[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6033-S6038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF STEPHANIE MARIE ROSE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose, of
Iowa, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are beginning about 3 minutes late. I
ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in such a way that the
vote still starts at 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. When the Senate recessed more than a month ago, 22
judicial nominees to fill vacancies in courtrooms around the country
were left pending, awaiting a Senate vote. Today, Senate Republicans
have agreed to vote on just one of those nominees. I want to commend
Senator Harkin for working with Senator Grassley and the Majority
Leader to get this vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose of Iowa. I
urge votes on the other nominees, as well, without further delay.
There are currently 78 Federal judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies
during the last few years have been at historically high levels and
have remained near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the
President. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal judgeships is currently
vacant. Vacancies on the Federal courts are more than two and one half
times as many as they were on this date during the first term of
President Bush. One key reason for these numerous vacancies and for the
extensive backlog of nominees is that Senate Republicans allowed votes
on just one district court nominee per week for the last seven weeks
before the August recess. This unnecessarily slow pace of consideration
of judicial nominees has disserved the American people and should not
continue.
The across-the-board obstruction and foot dragging from Senate
Republicans since day one of President Obama's tenure means that we are
likely to complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than
when he took office. The partisan obstruction from Senate Republicans
has been particularly damaging with respect to Federal trial courts. In
a sharp departure from the past, Senate Republicans have stalled Senate
approval of district court nominees, including those Republican home
state Senators support.
Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President,
district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of
weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of
those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents.
Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and
district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost
always confirmed unanimously. During the 18 months that I was chairman
of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, we confirmed 83 of
President Bush's district court nominees, and only one of them received
any votes in opposition. Even though some Senate Democrats opposed the
nominee, we nevertheless scheduled a vote for him just 11 days after he
was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
Indeed, only five district court nominees received any votes in
opposition in all 8 years of the previous Republican presidency, and
none was a party-line vote. Among those nominees was one so extreme
that he had announced that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring
because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same
frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' That observation was much like the
outrageous recent comments about rape by a Republican House member and
Senate candidate.
In all, the Senate confirmed 264 of President Bush's district court
nominees, and only five of them received any votes in opposition.
Senate Democrats were willing to work with a very conservative
Republican President to fill vacancies on our Federal trial courts. We
recognized that filling vacancies on district courts is essential to
ensuring that the American people have functioning courts to serve them
and provide access to justice. We know that 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
[[Page S6034]]
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
In The Atlantic Andrew Cohen has written recently about the ``Human
Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays.'' In that article, the Chief
Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania describes the costs of
vacancies on individuals in Pennsylvania and the pervasive and harmful
delays they are suffering because there are not enough judges.
At this point in President Bush's first term, Senate Democrats had
worked with Republicans to confirm 165 of his district court nominees.
Despite the fact that President Obama has worked with home state
Senators of both parties to select moderate, superbly-qualified
judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented
obstruction of Federal trial court nominees for the last four years.
As Carl Tobias noted last month in a letter to the New York Times:
Republican senators have created and applied practices that
substantially depart from procedures employed in prior
administrations, even as recently as that of President George
W. Bush. The most important change is the refusal by the
G.O.P. leadership to enter voting agreements on well-
qualified, uncontroversial district court nominees, so they
languish for months on the Senate floor.
Professor Tobias is correct, and the result is that at this point in
his first term President Obama's district court nominees have had to
wait nearly three times longer for a Senate vote and the Senate has
confirmed more than three dozen fewer.
Senate Republicans have made a habit of delaying and opposing
President Obama's district court nominees, voting against more than a
quarter of them--36 out of 127 to be precise. And they stall
confirmations for months of noncontroversial nominees including those
supported by home state Republican Senators who are eventually
confirmed overwhelmingly.
This extreme partisanship has not just resulted in persistently high
vacancies--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently observed that
it is also ``bad for the legal system'' as a whole. He indicated: ``It
makes the judiciary look politicized when it is not, and it has to
stop.'' District courts in particular should not be politicized. The 18
district court nominees currently pending before the Senate were not
chosen based on some ideological litmus test. They were selected for
their legal excellence, whether as practicing attorneys or sitting
judges.
Recently, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania signaled his
newfound willingness to abandon the unprecedented delays and
obstruction that his caucus has employed against President Obama's
trial court nominees. I only wish he had done so 2 years ago. What
Senate Republicans have been doing is wrong and hurts all Americans
seeking justice in our Federal courts.
Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose to
fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible
rating. She has the bipartisan support of her home state Senators. I
worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to ensure prompt
Judiciary Committee consideration of her nomination, which was reported
with a virtually unanimous voice vote by the Judiciary Committee nearly
five months ago. The only objection came as a protest on another issue
by Senator Lee.
Stephanie Rose currently serves as the first woman U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Iowa, where she has been serving since 2009.
Ms. Rose has devoted her entire career to public service, having served
for 15 years as a Federal prosecutor and having been promoted to Deputy
Criminal Chief in 2008. In her tenure as a Federal prosecutor, she has
tried 33 cases to verdict. When confirmed, she will be the first woman
to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa and only
the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history.
With the elections approaching, the Senate will recess, again, in
just a few weeks. When the Senate recessed in 2009, 10 judicial
nominees were left without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate
recessed in 2010, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a
final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed last year, in 2011,
19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final vote. I urge
Senate Republicans not to continue their practice of stalling qualified
nominees from confirmation. I urge them to agree to schedule debate and
votes on the 18 district court nominees from California, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania
and Utah who, like Stephanie Rose, could be confirmed with strong
bipartisan support and without further delay. A dozen of those nominees
would fill judicial emergency vacancies.
Let us act on these nominations. There is no doubt that recent
precedent shows we can do this even in September of a Presidential
election year. In 2008, the final year of President Bush's presidency,
Senate Democrats were willing to confirm 10 of his district court
nominees in a single day, all by unanimous consent. It took only a few
seconds. Earlier in that Republican presidency, and again with a
Democratic Majority, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees in just
one day and vacancies went down to 60 throughout the country, on the
way down to 28. If we confirm all of the district nominees ready for
final Senate action today, we can similarly reduce vacancies back down
to 60.
I hope that Senate Republicans will not extend their wrongheaded
application of the ``Thurmond Rule'' and further stall confirmation of
consensus, well-qualified district court nominees. Given our
overburdened Federal courts and the need to provide all Americans with
prompt justice, the Senate should be working in a bipartisan fashion to
confirm these nominees without further delay.
I ask unanimous consent the article to which I referred be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Atlantic]
In Pennsylvania, the Human Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays
(By Andrew Cohen)
The William J. Nealon courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
(Wikimedia Commons) Daniel Wasserman had seen enough. An
Orthodox rabbi affiliated with Shaare Torah Synagogue in a
suburb of Pittsburgh, Wasserman had grown tired of state
interference with Jewish funeral rituals, ancient and
eternal, which require burial within 24 hours and which
prohibit embalming. He resented the threats of fines and
penalties he was receiving from state officials trying to
enforce a 19th-century funeral director's law. He believed he
was being singled out for the practice of his religious
beliefs.
And so Rabbi Wasserman did what many people do in America
when they believe their constitutional rights--their First
Amendment rights, their rights to religious freedom--are
being infringed by state action. He sued the state. On August
6th, in federal district court in Scranton, in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, Rabbi Wasserman's lawyers sought an
injunction to preclude state officials from continuing to
threaten him for what he considers to be the lawful exercise
of his religious beliefs. The lawsuit, his attorneys allege,
is designed to: preserve and restore the historical right of
clergy to conduct religious burial and funeral rites free
from interference and harassment by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and professional, secular funeral directors who
serve no health or safety interest.
But justice won't come quickly for Rabbi Wasserman--if it
comes at all. There simply aren't enough federal judges in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania to handle his case. U.S.
District Judge John Jones, the well-regarded jurist to whom
the Rabbi's case was assigned, couldn't get the urgent
injunction hearing onto his schedule until late September.
The timing didn't discourage the Rabbi but it clearly
frustrated the judge. ``Obviously when you receive something
like this you have to move with some alacrity,'' Judge Jones
told me late last month. ``But you can only land so many
planes in one hour.''
the district
Boundary-wise, the Middle District of Pennsylvania is the
largest federal judicial district in the state. It covers the
state capital of Harrisburg, which means it is the chief
venue for litigation against the state of Pennsylvania. It
comprises no fewer than 32 counties, up and down the center
of the state, from Adams County to York County, from the
state's northern border to New York to its southern border
with Maryland, the Mason-Dixon line. There are four
courthouses in the district, including one in Williamsport,
which is several hours drive away from either Harrisburg or
Scranton.
[[Page S6035]]
All of this volume and distance would be manageable if the
Middle District were fully staffed with federal trial judges.
It is not--and it hasn't been for years. ``We are down a
third of our active court,'' Judge Jones says. In March 2009,
the first vacancy in the Middle District was created when
Judge Richard Caputo (more on him later) took senior status.
Another vacancy was created in April 2010, when the Senate
confirmed the appellate nomination of U.S. District Judge
Thomas I. Vanaskie. Two long years later, just this past May,
President Obama nominated two men to fill those posts.
Both Middle District nominees--Malachy E. Mannion and
Matthew W. Brann--were quickly endorsed by the Senate
Judiciary Committee by voice vote, which means there were no
substantive objections raised by Republican members of that
Committee. Both nominees also have the support of the state's
two senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey,
who have publicly lobbied their Republican colleagues this
year to allow the nominations to come to a vote on the Senate
floor. So far, those efforts have failed. But the Senate is
expected to take up new judicial nominations in the next week
or so.
the judges
While the Senate fiddles, what's life like for the current
judges of the Middle District? Very difficult. Judges
frequently have to drive three hours or more a day to handle
cases in Williamsport. The aforementioned Judge Caputo, who
is in his early 70s, carries the most cases of any of the
judges--more than 500 civil and criminal combined--despite
his senior status. ``He's hanging in because he feels like he
is letting the court down if it doesn't,'' Judge Jones says
of his colleague. ``Because of the judge he is he won't
relent.'' But compared to some of his other colleagues in the
Middle District, however, Judge Caputo is practically a kid.
Sitting in senior status, picking up the slack for the
empty full-time benches, are Judge Edwin M. Kosic, Judge
William J. Nealon, Judge Richard P. Conaboy and Judge William
W. Caldwell--all of these men are at least 86 years old. Two
other Middle District Judges in senior status--Judge Sylvia
H. Rambo and Judge James M. Munley--are both over 76 years
old. ``All have a substantial case load,'' Judge Jones says,
``but we've created this absurdity where we are leaning on
aging'' and perhaps frail senior judges. Judge Nealon, for
example, a remarkable jurist by any standard, has more than
150 cases--at age 89.
The Middle District today is so understaffed, its current
judges so overwhelmed by their relentless workload, that the
Chief Judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit, the federal appeals
panel which covers Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic
states, has authorized trial judges from the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to cross over and help their colleagues in
the Middle District. But it's not like the Eastern District
has it much better. There are now six judicial vacancies
there (five judges have in the past few years taken senior
status). President Obama has yet nominated no one--no one--to
replace those Eastern District trial judges.
the problem
Washington talks ceaselessly about the slow pace of
judicial nominations. But few advocates are able to cite
specific examples of what judicial vacancies mean for the
American people, for litigants like Rabbi Wasserman, who look
to the courts to resolve disputes. Part of the reason for
this is prudence--current litigants I spoke with for this
article were reluctant to publicly complain about how long it
is taking their federal civil cases to be resolved. No one
wants to tick off their judge. But that doesn't mean such
delays aren't real--and pervasive. I ended up asking a
federal judge himself to detail the cost of judicial
vacancies.
``Inevitably, what it leads to is extra time to decide
almost any motion that is filed,'' Judge Jones told me. `` .
. . [T]he federal courts are stacked up with motions to
dismiss and motions for summary judgment which are very fact
specific and require a great deal of time. When you have
fewer judges, and the judges who are in service have more
motions, everything is delayed.'' The judge calls it the
``justice delayed syndrome'' and it impacts individuals like
the rabbi as well as large corporations who must factor into
their business plans the ``uncertainty'' inherent in long,
drawn-out litigation.
Rebecca Kourlis, a former justice of the Colorado Supreme
Court and now executive director of the Institute for the
Advancement of the American Legal System, is even more blunt.
``Vacancies in the judiciary create holes in the judicial
system,'' Kourlis told me last week, ``and civil cases are
the most likely to fall through those holes. What this means
is that civil cases suffer increased continuances and delays
and the possibilities of changing judges in mid-stream. For
civil litigants, this means untenable disruptions to their
lives and businesses, the possibility of increased costs, and
overall, a breach of the promise of access to justice.''
the politics
For this piece, I picked the ``judicial emergency'' in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania to make a point. Although I
have been a strident critic (see accompanying box) of the
Republican use of the Senate filibuster to keep bipartisan-
approved nominees off the bench, there is no denying that the
Obama Administration has in many cases made a bad situation
worse by failing to quickly nominate judges when vacancies
occur. There is simply no excuse, for example, for the length
of time it took the White House to appoint Mannion and Brann
to help fill the void in the Middle District. None.
Sen. Toomey, the Pennsylvania Republican, refused comment
for this story. His Democratic counterpart, Sen. Bob Casey,
would say only that both sides ``need to come together to
fill these critical positions'' and that ``the real-life
consequences of delay are unacceptable.'' Both men, it is
fair to say, don't want to say anything publicly to tick off
the Republican leadership in the Senate, leadership which
already has announced to the world that it intends to confirm
no more of President Obama's federal appellate nominees by
invoking what's become known as the ``Thurmond Rule.''
The story of the Middle District is one of basic
governance. It's about the executive branch and the
legislative branch failing to perform its constitutional
function of ensuring a viable judicial branch. It's about
politicians in Washington failing or refusing to provide to
the American people--in the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
for example--one of the most elemental services a government
can provide to the governed--functioning courts of law. It's
a disgrace that those old judges in Pennsylvania have to work
like that. It's even more of a disgrace that Congress and the
White House can't timely agree on their replacements.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from
Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time and ask it be under the control
of Senator Harkin.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee,
Senator Leahy, for his courtesies.
I rise in support of the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose to be
U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. In addition, she
has the support of Senator Harkin and is well regarded throughout my
home State of Iowa. She was reported out of our committee on voice
vote. She was previously confirmed by this Senate for her current
position, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.
Ms. Rose is a Hawkeye through and through, receiving two degrees from
the University of Iowa--her B.A. in 1994 and her J.D. in 1996.
Obviously, Ms. Rose was on the fast track through law school.
After graduation from law school, she wisely chose to remain in
Iowa--and Iowa is fortunate for that decision. She first served as a
law clerk in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Iowa. In 1997, she was hired as a full-time attorney in that same
office, where she has risen through the ranks and now heads that
office.
She served as a special assistant U.S. attorney from 1997 to 1999 and
as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1999 to 2009. During this time, she
was lead counsel in the prosecution of more than 250 cases. These cases
spanned a wide range of legal issues from violent crimes and drug
offense to immigration violations and money laundering. Additionally,
she has handled approximately 45 Federal civil cases. These cases have
included postconviction relief and asset forfeiture matters, as well as
Freedom of Information Act and property return lawsuits.
In 2009, Ms. Rose was nominated by the President and then confirmed
by the Senate to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District
of Iowa. In this role, she oversees most every aspect of the office.
This includes overseeing the civil and criminal work completed by
office staff and making final determinations regarding charging
decisions, plea offers, and civil settlements.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Rose as ``well qualified'' for this
position of district judge.
In addition, she is supported by the legal community and judges
throughout our State. Newspaper articles published in the Cedar Rapids
Gazette on February 2 and February 20, 2012, captured some of that
support.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these two
articles.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Gazette, Feb. 2, 2012]
Rose Picked for Federal Bench
(by Trish Mehaffey)
Cedar Rapids.--President Barack Obama nominated U.S.
Attorney Stephanie Rose late Thursday as the next federal
judge in the Southern District of Iowa.
[[Page S6036]]
Rose, of Center Point, said she received the call from Sen.
Tom Harkin in late afternoon and then got the news release
from the White House.
``This has been a really involved process and I'm honored
to be selected, especially with the other talented women that
were also nominated,'' she said last night. ``If the Senate
confirms me, I will be happy to serve and look forward to the
diversity of the Southern District and the new
opportunities.''
Obama said Rose and Michael Shea, whom he nominated
Thursday as a federal judge in Connecticut, have
``demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness
Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system. I am
grateful for their willingness to serve and confident that
they will apply the law with the utmost impartiality and
integrity.''
In a news release, Harkin, D-Iowa, said Rose is a ``superb
attorney and among jurists, prosecutors and the defense bar
has a reputation as an extremely fair and ethical prosecutor
who possesses great legal ability, intellect, and judgment.''
``There is no question in my mind that Stephanie Rose would
be an outstanding federal judge,'' he continued. ``. . . I
urge my Senate colleagues to confirm her for this important
position as quickly as possible.''
Rose served 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney before
being appointed the top prosecutor in 2009. She will be the
first woman to serve as a federal judge in the Southern
District and only the second woman to serve on the federal
bench in Iowa's history.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Teig, who retired last
year after 31 years, said Thursday that Rose will make an
``excellent'' federal judge.
``She has experience in the courtroom and as an
administrator,'' Teig said. ``She has a broad view of the
federal legal system and she's very intelligent. Stephanie
will make a great additional to the federal bench.''
Teig worked with Rose throughout her career with the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
____
[From the Gazette, Feb. 20, 2012]
Colleagues Call Rose a Good Choice for Federal Bench
(By Trish Mehaffey)
The career path of a U.S. attorney and nominee for federal
judge could have taken a much different course if she had
followed her early passions for music and journalism.
When Stephanie Rose told her parents she was going into
law, they were surprised at first. She was the girl who sang
and danced, played the piano and oboe, majored in sociology
and loved to write.
Stephanie Rose of Center Point, the federal prosecutor for
the Northern District of Iowa, has been nominated by
President Barack Obama as the next federal judge in the
Southern District. (Brian Ray/The Gazette)
But Rose said she started looking at a law career because
of her childhood experience growing up with foster siblings.
Rose's mother and father were foster parents, and one of the
children in their custody had to go through a painful
parental termination because her biological mother, who was
in and out of jail, fought the proceeding.
Through the appeal process, the Iowa Supreme Court
terminated the mother's rights, changing children's rights in
Iowa and allowing the girl to be adopted into a permanent
home.
That showed Rose how the law can change people's lives.
Acclaimed in field
``Fairness,'' above all else, is the one word judges,
prosecutors and even defense attorneys, who have been
adversaries of Rose over the years, kept mentioning last week
to describe her. They said she is a good choice for the
federal bench because she's extremely intelligent,
hardworking, compassionate, humble, open-minded and
forthright.
President Barack Obama nominated Rose two weeks ago to
become the next federal judge in the Southern District of
Iowa when U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Pratt retires July
1.
Rose, 39, of Center Point, has worked in the U.S.
Attorney's Office since graduating from law school, one of
the youngest hired at the time. She worked her way up to the
top spot in 2009, prosecuting more than 800 felony cases. She
was lead prosecutor on 260 of those cases and has handled
another 45 civil cases and 34 appeals.
Assistant Johnson County Attorney Andy Chappell, who has
been friends with Rose since law school, said it's difficult
to ``imagine anybody more deserving.'' Rose is bright,
straightforward and incapable of pretense, he said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney C.J. Williams said Rose's ability
to quickly comprehend complex issues has helped her succeed.
She received recognition and awards for prosecuting two
complicated cases involving Internet pharmaceutical
companies, where doctors were prescribing pills online to
patients they never treated, he said.
The six-year case spanned many states and required the
review of hundreds of documents. Some may have not pursued
it, Williams said, but the challenge never deterred Rose.
Her determination paid off. The case ended with 26
convictions in this district, more than $7 million in
forfeitures and more than $4 million that went to agencies in
Dubuque, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
``She is very skilled,'' said U.S. District Judge Mark
Bennett, who presided over Rose's first jury trial. ``She
learns from any mistakes and doesn't repeat them. She doesn't
have a personal agenda. She goes by the law.''
U.S. District Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District
said her prosecution record is impressive for her age because
not all federal judges have that kind of experience,
especially in criminal law.
``Stephanie has won the respect of prosecutors and defense
lawyers,'' Jarvey said.
Respect from defense
Steve Swift is one of the defense attorneys who say she has
earned a good reputation among the defense bar. He joined a
dozen other defense attorneys who supported Rose for her U.S.
attorney nomination. They said she was fair and went by the
law in handling the controversial prosecution of more than
380 illegal immigrants charged in the 2008 Agriprocessors
raid.
``She's not politically connected, not active in a party .
. . this is based on merit,'' he said. ``She's a great
advocate for the government, very forthright--no
shenanigans.''
Leon Spies, a defense attorney, said Rose has always been
interested in seeing that ``justice is accomplished.'' It's
more important for her to ``get it right than to win,'' he
said.
Spies, also the president of the Academy of Trial Lawyers,
nominated Rose to the academy in 2008 because she exhibited
what the organization strives for--the ``highest quality of
trial advocacy and ethical responsibilities to clients and
the law.''
``It's a quite an honor to be nominated,'' said David
Brown, a Des Moines attorney and secretary/treasurer of the
academy. ``There are over 8,000 lawyers in Iowa and there are
only 250 members. There are less prosecutors and less women,
but not by design.''
Rose is one of 15 women in the academy.
Sen. Tom Harkin said all those qualities are why he
recommended Rose for the U.S. attorney job and for the
federal bench.
``I was enthralled by her at the interview,'' Harkin said.
``She has such a presence and such eloquence without the
window dressing,'' he said laughing. ``She's genuine and
sincere.''
Harkin said he doesn't foresee any problems with her being
confirmed. More than 80 percent of President Barack Obama's
nominees have been confirmed so far.
What's next
Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law in
Richmond, Va., who analyzes the judiciary, said it's in
Rose's favor that she has been through a previous
confirmation because it could go more quickly.
``It's kind of murky right now with the presidential
election,'' he said. ``The confirmation process could slow
down and even stop until after the convention. It's good that
she has home state support from Sen. Chuck Grassley, who's on
the Senate Judiciary Committee, but there are 21 others
(federal judge nominees) ahead of her.''
However, Tobias didn't rule out the chance that Rose could
be confirmed in time to take the bench in July.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Assistant U.S. attorney C.J. Williams described Ms.
Rose's ability to quickly comprehend complex issues. Former assistant
U.S. attorney Bob Teig, who retired last year after 31 years, said
Thursday that Rose will make an ``excellent'' Federal judge. He went on
to say:
She has experience in the courtroom and as an
administrator. She has a broad view of the federal legal
system and she's very intelligent. Stephanie will make a
great addition to the federal bench.
U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said:
She is very skilled. She doesn't have a personal agenda.
She goes by the law.
U.S. District Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District said her
prosecution record is impressive, noting ``Stephanie has won the
respect of prosecutors and defense lawyers.''
Ms. Rose is also a member of the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers.
Membership in the academy is limited to just 250 attorneys whose
primary focus is on trial advocacy. Membership in this distinguished
group is by invitation only, with unanimous approval by the Board of
Governors. So Ms. Rose is 1 of only 15 women on the academy.
Mr. Leon Spies, the gentleman who nominated Ms. Rose for the academy,
said he nominated her because she exhibited exactly what the
organization strives for, ``the highest quality of trial advocacy and
ethical responsibilities to clients and the law.''
If confirmed--and I am sure she will be confirmed--Ms. Rose will be
the first woman to serve as Federal judge in the Southern District and
only the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history.
I congratulate Ms. Rose and wish her well as she assumes her duties as
a U.S. district judge.
With her confirmation today the Senate will have confirmed 156 of
President Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts. The fact
is we have
[[Page S6037]]
confirmed over 80 percent of President Obama's district nominees.
During the last Presidential election year, the year 2008, the Senate
confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. This
Presidential election year we will have exceeded those numbers. We have
confirmed five circuit nominees, and Judge Rose will be the 29th
district judge confirmed. That is a total of 34 judges this year versus
28 in the last Presidential election year. Yet even as we make
consistent progress in filling judicial vacancies, there are still
voices out there claiming otherwise.
For example, early last month the Des Moines Register of my State ran
an editorial titled ``Judges Remain Hostages in the Senate.'' They
stated in that editorial, in reference to the nomination of Ms. Rose,
``She will be lucky to come up for confirmation when the Senate
reconvenes.'' Of course the vote had already been scheduled at that
point, but they overlooked that fact.
The Register and other critics who erroneously blame vacancy rates in
the Federal judiciary on Republican obstructionism overlook other facts
as well. You have heard me say on the Senate floor that the Senate can
only confirm judges who have been sent here from the White House. So if
the White House has not sent judges here, we cannot, obviously, confirm
judges who have not been submitted to the Senate.
In that regard, I would like to point out something from the New York
Times--because a lot of times I think the New York Times would not do
much to give us a basis for our position that we have done a pretty
good job of confirming judges, and why aren't judges up here. An
article dated August 17, 2012, sheds some light on this very subject.
In that article, ``Obama Lags on Judicial Picks, Limiting His Mark on
Courts,'' this newspaper, the Times, points out how President Obama
made judicial nominations a lower political priority. The article
discusses how two Supreme Court nominations, personnel upheavals, and
the President's emphasis upon diversity also slowed the nominations
process for lower court judges. In fact, even as we continue to confirm
judges, the President continues to lag in nominations, including
nominations to so-called judicial emergencies.
Today only 32 of the 78 current vacancies have a nominee here from
the White House. Stated differently, nearly 60 percent of the current
vacancies are without nominees. That has been the pattern for most of
this administration.
Once again, I wanted to set the record straight, and I hope I have
set it straight. Republicans have been more than fair to this President
and his judicial nominees, considering the fact that we have so many
vacancies that have not had a nominee submitted to the Senate for our
consideration.
Again, I congratulate Ms. Rose.
I yield the floor.
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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier in greater detail about
the nomination of Stephanie Rose to serve as a district court judge in
Iowa's Southern District. That is the vote that is coming up at 5:30.
As the Senate begins to vote, I want to reiterate what an outstanding
nominee she is. It is no surprise the American Bar Association rated
her ``unanimously well qualified,'' which is their highest rating.
After graduating from law school in just 2 years in the top 5 percent
of her class, she served for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in
the Northern District of Iowa under attorneys who were appointed by
both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. She was lead
counsel in 260 felony cases and made 34 oral arguments before the
Eighth Circuit. Most notably, she received a national award from the
Department of Justice for prosecuting the largest unlawful Internet
pharmacy case in the United States. Her work was so impressive that in
2009 I recommended her to the President to serve as U.S. attorney. In
2009 the Senate unanimously confirmed her, and she has been outstanding
in her work as U.S. attorney since then.
Throughout her career of public service Ms. Rose has worked to uphold
the rule of law, made our neighborhoods safer, promoted civil rights,
and advanced the cause of justice. She possesses all the qualifications
necessary to be a remarkably good Federal judge. She is a superb
attorney and among jurists, prosecutors, and the defense bar she has a
reputation of someone who is unfailingly fair and ethical and one who
possesses exceptional legal ability, intellect, and judgment.
Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the
chairman, but also, again, to Senator Grassley, my senior Senator from
the State of Iowa, and to their staffs, especially Jeremy Paris and Ted
Lehman, and Senator Grassley's chief of staff, David Young, for their
support and all their assistance in getting this nomination through.
I also thank my chief of staff Brian Albert, and Dan Goldberg, Derek
Miller, and Pam Smith on my staff and my committee staff.
In essence, Ms. Rose is a person of truly outstanding intellect and
character. She is exceptionally qualified to serve as U.S. district
judge for the Southern District of Iowa. I urge my colleagues to
support her confirmation when the vote occurs in just a few minutes.
I yield the floor. 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. HARKIN. Mr. 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. 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 question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Stephanie Marie Rose, of Iowa, to be United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Iowa?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Ex.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
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
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--1
DeMint
NOT VOTING--10
Coburn
Kirk
Lautenberg
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Rubio
Shaheen
Vitter
Whitehouse
The nomination was confirmed.
[[Page S6038]]
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.
____________________