[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 108 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5002-S5003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

                                 ______
                                 

          PENDING NOMINEES TO THE U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has been 
referred to as the ``keeper of the Nation's conscience'' and ``the 
people's court.'' This court was created by Congress approximately 160 
years ago and embodies the constitutional principle that individuals 
have rights against their government. As President Lincoln has said, 
``It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against 
itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between 
private individuals.'' That is what this court does. It allows citizens 
to seek prompt justice against our government.
  The court's jurisdiction is authorized by statute, and it primarily 
hears monetary claims against the U.S. Government deriving from the 
Constitution, Federal statutes, executive regulations, and civilian or 
military contracts. The fact that the Court of Federal Claims is an 
article I court, as opposed to an article III court, does not render 
any of the cases that it hears any less significant.
  For example, the court has presided over such important cases as the 
savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the World War II internment of 
Japanese Americans. It also presides over civilian and military pay 
claims and money claims under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
  The takings clause under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 
provides: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without 
just compensation.'' As a result of this court's jurisdiction over 
takings' claims, it considers cases such as the auto bailout suits 
against General Motors and Chrysler--companies who were required to 
terminate agreements with franchisees as a condition of receiving 
Federal bailout money. The court also resolves disputes that critically 
impact the environment and our economy, such as those involving the 
taking of wetlands to create solid waste landfills and disputes over 
water and drainage rights by agricultural landowners.
  Last week, the chief judge of the court sent a letter informing the 
Senate that despite the court's shortage of

[[Page S5003]]

judicial officers, its caseload continues unabated. She wrote that 
``[t]he statutory requirements dictating deadlines for certain types of 
cases unique to our court, including government contract disputes--some 
of which involve national defense and national security--remain in 
effect. The dollar amounts in dispute in our currently pending cases, 
which are often an indication of the complexity of the underlying 
issues, are in the billions of dollars. At least three different cases 
on the court's pending docket reflect a demand for damages greater than 
forty billion dollars.''
  This is no ordinary court. The Senate Republicans' insistence on 
delaying the confirmation of qualified nominees to the Court of Federal 
Claims harms its ability to resolve issues of national importance in a 
timely and just manner. Since February 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal 
Claims has been operating with several vacancies. Only 11 of the 16 
seats on the court are occupied by active judges.
  We could have a court working at full strength if we confirm the five 
pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. All five of them were all 
nominated more than a year ago and have twice been voted out of the 
Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote. I have heard no objections 
to any of the five nominees to this court. There is no good reason to 
delay filling these vacancies.
  This is especially the case because the nominees before us are 
superbly qualified. One of the nominees, Armando Bonilla, would be the 
first Hispanic judge to hold a seat on the court. He is strongly 
endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association. He has spent his 
entire career--now spanning over two decades--as an attorney for the 
Department of Justice. He was hired out of law school in the 
Department's prestigious Honors Program, and has risen to become the 
Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department.
  Armando Bonilla's story is that of the American dream. The son of a 
Cuban immigrant and Cuban-American father, Armando Bonilla has told the 
story of his mother's flight from Havana with his aunt and his 
grandmother. He has told the story of his ``Ti Mario,'' who eventually 
disappeared trying to help other exiles. And he has told the story of 
his father, who dropped out of high school but would subsequently serve 
the country by joining the Marines and would ultimately take on several 
jobs to support Armando and his sister. As Mr. Bonilla has beautifully 
described, his father ``exemplified the most outstanding qualities of 
the Hispanic culture and Hispanic people: the selfless sacrifice, the 
steely resolve and unbridled optimism and the genuine pride in an 
honest day's work--all toward the cause of improving the lives of the 
next generation.'' Mr. Bonilla should be confirmed without further 
delay.
  Another nominee, Jeri Somers, retired with the rank of Lieutenant 
Colonel in the U.S. Air Force. She spent over two decades serving first 
as a judge advocate general and then as a military judge in the U.S. 
Air Force and the District of Columbia's Air National Guard. In 2007, 
she became a board judge with the U.S. Civilian Board of Contract 
Appeals and currently serves as its vice chair.
  Armando Bonilla and Jeri Somers are just two of the five nominees 
that Senate Republicans have been obstructing. These are two 
individuals that have done right every step of the way in their careers 
and are willing to serve on this important court. They have dedicated 
the majority of their careers in service to our Nation. They deserve 
better than the treatment they are receiving now.
  During the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed nine judges to 
the Court of Federal Claims--with the support of every Senate 
Republican. So far during the Obama administration, only three CFC 
judges have received confirmation votes. That is nine CFC judges during 
the Bush administration to only three so far in the Obama 
administration.
  Unfortunately, the disparity in treatment of these nominees by Senate 
Republicans is not surprising. More than half a year into this new 
Congress, the Republican leadership has scheduled votes to confirm only 
five district and circuit court judges. This is in stark contrast to 
the 25 district and circuit court judges confirmed by July 13, 2007, 
when the shoe was on the other foot and Democrats had regained the 
Senate majority in the seventh year of the Bush administration. That is 
25 district and circuit court judges under a Democratic majority 
compared to 5 under the Republican majority. That is five times as many 
judges confirmed under a Democratic majority with a President of the 
opposite party than today's Senate Republican majority.
  It is up to the majority leader now to treat President Obama's 
judicial nominees fairly. I ask that he schedule votes this week on the 
five Court of Federal Claims nominees pending on the Senate Executive 
Calendar.
  I ask unanimous consent that a recent post to The Hill's Congress 
Blog by Professor Carl Tobias on the need to fill the vacancies on U.S. 
Court of Federal Claims be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, July 9, 2015]

            Fill the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Vacancies

                            (By Carl Tobias)

       The United States Court of Federal Claims was the most 
     important federal court that many Americans had never heard 
     of until last month. That is when Judge Thomas Wheeler of 
     this court ruled that Hank Greenberg and AIG shareholders had 
     proved that the federal government exceeded its authority by 
     demanding an eighty percent equity stake in AIG during the 
     great recession but that plaintiffs were not entitled to 
     damages because they suffered no economic loss.
       More critical than this high profile case is the fact that 
     the court has experienced vacancies in five of its judgeships 
     for more than a year, while the well qualified, consensus 
     nominees whom President Barack Obama first tapped for those 
     openings in 2014 have languished awaiting confirmation. 
     Because the Court of Federal Claims needs its full complement 
     of judges to deliver justice and each nominee is highly 
     qualified and uncontroversial, the Senate must expeditiously 
     provide the nominees floor debates, if warranted, and up or 
     down votes.
       This tribunal is the court in which citizens seek redress 
     against the federal government for monetary claims. These 
     include claims that the U.S. has taken private property 
     without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, claims 
     pursued by veterans who seek disability payments for injuries 
     received in combat and claims for compensation filed by 
     persons who allege vaccines injured them. The tribunal's 
     recent caseload has increasingly encompassed complex, high-
     dollar cases and high profile disputes in fields, such as the 
     1980s savings and loan crisis and Second World War internment 
     of Japanese Americans by the United States.
       On April 10, 2014, Obama nominated Judge Nancy Firestone 
     for reappointment and Thomas Halkowski to fifteen year terms, 
     while on May 21, the White House nominated Armando Bonilla, 
     Patricia McCarthy and Jeri Somers. Obama first nominated all 
     five of the candidates more than one year ago, and they 
     received Judiciary Committee hearings nearly a year ago. The 
     panel unanimously reported all five out of committee rather 
     soon after the hearings. Unfortunately, the Senate accorded 
     none of the nominees a final vote before the 114th Congress 
     adjourned.
       Therefore, the White House renominated the five candidates 
     in early January 2015. The Judiciary Committee in turn 
     unanimously approved the nominees without substantive 
     discussion in February. The five nominees have since 
     languished on the floor over four months awaiting debates and 
     yes or no ballots. In a June 24 Congressional Record 
     statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary 
     Committee Ranking Member, urged swift votes: ``We have heard 
     no opposition to any of these nominees, yet they have been in 
     limbo for months and months because the Republican Leader has 
     refused to schedule a vote.''
       Now that the Senate has returned from its July 4 recess, 
     one of the chamber's first items of business must be debates 
     and votes on the five Court of Federal Claims nominees. The 
     tribunal needs all of the judges whom Congress has authorized 
     to dispense justice for members of the public who seek 
     redress because they claim that the federal government has 
     injured them.

                          ____________________