[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3768-S3773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
D-day Invasion
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, 68 years ago today, June 6, 1944,
some 150,000 Americans, including many Ohioans, began what seemed like
an impossible journey. Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower
called it ``the Great Crusade.''
At 6:30 on a fog-filled morning on June 6, 1944, our servicemembers
made it to France. They waded onshore--past mines landed from the air,
past sharpened stakes--and crawled toward gunfire. General Eisenhower
told our sailors, soldiers, and airmen that the ``eyes of the world . .
. the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere'' were with
them. A mere 50-mile stretch of the French coast--with places named
Utah and Omaha, Gold and Juno Pointe du Hoc and Sword--was all that
stood between humanity's freedom and Hitler's aggression. But our
warriors--men such as Ohio's own PFC Frank E. Harget--did not give up.
Last May I had the honor of presenting Mr. Harget, of Akron, OH, the
service medals he earned during World War II, some 67 or 68 years
later.
Frank Harget joined the Army in September 1943 and was immediately
sent to the European theatre. He was given the unenviable task of scout
and was dispatched to the front lines to perform reconnaissance. His
job was to gather intelligence on enemy forces. Many times, Mr. Harget
told me, he was so close to the German front, he could see German
soldiers eating their lunch. He served in five battle campaigns, from
D-day to the Battle of the Bulge, and in Central Europe.
Mr. Harget was discharged in November 1945 after the war was over
without receiving the Bronze Star he had earned. My office helped him
finally receive that Bronze Star and seven other medals and awards. He
helped our Nation and the world--think about living with this for the
next 60 years of your life--overthrow an evil regime.
Today we recognize men like Frank Harget who overcame great odds
thousands and thousands of miles from home.
D-day was the largest amphibious invasion in recorded world history,
with 73,000 American troops, 61,000 British troops, 21,000 Canadian
troops, and 195,000 allied naval and Merchant Marine personnel, with
more than 5,000 ships involved.
After 24 hours, only 2,500 troops of the 101st and 2,000 of the 82nd
Airborne Divisions were under the control of their parent units.
At Gold Beach, 25,000 men landed and some 400 were killed. At Omaha
Beach, the U.S. 1st Infantry and the 29th Infantry Divisions found
their sections to be the most heavily fortified of all the invasion
beaches. The official record stated:
[[Page S3770]]
. . . within 10 minutes of the ramps being lowered, the
leading company had become inert, leaderless and almost
incapable of action. Every officer and sergeant had been
killed or wounded. It had become a struggle for survival and
rescue.
The 2nd Ranger Battalion had to scale 100-foot cliffs under the cover
of night and then attack and destroy the German coastal defense guns at
the massive concrete cliff-top gun emplacement at Pointe du Hoc. But
despite these obstacles, young men such as Frank Harget from Akron, OH,
who participated in this invasion fought and persevered and began the
liberation of Europe with little else besides their training, their
comrades, their courage, and their refusal to quit.
These men proved that the forces of freedom are strong. I would
suggest that the forces of freedom are still strong today.
Members of the allied forces showed us the strength of humanity over
tyranny. Franklin Roosevelt knew our D-day warriors would not ``rest
until the victory is won.'' And we did win.
Today we salute the Frank Hargets of the world. There are still
thousands of World War II veterans left. Most have died. Most who
fought and survived D-day are no longer with us. Some still are. We
salute them, and we salute those who went before them for running
toward danger in order to secure peace.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate turns to another
judicial nomination, Jeffrey J. Helmick to be U.S. district judge for
the Northern District of Ohio. I want to tell the Senate why I oppose
the nomination and urge all Senators to do likewise.
We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a very brisk pace.
Just 2 days ago we confirmed the 147th judicial nominee of this
President to district and circuit courts. Let me put that in
perspective for my colleagues. We also have confirmed two Supreme Court
nominees during President Obama's term. The last time the Senate
confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second
term. And during President Bush's entire second term, the Senate
confirmed a total of only 120 district and circuit court nominees. We
have already confirmed 27 more nominees for President Obama than we did
for President Bush in a similar period of time. And this is in a
Presidential election year--typically a time when judicial
confirmations are limited to consensus nominees. Yet here we are
considering a controversial nomination. Perhaps the Senate could better
spend this time working on critical issues facing our Nation, such as
our massive debt, intolerable deficit spending, an anemic economy,
unacceptable unemployment levels, high energy costs, and national
security issues.
The advice and consent function of the Senate is a critical step in
the appointment of Federal judges. In Federalist Paper No. 76,
Alexander Hamilton wrote this:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the
Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence
would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent
operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of
favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to
prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State
prejudice, from family connection, from personal attention,
or from a view to popularity.
In other words, the Senate has a role in preventing the appointment
of judges who are unfit characters or political favors of any President
or of those who are not qualified to serve as Federal judges.
What did our current President, then-Senator Obama say about this
duty? He stated:
There are some who believe that the President, having won
the election, should have the complete authority to appoint
his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or
not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around
nice guy, that once you get beyond intellect and personal
character, there should be no further question whether the
judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I
believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to
advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful
advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's
philosophy, ideology, and record.
Our inquiry of the qualifications of nominees must be more than
intelligence, a pleasant personality, or a prestigious clerkship. At
the beginning of this Congress, I articulated my standards for judicial
nominees. I want to ensure that the men and women who are appointed to
a lifetime position in the Federal judiciary are qualified to serve.
Factors I consider important include intellectual ability, respect for
the Constitution, fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate
judicial temperament, and professional competence. In applying these
standards, I have demonstrated good faith in ensuring fair
consideration of judicial nominees. I have worked with the majority to
confirm consensus nominees. However, as I have stated more than once,
the Senate must not place quantity confirmed over quality confirmed.
These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal judiciary
and the American people to simply rubberstamp them. This is not a pro
forma process that we are engaged in.
Last year I became increasingly concerned about some of the judicial
nominees being sent to the Senate by this administration. In a few
individual cases, it was very troublesome. Mr. Helmick's nomination
fell into that category. When I apply the standard I mentioned and the
standards that then-Senator Obama laid out or the standards expressed
in the Federalist Papers, I reach the same conclusion. In my judgment,
Mr. Helmick fails to meet the required standard and should not be
confirmed.
The Senate process for reviewing the professional qualifications,
temperament, background, and character is a long and thorough process.
In Mr. Helmick's case, there were some issues that needed to be fully
examined. At the conclusion of that lengthy process, a substantial
majority of my political party--the Republicans--on the Judiciary
Committee determined that this nomination should not be reported to the
Senate. Nevertheless, we now have the nomination before us. Even so,
there are reasons sufficient to oppose the nomination.
In 2000 Mr. Helmick faced disciplinary action for failing to comply
with a court-issued subpoena. He refused to turn over an incriminating
letter signed by a former client in the same case, which contained
threats to a State witness. A grand jury issued a subpoena to obtain
the letter, but Mr. Helmick refused to appear before the grand jury.
The trial court found him in contempt of court. Mr. Helmick appealed,
which caused the contempt sanction to be stayed. A three-judge panel of
the Ohio Court of Appeals unanimously held that he was required to turn
over the letter.
Mr. Helmick then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that
he must comply with the subpoena, although they lifted the contempt
citation.
The Supreme Court of Ohio stated that Mr. Helmick's concerns
regarding the attorney-client privilege were not enough to ``override
the public interest in maintaining public safety and promoting the
administration of justice.''
I do not think we should confirm to the bench individuals who are
willing to put private interests over the public interest in the
administration of justice.
I am concerned about Mr. Helmick's view on national security, as
evidenced by his handling of terrorism cases as a defense attorney. In
looking at the arguments he has made in court representing terrorists,
I am concerned he may believe terrorism cases are less serious than
other criminal cases, and that in turn causes some concern about how he
might handle terrorism cases that may come before him, if confirmed.
For example, he represented the terrorist Wassim Mazloum. This
terrorist was convicted by a jury of a conspiracy to kill U.S. troops
overseas and of providing material support for terrorists. Those are
very serious crimes. According to the sentencing guidelines, Mazloum
deserved life in prison. Mr. Helmick argued ``that perhaps the life
sentence that was called for in the advisory guidelines was too severe
or too harsh.'' In the end, this terrorist did
[[Page S3771]]
not receive a life sentence, rather he received only an 8-year
sentence--hardly a punishment or deterrent.
For these reasons and others I will vote no on this nomination and
urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand I have time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17 minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, let me refer to the nomination that is
before us. I know the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio will speak
after me. Today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Jeffrey
Helmick to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. I commend Senator Brown and Senator
Portman for their diligence in securing a vote on this nomination. Mr.
Helmick has the strong bipartisan support of his home State Senators.
His nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months
ago by a bipartisan majority. I thank the majority leader for his work
in bringing this nomination up for a final vote.
This is one of the nominations that I noted on Monday had been
skipped, when we confirmed another district court judge. I look forward
to working with Senator Kyl and Senator McCain to secure a vote on the
nomination of Justice Andrew Hurwitz to fill a judicial emergency
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, working with Senator Menendez and Senator
Lautenberg to secure a vote on the nomination of Judge Patty Shwartz to
fill a vacancy on the Third Circuit, and with Senator Graham and
Senator DeMint to set a vote on the nomination of Mary Lewis to fill a
vacancy in South Carolina.
I spoke on Monday about a recent Congressional Research Service
report on judicial nominations. The report demonstrates what I have
been saying for some time, that the time that nominations are being
delayed from a final Senate vote is extraordinary. Pages 17 through 19
and figure 4 demonstrate the unprecedented obstruction. The median
number of days President Obama's circuit court nominees have been
delayed, from Committee report to a vote, has skyrocketed to 132 days,
``roughly 7.3 times greater than the median number of 18 days for the
61 confirmed circuit nominees of his immediate predecessor, President
G.W. Bush.''
I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the CRS report be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, delay is being demonstrated again with
respect to the nominations of Justice Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit,
Judge Shwartz to the Third Circuit, Richard Taranto to the Federal
Circuit, and William Kayatta to the First Circuit. These are not
controversial or ideologically driven nominees. Justice Hurwitz is
strongly supported by Senator Kyl and Senator McCain; William Kayatta
is strongly supported by Senator Snowe and Senator Collins. Another
point made by the Congressional Research Service is that fewer circuit
court nominees have been confirmed than were confirmed during the first
terms of any of President Obama's four predecessors President Reagan,
President Geroge H.W. Bush, President Clinton, or President George W.
Bush.
Similarly, district court nominees such as Mr. Helmick are being
unnecessarily delayed. The median time from Committee vote to Senate
vote has gone from 21 days during the George W. Bush presidency to 90
days for President Obama's district nominees. I wish Mr. Helmick had
been confirmed back in March when he was first ready for a final Senate
vote. He has been stalled for nearly 3 months. The Congressional
Research Service report also notes that in contrast to President George
W. Bush's district court nominees, who were confirmed at a rate of
almost 95 percent, President Obama's district court nominees are being
confirmed at a rate below 80 percent. And it concludes that ``the
average time in the current Congress during which circuit and district
court nominations have been pending on the Senate Executive Calendar
before being confirmed has reached historically high levels.''
Once the Senate is allowed to vote on this nomination, we need
agreement to vote on the 14 other judicial nominees stalled on the
Executive Calendar. There are five more judicial nominees who had their
hearing back on May 9 and should be voted on by the Judiciary Committee
tomorrow. They too will need Senate votes for confirmation. Another
point made by the Congressional Research Service in its recent report
is that fewer of President Obama's district court nominees have been
confirmed than were confirmed during the first terms of his four
predecessors and vacancies remain higher now than when President Obama
took office. Not a single one of the last three presidents has had
judicial vacancies increase after their first term. In order to avoid
this, the Senate needs to act on these nominees before adjourning this
year.
Nor would that be unusual. As the Congressional Research Service
Report makes clear, in 5 of the last 8 presidential election years, the
Senate has confirmed at least 22 circuit and district court nominees
after May 31. The notable exceptions were during the last years of
President Clinton's two terms in 1996 and 2000 when they would not
allow confirmations to continue. Otherwise, it has been the rule rather
than the exception. So, for example, the Senate confirmed 32 in 1980;
28 in 1984; 31 in 1992; 28 in 2004 at the end of President George W.
Bush's first term; and 22 after May 31 in 2008 at the end of President
Bush's second term.
The Congressional Research Service Report about the treatment of
President Obama's judicial nominations confirms what we already know
that Senate Republicans have held President Obama's nominees to a
different and unfair standard and engaged in unnecessary and harmful
delays of consensus nominees.
James Fallows, a well-respected journalist at The Atlantic authored
an internet article dated June 5, 2012 based on his reading of the CRS
Report, which is entitled ``American Dysfunction Watch: State of the
Judiciary.'' In this article, Mr. Fallows notes that Mr. Obama ``is the
only president in the past few decades . . . to have more seats vacant
as he began his re-election year than he inherited when he took
office.'' Moreover, Mr. Fallows further highlights the following:
``During the Obama presidency thus far, fewer circuit court nominees
have been confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first
terms of any of the four preceding Presidents (Reagan through G.W.
Bush). Likewise, fewer Obama district court nominees have been
confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first terms of
the four preceding presidents.''
The ranking member on the Judiciary Committee has noted that we are
doing better than when his predecessor was the ranking republican on
the Committee, and that is accurate. But we have not made up for the
historically low confirmations allowed during that period or for the
fact that in each of the last 2 years the Senate has adjourned without
acting on 19 judicial nominations ready for final action each year.
Some seek to compare this first term of President Obama to President
Bush's second 4-year term, but as the Congressional Research Service
Report demonstrates, the proper comparison is to President Bush's first
term. Nonetheless, I would remind the Senate that during President
Bush's second term, the Republican majority managed the confirmation of
52 circuit and district court nominees while the Senate Democratic
majority worked to confirm 68 judicial nominees during the last 2 years
of that presidency and reduced vacancies to 34 while holding hearings
and votes on judicial nominees well into September 2008.
The simple fact is that the Senate is still lagging far behind what
we accomplished during the first term of President George W. Bush.
During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial
vacancies by almost 75
[[Page S3772]]
percent. When I became chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110
vacancies. As chairman, I worked with the administration and Senators
from both sides of the aisle to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a
conservative Republican President in 17 months.
Senate Democrats continued when in the minority to work with Senate
Republicans to confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations
well into 2004, a presidential election year. At the end of that
presidential term, the Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and
district court nominees. In May 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to
below 50 on the way to 28 that August. 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 to
significantly reduce judicial vacancies.
By comparison, the vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at
this point in the first term of President Bush. While vacancies were
reduced to 43 by June of President Bush's fourth year, in June of
President Obama's fourth year they remain in the mid-70s. They remained
near or above 80 for nearly 3 years. We are 30 confirmations behind the
pace we set in 2001 through 2004. Of course, we could move forward if
the Senate were allowed to vote without further delay on the 15
judicial nominees ready for final action. The Senate could reduce
vacancies below 60 and make progress.
The Judiciary Committee should be voting on more judicial nominees
this Thursday and we held a hearing for another three judicial nominees
this afternoon. With cooperation from Senate Republicans, the Senate
could make real progress and match what we have accomplished in prior
years.
After today, we still have much more work to do to help resolve the
judicial vacancy crisis that has persisted for more than 3 years. 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 3 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.
We need to work to reduce the vacancies that are burdening the
Federal judiciary and the millions of Americans who rely on our Federal
courts to seek justice. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm
these qualified judicial nominees so that we can address the judicial
vacancy crisis and so they can serve the American people.
Jeffrey Helmick was rated well qualified by a substantial majority of
the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In his 22-year
legal career as a litigator in private practice, Mr. Helmick has tried
approximately 40 cases to verdict or judgment. Currently a principal at
his law firm, Mr. Helmick has the strong support of his home state
Senators, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and Republican Senator Rob
Portman.
I join Senator Brown and Senator Portman in supporting the
confirmation of Jeffrey Helmick.
Exhibit 1
[From the Congressional Research Service, June 1, 2012]
Nominations to U.S. Circuit and District Courts by President Obama
During the 111th and 112th Congresses
(By Barry J. McMillion, Analyst on the Federal Judiciary)
Summary
Recent Senate debates in the 112th Congress over judicial
nominations have focused on issues such as the relative
degree of success of President Barack Obama's nominees in
gaining Senate confirmation (compared with other recent
Presidents) as well as the effect of delayed judicial
appointments on judicial vacancy levels. The following report
addresses these issues, and others, by providing a
statistical overview of President Obama's nominees to U.S.
circuit court of appeals and U.S. district court judgeships,
current through May 31, 2012. Findings include the following:
President Obama thus far in his presidency has nominated 41
persons to U.S. circuit court judgeships, 29 of whom have
been confirmed.
Of the 150 persons nominated thus far by President Obama to
U.S. district court judgeships, 117 have been confirmed.
The greatest number of President Obama's circuit court
nominees have been confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit (6) and the Second Circuit (5).
The greatest number of President Obama's district court
nominees have been confirmed to judgeships located within the
Ninth Circuit (22) and the fewest to district court
judgeships within the First Circuit (3).
District court vacancies have grown in number over the
course of the Obama presidency, from 42 judgeships vacant
when President Obama took office to 59 at present. There
currently are 13 circuit court vacancies (the same number as
when President Obama took office).
During the Obama presidency thus far, fewer circuit court
nominees have been confirmed by the Senate than were
confirmed during the first terms of any of the four preceding
Presidents (Reagan through G.W. Bush).
Likewise, fewer Obama district court nominees have been
confirmed by the Senate than were confirmed during the first
terms of the four preceding Presidents.
President Obama is the only one of the three most recent
Presidents to have begun his fourth year in office with more
circuit and district court judgeships vacant than when he
took office.
During the Obama presidency, the average waiting time from
nomination to committee hearing has been, thus far, 69.6 days
for circuit court nominees and 83.2 days for district court
nominees.
During the Obama presidency, the average waiting time from
Senate Judiciary Committee report to Senate confirmation has
been 139.7 days for circuit court nominees and 105.1 days for
district court nominees.
Various factors might help explain differences or variation
found in judicial appointment statistics across recent
presidencies.
A President's opportunities to make circuit and district
court appointments will be affected by the number of judicial
vacancies existing at the time he takes office, as well as by
how many judges depart office, and how many new judgeships
are statutorily created, during his presidency.
The time taken by a President to select nominees for
judicial vacancies may be affected by whether the selection
of lower court nominees must compete with filling a Supreme
Court vacancy, whether the selection process itself is a
priority for a President, the level of consultation between a
President and a nominee's home state Senators, and the time
taken by home state Senators to make judicial candidate
recommendations.
Institutional and political factors which may influence the
processing of judicial nominations by the Senate include
ideological differences between the President and the
opposition party in the Senate, the extent of interest group
opposition to certain nominees, the presence or absence of
``divided government,'' the point in a congressional session
when nominations arrive in the Senate, whether nominees have
the support of both of their home state Senators, and whether
the blue slip policy of the Senate Judiciary Committee
requires the support of both home state Senators before a
nominee can receive a hearing or committee vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished
senior Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The distinguished Senator
from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words and the
insight from Chairman Leahy and his leadership on trying to speed up
the confirmation process on a whole host of judges.
I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Iowa, but I take
exception with a couple of things he said. No. 1, he compared the
number of nominations during the second Bush 4 years with the first 4
Obama years and said that the Senate was more cooperative now than it
was then. Clearly it was apples and oranges. We know--almost any
schoolkid in America now knows--the dysfunction of the Senate in terms
of the minority party blocking all kinds of things, from medium- to
low-level Federal appointments to the executive branch, to district
court judges, to legislation. So I think Senator Leahy has addressed
that very aptly, and I don't need to go into detail there.
Senator Leahy also has spoken to the two public criticisms--shallow
and vacuous that they are--of Jeffrey Helmick. The one on him
representing terrorists, I am not a lawyer, but I know that when a
Federal judge asks a lawyer to represent somebody, the lawyer does it,
as Jeffrey Helmick did. And, as Senator Leahy said on the ethics issue,
the Ohio Court of Appeals said that Mr. Helmick should be commended.
The supreme court agreed
[[Page S3773]]
unanimously that the letter they talked about was a client secret and
that Mr. Helmick acted in good faith. So those criticisms don't really
stand the test of time in that way.
Again, I thank Senator Leahy and the Judiciary Committee for moving
as quickly as they could move. This is a difficult time. At times,
there is Senate dysfunction and the minority party blocks or slow-walks
some of these nominees.
Jeffrey Helmick has been supported by a bipartisan, rigorous
committee of 17 who come from the Southern District of Ohio and who
help to choose nominees for the Northern District of Ohio. I spoke
personally with all but 1 or 2 of those 17 Republicans and Democrats
around whom consensus was formed in support of Jeffrey Helmick. They
think he is an outstanding lawyer, jurist, and potential Federal judge.
The other Federal judges in the western region of the Northern District
Court in Ohio, which is out of Toledo--including a judge nominated by
President George W. Bush--enthusiastically support Jeffrey Helmick.
Senator Grassley said he was a controversial nominee. He is only
controversial in the Senate Judiciary Committee and among some of my
colleagues. He is not controversial in Ohio, where they know Jeffrey
Helmick the best. He is not controversial in the Toledo bar. He is not
controversial among people who know Jeffrey Helmick and who have
watched him perform his service to his community and watched him
professionally and the way that he does his job as a lawyer in Toledo,
OH, in Federal court or in State court. So the fact is, he is not a
controversial nominee. He is only a controversial nominee in the U.S.
Senate and in some places in Washington, DC. But we know he is
qualified, and we know he is ready to serve.
I ask my colleagues to vote today to confirm Jeffrey Helmick to the
U.S. Federal court in the Northern District of Ohio.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Jeffrey Helmick was rated ``well
qualified'' by a substantial majority of the ABA's Standing Committee
on the Federal Judiciary. In his 22-year legal career as a litigator in
private practice, Mr. Helmick has tried approximately 40 cases to
verdict or judgment. Currently a principal at his law firm, Mr. Helmick
has the strong support of his home State Senators who have spoken in
support of this nomination. He was also voted out of the Judiciary
Committee nearly 3 months ago by a bipartisan majority. Given his
distinguished record in private practice and his bipartisan support, I
trust that he will be confirmed.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3773, June 6, 2012, the Record reads: . . . Northern
District of Ohio. Jeffrey Helmick . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. LEAHY. Mr.
President, Jeffrey Helmick . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Some have chosen to criticize Mr. Helmick for his role as court-
appointed defense counsel. Those who criticize him may not understand
how our justice system works. Our legal system is an adversary system,
predicated upon legal advocacy for both sides. That is what Mr. Helmick
did at the request of the court.
No nominee should be disqualified for representing clients zealously.
At his confirmation hearing to become the Chief Justice of the United
States, John Roberts made the point:
``[I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back
before the founding of the country that lawyers are not
identified with the positions of their clients. The most
famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the
British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that
for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution
in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule
of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law.
Our Founders thought that they were not being given their
rights under the British system to which they were entitled,
and by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that
what they were about was defending the rule of law, not
undermining it, and that principle, that you don't identify
the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the
views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is
critical to the fair administration of justice.''
Mr. Helmick was appointed by the court to represent a defendant and
he had an ethical obligation to advocate zealously for that client.
That was what he did, and he should not now be punished for doing his
duty.
In addition, there has apparently been an objection to Mr. Helmick's
handling of an ethical dilemma where he refused to disclose a client
secret. This is particularly odd because the Ohio Court of Appeals who
heard the case stated that Mr. Helmick ``should be commended for his
professional and ethical behavior in a very difficult situation.'' In
addition, although a divided Ohio Supreme Court ultimately ordered
disclosure of the letter based on a balancing test in a 4 3 decision,
the Court nevertheless agreed unanimously with Mr. Helmick that the
letter was a client secret. Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that
Mr. Helmick acted in good faith.
Let us confirm this good man and not try to tarnish his distinguished
reputation. I join Senator Brown and Senator Portman in urging a vote
for confirmation.
I yield back the remaining time, and 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 Jeffrey J. Helmick, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio?
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3773, June 6, 2012, the Record reads: The legislative
clerk called . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: The bill clerk
called .. . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 116 Ex.]
YEAS--62
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--36
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Kirk
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________