support the nomination of Judge David Campos 
Guaderrama to the Western District of Texas in El Paso. Judge 
Guaderrama is originally from New Mexico and moved to El Paso, TX, at a 
young age. He attained two bachelor degrees from New Mexico State 
University in political science and psychology, then earned his juris 
doctorate degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1979.
  In 1987, Judge Guaderrama was appointed as the first chief public 
defender of El Paso County and continued in that service until he was 
elected to the 243rd Judicial District Court in 1995. As a testament to 
his service to the El Paso community, Judge Guaderrama has served as a 
U.S. magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District for the last 2 years.
  During his three decades serving in the Texas legal system, Judge 
Guaderrama has earned many accolades for his help and leadership in 
initiating and enacting several successful judicial programs in west 
Texas. He has demonstrated a strong commitment to the El Paso 
community, and I am confident he will serve on the Federal bench well 
and I support his nomination.
  I would also say Senator Cornyn also supports these two judges. Of 
course, Senator Cornyn sits on the Judiciary Committee. Our judicial 
evaluation committee, which is bipartisan, has served so well to give 
us the highest quality nominees on the bench, and our committee did 
select both these nominees as their first choices after their 
interviews and input from the legal community in both El Paso and 
Houston, which includes the Galveston part of the district.
  These nominations have been well vetted. They have been supported by 
both sides of the aisle, and we are very pleased to put forward these 
two quality nominees. Senator Cornyn as well is very strongly in 
support of them.
  With that, I yield the floor, and 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. 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.


           Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote on these 
judges, but I wish to make a few remarks about the VAWA reauthorization 
before we do so.
  There are few tools more important in the fight to end domestic and 
sexual violence than the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark 
legislation has fundamentally changed the way society views these 
horrible crimes, and it has resulted in a more than 60 percent decrease 
in domestic violence offenses. We have been successful because we have 
learned from experience and adapted our efforts to better meet the 
needs of victims.
  Each reauthorization of VAWA has played a critical role in this 
process. As we learn more about the needs of victims, VAWA has been 
carefully modified to meet those needs. The bipartisan bill that 
Senator Crapo and I introduced last year continues that important 
process. The Republican substitute amendment does not.
  The Leahy-Crapo bill is based on months of work with survivors, 
advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country. We 
listened when they told us what was working and what could be improved. 
We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our legislation 
to respond to those needs. We made additional modifications and reached 
carefully crafted compromises through what was an open process. We also 
shared our draft with Senators from both sides of the aisle and 
proceeded openly to introduce the bill so that it could be reviewed and 
improved as the Judiciary Committee considered and voted on it.
  Senator Crapo and I purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or 
divisive and selected only those proposals that law enforcement and 
survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day 
told us were essential. Our reauthorization bill is supported by more 
than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations. They include 
service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many, 
many more. There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that 
Senator Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims 
of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices 
of millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country.
  The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward 
in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is 
opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and 
organizations.
  The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against 
Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country 
says:

       The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input 
     or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged 
     in this work every day. The substitute includes damaging and 
     unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, 
     and create unnecessary inefficiencies.

  Although well-intentioned by its lead sponsors, the Republican 
proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a 
bipartisan way with victims and advocates from all over the country.
  I regret to say the Republican proposal undermines core principles of 
the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of 
the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are 
critically necessary to protect all victims--including battered 
immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex relationships. The 
improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no 
substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering two 
nominations for U.S. district judge positions in Texas. Gregg Jeffrey 
Costa is nominated to serve in the Southern District of Texas, while 
David Campos Guaderrama is nominated to serve in the Western District 
of Texas. Again, we are moving forward under the regular order and 
procedures of the Senate. With today's nomination, we will have 
confirmed 80 judicial nominees during this Congress. With the 
confirmations today, the Senate will have confirmed more than 75 
percent of President Obama's judicial nominations.
  While we are making progress in the Senate, we continue to hear 
complaints about the vacancy rate. I will again remind my colleagues 
that of the 81 vacancies, more than 58 percent of these vacancies have 
no nominee.
  These nominations came to the committee with the support of home 
State Senators. They were reported out of committee by voice vote. 
These nominees have exceptional records and demonstrate the type of 
consensus nominations that can be confirmed, even in a Presidential 
election year.
  Mr. Costa received his B.A. degree in 1994 from Dartmouth College. He 
graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1999. After law 
school, Mr. Costa clerked for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph on the 
DC Court of Appeals from August 1999 to July of 2000 and then for Chief 
Justice Rehnquist from July 2001 to July 2002. Between his two 
clerkships, he worked as a Bristol Fellow in the United States 
Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General.
  In 2002, Mr. Costa joined the law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges as an 
associate. During his time at the firm, Mr. Costa

[[Page S2761]]

handled civil litigation matters including intellectual property, class 
actions, international arbitration, bankruptcy, and general commercial 
disputes. Mr. Costa also worked on appellate matters and a few pro bono 
cases as well.
  In 2005, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of Texas, Houston office, as an assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. 
Costa has worked in the criminal division of the office in the major 
offenders and major fraud sections, investigating and prosecuting 
matters in the areas of mortgage fraud, investment fraud, securities 
fraud, public corruption, Internet fraud, human trafficking, child 
pornography, and narcotics and firearms violations. As an AUSA, Mr. 
Costa also has handled numerous appellate matters before the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  In addition to prosecuting cases for the office, Mr. Costa serves as 
the deputy international affairs coordinator for the U.S. Attorney's 
Office. In this capacity, he helps coordinate incoming and outgoing 
requests on behalf of the Governments of Malaysia, Turkey, Columbia, 
Greece, France, and the United Kingdom. Mr. Costa also helps and 
provides guidance to other AUSAs on extradition matters. And in 2005, 
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Mr. Costa served as the hurricane 
fraud coordinator for his office that investigated fraud cases relating 
to the Hurricanes. Mr. Costa's office prosecuted more than 100 
individuals for crimes such as government-benefit fraud, identify theft 
offenses, charitable fraud, and investment fraud.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a 
unanimous rating of ``well qualified.''
  We are also considering the nomination of David Campos Guaderrama, 
nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas. 
After graduation from Notre Dame Law School, Judge Guaderrama worked as 
a solo practitioner from December 1979 to August 1980. He then formed a 
partnership practice with his then wife. His practice focused on 
defending individuals in criminal cases, but he also handled some 
general civil, probate, and workers' compensation cases during this 
time. In 1987, he was appointed to serve as El Paso County's first 
public defender and was charged with starting up and developing an 
office that would be capable of handling at least 50 percent of all 
indigent felony cases.
  In November 1994, Judge Guaderrama was elected judge of the 243rd 
Judicial District Court of Texas. He was elected for a 4-year term and 
subsequently reelected on four occasions. During his term as a Texas 
District Court judge, he was instrumental in establishing the 243rd 
Drug Court Program and Access to Recovery Program. Both programs are 
aimed at helping rehabilitate defendants guilty of minor drug offenses 
through counseling and supervision, rather than incarceration. Also 
while on the 243rd Judicial District he served as chairman of a 
subcommittee that oversaw reform of the jury selection process that 
implemented mailing jury qualification questionnaires to potential 
jurors. He also piloted a program to use video conference technology to 
conduct arraignments.
  In 2008, Judge Guaderrama was an unsuccessful candidate for justice, 
Eighth Court of Appeals of Texas. In 2010, he was appointed by the U.S. 
District Court of the Western District of Texas to serve an 8-year term 
as a U.S. magistrate judge. He has an ABA rating of majority ``well 
qualified'', minority ``qualified.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Gregg Jeffrey Costa, of Texas, to be 
United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     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
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     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)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     DeMint
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes legislative session, the period for debate only on S. 
1925 be extended until 2:30 p.m. today, with the time equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees and that I be recognized at 
2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is, will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of David Campos Guaderrama, of Texas, to be 
United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________