[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5539-S5542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the immigration bill 
we passed a couple weeks ago. It was a significant achievement. I have 
already congratulated all of those in the so-called Gang of 8 who put 
together the initial draft. It was an example of bipartisanship and 
recognizing that the other fellow has a point of view--that you respect 
that--and then you work out your differences. That was an example of 
the Senate at its finest and what we ought to be doing on every piece 
of legislation around here.
  The final result: 68 votes to 32 votes. Its prospects we know not 
what because of the different approach in the House and the inability 
on so many things we have passed here to go to the conference committee 
to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate.
  So I am very appreciative, and I have given my congratulations to all 
of those who have participated in that immigration bill.
  There is a huge flaw. It is a huge flaw in not recognizing that when 
we want to secure the border, as supposedly was done in order to gain 
14 Republican votes to get us to the huge vote of 68 votes for the 
bill, a major amount of money was added for border security. That is 
not the flaw. Some may question the amount of money. Indeed, there was 
$6.5 billion in the initial Gang of 8 compromise for border security. 
But when it came with the Corker-Hoeven amendment, there was $46.3 
billion more, of which over $44 billion was for border security. That 
is not what is the flaw, although one can argue it.
  The flaw is that the amendment that was offered by the Senator from 
Mississippi and me was not even allowed to be considered, which was to 
increase not some $50-plus billion for border security--which was the 
land border--but to add a mere $1 billion for maritime security. That 
is the flaw. As a matter of fact, if you want border security, it is a 
fatal flaw. Why? You put up an impenetrable wall--whether it be a 
fence, an electric fence, an electronic fence, whether it be UAVs, more 
Border Patrol agents--as a matter of fact, in the Corker-Hoeven 
amendment, $30 billion of that additional border security was just for 
Border Patrol agents--all of which is going to make it fairly effective 
in border security of not allowing people to pass, but it is the land 
border.
  So what is going to happen? You go right around the land border on 
the maritime border.
  It is either going to be on the west coast, on the Pacific, or it is 
going to be on the east coast, either the Gulf of Mexico and all the 
Gulf States or the Atlantic, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands. Because if someone can be smuggled into one of them and 
therefore get an identity, then they have free access. Puerto Ricans 
are American citizens. They have free access to get to the rest of the 
United States.
  So maritime security becomes paramount. But we could not get people 
here who wanted to spend over $50 billion on border security, which is 
the land border, which, in fact, is in the bill--they would not allow a 
Republican Senator, Mr. Wicker, and me to add $1 billion for maritime 
security.
  Specifically, under our amendment, it would have addressed just that 
part of border security with regard to the Department of Homeland 
Security. But if we want an effective border security, we have to then 
get into a whole host of things other than Customs and Border Patrol. 
We have to get additional

[[Page S5540]]

resources for the Coast Guard. We have to consider not only UAVs being 
flown by the Department of Homeland Security, through Customs, et 
cetera, over the maritime border, we have to put more Coast Guard out 
there.
  I would suggest a new platform that would be very effective would be 
what the Navy is testing right now, which is blimps. It is a very cost-
effective, long dwell time, that gives enormous coverage at sea by one 
blimp. I have ridden in those blimps.
  The Navy is testing them. I went with the Navy out of Fernandina 
Beach as they were doing the testing for Mayport Naval Station. It is 
incredible what you can do on the dwell time of a blimp. Of course, the 
fuel used is de minimus. The cost of an entire mission for a blimp, 
some 24 hours of fuel, is the same as cranking up an F-16 taxing out to 
the runway. That amount of energy, fuel spent is what would be spent on 
a blimp for an entire 24-hour period as it is doing surveillance.
  So if we are going to be sincere about border effectiveness, then, in 
fact, we are going to have to pay attention to the maritime border as 
well as the land border. Why are Senator Wicker and I concerned about 
this? He comes from a Gulf Coast State, Mississippi. I come from the 
State that has the longest coastline of any State save for the State of 
Alaska.
  My State of Florida has over some 1,500 miles of coast. It is a place 
that will be a haven for smugglers of people and drugs. If we think we 
are tightening border security by over $50 billion being applied to the 
land border, where are the smugglers going to go? They are going to go 
right around. It is just like water will flow and it will meet the 
place of least resistance. It will continue to flow. So, too, will the 
smugglers.
  I wish to say I am disappointed that people on that side of the aisle 
would not allow Senator Wicker's and my amendment to be considered in 
the last minute. It obviously is not controversial. Yet, for whatever 
reason, it was denied. I hope as we proceed on the immigration bill--
and I hope we are able to proceed if the House will act--I hope in the 
final product it will be considered and added so we can truly have a 
secure border, a maritime border as well as a land border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon we will be voting on a district 
court nominee. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jennifer 
Dorsey. That is for the U.S. district judgeship for the District of 
Nevada. Before I outline the basis for my opposition, I wish to inform 
my fellow Senators and the American public regarding facts on judicial 
nominations.
  We continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
about how we are obstructing nominees or treating this President 
differently. Those complaints are without foundation. I will quantify 
my answer to prove my point. There is no crisis in the manner in which 
we are confirming nominees. This is all part of a larger strategy to 
justify breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the 
Senate.
  The fact is that after today the Senate will have confirmed 199 lower 
court nominees. We have defeated two. That is 199 to 2. Who can 
complain about that record? The success rate happens to be 99 percent 
for the nominees sent by President Obama, considered on the floor of 
the Senate.
  We have been doing it at a very fast pace as well. During the last 
Congress we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd 
Congress. That Congress sat from 1993 through 1994. This year we have 
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first 
year of President Bush's second term.
  So far this year we have confirmed 27 judges. If confirmed today, Ms. 
Dorsey will be the 28th confirmation this year. Let's compare this with 
a similar stage, which would be President Bush's second term, when only 
10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. So we are now at a 28-to-10 
comparison, with President Obama clearly ahead of where President Bush 
was. But somehow we are hearing complaints.
  As I said, we have already confirmed more nominees this year, 28, 
than we did during the entirety of the year 2005, the first year of 
President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court judges were 
confirmed. After today only three article III judges remain on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar; two district nominees and one circuit 
nominee.
  Yet we hear the same old story. Somehow our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, the Senate majority, the Senate Democrats, cite this as 
evidence of obstructionism. Compare that to June 2004, when 30 judicial 
nominations were on the calendar, 10 circuit, 20 district.
  I do not recall any Senate Democrat complaining about how many 
nominations were piling up on the calendar, nor do I remember protests 
from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving 
too slowly.
  Some of those nominees had been reported out of committee more than 1 
year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never did 
get an up-or-down vote. The bottom line is that the Senate is 
processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. I do not know 
why that message cannot get through. It is an excuse to abuse the rules 
of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.
  President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the 
beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President 
Bush in the first year of his last term in office. It is not clear to 
me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in 
an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet 
that is the complaint we hear over and over and over again from the 
other side.
  I wanted to set the record straight. It is a sad commentary that I 
have to spend so much time when figures speak for themselves. But I 
will set the record straight again before we vote on the nomination of 
Ms. Dorsey.
  I have concerns with this particular nominee. I think all Members are 
aware of the press accounts of campaign contributions which were made 
at the time this nomination was under consideration. We have not 
received a full explanation of what happened. Nevertheless, I am 
concerned about the appearances of these contributions and how such 
actions might undermine the public confidence that our citizenry must 
have in the judicial branch of our government.
  I also have concerns about Ms. Dorsey's qualifications to be a 
Federal judge. She has no criminal law experience. She has participated 
in only six trials, one as a sole counsel, one as first chair, and four 
as second chair. I am concerned that her lack of experience will be a 
problem when she gets to the bench.
  It is not surprising to me that the American Bar Association's 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a partial ``not 
qualified'' rating. I am also concerned with her understanding of the 
proper role of a judge.
  While in law school, she wrote a note that praised the Justices who 
wrote Roe v. Wade. She praised them for the willingness to ``forge 
ahead to create a just outcome without regard to the usual decisional 
restraints.'' Then, she said, ``The majority made the just decision and 
then forced history and stare decisis to fit that decision.''
  Ms. Dorsey praised judges who made their decision--and I want to use 
her words--``without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Those 
words are not the kind of words judges should be using. That is not the 
kind of judges we want, those who are activist judges who impose their 
own policy preferences rather than in following enacted law or 
precedent.
  What do we want? We want judges who will be restrained by precedent 
and by the laws Congress passes. Although Ms. Dorsey said she no longer 
supports what she once wrote, I am unconvinced she will be able to lay 
her policy preferences aside when they conflict with what the law 
dictates she ought to do.
  For all the reasons I mentioned above, I cannot support the nominee. 
I have two news articles that describe the campaign contribution issue 
I discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent that those articles be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5541]]

            [From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 3, 2013]

   Donations to Reid-connected PACs Legal, but Don't Seem Quite Right

                         (By Jane Ann Morrison)

       U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't break laws 
     when he asked Las Vegas attorney Will Kemp to donate to the 
     Senate Majority PAC to help elect Democrats in the 2012 
     cycle.
       The senator, a lawyer himself, knew Kemp and Robert Eglet 
     had won a huge verdict of $182 million from Teva 
     Pharmaceutical Industries in a case in which large vials of 
     Propofol were partially blamed for a hepatitis outbreak.
       Kemp wasn't new to donating to Reid. He had been a donor to 
     Friends for Harry Reid in the past 2010 cycle and had given 
     $4,800. According to opensecrets.org, Kemp's largest donation 
     in the past three years was for $8,500 to the Democratic 
     Party of Nevada. And while he leaned Democratic, he also gave 
     to some Republicans.
       However, ethical questions abound about whether Reid's 
     latest judicial nominee, Jennifer Dorsey, a partner in Jones, 
     Kemp and Coulthard, could have seen--or hoped to see--her 
     chances for an appointment enhanced by a series of 
     contributions from Kemp and his partner, J. Randall Jones.
       It's the time line and the size of the amounts that are 
     creating that sewage smell.
       Despite that, Reid said Friday he believed she would be 
     confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
       Check out what happened when:
       October 2011: Kemp wins his big Teva case, not his first 
     big payday as a longtime trial attorney.
       Jan. 9, 2012: Kemp donates $8,500 to the Democratic Party 
     of Nevada, generally considered the party designed to elect 
     Reid first and foremost and other Democrats as an 
     afterthought.
       Sometime in January or February 2012, according to Kemp's 
     statements to political analyst Jon Ralston, Reid asks Kemp 
     and his partners to donate to the Senate Majority PAC. It's 
     unclear whether his donation to the party fell before or 
     after Reid's request. Kemp didn't return a call Friday to 
     clarify the time line.
       March 31, 2012: Dorsey donates $2,500 to Friends for Harry 
     Reid. Sometime that month she expressed her interest in a 
     federal judgeship. The same day, Kemp contributes $2,500 to 
     the Friends of Harry Reid.
       April 30, 2012: Reid returns her money but keeps Kemp's.
       May 1, 2012: The day after Dorsey's money is returned, Kemp 
     donates $100,000 to the Senate Majority PAC, and law partner 
     Jones donates $5,000 to the Democratic Party of Nevada.
       May 14, 2012: Two weeks later, Jones donates $50,000 to the 
     Senate Majority PAC.
       June 12, 2012: Reid recommends Dorsey to the White House.
       Aug. 23, 2012: Jones donates $8,000 to the Democratic Party 
     of Nevada.
       Sept. 19, 2012: She is nominated by President Barack Obama.
       Oct. 23, 2012: Jones makes a $10,000 contribution to the 
     Democratic Party of Nevada.
       At a meeting at the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Friday, I 
     asked Reid to address the perception that the donations were 
     made for a purpose.
       He answered, ``It's too bad that her being a member of that 
     law firm is causing some problems for her.'' He noted he had 
     known Kemp for decades. ``He's one of the finest trial 
     lawyers in the country, and that's not just hyperbole, that's 
     true.''
       Reid went on to condemn the Citizens United decision in 
     January 2010, which allows unlimited corporate and labor 
     money in campaigns as independent expenditures. Reid called 
     it one of the four or five worst decisions in the history of 
     the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Reid said he abides by the rules and does not control the 
     Senate Majority PAC. He asked Kemp to donate, but PAC 
     officials dealt with the lawyer after that.
       By my tally, based on the Open Secrets website, in 2012, 
     Kemp and Jones between them gave $150,000 to the Senate 
     Majority PAC and $28,500 to the Democratic Party of Nevada, 
     and Kemp gave an extra $2,500 to Friends of Reid, for a total 
     of $181,000.
       In previous years, Kemp and Jones had given but not at that 
     level.
       In 2010, Kemp gave Reid $4,800; Jones gave him $11,700. 
     Kind of a big jump from $16,500 to Friends for Reid in one 
     cycle to $181,000 to Reid, the Majority PAC and the 
     Democratic Party in the 2012 cycle.
       That's a lot of Democratic lovin'. Especially for two 
     lawyers who also pony up for Republicans.
       Reid mentioned the nearly $150 million that Las Vegas Sands 
     Corp. boss Sheldon Adelson had given to elect Republicans in 
     2012 and how a Rhode Island man made a federal judgeship 
     though he and his wife donated $700,000 to Democrats since 
     1993.
       While $150,000 sounds like a lot to me, Reid said it's all 
     relative because the Senate Majority PAC raised more than $60 
     million.
       Reid must be conflicted. He competes successfully at 
     raising money, whether it's for his own campaign, the party 
     or various PACs. Yet he says, ``I think this whole campaign 
     finance thing has gotten way out of hand.''
       Later he mused, ``It may not corrupt people, but it is 
     corrupting.''
       Dorsey, 42, said she doesn't talk to reporters. But if she 
     knew her partners were donating all this money at the time 
     she was seeking a judgeship (and how could she not know), she 
     should have stopped it. But then she did donate $2,500 after 
     asking for the job. Maybe she thought it was expected. Or 
     maybe the judicial candidate's judgment about perception 
     isn't so keen.
       When her partners had never donated in such large sums 
     before, it smacks of old-style payola. It may be legal, but 
     it's not right.
       However, I suspect the canny Reid is correct, Dorsey will 
     get confirmed. Senators of both parties won't want to see 
     their own donations restricted as they themselves race for 
     the almighty dollar.
                                  ____


              [From www.reviewjournal.com, Apr. 26, 2013]

 Judicial Nominee's Law Firm Gives $150,000 to PAC Linked to Harry Reid

            (By Steve Tetreault, Stephens Washington Bureau)

       Washington.--As U.S. Sen. Harry Reid was considering Las 
     Vegas attorney Jennifer Dorsey for a federal judgeship in 
     May, two senior partners at her law firm made $150,000 in 
     contributions to a political action committee associated with 
     the Nevada senator, records show.
       While apparently legal, the donations were called 
     ``problematic'' by a legal expert, who said they could be 
     perceived as attempting to buy a judicial appointment as 
     Dorsey's confirmation is pending before the Senate.
       Dorsey also made a personal contribution of $2,500 to 
     Reid's campaign committee in March 2012, shortly after they 
     initially spoke about her interest in becoming a federal 
     judge, according to Senate records. Reid returned that 
     contribution a month later, as he proceeded to check out her 
     credentials and experience as a litigator.
       In June, Reid agreed to recommend Dorsey to the White House 
     for a post on the U.S. District Court, and she was nominated 
     by President Barack Obama in September.
       Reid in a statement said Dorsey's ``academic background and 
     courtroom experience speak for themselves. She has great 
     respect from her peers and colleagues in Nevada and I am 
     confident she will serve the bench with distinction.''
       As Dorsey was being vetted by Reid, senior partners at her 
     firm, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, made contributions to Senate 
     Majority PAC, a super PAC created by former Reid strategists 
     to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Reid, the Senate 
     majority leader, and other leading Democrats traveled 
     extensively last year to raise money for the PAC, which is 
     co-chaired by a former Reid chief of staff.
       Founding partner Will Kemp made a $100,000 contribution on 
     May 1, 2012, according to campaign finance records. Founding 
     partner J. Randall Jones made a $50,000 contribution on May 
     14, 2012.
       Reid declined comment on the firm's contributions to the 
     political action committee. His spokeswoman, Kristen Orthman, 
     emphasized that Dorsey's personal contribution to Reid's 
     campaign was returned as the senator weighed her possible 
     nomination and wanted to avoid an appearance of conflict.
       Dorsey did not respond to requests for comment Thursday and 
     Friday. A secretary at her office said the attorney usually 
     does not comment to reporters.
       Neither Kemp nor Jones responded to calls or to email 
     queries made through their secretaries on Friday.
       Lawyers making contributions to politicians and their 
     causes is commonplace. Nor is it unusual for lawyers to want 
     to see friends and legal partners ascend to the prestigious 
     federal bench.
       It's when the two appear to mix that problems can arise, 
     legal experts said.
       ``This feels problematic to me,'' said Charles Geyh, John 
     F. Kimberling professor of law who teaches and writes on 
     ethics at the University of Indiana Maurer School of Law. 
     ``There's no denying a perception problem here. Politically 
     it seems like a dangerous thing to undertake.''
       Carl Tobias, the Williams Professor of Law at the 
     University of Richmond, cautioned against jumping to 
     conclusions.
       ``I can't draw a cause-and-effect relationship'' between 
     the partners' donations and Dorsey's nomination, said Tobias, 
     a former professor at the Boyd School of Law at the 
     University of Nevada, Las Vegas. ``I think people could ask 
     whether it appears that they were trying to promote one of 
     their partners. You'd like to have the answers to those 
     questions.''
       Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., declined to comment on Friday. In 
     recent weeks he has declined comment on Dorsey's nomination, 
     saying he prefers to let the confirmation process move 
     forward before saying how he would vote.
       This week Heller declined an invitation to appear at 
     Dorsey's confirmation hearing. Although Dorsey was nominated 
     in September, only last month did Heller return the customary 
     ``blue slip'' to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signalling 
     that he did not object to a confirmation hearing.
       Heller and Reid clashed earlier over Clark County District 
     Judge Elissa Cadish, whom Reid had nominated to a federal 
     judgeship but whom Heller had blocked over a gun rights 
     dispute. Heller allowed Dorsey's nomination to proceed a few 
     weeks after Cadish withdrew her nomination, leading to 
     speculation that he and Reid had struck a deal.
       Dorsey, who turned 42 on Friday, appeared Wednesday before 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing. 
     The Las Vegas native obtained degrees from UNLV

[[Page S5542]]

     and Pepperdine University School of Law. She became a partner 
     at Kemp, Jones and Coulthard in 2004, where she has 
     specialized in complex civil litigation.
       Dorsey answered questions about her experience and her 
     approach to the law posed by Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, 
     Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The senators 
     seemed satisfied with her performance, said Tobias, who 
     watched a webcast of the session.
       Dorsey was introduced to the committee by Reid, who called 
     her a ``fine woman who will be a great addition to the bench 
     in Nevada. She has really a sterling reputation among her 
     peers.''
       Reid said Dorsey's nomination was in line with his desire 
     to place more women on the federal bench. If confirmed, 
     Dorsey would join District Judges Miranda Du and Gloria 
     Navarro as Reid-backed Nevada federal court appointees.
       In 1998, Reid backed attorney Johnnie Rawlinson for a 
     District Court judgeship in Nevada, and two years later 
     promoted her confirmation to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.
       Dorsey has received a mixed rating from the American Bar 
     Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, a 
     15-member panel that rates federal judge nominees on 
     integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, 
     and on a scale of ``well qualified,'' ``qualified'' and ``not 
     qualified.''
       In Dorsey's case, the ABA said a ``substantial majority'' 
     (10-13 members) rated her ``qualified'' while a minority 
     rated her ``not qualified.''
       Reid declined this week to comment on the rating, which 
     matched ratings for Du and Navarro when they were under 
     Senate consideration. He had made no secret of his disdain 
     for the ratings, which he said rely too heavily on prior 
     judicial service as opposed to ``real world'' qualifications.
       In 2010, Reid said the examiners should ``get a new life 
     and start looking at people for how they are qualified and 
     not whether they have judicial experience.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and 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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.