[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8786-S8788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we close the book on the first session 
of the 114th Congress, our attention is on the thousands of pages in 
the omnibus spending bill. But as the Republican leadership rushes to 
spin the press about what the Senate has accomplished in their 12 
months in the majority, there is one Senate responsibility that should 
not get lost in the noise. That is our responsibility to equip our 
coequal branches of government, the Federal judiciary and the executive 
branch, with the confirmed public servants that both branches need to 
serve the American people.
  Senate Republicans began the year by filibustering the nomination of 
the first Black woman to be nominated for the position of Attorney 
General of the United States. No other Attorney General nominee in our 
history has been met with a filibuster. That did not stop Republicans 
from holding up Loretta Lynch's nomination longer than the last seven 
Attorneys Generals combined. Our Nation's top law enforcement official 
deserved better treatment, but the fight to get her a confirmation vote 
previewed how difficult it would be to get votes scheduled on other 
crucial nominees. Republicans have blocked confirmation votes for the 
people nominated to serve as Ambassadors to some of our closest allies. 
They have blocked consideration of nominees who would help keep our 
country safe from terrorist threats, including a Treasury Department 
nominee who would lead an office that investigates terrorist financing.
  By the end of this week, Senate Republicans will have also earned the 
dubious distinction of matching the record for confirming the fewest 
annual number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. Too 
many Americans who have sought justice in our Federal courts this year 
have instead found delays and empty courtrooms because of Senate 
Republicans' obstruction on judicial nominees. I am concerned that 
Republicans' treatment of our third branch risks politicizing it and 
diminishing the role that it was designed to play in our system of 
government.
  For the first 6 years of President Obama's tenure in office, Senate 
Republicans pulled out every stop to obstruct confirmations on judicial 
nominees--systematically filibustering nominees and abandoning the 
Senate's tradition of confirming consensus judicial nominees before 
long recesses. While I was hopeful they would change course once they 
assumed the majority, they have instead taken their obstruction to 
unprecedented heights by virtually shutting down judicial 
confirmations.
  Over the course of the entire year, Senate Republicans have allowed 
judicial confirmation votes for only 11 nominees. In stark contrast, 
when Senate Democrats were in the majority during the seventh year of 
the Bush Presidency, we confirmed 40 judges that year--more than triple 
the number of judges confirmed this year. The Senate has a 
constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the President's 
nominees. It is part of the core duties we must fulfill as Senators, 
and a fully functioning Federal judiciary is dependent on us meeting 
this obligation.
  I have urged the Republican leaders to allow confirmation votes on 
the uncontroversial judicial nominees before the end of the year. We 
have 19 judicial nominees still pending on the floor. Each of these 
nominees was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee, and each has 
the support of their home State Senators. Traditionally, the Senate has 
confirmed such consensus nominees at the end of a session, but 
Republicans have repeatedly refused to do so during the Obama 
Presidency. This is the seventh year in a row that Senate Republicans 
are rejecting the Senate's practice of consenting to confirmation votes 
at the end of a session. At the end of 2009, Senate Republicans left 10 
judicial nominees on the Senate floor without a vote. At the end of 
2010 and again in 2011, Senate Republicans left 19 judicial nominees 
pending on the calendar as they left town. In 2012, it was 11 judicial 
nominees, and in 2013, it was nine that Senate Republicans left pending 
on the floor. Last year, Senate Republicans attempted to block 12 
nominees on the floor in December. Fortunately, because Leader Reid 
took seriously the Senate's duty to fill judicial vacancies and filed 
cloture on those nominees, we were able to get those nominees 
confirmed. In each of the last 2 years of the George W. Bush 
administration when Democrats were in the Senate majority, we confirmed 
all of President Bush's judicial nominees pending on the Executive 
Calendar in December before we left for the year. Contrast that with 
this year when Senate Republicans are leaving 19 judicial nominees 
pending on the floor as they head home.
  The Republicans' double standard for President Obama's nominees will 
force the Senate to spend time next year doing work that should have 
been completed by now. For example, for the 19 nominations Senate 
Republicans left in 2010 and again in 2011, it took nearly half the 
following year in each case for the Senate to confirm these nominees. 
Perhaps Senate Republicans' real intent is to just run out the clock on 
the Obama administration--but these delays are not procedural 
abstractions without real world consequences. For the judicial nominees 
who have already made a commitment to public service in the Federal 
judiciary, the obstruction means they must continue to wait and keep 
their professional lives on hold wondering if the Senate will do its 
job.
  The consequences for the judges currently serving in the Federal 
judiciary, as well as the litigants seeking justice before them, are 
also very real. Senate Republicans' treatment of judicial nominations 
has resulted in a dramatic increase in judicial vacancies this year. 
Since Republicans took over the majority in January, judicial vacancies 
have increased by more than 50 percent--from 42 to 66. These vacancies 
impact communities across America, and it is doing the most harm to 
States with at least one Republican Senator. Of the 66 current 
vacancies that exist, 47 of them--or more than 70 percent--are in 
States with at least one Republican Senator.
  Of critical concern is the fact that judicial vacancies deemed to be 
``emergency'' vacancies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
have

[[Page S8787]]

more than doubled this year. These vacancies represent judicial 
districts where caseloads are unmanageably high, leading to lengthier 
delays for parties before those courts; yet, as we leave for the year, 
9 of the 19 nominees pending on the floor that Senate Republicans 
refuse to confirm are judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, Minnesota, New Jersey, Iowa, New York, and California.
  In addition to the article III nominees, there are five nominees to 
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims who were nominated well over a year 
ago. Each of these nominees was unanimously voice voted out of 
Committee last year and again this year. The Court of Federal Claims 
has been referred to as the ``keeper of the nation's conscience'' and 
``the People's Court'' because it allows citizens with claims against 
the government to promptly seek justice. It is critically important 
that we confirm the five pending nominees to this court. However, they 
continue to be blocked by a single Republican Senator--the junior 
Senator of Arkansas.
  Senator Cotton claims to have concerns that the court's caseload is 
not high enough and that the court should simply depend on senior 
judges coming out of retirement to hear cases. A recent letter to the 
committee from the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims, however, 
indicates that only one of the nine senior judges is willing to be 
recalled for full-time duty and the other three would only agree to be 
recalled on a limited basis. Furthermore, the court's overall caseload 
has increased by 9 percent over the last year. No member of the 
Judiciary Committee raised caseload concerns when these nominees were 
unanimously approved by voice vote last year or again this year. There 
is no good reason for Senator Cotton to deprive Americans across the 
country of a fully functioning Court of Federal Claims by blocking the 
five highly qualified nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote. These 
nominees include Armando Bonilla, a Cuban American who has devoted his 
entire career to public service at the U.S. Department of Justice; Jeri 
Somers, an African-American woman who spent over two decades serving as 
a judge advocate general and as a military judge; and several others 
who would contribute to our justice system. As these nominees approach 
the 2-year mark of waiting for the Senate to take up their 
confirmations, I urge Senator Cotton to consider these well-qualified 
nominees on their merits.
  I have heard some suggest that Republicans' glacial pace on judicial 
confirmations is political retribution for the change to Senate rules 
regarding nominations. This obstruction, however, does not hurt U.S. 
Senators--it hurts the American people. Behind the statistics on 
Republican obstruction--the number of nominees languishing without 
votes on the Senate floor, the rising number of judicial vacancies, and 
the dramatic increase in emergency vacancies--are the experiences of 
real people in our justice system--individuals and small businesses 
seeking justice in our Federal courts who end up waiting for years for 
overburdened courts to hear their claims.
  The national press, including the Wall Street Journal and the 
Associated Press, has highlighted the devastating effects of the high 
number of judicial vacancies. The Wall Street Journal interviewed one 
of the Federal judges in a California district where a judgeship went 
unfilled for almost 3 years. Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said, ``Over the 
years I've received several letters from people indicating, `Even if I 
win this case now, my business has failed because of the delay. How is 
this justice?' And the simple answer, which I cannot give them, is 
this: It is not justice. We know it.''
  Senate Republicans' obstruction on judicial nominees has also had 
another effect; it has halted the enormous progress needed in making 
the Federal judiciary better reflect the citizenry it serves. This 
progress increases public confidence in our justice system. I am proud 
of the fact that there are more women and minorities than ever before 
serving on our Federal bench.
  Yet, as we conclude this session, the Senate is leaving several 
nominees of color with outstanding qualifications on the floor without 
votes. This includes Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, who was nominated to a 
judicial emergency vacancy in the third circuit well over a year ago. 
When he is eventually confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic judge 
from Pennsylvania on the third circuit. Judge Restrepo has the strong 
support of the Hispanic National Bar Association and has bipartisan 
support from his home State Senators, Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. 
Senator Toomey has said not only that he strongly supports Judge 
Restrepo's confirmation, but that he also recommended him to the 
President. Despite this overwhelming support for his nomination and the 
emergency vacancy that needs to be filled urgently, Republican 
leadership recently skipped over Judge Restrepo on the Executive 
Calendar to confirm a district court nominee from Tennessee for a 
nonemergency judgeship.
  In addition to Judge Restrepo, Senate Republicans are adjourning for 
the year with four exceptional African-American district court nominees 
and an exceptional Hispanic district court nominee held up on the 
floor. Two of the African-American nominees--Waverly Crenshaw and 
Edward Stanton--have been nominated to district court positions in 
Tennessee. Both have the support of their home State Republican 
Senators and were unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote. The three other nominees of color--Justice Wilhelmina 
Wright to the District of Minnesota and John Vazquez and Julien Neals 
to the District of New Jersey--are all nominated to judicial emergency 
vacancies. All have the support of their home State Senators, and all 
were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. The only 
reason all of these nominees could not be confirmed this week is that 
Senate Republicans would not allow it.
  While there is no reason not to hold votes on these nominees today, I 
am glad that Republicans have consented to a bipartisan plan to confirm 
five well-qualified judicial nominees in the 5-week period after we 
return in the new year. Because of this agreement, the Senate will be 
on pace in the first 2 months of next year to confirm almost half the 
number of nominees it took us this entire year to confirm. Under the 
agreement, the Senate will hold confirmation votes for Judge Restrepo 
as well as four district court nominees: Justice Wilhelmina Wright to 
the district of Minnesota; John Vazquez to the district of New Jersey; 
Judge Rebecca Ebinger to the southern district of Iowa; and Judge 
Leonard Strand to the northern district of Iowa. Four of these nominees 
are nominated to fill emergency vacancies, and three are nominees of 
color. This agreement allows for good progress that the Senate must 
continue to build on, so that we reduce judicial vacancies to ensure 
that Americans can seek timely justice in our courts.
  Federal judges serve an essential role in communities across the 
Nation. In 2 weeks, the Chief Justice of the United States will issue 
his end-of-year report. His predecessor often noted in such reports the 
impact of unfilled judicial vacancies on the functioning of the third 
branch. I hope that such a core resource matter will again be addressed 
in the upcoming report because the Republican majority's treatment of 
nominations this past year has been an historic disappointment.
  I hope that, in the new year, the Senate will make progress on the 
judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee as well as on 
additional nominees that we receive from the President. I was glad to 
hear the majority leader's remarks this week that he does not believe 
there should be a cutoff point for confirming qualified judicial 
nominees in an election year. The majority leader has been consistent 
on this view, and I commend him for it. In July 2008, the Senate 
Republican caucus held a hearing solely dedicated to arguing that the 
Thurmond rule does not exist. At that hearing, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky stated: ``I think it's clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. 
And I think the facts demonstrate that.'' Similarly, the Senator from 
Iowa, my friend who is now serving as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, stated at that hearing that the Thurmond rule was in his 
view ``plain bunk.'' He said: ``The reality is that the Senate has 
never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months 
of a president's term.'' That was certainly the case when

[[Page S8788]]

Democrats were in the majority in the last 2 years of the George W. 
Bush administration. I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
then, and I can tell you that Senate Democrats confirmed 22 of 
President Bush's judicial nominees in the second half of 2008.
  The American people deserve to have judicial vacancies in their 
communities filled. Hard-working Americans across this country are 
counting on us to do our jobs as Senators. Our constituents call our 
offices and meet with us to let us know how they feel about the 
legislative issues before us. They should not also have to ask us to 
fulfill the bare minimum of our constitutional duties, such as the duty 
to consider nominees in a timely manner to keep the third branch of 
government fully functioning.
  I sincerely hope the new year will bring a new approach from Senate 
Republicans and that we can move forward to confirm all of the pending 
judicial nominees without further delay.

                          ____________________