[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2757-S2760]
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.