[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8011-S8016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ON THE CONFIRMATIONS OF LORNA SCHOFIELD TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND JUDGE FRANK GERACI TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate will finally be allowed
to vote on the nominations of Judge Frank Geraci to fill a judicial
emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York and Lorna Schofield to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Both of these nominees
were voted out of the Judiciary Committee virtually unanimously before
the August recess and should have been confirmed months ago.
By now, no one should be surprised that it has taken so long to have
a simple up-or-down vote on two consensus nominees, even though one
would fill a judicial emergency vacancy and the other would fill a
vacancy on one of our Nation's busiest courts.
There is an editorial in today's New York Times that explains the
slow pace of confirmations, and I ask unanimous consent to have the
editorial printed in the Record after my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The editorial notes:
A significant reason for the slowdown has been the partisan
opposition of Republicans to appeals court and even to trial
court nominations, even though almost none of the nominees
have backgrounds that raise ideological issues. The
Republicans have time and again used the filibuster, the
threat of filibuster, holds on nominations and other tactics
to confirmations.
This is the new practice that Senate Republicans adopted when
President
[[Page S8012]]
Obama was elected. They delay and obstruct judicial nominations for no
good reason. There are currently 13 circuit and district court nominees
still pending on the Senate Executive Calendar who were reported before
the August recess and should all have been confirmed before the recess.
Most are consensus nominees. All have the support of their home State
Senators, including their home State Republican Senators.
The Federal Bar Association wrote a letter earlier this week to
Senate leaders that said:
[W]e write to urge you to promptly schedule floor votes on
pending, noncontroversial United States circuit court
nominees and district court nominees who have cleared the
Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support and who
await a final up-or-down vote. The high number of existing
judicial vacancies--81, of which 35 constitute judicial
emergencies--underscores the need for prompt attention by the
Senate in fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities.
They are absolutely right. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. LEAHY. We have a constitutional responsibility to advise and
consent, and we must also help our courts uphold their constitutional
responsibility to provide speedy justice.
The judges whose confirmations Senate Republicans are delaying are
not nominees they will oppose on the merits. They are by and large
consensus nominees.
Senate Republicans' obstruction on these important nominations is
especially damaging at the end of the year. Starting in 2009, Senate
Republicans broke from longstanding tradition and prevented votes on
eight judicial nominees as the Senate adjourned at the end of the year.
It took until September 2010 for the last of those nominees to have an
up-or-down vote. Senate Republicans did the same thing--their new
version of a pocket filibuster--to 19 nominees in both 2010 and 2011.
This forces the Senate to waste time in the new year working on
nominations that should have been confirmed the year before. This year
it took until May to confirm the 19 left from last year. That is why we
have confirmed only 23 nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee
this year, and that is why we face this current backlog of 18 nominees
and an additional 4 who had a hearing earlier this week and could also
be considered and confirmed before adjournment.
One of the nominations Senate Republicans are holding up is that of
Judge Robert Bacharach to the Tenth Circuit, whom they filibustered
earlier this year. Senator Coburn, one of his home State Senators,
said: ``He has no opposition in the Senate . . .. There's no reason why
he shouldn't be confirmed.'' His words apply to almost all the judicial
nominees being delayed.
When George W. Bush was President, Democrats cooperated in moving
judicial nominees quickly through the committee and to a confirmation
vote at the end of the year. I did so whether I was chairman or the
ranking member. I have said that I am willing to do the same for the
nominees who had their hearing yesterday and expedite committee
consideration of their nominations so that they can be voted on this
year. By way of example, in 2008 we confirmed five of President Bush's
nominees just 3 days after their hearing. We have often been able to do
this at the end of a Congress, and this year should be no exception--
especially given the high level of judicial vacancies plaguing our
Federal courts.
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing for four more of
President Obama's outstanding, consensus judicial nominees. Senators
from both sides of the aisle appeared to endorse nominees to vacancies
in their home States. Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican
candidate for Vice President, appeared to testify in favor of a nominee
to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the District of Columbia.
So did Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. After Congressman Ryan's
endorsement, the committee's ranking Republican member quipped that
after hearing Congressman Ryan ``we could just vote you out right
away.'' He is right. The Senate should confirm her and the others
without delay. That is how we used to proceed as we approached the end
of a Congress. We used to expedite confirmations of consensus nominees.
Now Senate Republicans insist on stalling proceedings and slowing
things down and carrying large numbers of them over into the next year
and needlessly delaying them for months and months.
I remind Senate Republicans that the Senate confirmed an Alabama
nominee to the district court within 2 days of his vote by the
Judiciary Committee just a couple of years ago. There have literally
been hundreds of judicial confirmations within 14 days of our Judiciary
Committee hearing, including more than 600 confirmed since World War II
within just 1 week of their hearings. In contrast, obstruction by
Senate Republicans has caused President Obama's district court nominees
to wait an average of 102 days for a Senate vote after being reported
by the Judiciary Committee. This destructive practice of delaying for
no good reason must end.
From 1980 until this year, when a lameduck session followed a
Presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with
bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee
reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before
now. That is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lameduck
session, whether after a Presidential or midterm election.
Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's
judicial nominees, inc1uding 3 circuit court nominees, in the lameduck
session after the elections in 2002. I remember, I was the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee who moved forward with those votes, including
of a very controversial circuit court nominee. The Senate proceeded to
confirm judicial nominees in lameduck sessions after the elections in
2004 and 2006. In 2006 that included confirming another circuit court
nominee. We proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lameduck
session after the elections in 2010, including 5 circuit court
nominees. The reason that I am not listing confirmations for the
lameduck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had
proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the
Judiciary Committee in September and long before the lameduck session.
That is our history and recent precedent. Those across the aisle who
contend that judicial confirmations votes during lameduck sessions do
not take place are wrong. It is past time for votes on the 4 circuit
nominees and the other 13 district court nominees still pending on the
Executive Calendar. We should expedite confirmations for the four
consensus nominees who had their hearing yesterday. Let's do our jobs
so that all Americans can have access to justice.
Lorna Schofield is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. She has served as a Federal
prosecutor and since 1988 has worked at the law firm Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, where she was a partner for two decades and where she
currently serves as of counsel. She serves as chair of the litigation
section of the ABA, where she has actively promoted pro bono
activities, including programs for children's rights and litigation
assistance for military personnel. The ABA Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary unanimously gave her its highest possible rating of
``well qualified.''
Judge Frank Geraci is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy
on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Since
1999 Judge Geraci has served as a Monroe County Court judge, and since
2005 he has also served as an acting supreme court justice on the New
York State trial court. Judge Geraci has presided over 555 civil
proceedings that have gone to judgment. He has also served as both a
State and Federal prosecutor.
Both of these nominations have the support of both their home State
Senators. They were voted on by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago
and stalled unnecessarily since then for no good reason.
If we are willing to follow Senate precedent and to protect
Americans' access to justice, we should vote on the nominees being
delayed. Many are nominees whose nominations have been pending for many
months, and many of
[[Page S8013]]
them would fill judicial emergency vacancies. I see no reason why the
Senate should not confirm them before the end of the year. We should
allow these nominees to get to work on behalf of the American people.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times]
Judges Needed for Federal Courts
There has been a severe breakdown in the process for
appointing federal judges. At the start of the Reagan years,
it took, on average, a month for candidates for appellate and
trial courts to go from nomination to confirmation. In the
first Obama term, it has taken, on average, more than seven
months.
Seventy-seven judgeships, 9 percent of the federal bench
(not counting the Supreme Court), are vacant; 19 more seats
are expected to open up soon. The lack of judges is more
acute if one considers the growing caseload. The Judicial
Conference, the courts' policy-making body, has recommended
expanding the bench by 88 additional judgeships.
President Obama must make fully staffing the federal courts
an important part of his second-term agenda--starting with
the immediate Senate confirmation of the 18 nominees approved
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A significant reason for the slowdown has been the partisan
opposition of Republicans to appeals court and even to trial
court nominations, even though almost none of the nominees
have backgrounds that raise ideological issues. The
Republicans have time and again used the filibuster, the
threat of filibuster, holds on nominations and other tactics
to block confirmations.
The Democratic majority, led by Senator Harry Reid, can
speed up the process by limiting use of the filibuster. He
can do so by pushing for a simple majority vote at the start
of the January session to alter Senate rules so that every
judicial and executive-branch nominee is assured an up-or-
down vote within 90 days. Without that change, many judicial
nominations will founder.
Even if that rule change is made, the process of
identifying, vetting and approving judicial candidates will
need greater attention. Senators, who by custom recommend to
the president candidates for federal trial judgeships in
their states, should put in place more effective steps for
making timely recommendations (like setting up merit
selection committees) and making a choice within a reasonable
period, like within 60 days of an opening.
The White House and the Justice Department, meanwhile, need
to commit more resources to keeping up with those
recommendations, to verify and nominate candidates for
confirmation within, say, 60 days of receiving names. And the
administration must be similarly prompt in identifying and
nominating appeals-court candidates.
In a critically important court like the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, three
unfilled vacancies and a fourth expected this winter, out of
11 judgeships, hobble the court's ability to make expeditious
rulings in significant cases about regulation of the
environment, financial markets and other social and economic
matters. Many statutes channel review of such cases to the
federal courts in the District of Columbia for their
expertise about administrative law and for geographic
convenience.
The circuit court is a stark example of the broken
appointment process and the harm caused by the Senate's
inability to do its job.
Mr. Obama and the Senate should also look to broaden the
diversity of the judges they appoint. In his first term, Mr.
Obama commendably named a higher share of women (44 percent)
and a higher share of minorities (37 percent) than any
president before him.
Most of the appointees were already judges, prosecutors or
private lawyers, with few public defenders or public-interest
lawyers from outside government. Expanding the breadth of
experience would help ensure that federal courts have jurists
who have some real-life understanding of the myriad issues
that come before them.
The Constitution requires the president, with the Senate's
advice and consent, to fill federal judgeships. That duty has
been terribly neglected and needs to be an absolute priority
in the coming year.
____
Exhibit 2
Federal Bar Association
Arlington, VA, December 11, 2012.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: As
the lame duck session continues, we write to urge you to
promptly schedule floor votes on pending, noncontroversial
United States circuit court nominees and district court
nominees who have cleared the Judiciary Committee with strong
bipartisan support and who await a final up-or-down vote. The
high number of existing judicial vacancies--81, of which 35
constitute judicial emergencies--underscores the need for
prompt attention by the Senate in fulfilling its
Constitutional responsibilities.
We also strongly encourage cooperation among Senators to
avoid undue procedural delays that slow the judicial
confirmation process and compound the vacancy crisis.
Thank you for your past efforts and for your consideration
of our views on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Karen Silberman,
Executive Director.
West Allen,
Chair, Government Relations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in support of each of these
judges, both fine citizens of New York. First, I will speak about Judge
Geraci.
I rise in strong support of an outstanding nominee for the Federal
bench in the Western District of New York, Judge Frank Paul Geraci,
Jr., to the Federal district court in the Western District of our
State, which serves two large metropolitan areas, Rochester and
Buffalo. These cities are large, vibrant centers of the commercial and
legal communities of our State. In fact, each metropolitan area has a
population of over 1 million residents.
Judge Geraci has been an important and respected part of this
community for his entire life. Born in Rochester, he graduated from
McQuaid Jesuit High School. He left New York long enough to earn both
his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Dayton in
Ohio, staying within the Jesuit fold, I might add, by attending that
institution. He returned to Rochester and immediately leapt into public
service, working for 5 years in the Monroe County District Attorney's
Office and rising to become chief of the Special Investigations Bureau.
Judge Geraci then contributed another 4 years of distinguished service
to Rochester as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District. In
1988, he left and founded his own law firm.
I was particularly impressed, as I got to know Judge Geraci, by the
fact that while he was in private practice, he also served as a
mediator and expert in alternative dispute resolution. I have come to
believe, as a Senator from a State with among the heaviest caseloads in
the country, that an important part of managing a docket is getting
parties to talk to each other before they are staring at an imminent
trial date.
It is likely that few nominees know this truth better than Judge
Geraci. Over and above his dispute resolution experience, he has been a
judge in the city of Rochester, in Monroe County, and on the bench of
the New York State Supreme Court for 20 years.
I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for my entire time in
the Senate--since 1998--and I served on the House Judiciary Committee
for 18 years before that.
Rarely, if ever, have I encountered a candidate who so perfectly
combines judicial experience, judicious temperament, and complete
dedication to his community as Judge Geraci.
Taken together, the breadth and depth of his professional experience
in both the State and Federal system, civil and criminal, make him a
perfect fit for the Federal bench in Rochester. But Judge Geraci's
sterling qualifications do not stop there. His dedication to his
community, it is no exaggeration to say, is legendary. When you mention
his name, people say: Of course, what a great and obvious choice.
Monroe County is small enough that members of the bar all know him
but large enough that many lawyers, like Judge Geraci, do have the
opportunity to have varied and deep experience. Judge Geraci has worked
for the bar and bench on issues such as criminal case management and
jury diversification. He has served on boards and governing bodies of
diocese Catholic schools. He even has conducted court tours, coached
girls' basketball, and served as the president of the local Little
League.
Judge Geraci has earned the admiration of the people of western New
York and, in turn, they deserve no less than an accomplished lawyer of
his intelligence and magnanimity to serve on the Federal bench. I thank
the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to discuss such a fine man.
I will conclude with one final observation. The seat for which Judge
Geraci is about to be confirmed has been vacant since March of 2009,
making it a judicial emergency vacancy. His is one of 13 remaining
judicial
[[Page S8014]]
nominations on the calendars, 11 of whom have received bipartisan
support in the Judiciary Committee. I hope we can continue to move
these other nominees.
I thank the Chair.
(Mr. Franken assumed the chair.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, I have a second nominee to speak
about. We are voting at 2:15, as I understand it, so there is plenty of
time to wax on the fine qualifications of both of these new additions
to the bench.
I am extremely pleased to rise today in enthusiastic support of the
nomination of Lorna Schofield to the Federal bench in the Southern
District of New York at the other end of our State.
I have had the privilege to recommend a number of truly outstanding
nominees to become judges in New York--in fact, 15 nominees--and Ms.
Schofield is among the best. She is the embodiment of three qualities I
search for in judicial nominee candidates: excellence--they should be
legally excellent, no hacks; moderation--they should not be too far
right or too far left because then they want to turn the law to their
own purpose rather than interpret it; and diversity--I try to bring
diversity in every way to the bench in terms of race, gender, sexual
orientation, and religion because that is for the good of America.
First, her excellence. Her professional resume puts her right at top
of her field. She went to Indiana University for her undergraduate
studies and then came to New York to study law at one of the Nation's
best law schools, NYU Law School, where she graduated as one of the top
15 students in her class. She went on to serve the public as an
assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and then
to join a top law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton. She has been there for 25
years.
Ms. Schofield has a wealth of practical experience, having
represented and advised all manner of clients in the ``real world'' of
New York City--businesses large and small and individuals. As a true
generalist, she has tried a wide variety of cases, and her professional
accomplishments and accolades are numerous, including serving as the
head of the litigation section--the largest section--of the American
Bar Association. She was, in fact, a pioneer in this position as the
first Asian American to hold this prestigious post.
Second, on the point of moderation, when I met Ms. Schofield, I was
struck by the fact that she has one singular agenda: preservation of
the rule of law. Indeed, her professional work has been devoted to the
general improvement of the practice of law and to zealously
representing her clients in the best and most ethical traditions of the
profession. Evidence of her moderation can be found in the support she
has across the political spectrum. Both Democrats and Republicans have
called me to tell me what a great judge she would make. She has done
everything from teaching trial advocacy to performing pro bono work for
the Women's Prison Association.
Finally, diversity. I like to have diversity on the bench. Ms.
Schofield's personal background and life experience will help broaden
the perspective of the Federal bench. Most notably, if confirmed, she
will become the first Filipino judge, man or woman, to sit on the
Federal bench. So the great nation of the Philippines, which
contributes so many immigrants and then citizens to our country, can be
very proud that Ms. Schofield has risen to this high post once she is
confirmed.
In conclusion, I believe she will make a terrific judge, and I look
forward to her confirmation today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time is remaining
on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
THE FISCAL CLIFF
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has become disturbingly clear that
President Obama does not mind whether or not we drive off the fiscal
cliff. Just last week his own Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner,
said the White House was ``absolutely'' prepared to go off the cliff
unless Republicans agree to raise marginal tax rates. In other words,
during a period of high unemployment--the highest since the Great
Depression--the President is willing to risk another recession in order
to increase taxes on small businesses and the people we depend upon to
create jobs.
How much revenue will the President's tax hike generate? Well, by
raising the top two rates, it would produce only about $68 billion in
2013. I say ``only'' because in relationship to the gap between how
much money the Federal Government is spending and how much money this
would generate, it is relatively small. If we factor in the various
stimulus tax expenditures the President wants to extend, the net
revenue falls below $55 billion.
Again, President Obama is so desperate to secure this revenue that he
is willing to risk another recession. Meanwhile, he is asking for more
stimulus spending, along with the authority to raise the debt ceiling
whenever he chooses. His idea of compromise appears to me to be pretty
simple: Republicans should give him everything he wants in return for a
meaningless promise that the White House will somehow, someday get
around to reforming and preserving Social Security and Medicare. I ask,
is that really a balanced approach? Well, I think the answer is self-
evident. Of course it is not.
Until the President supports real reforms to preserve and protect
Medicare and Social Security--something he himself has acknowledged is
on an unsustainable fiscal path--until he is willing to come up with
real ways to rein in Federal spending, where right now we are spending
46 cents out of every $1 in borrowed money, the Federal Government is,
until he comes up with a plan on both of those issues--reining in
spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security to preserve them
for future generations--he is not offering a serious plan for long-term
deficit reduction.
After all, we have a $1.1 trillion annual deficit. I know we have
become a little bit numb to the numbers we have been using. We used to
talk about $1 million being a lot of money. Then there was $1 billion.
Now there is $1 trillion. Someone said, tongue in cheek: Don't tell the
Federal Government what comes after a trillion because we will end up
spending it.
If you have a deficit of $1.1 trillion a year, as we did in 2012,
then raising taxes by $68 billion or $55 billion does not get you very
far. In fact, it would fund the Federal Government for about a week--1
week. That tax increase would also damage economic growth, upon which
we depend in order to create jobs, to bring down the unemployment rate,
and to put the 20 million-plus people who are either unemployed or
underemployed back to work.
Here are some numbers the President does not talk about:
On top of our $16 trillion national debt, we have more than $100
trillion in unfunded liabilities. Those are promises we have made to
future generations that Medicare and Social Security will be there for
them, even though there is not money to pay for those liabilities.
The Federal Government is already spending about $220 billion a year
on interest payments alone. Under President Obama's latest budget
proposal, the annual cost of servicing our debt would reach $804
billion in 2022--an amount greater than total U.S. defense spending in
2012. We all know that interest rates are also at historic lows because
of the action of the Federal Reserve. If they were to return to their
historic norms--the 4- and 5-percent range--you can easily see how our
debt would spin out of control and there would be very little room to
spend money either on safety-net programs or on national security.
One more point. The President often says his tax increases would
merely restore the top tax rates that prevailed when Bill Clinton was
in the White House. But that is demonstrably false. Thanks to new taxes
under ObamaCare, including the new 3.8-percent surtax on investment
income, the top rates would be significantly higher than they were
under the Clinton administration. And, of course, you are not just
talking about Federal taxes. People all around the country have to pay
State, local, and Federal taxes, many of whom would end up paying the
majority of their paycheck in taxes.
[[Page S8015]]
Here is the reality: Tax cuts did not create our fiscal problems, so
it is axiomatic that tax increases will not solve our fiscal problems
alone. We can and we should reform our Tax Code so that it helps
promote stronger growth and higher revenues. The President's own
bipartisan fiscal commission, Simpson-Bowles, made a proposal to do
just that when it comes to corporate taxes. But ultimately the only way
to prevent fiscal Armageddon is through major reforms of Medicare and
Social Security and reining in Federal spending.
As we debate various strategies for avoiding the fiscal cliff, it is
important for us to remember that our actions--or inactions--will have
real-world consequences for millions of Americans. Many folks here in
Washington seem too casual about the possibility of a massive tax hike
and what that would do to our economy. Indeed, some of my Democratic
colleagues apparently think they could quickly undo all of the tax
increases that would fall on middle-class workers. In reality, it would
not be that simple. Just ask any small business owner trying to meet
payroll and plan for the future.
Everyone knows, as I said to start with, we are experiencing the
weakest economic recovery since World War II and the longest period of
high unemployment since the Great Depression. If you ask me, this is
the worst possible moment for a huge tax hike--something the President
himself acknowledged when he agreed to extend the so-called Bush tax
cuts in 2010 when the economy was growing slower than it is today.
Too many of my colleagues across the aisle seem to be comfortable
with threatening the possibility of a recession by driving off the
fiscal cliff only to extract more revenue for the Federal Government--
by the way, not revenue necessarily used to pay down the debt or to
sustain and preserve our programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but to
expand spending even further. I hope cooler heads will prevail.
One final thought. When I talk to people all across the country, who
tell me they are watching us here in Washington to see what we are
going to do, it is the uncertainty that is freezing them into place and
preventing them from starting new businesses, growing existing
businesses, or making investments that will help grow the economy.
The saddest part about this is how manufactured this crisis really
is. All of these decisions were kicked off until after the election
into this so-called lameduck session, and this crisis, this fiscal
cliff crisis, was manufactured, as I say. We should have tackled these
challenges a long time ago to give American families and American
businesses the certainty they need in order to plan for the future.
Instead, we have created a highly volatile situation in which everyone
is preparing for the worst. It is hurting investment. It is hurting job
creation. Above all, it is hurting millions of Americans who are still
unemployed or working part time. And it is completely and totally
unnecessary.
Whatever the outcome of these negotiations, I hope we will all
resolve to never let this happen again.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes, 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond very briefly to my
colleagues from Texas. The fiscal crisis was not manufactured, it was
enacted--enacted into law, a law passed with the support of both
political parties in the hopes that we would never, ever reach this
day. We can still avoid it, and we should. I hope cooler heads will
prevail and we will reach some bipartisan agreement because I think all
of us agree it would be a negative impact on our economy if we, in
fact, go over the cliff. I sincerely hope there will be a good-faith
effort on both sides. But this fiscal cliff was created by law passed
by Democratic and Republican leaders and sent to the President.
So this is clearly something we envisioned as the last straw. Let's
hope it is one that we will avoid.
Mr. CORNYN. I am a little confused. I do not know whether the
distinguished majority whip is talking about the expiring tax
provisions on December 31 as being manufactured or a bipartisan
agreement or--what part of this did we have a chance to vote on and
create in a bipartisan fashion?
Mr. DURBIN. It was a bipartisan vote on the Budget Control Act, which
spelled out how we would reach this terrible moment if the
supercommittee failed. I sincerely hope we never reach this moment,
that there is a good-faith effort by both parties to avoid it.
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator would yield for one last question, my
understanding is that the fiscal cliff is going to be caused by the
expiring provisions of various tax provisions that have been in place
for 12 years, the so-called Bush tax cuts that expired 2 years ago that
were extended on a bipartisan basis in a negotiation with our friends
across the aisle. That is what I am referring to as the fiscal cliff.
I do understand, and the Senator is correct, we also have the second
body blow to the economy that is going to be in combination with these
tax increases, $1.2 trillion in cuts that, as I understand it, is the
sequester, which is what the Senator is referring to.
Mr. DURBIN. I would call the Senator's attention to our vote on
August 2 when he and I both voted for the Budget Control Act. The vote
was 74 to 26, with a substantial number of Senators from both sides of
the aisle, that brought us to this moment in the negotiations. We all
hoped we would never reach this moment. We can still avoid it.
I yield the floor and yield back all remaining time.
Mr. CORNYN. We yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Lorna G. Schofield, of New York, to be
U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 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 91, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Ex.]
YEAS--91
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--9
Boxer
Hoeven
Inhofe
Inouye
Kirk
Lautenberg
McCain
Moran
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
Vote on Nomination of Frank Paul Geraci, Jr.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Frank Paul Geraci, Jr., of New York, to be
United States District Judge for the Western District of New York?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will
[[Page S8016]]
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________