[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5250-S5251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Aurora, Colorado Shootings

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it was a very sad weekend and will be 
for a long period of time in Aurora, CO. I heard the remarks of the 
majority and minority leaders today expressing condolence for the 
victims and their families. I wish to associate myself with those 
remarks and offer my condolences to all the people of Aurora but 
particularly to those who have deceased family members and those who 
are hospitalized because of this tragic event that happened there.
  Mr. President, I support the nomination of Michael A. Shipp to be 
U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey, currently serving 
as a U.S. magistrate and coming out of committee on voice vote. I am 
not aware of any controversy regarding this nominee, and I expect he 
will be confirmed with an overwhelming vote.
  There has been a bit of discussion regarding whether the cloture vote 
that had been scheduled on today's nominee was some sort of escalation 
of Presidential election politics or an indication of a partisan fight 
over judicial confirmations. Those are raised as speculation or 
misreading what is happening in the Senate. The fact is that the 
cloture vote, which is now vitiated, had nothing to do with the 
judicial confirmation process in general or this nominee in particular.
  There is, unfortunately, an element of partisan gridlock that is 
affecting this nomination, but it is not because of a Republican desire 
to block this nominee or to shut down the Senate floor. Republicans, in 
fact, have been demanding more access to the Senate floor. That 
gridlock is the majority leader's tactics to block amendments on the 
Senate floor.
  Time after time the majority uses parliamentary procedure to prohibit 
amendments, block votes, and deny or limit debate. For example, last 
Thursday the Republican leader asked the majority leader if the 
anticipated business coming before the Senate, the Stabenow-Obama 
campaign tax bill, would be open for amendment. The majority leader 
responded that would be ``very doubtful.'' These actions, although they 
may be permitted by Senate rules, are contrary to the spirit of the 
Senate.
  Certainly we are far from being the world's greatest deliberative 
body at this time. So when a Senator who seeks a vote on his amendment 
is stymied time after time, it is not surprising that the Senator would 
use Senator rules and procedures to bring pressure on the majority 
leader for a vote--in other words, to do exactly what the Senate was 
set up under the Constitution to do. There is a bit of sad irony that 
Senators who are facing obstructionism are the ones who are labeled 
obstructionist when they are persistent in trying to bring a matter to 
a vote, which is customary in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, we are now seeing this obstructionism strategy creep 
into committee activity as well. Again, last Thursday the Judiciary 
Committee marked up an important national security bill. The bill was 
open to amendment but apparently only amendments the chairman agreed 
with. In the Judiciary Committee, we have a longstanding practice of 
voting up or down on difficult, controversial issues. What happened 
last week undermined the responsibility of the committee to debate and 
address important issues--in this case, national security. The 
Judiciary Committee is a forum for these debates.
  The bill that was on the agenda is one of the few vehicles that will 
likely be passed before the end of the year, so it was an important and 
appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues once the chairman opened 
the amendment process by adopting his own substitute amendment. 
Instead, the partisan gridlock, driven by the majority leader's tactics 
to block amendments on the Senate floor, has now spread to the 
committee level with made-up germaneness rules and tabling motions 
forced on amendments, some of which had received bipartisan support 
from members of the Judiciary Committee in the past. The only 
conclusion that can be drawn is that the Senate majority leadership 
wants to protect its members at every step of the legislative process 
from having to make difficult votes, and the majority leadership will 
employ any procedure it can to duck debates and to govern.
  Even as we turn to the 154th nominee of this President to be 
confirmed to the district or circuit courts, we continue to hear 
unsubstantiated charges of obstructionism. The fact is we have 
confirmed over 78 percent of President Obama's district nominees. At 
this point in his Presidency, 75 percent of President Bush's nominees 
had been confirmed. President Obama, in other words, is running ahead 
of President Bush on district confirmations as a percentage.
  I continue to hear some of my colleagues repeatedly ask the question: 
What is different about this President that he is to be treated 
differently than all of these other Presidents? I won't speculate as to 
any inference that might be intended by that question, but I can tell 
you that this President is not being treated differently than previous 
Presidents. By any objective measure, this President has been treated 
fairly and consistently with past Senate practices.
  As I stated, as a percentage of nominations, this President is 
running ahead of the previous President with regard to the number of 
confirmations. Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues with an 
apples-to-apples comparison. As I mentioned, we have confirmed 153 
district and circuit nominees of this President. We have also confirmed 
two Supreme Court nominees. Everyone understands that the Supreme Court 
nominations take a great deal of committee time. The last time the 
Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's 
second term, and during that term the Senate confirmed a total of 119 
district and circuit court nominees. With Judge Shipp's confirmation 
today--which I support and which I think will be confirmed almost 
unanimously--we will have confirmed 35 more district and circuit court 
nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush in similar 
circumstances.
  During the last Presidential election, 2008, the Senate confirmed a 
total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. This Presidential 
election year we have already exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed 
5 circuit nominees, and this will be the 27th district judge confirmed.
  Judge Shipp received his B.S. from Rutgers University in 1987 and his 
J.D. from the Seton Hall University School of Law in 1994. Upon 
graduation, he clerked for the Honorable James H. Colman, Jr., a 
justice on the Supreme Court of New Jersey. After his clerkship, Judge 
Shipp joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as a litigation 
associate. There, he worked in general litigation matters, handling 
labor and employment work. He also developed an expertise in mass tort 
law and products liability litigation.
  In 2003, Judge Shipp became an assistant attorney general in charge 
of

[[Page S5251]]

consumer protection with the Department of Law and Public Safety of New 
Jersey. There, he managed five practice groups: consumer fraud 
prosecution, insurance fraud prosecution (civil), securities fraud 
prosecution, professional boards prosecution, and debt recovery. He 
supervised approximately 80 deputy attorneys general. In 2005, he was 
promoted to the Attorney General's front office. There, he acted as an 
advisor to the Attorney General on sensitive legal matters related to 
ethics and appointments.
  In 2007, Judge Shipp was appointed as a United States magistrate 
judge for the District of New Jersey. As a magistrate judge he presides 
over civil and criminal pre-trial proceedings. He also presides over 
civil trials, with the consent of the parties. The ABA Standing 
Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Shipp a rating of 
substantial majority ``Qualified,'' minority ``Not Qualified.''
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute, then, too.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection. In fact, I will give a courtesy to 
the Senator from Iowa that he did not give to me, and I will be happy 
to yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Usually, Mr. President, it has been my experience that in 
37 years in this Senate, as the second most senior Member here, if a 
Senator wants to come and attack another Senator, they have the 
courtesy of giving him notice before they do. I am sorry my friend from 
Iowa didn't follow the normal courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for my 1 minute I will respond simply to 
that by saying that I am talking about the institution of the Senate 
and not one single Senator personally.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to no Member of this body in the 
fact that I uphold not only the rules but the courtesies of this 
Senate. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have never cut 
off a Member of the other party who wished to speak, unlike some of the 
procedures they followed when they held the chair. I have never refused 
to have a Member of the other party bring up an amendment, contrary to 
the procedures they followed when they chaired it.
  I believe in the Senate. I believe in the rules of the Senate, but 
especially I believe in the comity that Thomas Jefferson believed in, 
in this body; otherwise, the Senate would fall apart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Michael A. Shipp, of New Jersey, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Casey), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     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 (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Begich
     Boxer
     Casey
     DeMint
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Kirk
     Udall (CO)
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________