[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 49 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1793-S1799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VENEZUELA
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, the reason I come to the floor is to call
attention to a crisis that has fallen off the front pages over the last
few weeks; that is, the situation in our own hemisphere that is
occurring in Venezuela. I recognize there have been news stories about
an airplane that has been tragically potentially lost--or has been
lost. We don't know the full outcome of that yet. I know the situation
in Ukraine has captivated the attention of the public--and rightfully
so--and I am pleased to see the Senate has taken important steps today
toward addressing that issue.
I wish to speak about something that is happening in our own
backyard, in our own hemisphere; in fact, something that is impacting
hundreds of thousands of people who live in Florida because they have
family members who still live in the country of Venezuela.
Since February 4 of this year, Venezuelans have been taking to the
streets to complain about their government. These Venezuelans are from
all walks of life, but they have truly been motivated by young people,
by students.
The origins of this public discontent are important to understand
because they are not just purely political. It in fact has to do with
the dysfunction and the failures of the government that is currently in
charge of that country. The statistics bear out that dysfunction and
their failures. For example, violence and insecurity is among the
highest in the entire Western Hemisphere. The murder rate in Venezuela
was 79 per 100,000 people in 2013.
In the city of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, the murder rate is
actually almost double that. It is 122 per 100,000, making it one of
the most dangerous cities on Earth. The unbridled corruption that
exists in terms of how State assets are used--Venezuela is an oil-rich
country. There are individuals in that government who have empowered
themselves of Venezuela's oil, not their oil, and are basically giving
it away to countries such as Cuba and others and using it as their own
personal piggy bank for personal enrichment and to fund their
governmental operations at the expense of the people of Venezuela.
[[Page S1794]]
Their inflation rate is 57 percent. In fact, this week Fitch ratings
lowered Venezuela's sovereign debt rating into junk territory from B-
plus to B. They warned, by the way, that further downgrades are on the
way.
There is also this unprecedented scarcity of basic goods, including
food staples; even things such as toilet paper there is a shortage of.
I will show some graphics. This is a line of people waiting in the city
of San Cristobal to go into a supermarket. We are talking about a rich
country. This is not a Third World country. This is not a nation that
is poor. This is a revenue-rich nation, among the most resource rich on
the planet. Here is a line of people waiting to go into a grocery
store, reminiscent of Cuba, for example, a country whose model this
government follows, and we will talk about that more in a moment.
Let me show my colleagues a picture of some store shelves inside a
Venezuelan supermarket: completely empty, nothing on the shelves. This
is the economic reality of the failure of the Maduro-Chavez government
in Venezuela today, and this is why, among other reasons, people have
taken to the streets to demonstrate.
There was another catalyst: a sexual assault that occurred on a
college campus, and students were protesting against law enforcement's
unwillingness to address that assault. The government cracked down--but
not on the sexual assaulters, not on the perpetrators, on the
demonstrators.
All of these things we have talked about--the failure of that State,
the lack of democratic opening, the political abuses, the corruption,
and the economic disaster of the Venezuelan Government--led to
demonstrations that began on February 4 and continue throughout the
country.
I want to show you a picture of what those demonstrations looked
like. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people took to the
streets to protest, and they were protesting the things I have outlined
already: the insecurity, the violence, the scarcity of basic goods, the
lack of opportunity, the political repression.
Meanwhile, Nicolas Maduro, the President of that country, and all of
his cronies live a life of luxury--and we are going to talk about that
more in a moment--because this government is surrounded by individuals
who are living lives of luxury not just in Venezuela but in Florida.
While the people take to the streets--and you saw the empty store
shelves--there are people tied to the Government in Venezuela buying
gold-plated iPads--I did not even know there was such a thing--in Miami
and investing in enormous properties and mansions, with the money they
are stealing, with the help of the Maduro government, from the people
of Venezuela, leading to these protests.
So what has been the response of the Maduro government? What has been
the response to these legitimate complaints about what is happening in
Venezuela?
I am going to show you some images of what the response has been from
the government.
Here is the first. Here is their national guard. Here is their
national guard battling with students in the streets, fully equipped
with riot gear, ready to battle against them. This has been their
response: repression at every turn in multiple cities.
Here is the other response: teargas--teargas by a fully armored
individual, firing teargas canisters into the crowd.
Let me talk about the teargas for a moment. Let me show you this
canister. This canister that was used against peaceful protesters
actually has a marking. It says: ``HECHO EN BRASIL''--``MADE IN
BRAZIL.'' And there have been reports, in fact, that there has been
some U.S.-manufactured teargas being used against protesters in the
streets in Venezuela.
But if it stopped at teargas, it would be one thing. But it has not
stopped at teargas. In fact, it is now known that the Interior Ministry
of Venezuela authorized snipers to travel to Tachira State and fire on
demonstrators.
Here is a picture of a government official, of a law enforcement or
army or national guard individual, or an Interior Ministry individual
on a rooftop with a rifle and a scope aiming into a crowd.
Here is a picture of a sniper. It does not end there. Those are not
the only pictures we have.
Here are more pictures of more snipers on rooftops.
Here is another sniper aiming into the crowd, with a spotter next to
him.
Here is another blown-up picture of the same sniper.
These are government-sponsored individuals. What civilized planet on
Earth sends the national guard and the interior ministry of their own
government, of their own country, with snipers to fire on their own
people who are demonstrating because of the lack of freedoms and
opportunity and economic degradation that exists in a country?
They cannot deny this. Here are pictures, taken by demonstrators
themselves, of the snipers ready to shoot down people. In fact, 36
people have lost their lives.
But it does not end just with the government snipers. Because what
the government is trying to do here to hide their involvement is they
have organized these progovernment militia groups, basically--these
militant groups that they hide behind. These groups do not wear
uniforms. They are called ``colectivos.'' They drive around the city on
motorcycles, and they assault protesters. They break in and vandalize
their homes. They have weapons that they use to shoot into the crowds
and kill or harm people.
There are three main groups. By the way, these groups began under
Hugo Chavez's reign, and these groups are actually organized around a
concept that has existed for years in Cuba--these committees to defend
the revolution. These are neighborhood groups, so they know your
family, they know who you are, they are always watching, and they
organize themselves into armed militias. The government's claim is:
Well, these groups are on their own. We are not coordinating with them.
But, in fact, there have been multiple reports that these groups
coordinate with the national guard to take down barricades set up by
protesters, to break into the homes of protesters, to vandalize homes,
to terrorize people, and to kill.
There are three main groups that I want to point out, these
colectivos.
La Piedrita is one of them. It is based in a working-class
neighborhood of Caracas. It has a far-left ideology. It is armed. It is
comprised of radicals who claim to be willing to die for their
revolutionary ideals--whatever those are.
In January, this group, by the way, tweeted that Henrique Capriles--
the opposition party's nominee for President in the last elections--is
a racist and a fascist and accused him of intending to launch attacks
on the poor and on impoverished neighborhoods.
Another colectivo: the Patriotic Force of National Liberation. This
group bases its beliefs on the teachings of a leftist revolutionary and
murderer by the name of Che Guevara.
A third group is the Tupamaro Revolutionary Movement. This is an
armed communist political and militant organization that also operates
out of Caracas.
These are just three of these armed, un-uniformed, thuggish, criminal
groups that operate under the auspices and at the direction of the
government of Nicolas Maduro and the people who surround him.
So what is the result?
The result is there have been over 1,800 people detained in Venezuela
since this began last month. Over 450 people have been injured. Over 50
people have been tortured while detained--that we have reports on. And
over 36 people have been killed.
This is not happening on a continent halfway around the world. This
is happening in our hemisphere, right now, in real time. And these
numbers, they just summarize the depth and the scope and the breadth of
what is happening in the regime's brutality in Venezuela.
But these are not just statistics. Behind every single one of these--
behind the 36 who have been killed, behind the 1,800 who have been
detained, behind the 450 who have been injured--are real people, with
names and families and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and
children. I want to tell you the story of a couple of them.
The first is Marvinia Jimenez. Here in this picture you see her on
her knees as part of a peaceful protest. And here you see an armed
individual with a pistol pointed at her. She is on her knees
[[Page S1795]]
and poses no threat. She has given herself up as a peaceful protester,
as she confronts an armed individual associated with the government
holding a pistol.
What happened next in these pictures is these armed individuals from
the Interior Ministry grabbed her by the wrist and head. They
subsequently throw her to the ground. And here is what they do when she
is on the ground. This individual here--a female, a member of the
Interior Ministry--takes off her helmet and proceeds to beat her in the
head with that helmet.
Here is the picture. This is real. This is not a movie. This is
happening. This is happening now.
This happened to Marvinia Jimenez, and luckily someone caught it on
their phone and was able to capture these images.
These are uniformed individuals associated with the government. You
saw she had given herself up and was on her knees. And this is what
happens: She gets beaten in the face with a helmet.
She lived to tell her story. But there are others who have not been
so fortunate.
Here is Geraldine Moreno. She was a college student in the city of
Valencia.
On February 19, she stepped outside of her home to see what was going
on during an antigovernment protest. Six national guard members--six
national guard members of the Maduro government--came by on motorcycles
to break up the protest.
As the demonstrators fled, they fired into the crowd, and she was hit
by gunfire and fell to the ground. She struggled to get up, and just
then one of the national guard members came up and shot her in the face
at point blank range and killed her.
Geraldine was someone's daughter. In fact, she was not just anyone's
daughter, she was Rosa Orozco's daughter, and Rosa has lost her
daughter forever.
This is the youth of Venezuela. This is supposed to be Venezuela's
future, and they are being indiscriminately mowed down in the street by
the government of their own country.
There are some inspiring stories too.
As shown in this picture, this is Maria Corina Machado, a member of
the Venezuelan opposition party in Parliament. She was here in
Washington this week. She has bravely spoken out against these things
going on in Venezuela, and bravely, the Government of Panama gave her
the space to speak out on behalf of the people of Venezuela at a recent
OAS meeting. But, shamefully, the rest of the countries that are
members of the OAS--not the United States or Canada but every other
country did nothing to defend her right to speak, and she was denied
the right to tell the world the truth about what is happening.
She could have stayed in exile and asked for political asylum, but do
you know what this brave young woman did? She got on an airplane and
flew back to Venezuela--to her country--to continue the fight there,
peacefully, as a member of their Parliament, as a member of the
opposition party.
Well, when she arrived, she was immediately detained at the airport
in Caracas. She was questioned by the thugs you just saw, who no doubt
tried to intimidate her in that questioning. She was verbally attacked
by government supporters at the airport. And then she got in her car to
leave, to go to her destination, and these same thugs tried to run her
car off the road. They are so incompetent that they could not even
carry that out, thankfully. She finally made it to her destination.
And then guess what happens this week. The speaker of their so-called
National Assembly--an individual by the name of Diosdado Cabello--a
Maduro loyalist, a criminal--decided to remove her, to basically just
expel her from the National Assembly. She is no longer a member of the
National Assembly--unilaterally dismissed by the equivalent of their
Assembly's president, their speaker.
The OAS's response to this has been shameful. The Organization of
American States has been downright embarrassing and shameful. I thought
it was best summarized by the opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who
wrote in the New York Times on March 25:
The outspoken response from human rights organizations is
in sharp contrast to the shameful silence from many of
Venezuela's neighbors in Latin America. The Organization of
American States, which represents nations in the Western
Hemisphere, has abstained from any real leadership on the
current crisis of human rights and the looming specter of a
failed state, even though it was formed precisely to address
issues like these.
Why do we even need an OAS--an organization of democratically elected
governments--why do we even need it, why are we even members of it, why
do we even contribute funds of American taxpayers towards it, if it
cannot meet and address systemic human rights abuses such as these?
I am less than pleased, by the way, with our own government's
reaction. This is not a partisan issue, but I have to say this.
President Obama has expressed he is concerned about this. To his
credit, the Vice President was stronger in condemning the Maduro
regime.
We are not just concerned about this. We should be outraged about
this. Just as we are outraged when things go wrong in other parts of
the world and weigh in with sanctions--and we should--and our voices--
and we should--this is happening in our own hemisphere, right
underneath our nose. And it is shameful that the leadership of our
government has so far not done more to address this. But we can change
that, and I am hoping that we will.
What I hope to do over the next few days is to propose specific
sanctions against individuals and companies associated with the Maduro
regime so they know there are consequences for what is happening here.
And you think our sanctions have an impact on Russia in its violations
of Ukrainian sovereignty? Sanctions against Maduro and his government
would have a dramatic impact. Because all those people who are around
him who are getting rich off this regime, who are supporting these
abuses so they can stay in power and keep making money, they all have
bank accounts and property and restaurants and businesses and mansions
in the United States of America. And if you support this, this
government should sanction you.
I ask what I did a few weeks ago in a speech on this subject: If the
United States of America will not stand up and be a strong voice on
behalf of people who all they seek is freedom and liberty that our own
founding documents say belong to all people--rights given to them by
their Creator--if the United States of America will not be a forceful
voice, what nation on Earth will? They look to us. Our own model of
freedom and our Republic inspires people. We say we stand for these
principles. We need to defend them when they are threatened, especially
in our own backyard.
So I hope in the weeks to come we can pursue these targeted sanctions
against some of these individuals associated with the government, like
the Assembly president Diosdado Cabello, and others such as these
individuals who we will come on the floor in the next few weeks and
identify by name, those who benefit from the systematic violation of
human rights in Venezuela, who are stealing money from the Venezuelan
people, who are using the resources of that nation to enrich
themselves. In the next few weeks, we will identify them by name and
the properties they own and the assets they hold in our own Nation.
But I implore my colleagues not to ignore this issue. This is
happening right now, right in our own backyard, in our own hemisphere,
and it is impacting real people at an extraordinary price.
So I hope in the weeks to come that I--along with Senator Menendez
and others who have united behind us and with us--will be able to
convince enough of my colleagues to take the next step.
We have already unanimously passed the resolution condemning all of
this. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for that. The next step is to
build in real consequences for being a part of this. My colleagues will
have an opportunity to be a part of this in the next few days,
especially when we return next week.
I hope we can get a hearing on these sanctions in the Foreign
Relations Committee, and I hope we can get passage of it on the floor,
so we can send a clear signal to the people of Venezuela: The people of
the United States of America are on your side. We support your cause.
We will not forget what you are going through. We will not abandon your
aspirations. We stand for the liberty and the freedom of all people,
including those who do not live here with us.
[[Page S1796]]
This is what we are going to have a chance to do in the next few
days. I hope we can successfully take action.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I was not planning this today, but as
many of my colleagues do, I do a morning coffee where anybody from my
State of Ohio--as Senator Durbin does in Illinois, Senator Udall in New
Mexico, and others--and my colleague from Ohio does one too, Senator
Portman--people can come in from around the State and talk about what
they want.
A couple came in today, a father and a mother and two children. One
looked to be maybe 10 and the other looked to be maybe 15. They came
and wanted to talk to me about their private school. They have sort of
a home school association, it sounded like, from a conservative part of
Ohio, Southwest Ohio. We talked about what we could do to help them in
terms of educating their children.
Then, right before we parted--and I was going to see other people at
this coffee; we had maybe 75 people there--the mother of these two
children said: By the way, thank you for the Affordable Care Act.
I said: How is that?
She pointed to her son. She said: My son--I think he was 15. She
said: My son is diabetic. As I learned later, he was diagnosed at the
age of 6 and has injected insulin into his arm and his leg for 8 or 9
years. She said: My son who is diabetic, we could not get insurance
because of my son's preexisting condition, diabetes. We were turned
down--I counted them. We were turned down 34 times for insurance. My
family was turned down 34 times for insurance. Because of the
Affordable Care Act we now have health insurance.
She smiled. That is one of the most poignant stories I have heard
about the importance of this new law. There are 160,000 people in my
State who now have insurance that did not have it in December. But this
family--you think about what this is all about. This family's peace of
mind, this family's ability to focus on other things now, because they
have insurance that they could not get, even though he had a job--the
father had a job--I am not sure where the mother worked.
But the point is, they were turned down, she said, 34 times because
their son cost the insurance more money because he had a preexisting
condition with diabetes. So I guess my question to my colleagues is,
why do we want to repeal this? How do my colleagues, including many,
many elected officials in my State who before have been resistant to
the Affordable Care Act to win elections, saying: Repeal the Affordable
Care Act--how do they explain that to this family--if they met this
family and the mother said: We have insurance; we were turned down 34
times. Why do you want to repeal this law? Why do you want to take it
away from the 160,000 Ohioans who have insurance? Why do you want to do
that to the 100,000 25-, 22-, and 19-year-olds in Ohio--in my State
alone, one State of the 50 where 100,000 young people have insurance
and they are on their parent's plan because of the Affordable Care Act.
Some 900,000 Ohio seniors have gotten check-ups, no copay, no
deductibles, free checkups, free osteoporosis screenings, and free
physicals because of the Affordable Care Act.
How do you take that away from those seniors? How do you take away
the $900 in savings that the average senior in my State, who is on
this--President Bush's, initially--drug plan, the Medicare drug plan?
How do you take away that $900 savings? You are going to repeal
ObamaCare? You are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take
those away? How do you face the people like the family I met today?
Thirty-four times she was turned down for insurance. I did not make
this up. That is her number. She said: I counted; 34 times they turned
our family down for insurance because my child has diabetes. How do you
think that makes him feel, first of all. But equally importantly, she
has the comfort and safety in her mind now of having insurance.
I do not even understand. What do my colleagues do? Do they wake up
every morning thinking: I want to take that insurance from 150,000 Ohio
families; I do not want them to have it; I want to take those benefits
from those 900,000 Ohio seniors. I want to make them pay $900 more.
That is what they are saying: Repeal ObamaCare.
We lose all of that, if they want to keep talking about taking these
benefits away. Let's live with this law. Let's make it work well. It is
starting to work really well in Ohio. We are having thousands of sign-
ups every single day. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of
Hawaii, they are getting lots of people to sign up. Lots of young
people are signing up. Let's move on. Let's stop debating this. Help
make it work better. Let's talk about how we create jobs, not how you
are going to repeal some health care law that you did not like because
it did not fit with your ideology or you did not like the President--
whatever the reason my colleagues seem to not like the Affordable Care
Act.
History is going to say over and over: Why do you want to take these
benefits away? This is working. Remember back with Medicare in 1965.
They were not the tea party. They were called the John Birch Society
back then. They did not like it. Insurance companies did not like it.
But everybody liked it 5 years later.
Social Security--the same forces, the same far right forces opposed
it. Five years later, people liked it. This stuff works. It is going to
make such a difference in people's lives. Forget about the 150,000.
Forget about the numbers. Focus on that family--34 times turned down
for insurance. She has insurance now. Her diabetic son can get the care
he needs. That is such a wonderful thing.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Petty Officer Mark Mayo
Mr. CARDIN. I rise to speak about the tragic death of a fellow
Marylander, PO2 Mark Mayo. His heroic sacrifice is the truest display
of the U.S. Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. The
U.S. Navy confirmed yesterday that PO2 Mark Mayo put himself in harm's
way to save his shipmate. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf
of my fellow Senators, I offer condolences to the families, friends,
and shipmates of Petty Officer Mayo.
The tragic events this past Monday evening are still under
investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, but what we
know so far is that at approximately 11:20 p.m. there was a shooting on
board the destroyer Mahan.
A civilian who was behaving erratically approached the Mahan's
quarterdeck and was confronted by the ship's petty officer of the
watch. The two engaged in a struggle and the civilian was able to
disarm the sailor.
Petty Officer Mayo, serving as the chief of the guard, witnessed the
fight and ran to the quarterdeck and placed himself between the
civilian and his shipmate, the petty officer of the watch. The civilian
opened fire and fatally wounded Petty Officer Mayo.
U.S. Navy CAPT Robert Clark, Norfolk Naval Station's commanding
officer, said:
Petty Officer Mayo's actions were nothing less than heroic;
he selflessly gave his own life to ensure the safety of the
sailors on board.
Petty Officer Mayo's parents, Sharon Blair and Decondi Mayo, said
their son's actions reflected his strong, caring nature. As his mother
put it: ``He protected people. He was a protector.''
[[Page S1797]]
Petty Officer Mayo was born in Washington, DC, and moved with his
family to Hagerstown, MD, in 1998. He enlisted in the Navy in 2007, 4
months after graduating from Williamsport High School, where he was a
Washington County wrestling champion, because he wanted to serve his
country and because the Navy offers educational opportunities. He
enlisted in the Navy, and he reported to Naval Station Norfolk in May
of 2011. Petty Officer Mayo's mother, who is a geriatric nursing
assistant, said he always wanted to work in law enforcement.
Randy Longnecker, Petty Officer Mayo's former guidance counselor at
Williamsport High School, recalled him as a kind and easygoing student
who earned good grades, saying:
He always wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing.
He liked athletics and being part of a team. He must have
fallen in love with the Navy.
Petty Officer Mayo served tours of duty in Rota, Spain, and in
Bahrain. He earned the Good Conduct Award, the National Defense Service
Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War
on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas
Service Ribbon. He was a distinguished member of the Navy.
Americans are privileged and fortunate to have such brave and
outstanding young men and women serving in our Armed Forces. We must
never forget the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf
in defense of freedom.
Petty Officer Mayo has made the ultimate sacrifice. While his death
is tragic, we should remember and honor the way he lived and how he
voluntarily chose to save a fellow sailor from harm. He is an American
hero.
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.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Owens Nomination
Mr. CRAPO. I rise to discuss the nomination of John Owens to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Owens, who currently works as a lawyer in California, has been
nominated to fill the seat that has been held for the last 25 years by
Judge Stephen Trott of Idaho.
Judge Trott took senior status on December 31, 2004, making the Trott
seat the longest current vacancy of any seat on the Federal circuit
courts.
That doesn't mean that there haven't been previous attempts to fill
this seat. In a letter to the Idaho Senate delegation in 2003, then
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales stated:
I also want to make clear the President's commitment to
nominate an Idahoan for a second Ninth Circuit seat if Judge
Trott retires or assumes senior status while President Bush
is still in office. Idaho has had two Ninth Circuit seats for
more than a decade, and that allotment is appropriate.
As such, when Judge Trott did take senior status the following year,
President Bush nominated Judge Randy Smith of Idaho to the Trott seat.
At the same time another nominee was pending in the Senate to fill
another Idaho vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.
Regrettably, Senate Democrats used the longstanding Senate rules that
were available at that time to block the confirmation of both Idaho
nominees. The reason given by the California delegation for blocking
the Randy Smith nomination to the Trott seat made clear that the
objections had nothing to do with Judge Smith's qualifications and that
they were willing to support his confirmation to the other Idaho seat,
the Nelson seat, which is ultimately what happened.
As such, the California delegation blocked Randy Smith's nomination
to the Trott seat, not because they believed he was not qualified but
because they wanted the seat moved to California--and he was not a
Californian.
The so-called Trott seat on the Ninth Circuit has been held by five
different judges, including Judge Trott, since it was first created in
1935.
The first judge to hold that seat was from Oregon. The next two
judges to hold that seat were from Washington State. Judge Sneed of
California, the only judge in that seat to maintain his chambers in
California, was the next to hold the seat. Finally, as I mentioned
earlier, Judge Trott was the next to hold that seat, and he has
maintained his chambers in Idaho for his entire 25 years on the bench.
Despite the fact that California already has more than 20--that is
right, more than 20--active and senior judges on the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the California delegation apparently believes that
Californians have been denied justice for the past 25 years and that
the only remedy is to add yet another California judge, leaving the
State of Idaho with only one, single active judgeship on the Ninth
Circuit. Senator Risch and I had multiple conversations with the White
House counsel in President Obama's first term where we expressed our
interest in working with the White House and the California delegation
to reach a resolution to this long-standing dispute in a way that would
satisfy both delegations.
Clearly, the Idaho delegation and the Idaho people are disappointed
by the President's decision to decline to nominate an Idahoan to fill
the Trott seat.
It is even more disappointing that declining to submit any nominee
for the Trott seat in his entire first term, the President has chosen
to wait until the Senate Democrats unilaterally broke the longstanding
Senate rules regarding the consideration of nominees in order to push
through this nomination, rather than working with the Idaho and
California delegations to develop a mutually agreeable solution.
If these new Senate rules had been in place when Judge Trott first
took senior status, the California delegation would not have had the
opportunity it took advantage of to block the appointment of Idaho
nominees to this seat.
This dispute is not about the qualifications of Mr. Owens. He has
been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association,
and I would be happy to work with the California delegation to support
his nomination for the next California vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.
But I cannot support a process that is the result of an unfair
breaking of the Senate's rules in order to push through a nominee that
takes away a seat that has been an Idaho seat on the Ninth Circuit for
25 years, leaving Idaho with only one seat on the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
Sadly, because of the Senate Democrats' rule change, the Idaho
delegation will not have the opportunity to stop this effort.
Therefore, I will vote no on this nomination, and my hope is that, if
confirmed, Mr. Owens will make the same decision that Judge Trott did
25 years ago by also choosing to maintain his chambers in Idaho.
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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor to urge my
colleagues to support the nomination of John Owens to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This was approved by the Judiciary
Committee without dissent.
I would like to quickly mention his qualifications. He received his
bachelor's with high distinction from the University of California in
1993 and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He graduated first in his
class at Stanford Law School in 1996.
From 1996 to 1997 he was law clerk to Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a
noted conservative jurist appointed by President Nixon to the Ninth
Circuit. He then went on to serve as a law clerk to Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In 2001 John Owens became a Federal prosecutor, joining the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, California. He began in the general
crimes section, prosecuting a wide variety of violent crimes--drug
crimes. He also served in the public corruption and government fraud
section.
From 2004 to 2012, he served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in San
Diego.
[[Page S1798]]
There, primarily his focus was prosecuting complex crimes, including
fraud, health care, money laundering, public corruption, and national
security.
He has had occasion to receive more than one award, among them the
Director's Award for Superior Performance from the Justice Department.
Mr. Owens has broad support, and the American Bar Association has given
him their highest rating of ``well qualified.''
The problem that has arisen around this nomination, though, is not
really his qualifications because the record will bear those
qualifications out. It is the longstanding discussion over the seat
vacated by Judge Stephen Trott. There is a history here, and I would
like to explain it.
This seat has been vacant for over 9 years--since Judge Trott took
senior status in December 2004. It is the longest running vacancy in
the entire Federal judiciary. The Ninth Circuit has the greatest number
of pending appeals per panel. It takes longer than other circuits to
resolve an appeal. It makes no sense for this seat on the busiest
circuit to stay vacant any longer.
My colleagues from Idaho have asserted that this is a vacancy which
should be filled by someone from their State. Let me explain why that
is not the case.
Judge Trott, whom Mr. Owens would replace, spent his entire legal
career in California before joining the Justice Department under
President Reagan. Throughout his career he was licensed to practice law
in one State--California. Beginning in 1965 he served as county
prosecutor in Los Angeles. In 1975 he sought the position of DA from
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors after then-district
attorney Joseph Busch passed away. When John Van De Kamp was named
district attorney, Trott was chosen as his chief deputy, the second in
command in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. In 1981
President Reagan appointed Mr. Trott to be U.S. attorney for the
Central District of California.
All these things are happening in California. He was recommended for
the U.S. attorney position by Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California.
In 1982, while serving as U.S. attorney, he again submitted an
application to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to become DA
after the DA, John Van De Kamp, was elected to be California's attorney
general.
Trott was nominated by President Reagan in 1983 to serve as Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of
Justice. At his confirmation hearing for that position, Senator Pete
Wilson of California introduced him. Judge Trott's official Judiciary
Committee biography states that his legal residence at the time was
California.
Now, this is all about whether Trott occupies an Idaho seat or a
California seat.
In 1986 he was nominated by President Reagan to be Associate Attorney
General. Once again Senator Wilson of California introduced him at his
confirmation hearing, and once again his official Judiciary Committee
biography states that his legal residence at the time was California.
In 1987 President Reagan nominated Trott to the Ninth Circuit. The
Judiciary Committee sent blue slips to Senators Wilson and Cranston of
California. That is the point. The point is that historically Judge
Trott has occupied a California seat. He stated in his committee
questionnaire that his ``two clients have been the People of the State
of California and the Government of the United States.''
Judge Trott was confirmed in 1988 to a seat previously held by Judge
Joseph Sneed, a California nominee. That judge's connection to the
Ninth Circuit prior to his appointment was his 9-year tenure as
professor at Stanford Law School. Judge Sneed established his chambers
in San Francisco. These are the facts.
Judge Trott was a California nominee to a California seat on the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as was his predecessor. Once confirmed,
however, Judge Trott made a personal choice to establish his chambers
in Idaho. This personal choice--essentially an arbitrary occurrence--
cannot result in a State losing a judgeship to another State.
As we all know, the overwhelming practice of administrations and
Senates of both parties has been to retain each State's representation
on its respective circuit. Just look at the makeup of the circuits
represented by the members of the Judiciary Committee. Both Iowans on
the Eighth Circuit occupy Iowa seats. Three Alabamians on the Eleventh
Circuit occupy Alabama seats. All of the Texas judges on the Fifth
Circuit, who are not the first occupants of their seats, were preceded
by Texans. The Senate recently confirmed Carolyn McHugh to the Tenth
Circuit. Judge McHugh was strongly supported by Senators Hatch and Lee,
and she replaced Michael Murphy, who had been a Utah nominee.
I could go through the history of each circuit, and the same pattern
would emerge time after time. This is not by accident. There is a
reason for it. Presidents of either party must know which Senators to
consult, and Senators must know which vacancies to make recommendations
for.
This might sound like inside baseball to some, but it is fundamental
to the Senate's advice and consent role, and no Senator of either party
would allow the arbitrary occurrence of a judge's personal choice of
residence to remove a judgeship from the Senator's home State. This is
a precedent this body cannot allow to be set.
Some might accuse California of trying to take more than its share of
seats. This is simply not so. There is no objective reason for the
Trott seat to be transferred to Idaho, where Judge N. Randy Smith
already occupies that State's seat on the circuit.
By every metric--population, appeals generated, district court
caseload--California has far less than its proportional share of
circuit judgeships and Idaho already has its fair share. In fact, if
Idaho were to get an additional judgeship, its representation on the
Ninth Circuit would be 5\1/2\ times its share of caseload. That is
ridiculous. Idaho would have twice as many seats as Montana and the
State of our Presiding Officer, Hawaii, have even though those States
generate more Ninth Circuit cases than Idaho. Nothing supports removing
this seat from California to Idaho--not history, not population, not
caseload. Nothing.
Let me conclude by saying this: I don't begrudge the Senators from
Idaho seeking additional Federal judicial resources for their State.
Senators Crapo and Risch have introduced a bill to create a new
judgeship on the Federal district court in Idaho. I represent four
judicial districts that virtually always have caseloads at judicial
emergency levels. One of them--the Eastern District of California--is
the most overburdened judicial district in the country and has a
caseload that is more than double the national average. So I understand
the desire of the Senators from Idaho to ensure that a sufficient
number of Federal judges are present in their State to resolve the
disputes of their constituents. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the
Federal Judgeship Act of 2013, which would create all the new
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference, including one for
Idaho. But the fact remains this seat on the Ninth Circuit was
previously held by two Californians and it should be filled by a
Californian. I very much hope the Californian will be John Owens, who
has an impeccable record, bipartisan support, and whom I am proud to
have recommended to President Obama, and whom I would urge my
colleagues to support.
I yield the floor.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are once again spending unnecessary
floor time overcoming a procedural obstacle so we can move to an up-or-
down vote on a judicial nomination. John Owens is nominated to fill the
longest open vacancy on our Federal courts. For more than 9 years, the
busiest circuit court in our Nation--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit--has been running at less than full strength. In 2013,
the Ninth Circuit had 12,761 appeals filed, several thousand more
appeals than the next busiest circuit. It also had 14,171 appeals
pending, three times more than the next busiest circuit. Each judge in
that circuit has nearly 525 appeals pending per active judge. That is
nearly 70 more appeals pending per active judge than the next busiest
circuit. These caseloads are not sustainable and the delay in resolving
these appeals hurts the American people. We should and must approve Mr.
[[Page S1799]]
Owens's nomination, along with Michelle Friedland's nomination to the
Ninth Circuit, as soon as possible.
Mr. Owens was first nominated last August and his early October
hearing date had to be moved after Republicans forced a shutdown of our
government. A hearing on his nomination was finally held in late
October. Mr. Owens could and should have been confirmed before we
adjourned last year. Instead, because Republicans refused to consent to
hold any nominations in the Senate, every single one had to be returned
to the President at the end of last year. They then had to be re-
nominated and re-processed through committee this year and Mr. Owens
was voted out of committee on a voice vote, without dissent, on January
16, 2014.
Mr. Owens is among six circuit nominees pending on the Senate floor.
We last voted on a circuit nominee during the last work period in early
March and before that we voted on a circuit court nominee in early
January. If Republicans continue to obstruct the Senate from having up-
or-down votes on uncontroversial judicial nominees, at our current pace
of filing cloture petitions once every month or so, we will not have
time this year to vote on even those who are currently pending on the
Senate floor.
We have not had a vote on a judicial nomination this year that was
not subject to a Republican filibuster. For all but two Republican
Senators, I have started to notice a pattern of voting to end
filibusters only if a nominee is from a State with at least one
Republican home State Senator. Most recently this happened yesterday on
the cloture vote for Judge Edward Smith of Pennsylvania. It should not
require a judicial nominee to be from a State with one or more
Republican home State Senators for some Senators to do the right thing.
Filling vacancies so that our Federal judiciary can be fully
functioning should not be a partisan issue.
Born in Washington, DC, Mr. Owens earned his B.A., with high
distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D.,
with distinction, Order of the Coif, from Stanford Law School. At
Stanford, he was the Nathan Abbott Scholar, an award given to the
student with the highest cumulative point average in the class. Mr.
Owens served as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review where he
earned the Stanford Law Review Board of Editors Award.
After law school, Mr. Owens served as a law clerk to Judge J.
Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and for Associate Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court. He has been a
litigator in both public and private practice. In 1998, he joined the
U.S. Department of Justice, where he would later serve as an Assistant
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the Southern
District of California. In 2008, Mr. Owens was promoted to serve as the
Deputy Chief of Major Frauds in the Southern District office and later
the Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2012, he rejoined private
practice as a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson where he presently
works. Over the course of his legal career, he has been counsel of
record in more than 20 cases before the court on which he is nominated
to serve.
Mr. Owens has the support of his home State Senators--Senator
Feinstein and Senator Boxer. I hope my fellow Senators will join me
today to vote to end the filibuster of Mr. Owen's nomination.
____________________