[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2478-S2482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF PATTY SHWARTZ TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                             THIRD CIRCUIT

  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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Patty Shwartz, 
of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month Senate Republicans filibustered 
the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on the D.C. 
Circuit that arose when Chief Justice Roberts left the D.C. Circuit to 
join the Supreme Court 8 years ago. Caitlin Halligan is a woman who is 
extraordinarily well-qualified and amongst the most qualified judicial 
nominees I have seen from any administration. It is a shame that narrow 
special interests hold such influence that Senate Republicans blocked 
an up-or-down vote on her confirmation with multiple filibusters of her 
nomination and procedural objections that required her to be nominated 
five times over the last 3 years.
  Had she received an up-or-down vote, I am certain she would have been 
confirmed and been an outstanding judge on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Instead, all Senate Republicans 
but one supported the filibuster and refused to vote up or down on this 
highly-qualified woman to fill a needed judgeship on the D.C. Circuit. 
Senate Republicans attacked her for legal advocacy on behalf of her 
client, the State of New York. It is wrong to attribute the legal 
positions a lawyer takes when advocating for a client with what that 
person would do as an impartial judge. That is not the American 
tradition. That is not what Republicans insisted was the standard for 
nominees of Republican Presidents but that is what they did to derail 
the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.
  Also disconcerting were the comments by Republicans after their 
filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is wrong. It 
does our Nation and our Federal judiciary no good when they place their 
desire to engage in partisan tit-for-tat over the needs of the American 
people. I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 of 
President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.
  The filibuster of the nomination of Miguel Estrada was different. It 
was to obtain access to information about his work and whether he acted 
ideologically as his supervisor at the Office of Solicitor General had 
alleged. Had we gotten access to those materials, there would have been 
a vote on the Estrada nomination. Republican Senators now demand access 
to all sorts of materials while filibustering for the first time in our 
history the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Attorney General of the 
United States, as well as the nominee to head the CIA and judicial 
nominees. They cannot do that and still complain about the Estrada 
nomination.
  Now that Senate Republicans have during the last 4 years filibustered 
more of President Obama's moderate judicial nominees than were 
filibustered during President Bush's entire 8 years--67 percent more, 
in fact--I urge them to abandon their misjudged efforts that sacrifice 
outstanding judges for purposes of partisan payback.
  Today the Senate will finally consider another circuit court 
nomination that has been delayed for no good reason. The nomination of 
Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit has been 
needlessly stalled for 13 months since being favorably reported by the 
Judiciary Committee. This is another of the many judicial nominees who 
could have been confirmed last year. She is another qualified nominee 
who is supported by her home state Senators and by the Republican 
Governor of New Jersey. After this prolonged and unnecessary delay, I 
am pleased that she will finally be allowed to join the Third Circuit 
to serve the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the 
Virgin Islands.
  In 10 years as a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of 
New Jersey, Judge Shwartz has handled more than 4,000 civil and 
criminal cases and presided over 14 cases that have gone to verdict or 
final judgment, including 11 jury trials. Before becoming a judge, 
Judge Shwartz spent 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 
District of New Jersey, where she ultimately rose to become chief of 
the Criminal Division. During her time as an assistant U.S. attorney, 
Judge Shwartz tried more than 15 jury cases to verdict, all as sole or 
chief counsel. It was while serving in the U.S. attorneys Office that 
Chris Cristie, then U.S. attorney and current Governor of New Jersey, 
became acquainted with her and her work.
  Governor Christie has written to the committee in support of Judge 
Shwartz's nomination. He said that she ``was an impressive Criminal 
Chief; hard working, bright, articulate, great with people and 
conversant with the law.'' He added: ``As a Magistrate Judge, she also 
performed admirably and garnered the respect of the entire legal 
community. Again, her hard work, amiable personality, patience, 
intelligence, and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared 
before her.'' I ask unanimous consent that his full letter be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Judge Shwartz unanimously well qualified, the 
highest possible rating from its nonpartisan peer review. She has the 
support of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.
  By any objective measure, Judge Shwartz is a nominee with solid legal 
credentials and qualifications. Rather than evaluating her on her 
record, some have tried to claim there is an issue because Senator 
Menendez met with her before supporting her. They infer, despite 
denials by the nominee and Senator Menendez, that she must have made 
him some untoward commitment on how she would rule on some matter. 
There is no basis for that claim.
  It is past time for the Senate to consider her nomination on the 
merits of her record and to confirm her. Her nomination has been 
stalled on the Senate floor for 13 months. This is just one example of 
the unnecessary delays that prompted a New York Times editorial about 
the delays in filling judicial vacancies. I ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my statement.
  Judged on her qualifications and her record, Judge Patty Shwartz 
should be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. She should not 
have been delayed for more than a year. Sadly, this is not an isolated 
case but one in a steady pattern of obstruction. This is especially 
harmful at a time when judicial vacancies remain above 80. Filibusters 
and delays based on fictions do not help Americans seeking justice in 
our

[[Page S2479]]

Federal courts. Instead, they cause delays, overcrowded dockets, 
overburdened courts and have gone on too long.
  When confirmed, Judge Shwartz will be one of just three women serving 
as active judges on the Third Circuit. It is time to move forward in a 
bipartisan fashion to vote to confirm this qualified nominee so that 
she may better serve the American people as a member of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              State of New Jersey,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Trenton, NJ, February 11, 2013.
     Senator Chuck Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators:  I write in support of Magistrate Judge 
     Patty Shwartz' nomination to be a Judge on the Third Circuit 
     Court of Appeals. When I became the United States Attorney in 
     the District of New Jersey in 2001, Judge Shwartz was the 
     Chief of the Criminal Division, a very important and taxing 
     job in a large prosecuting office. Judge Shwartz was an 
     impressive Criminal Chief; hard working, bright, articulate, 
     great with people and conversant with the law. She remained 
     my Criminal Chief until she became a Magistrate Judge.
       As a Magistrate Judge, she also performed admirably and 
     garnered the respect of the entire legal community. Again, 
     her hard work, amiable personality, patience, intelligence 
     and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared 
     before her. I am sure that if she were elevated to sit on the 
     Third Circuit Court of Appeals she would prove an excellent 
     judge for all of the same reasons she was an excellent 
     prosecutor and Magistrate Judge. She has my full support for 
     the position for which I believe she is well suited.
       If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Chris Christie,
     Governor.
                                  ____


                       [From the New York Times]

                         Courts Without Judges

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       The number of vacancies on the nation's federal courts has 
     reached an astonishingly high level, creating a serious 
     shortage of judges and undermining the ability of the 
     nation's court system to bestow justice.
       Of 856 federal district and circuit court seats, 85 are 
     unfilled--a 10 percent vacancy rate and nearly double the 
     rate at this point in the presidency of George W. Bush. More 
     than a third of the vacancies have been declared ``judicial 
     emergencies'' based on court workloads and the length of time 
     the seats have been empty. By far the most important cause of 
     this unfortunate state of affairs is the determination of 
     Senate Republicans, for reasons of politics, ideology and 
     spite, to confirm as few of President Obama's judicial 
     choices as possible.
       Numbers compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee tell the 
     story. Mr. Obama's nominees for seats on federal courts of 
     appeal, the system's top tier below the Supreme Court, have 
     waited an average of 148 days for their confirmation vote 
     following the committee's approval, more than four times 
     longer than Mr. Bush's nominees. For Mr. Obama's nominees to 
     federal district courts, the average wait time has been 102 
     days, compared with 35 days for Mr. Bush's district court 
     choices.
       The prestigious and important United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a 
     particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism. 
     The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal 
     regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over 
     national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last 
     time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.
       Mr. Bush appointed four judges to the court, a feeder to 
     the Supreme Court, but whether the Senate will allow Mr. 
     Obama to appoint any remains to be seen. Mr. Obama's first 
     nominee for the court, Caitlin Halligan, withdrew from 
     consideration last month after Senate Republicans 
     filibustered for a second time. Those critics echoed the 
     National Rifle Association's ridiculous portrayal of her as a 
     legal activist outside the mainstream because she had filed a 
     brief in opposition to the gun industry when she was New York 
     State's solicitor general.
       The real reason, as everyone knows, was to prevent Mr. 
     Obama from adding balance to a generally conservative court. 
     He may fare better with his latest nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a 
     lawyer whose background working in the United States 
     solicitor general's office under both President Bush and 
     President Obama should help his chances.
       Nominees for other important government posts have also 
     been held up for partisan reasons. Some Republicans say this 
     is simply payback for the Democrats' filibustering of Bush 
     nominees. But while neither party should be in the business 
     of obstructing judicial nominees, unless they are unqualified 
     or unacceptably extreme, a retaliatory response based on 
     politics hurts all who rely on courts to protect their rights 
     and uphold the law.
       It is also worth noting that Mr. Obama has not been putting 
     forth candidates with strong ideological profiles. His 
     nominees are decidedly moderate, which was not always true of 
     the Bush judicial choices that the Democrats felt compelled 
     to filibuster.
       Mr. Obama could help reduce the problem by speeding up his 
     nominations. The White House appears to have sharpened its 
     focus since the election, but currently, 62 district and 
     circuit court vacancies have no nominees.
       The Halligan filibuster got some Democratic senators 
     talking about a bolder strategy, including revisiting 
     filibuster reform and making it harder for senators to 
     torpedo or delay nominations to judicial vacancies in their 
     home states. Another proposal is to have Mr. Obama make 
     simultaneous nominations to fill the four vacancies on the 
     District of Columbia Circuit, which would force Republicans 
     to come up with plausible reasons to oppose each of them. In 
     the face of political paralysis, these ideas are worth 
     embracing.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 10th 
judicial nomination this year. With today's expected action, we will 
have confirmed four circuit and six district nominees. At this point in 
2005--and that was the beginning of President Bush's second term, 
comparable to what we are talking about for President Obama--the Senate 
had confirmed zero judicial nominees. Let me repeat that. At this point 
in 2005, the Senate had confirmed not 10, not 4, not even 1 judicial 
nominee, so that comes out to be zero.
  The quick pace of this year comes on top of a very productive 112th 
Congress in which 111 judges were confirmed. In the last Congress, we 
confirmed more judges than any other Congress--going back 20 years to 
the 103rd Congress.
  Despite this progress and our continued cooperation with the 
President and Senate Democrats, we continue to hear unfounded 
criticism.
  For example, last week the White House spokesperson criticized the 
Senate for what he characterized as arbitrary and unique delays in 
getting nominees confirmed. In a previous post on its website, the 
White House complained about unprecedented delays in the Senate 
confirmation process.
  While acknowledging the Senate had confirmed nine judicial nominees 
this year, the White House noted that ``these nine judges waited 144 
days for a floor vote, compared to President Bush's nominees who waited 
an average of 34 days for a vote at this point in President Bush's 
presidency.''
  As I stated, at the same point in 2005, none of President Bush's 
nominees had been confirmed--not one.
  The purported statistic of the ``average of 34 days'' is without 
foundation. It took until June for President Bush to reach 10 judicial 
confirmations. President Bush wouldn't have another lower court 
nomination until October of that year.
  But that delay in confirmations wasn't because there weren't 
nominees. By the beginning of April 2005, 21 judicial nominations had 
been submitted to the Senate.
  President Bush's first four confirmations came in April 2005. The 
first two of those nominees were nominated in September 2004 and 
confirmed about 6 months later.
  The other two nominees waited much longer. Robert Conrad was first 
nominated April 28, 2003 to the Western District of North Carolina.
  He was confirmed a full 2 years later on April 28, 2005--not 34 days, 
as the White House implies.
  His colleague, James C. Dever III, nominated for the Eastern District 
of North Carolina, waited even longer. He was first nominated in May 
2002 and waited nearly 3 years before being confirmed on April 28, 
2005.
  So this notion of unprecedented, unique and arbitrary delays simply 
ignores the facts and, in the process, distorts history.
  In addition to the White House, we hear Senate Democrats grumbling 
about nominations and calls for changing the rules of the Senate. Of 
course, the majority would have to break the rules to change the rules.
  Such intemperate comments utterly fail to recognize the work the 
Senate has already accomplished in approving judges.
  The purported justification is the number of judges on the calendar--

[[Page S2480]]

presently at 15. Where was their similar concern in April 2004, when 
the number of nominees on the Executive Calendar was nearly double what 
it is today?
  A second prong of this debate concerns the vacancy rate in the 
Federal judiciary. Blaming judicial vacancies on the Senate 
confirmation process is unfounded and a distortion of the process. The 
vacancy rate is due to the failure in the White House to send 
nominations to the Senate.
  Presently, 62 of the 87 vacancies--71 percent--have no nominee. For 
the 35 vacancies categorized as ``judicial emergencies,'' only 9 have a 
nominee--74 percent have no nominee.
  I would like to say a few words about today's nominee. I do have 
concerns about this nomination which have not been satisfied.
  Unfortunately, I am unable to support the nomination, although I 
expect Judge Shwartz will be approved as a United States Circuit Judge 
for the Third Circuit. I congratulate her on her confirmation and hope 
that she performs her duties in a skilled manner, demonstrating 
judicial temperament, with respect for the law and Constitution.
  This nomination started out troubled. Not because of Republican 
opposition, but because of concerns expressed by her home State 
Democratic Senator.
  Originally, Judge Shwartz's home State Senator questioned her 
intellectual fitness for the court stating she ``did not adequately 
demonstrate the breadth of knowledge of constitutional law and pivotal 
Supreme Court decisions.''
  Concerns were also expressed that she ``misapplied the application of 
strict scrutiny versus rational basis review'' and ``did not express 
substantive knowledge as to the scope of the rights of corporations 
under the Constitution or jurisprudence on the constitutional limits of 
Executive Branch powers.'' According to press reports, she specifically 
misapplied the law after speaking about Citizens United.
  These are pretty serious issues. So, Judge Shwartz was asked about 
them during her hearing, specifically the discussion on Citizens 
United. But she denied it happened, testifying instead that she did not 
discuss any specific cases, only general principles.
  However, in follow-up written questions for the record, Judge Shwartz 
changed her story and said that she and her home State Senator had 
discussed two specific cases: Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.
  I find this after-the-fact disclosure troubling. Not only was it 
inconsistent with her hearing testimony, but it prevented me and other 
Senators from following up regarding what discussions she apparently 
had regarding Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.
  Because of the ambiguity surrounding these interviews and Judge 
Shwartz's inconsistent testimony, questions remain as to what 
understandings were reached or what assurances Judge Shwartz may have 
given to gain support from her home State Senators.
  Unfortunately, her Committee hearing failed to remove the doubts that 
were initially raised. Again, these were raised by her home State 
Senator.
  Furthermore, because of her lack of candor at her hearing, I was 
unable to come to a determination that she is prepared to be a Circuit 
Judge. I share the doubts raised regarding her limited knowledge of 
constitutional law; misapplication of standards of review; and 
inadequate understanding of substantive areas of laws.
  Accordingly, I cannot support this nomination. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record her biographical information.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Patty Shwartz is nominated to be United States Circuit 
     Judge for the Third Circuit. Judge Shwartz received a B.A 
     from Rutgers in 1983 and a J.D. from the University of 
     Pennsylvania Law School in 1986. Upon graduation, Judge 
     Shwartz worked for a year as an associate with the law firm 
     of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz. In 1987, Judge Shwartz began a 
     two-year clerkship with Judge Harold A. Ackerman of the U.S. 
     District Court of the District of New Jersey.
       Immediately after her clerkship, she began a fourteen-year 
     career as a criminal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office for the District of New Jersey. During her time as an 
     Assistant U.S. Attorney, she prosecuted individuals for 
     violent crime, drug trafficking, and white collar cases. 
     After several years, she was assigned to the Special 
     Prosecutions Division, handling public corruption cases. A 
     short time later, Judge Shwartz was promoted to Deputy Chief 
     of the Criminal Division where she supervised dozens of line 
     prosecutors. In February of 1999, she was promoted to Chief 
     of the Criminal Division, which she held until 2001.
       In 2001, she began a brief stint as Executive Assistant 
     U.S. Attorney, supervising the Criminal, Civil, and Fraud 
     Divisions. In 2002, she returned to serve as Chief of the 
     Criminal Division, overseeing the expansion and 
     reorganization of the division. According to her 
     questionnaire, Judge Shwartz has tried more than fifteen 
     criminal cases to verdict.
       In 2003, Judge Shwartz was appointed to be U.S. Magistrate 
     Judge for the District of New Jersey. As Magistrate Judge, 
     she has managed all aspects of the pre-trial process in over 
     4,000 cases. She is responsible for convening scheduling 
     conferences, resolving discovery disputes, ruling on 
     nondispositive motions, holding settlement conferences, and 
     presiding over final pretrial conferences.
       As Magistrate, Judge Shwartz has presided over ``in whole 
     or in part'' more than 70 civil cases by consent of the 
     parties. She has presided over eleven jury trials (ten civil 
     cases and one criminal case) and twenty-two bench trials 
     (three civil cases and nineteen criminal cases) from start to 
     finish.
       The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the 
     Federal Judiciary gave her a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' 
     rating.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. The Senator from New Jersey 
is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
confirmation of Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals, a nomination which has finally come to the floor, and the time 
has come to confirm Judge Shwartz. I express my full support and urge 
my colleagues to do the same. I am happy we were able to work out the 
vote on this nominee without a cloture vote, which is incredibly 
important.
  I want to refer to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, who mentioned a home State Senator--who 
happens to be me--and to clarify some issues.
  I have always taken the role of advice and consent for judicial 
nominations very seriously, as I am sure we all do. Appointments to the 
Federal bench are lifetime appointments, and the circuit court is often 
the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes that 
responsibility even greater. Very few Americans, if they appeal, get 
past the circuit court to Supreme Court consideration.
  We know the process can be long and difficult; sometimes overly 
partisan on both sides based on legitimate concerns and personal 
beliefs. In the end we always look to confirm the best and most 
qualified individuals. We conduct a thorough review of the nominees, 
their understanding of the law, their intellect, their analytical 
thinking and reasoning, and we make our decisions--and I have made 
mine--about the nominee.
  I had the opportunity on more than one occasion to discuss with the 
judge issues that I believe reflect the high standards to which a 
nominee should always be held. There is no understanding between this 
nominee and me as to how she would rule in any given set of 
circumstances. There was a suggestion about what the law is today in 
both those instances. I am sure the judge simply did not recall the 
specifics of that at the time of the hearing but was forthright in 
coming back and saying: Yes, there were two cases. The simple 
discussion of what is a Supreme Court decision is, in my mind, not only 
appropriate, but at a circuit court level is more than desirable.
  In the totality of our discussions Judge Shwartz indicated to me the 
type of intellectual rigor, the knowledge that in fact guarantees to me 
that she deserves the lifetime appointment to which I expect the Senate 
will confirm her. The fact that I come to the floor today in full 
support of her confirmation speaks not only to her qualifications but 
to her character and to her judicial temperament and suitability to 
serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Aristotle said: ``Character may be called the most effective means of 
persuasion.''
  I can say that, having spent time meeting with Judge Shwartz, I am 
absolutely persuaded that she is a person of character and meets the 
highest standards for any nominee.

[[Page S2481]]

  I urge my colleagues to unanimously confirm this highly qualified 
woman who, I know, will serve honorably and serve well.
  Judge Patty Shwartz is a proud New Jerseyan. She has been a 
magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey since 2003.
  Originally from Paterson, she graduated from Rutgers as a Henry 
Rutgers Scholar with the highest honors.
  After college, Judge Shwartz went to the University of Pennsylvania 
Law School, edited the law review, and was named Outstanding Woman Law 
Graduate.
  She has been an associate in Philadelphia at Pepper, Hamilton & 
Scheetz, clerked for the Honorable Harold A. Ackerman of the District 
Court for the District of New Jersey, and, in 1989 joined the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.
  She rose to the position of deputy chief of the criminal division and 
then to chief of the criminal division serving as the Executive 
Assistant United States Attorney.
  She has handled over 4,000 civil and criminal cases, and, since 2009, 
she has been an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law.
  She is on the advisory board for the Association of the Federal Bar 
of the State of New Jersey, the Board of Advisors for the Historical 
Society of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and 
the Board of Directors of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, 
where she represents the Third Circuit.
  She is clearly highly qualified--a woman of distinction who deserves 
confirmation.
  If experience, character, and temperament are the most persuasive 
weapons in a judicial nominee's arsenal, then Judge Shwartz comes 
before this chamber very well-armed.
  Let me say to my colleagues who may not have had the opportunity to 
look as closely at this nominee's record as I have, in making my 
judgment I have had the benefit of invaluable advice and counsel from 
many members of the Federal bar whose opinions I sought. They are both 
Democrats and Republicans, and they affirmed what I subsequently 
discovered for myself in discussions with her; that there is not a 
single reason to vote no on this nomination.

  I urge my colleagues to send a message that although the process can 
be long and fraught with conflicting opinions, in the end it bends 
toward the best and brightest, and Judge Patty Shwartz is proof of it.
  She has strong bipartisan support not only from both the Senators 
from New Jersey but also our Governor Chris Christie. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Judge Patty Shwartz to the 
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my great honor to once again 
express my strong support for the Senate confirmation of Magistrate 
Judge Patty Shwartz to the United States Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  It has been a long road, but it's great to finally reach this day. I 
began the process of recommending Judge Shwartz to President Obama 
almost 2 years ago, and since her first nomination by the President 18 
months ago I have had the privilege of shepherding her candidacy 
through the Senate. During that time, I have worked with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to ensure she has bipartisan support. And 
earlier this year, I personally communicated with a number of my 
Republicans colleagues to assure them of her qualifications for the 
position and sterling reputation in the legal community.
  It hasn't been an easy or quick process by any means, but because her 
candidacy is so strong, and because so many people believe in her, we 
have reached this proud moment where we can confirm her, and without a 
filibuster.
  Her confirmation is well-deserved, because putting Judge Patty 
Shwartz on the Federal bench will be a great service to our nation and 
our justice system. She brings 25 years of public service to the 
bench--years she spent as a teacher, an attorney, and a judge.
  Judge Shwartz graduated from Rutgers University with the highest 
honors and received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania 
Law School, where she was an editor of the Law Review and was named her 
class's Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.
  Since 2003, Judge Shwartz has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in 
the District of New Jersey, where she has handled more than 4,000 civil 
and criminal cases. And within the New Jersey legal community, she has 
earned a solid reputation for dispensing justice fairly and wisely.
  She will make an excellent addition to the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  The opportunity to nominate Federal judges is a sacred duty. I have 
felt lucky to recommend many eminently qualified, impressive, and 
accomplished individuals.
  Yet rarely have I seen such an outpouring of support for a single 
judicial candidate as I have with Judge Shwartz.
  John Lacey, past President of the Association of the New Jersey 
Federal Bar, said Judge Shwartz is, ``thoughtful, intelligent, and has 
an extraordinarily high level of common sense.''
  Thomas Curtin, the chairman of the lawyers' advisory committee for 
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, said, ``Every lawyer in the 
world will tell you that she's extraordinarily qualified, a decent 
person, and an excellent judge.''
  And seldom has someone had such a distinguished career working for--
and earning the respect of--people on both sides of the aisle.
  From 1989 to 2003, Judge Shwartz served in the U.S. Attorney's Office 
for the District of New Jersey. In this role, she supervised hundreds 
of criminal cases, including cases concerning civil rights, violent 
crimes, drug trafficking, and fraud.
  And in the U.S. Attorney's Office, she served under three Republican 
U.S. Attorneys: current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito; former 
Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, Michael Chertoff; 
and New Jersey's current Governor, Chris Christie.
  Governor Christie has been especially outspoken in his praise of 
Judge Shwartz. He has said, ``Judge Patty Shwartz has committed her 
entire professional life to public service, and New Jersey is the 
better for it.''
  That is his statement. Now, if Governor Christie and I agree on 
something so adamantly, you know it's right.
  Judge Shwartz's roots in New Jersey run deep. Like me, she is a 
native of Paterson, NJ, where she learned the value of hard work from 
her parents, who owned and operated a store for more than 50 years.
  And as anyone who has met or worked with Judge Shwartz can attest, 
she inherited every ounce of her parents' strong work ethic--and then 
some.
  After years of hard work, today is a great and triumphant day. I look 
forward now to seeing Judge Patty Shwartz take her place on the Federal 
bench. I can say with certainty that our justice system--and the 
country--will be better for it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Patty Shwartz, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for 
the Third Circuit?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Ex.]

                                YEAS--64

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons

[[Page S2482]]


     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lautenberg
     Rubio
       
  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.

                          ____________________