[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S240-S243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Energy Policy Modernization Bill

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 
2015 is a crucial step forward in modernizing our country's energy 
policy and public lands management for the first time in nearly a 
decade, and we are doing it in a strong, bipartisan fashion. Moreover, 
we are taking the necessary steps to secure our Nation's energy future, 
in turn increasing economic opportunity and protecting our Nation's 
security needs.
  Here are a few important components of this bill that I would like to 
highlight.
  No. 1, it permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. This is an important tool for increasing public access to public 
lands and one of the country's best conservation programs.
  No. 2, this bill also streamlines the permitting for the export of 
liquefied natural gas, allowing more American energy to power the 
world.
  Montana is the fifth largest producer of hydropower in the Nation, 
and we have 23 hydroelectric dams. This bill strengthens our Nation's 
hydropower development by streamlining the permitting process of new 
projects and finally defining hydropower as a renewable resource. Only 
Washington, DC, would not define hydropower as a renewable resource. 
This cleans that up by statute, allowing FERC to provide more time to 
construct new hydroelectric facilities on existing dams. It also 
extends construction licenses for Gibson Dam and Clark Canyon Dam, two 
projects critical to tax revenue and jobs for communities in Montana.
  This energy bill establishes a pilot project to streamline drilling 
permits if less than 25 percent of the minerals within the spacing unit 
are federal minerals. The provision, sponsored by my good friend the 
senior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, is of particular 
importance to Montana, given the patchwork of land and mineral 
ownership in the Bakken.
  It also improves the Federal permitting of critical and strategic 
mineral production, which supports thousands of good-paying Montana 
jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues for our State 
to support our infrastructure, our schools, and our teachers. Metal and 
nonmetal mining has created more than 8,500 good-paying Montana jobs. 
In fact, mining helps support more than 19,000 jobs in total across 
Montana. Metal mining in Montana has contributed $403 million in taxes, 
and nonmetal mining produces $128 million every year. This includes 
$288 million of State and local taxes.
  Finally, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 modernizes and

[[Page S241]]

strengthens the reliability and security of bulk power in America's 
electrical grid. In Montana, we know the important balance of 
responsibly developing our natural resources and serving as good 
stewards of our environment. Our energy sector supports thousands of 
good-paying jobs for union workers and tribal workers. Access to our 
State's one-of-a-kind public lands is critical to our State's tourism 
economy and our very way of life in Montana. This bill facilitates all 
these goals.
  Given the overwhelming support this bill received in committee, I am 
hopeful that this bill will also receive strong bipartisan support as 
we work through the amendment process and take a final vote on this 
bill next week.
  I also look forward to having the opportunity to make this bill even 
better for our Nation. This legislation makes important gains for 
Montana energy, but there is still work to do. We can't fully discuss 
our Nation's energy future without also addressing the President's 
moratorium on new Federal coal leases and royalty increase attempts for 
Federal coal, oil, and natural gas. I hope we can work together in a 
bipartisan fashion to address these important issues, which have a 
significant impact on jobs, tax revenue, and energy prices in Montana.
  I would like to thank Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, 
and their staffs for their work in getting us to this point. I look 
forward to seeing and voting on additional amendments from my 
colleagues in the coming days, and I look forward to getting this bill 
across the finish line, providing the American people with a 
comprehensive energy policy that works to support both our economic 
security as well as our national security.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of 
John Michael Vazquez to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the 
Federal district court in the district of New Jersey. His confirmation 
is long overdue. He was nominated over 10 months ago and reported out 
of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 months ago.
  Mr. Vazquez is an outstanding nominee who has experience both in 
private practice and in the public sector. Since 2008, he has practiced 
as a named partner at the law firm of Critchley, Kinum & Vazquez in 
Roseland, NJ. He has also devoted a significant part of his career to 
public service, having worked for both the office of the attorney 
general for the State of New Jersey and as a Federal prosecutor in the 
district of New Jersey. During his tenure as a Federal prosecutor, Mr. 
Vazquez handled a wide array of Federal investigations and prosecutions 
while serving in the general crimes unit, the major narcotics unit, the 
terrorism unit, and the securities and health care fraud unit.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
Mr. Vazquez ``Well Qualified'' to serve as a Federal district judge, 
its highest rating. He has the support of his home State Senators, 
Senators Menendez and Booker.
  Mr. Vazquez's nomination reflects the enormous progress that the 
Senate and this administration have made in making the Federal 
judiciary more diverse and more representative of the citizenry it 
serves. The fact that there are more women and minorities than ever 
before serving on our Federal bench is important. The result of this 
progress is that it increases public confidence in our justice system.
  Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have stalled this progress by 
obstructing several highly qualified Hispanic nominees. For example, 
Senate Republicans delayed the confirmation of Judge Luis Felipe 
Restrepo, the first Hispanic judge from Pennsylvania nominated to the 
third circuit, for more than a year. This was the case despite his 
excellent legal and judicial career and the strong bipartisan support 
he had from his home State Senators.
  In addition, the junior Senator from Arkansas continues to impose a 
wholesale blockade on the nominees to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 
including Armando Bonilla, a Cuban American who has devoted his entire 
career to public service at the U.S. Department of Justice. If 
confirmed, Mr. Bonilla would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a seat 
on that court, where he is urgently needed. The chief judge of the 
Court of Federal Claims has written to Chairman Grassley and me to 
express the need to confirm the pending nominees; yet Senator Cotton is 
being allowed to hold up these well-qualified nominees.
  And just last week, the junior Senator from Georgia announced that he 
was withdrawing his support for the nomination of a Hispanic nominee to 
a Federal district court in Georgia. Judge Dax Lopez has served as a 
distinguished State court judge in DeKalb County, GA, since 2010. With 
his experience, I was not surprised that the Georgia Senators submitted 
Judge Lopez's name to the White House for consideration to the Federal 
district court. After recommending him to the White House, it is 
unfortunate that the junior Senator from Georgia is now blocking his 
nomination because of Judge Lopez's membership on the board of 
directors for the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. This 
nonpartisan organization's mission ``is to increase civic engagement 
and leadership of the Latino/Hispanic community across Georgia.'' But 
some conservatives have focused only on the fact that the organization 
supported common sense immigration reform--something that a bipartisan 
majority of this body supported when we passed comprehensive 
immigration reform in 2013.
  I have long noted that I do not vote to confirm individuals to the 
bench because I expect to agree with all of their views. My standard is 
whether the nominee would be the kind of independent judge who would be 
fair and impartial. There is nothing in Judge Lopez's record to suggest 
that he could not or would not be an impartial judge. Judge Lopez has 
been a State court judge for nearly 6 years. Those who oppose Judge 
Lopez have decided that, because he was on the board of directors of an 
organization that advocates certain policies with which they disagree, 
they refuse to even consider his record or his own merits. This new 
litmus test for his membership in a nonpartisan organization sets a 
dangerous precedent that Senators should reject.
  We also saw this unreasonable treatment from Senate Republicans with 
the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to the northern district of 
California. Despite having served as a Federal magistrate judge for a 
decade, Senate Republicans held up Judge Chen's nomination for years 
because Judge Chen had previously worked for the American Civil 
Liberties Union. According to one Republican Senator on the Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Chen had the ``ACLU gene,'' and so somehow he could 
not possibly be a fair judge--even though Judge Chen had shown that he 
could be an independent and neutral arbiter over the 10-year period 
that he served as a Federal magistrate judge. This new litmus test is 
completely unfair. I am sorry that Senate Republicans have now 
subjected Judge Lopez to this.
  This afternoon, I hope we do not see a repeat of what happened to 
Judge Wilhelmina Wright, who was confirmed last week to the district 
court in Minnesota with a large number of ``no'' votes from 
Republicans. Judge Wright was the first African-American woman to serve 
on the Minnesota Supreme Court and the first person to serve on all 
three levels of the Minnesota State judiciary; yet many Republicans 
chose to side with the moneyed Washington interest groups who unfairly 
attacked her nomination based on a writing assignment from her third 
year of law school. That a Washington political action committee is 
opposing a nominee should not prevent Senators from exercising their 
own fair judgment. The resource needs of our independent judiciary 
should not be tainted by calls for a shutdown of our constitutional 
role as Senators.
  I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Vazquez.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to support the nomination of 
John Michael Vazquez, whom the President nominated for a lifetime 
appointment as a United States district judge for the district of New 
Jersey.
  I thank Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid for giving 
Mr. Vazquez a vote on the Senate floor. I appreciate Chairman Grassley 
and Ranking Member Leahy and their respective staffs for all their hard 
work on moving this well-qualified judicial nominee through the 
Judiciary Committee. I also want to thank Senator

[[Page S242]]

Menendez, New Jersey's senior Senator, for his hard work on this 
judicial appointment.
  The district of New Jersey currently has four judicial vacancies, all 
of which are judicial emergencies. This means that a very heavy 
caseload exists in that judicial district which, if left unremedied, 
undermines the quality and pace of access to justice for the people of 
New Jersey. According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, each 
judgeship in the district of New Jersey has over 650 weighted filings. 
That is unacceptable. Senator Menendez and I are committed to breaking 
the logjam and ensuring New Jerseyans gain more access to justice.
  Mr. Vazquez is a well-qualified nominee. He has worked in both public 
service and private practice and has experience in both criminal and 
civil cases. His time in public service includes stints as a Federal 
prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for the district of New Jersey 
and attorney in the New Jersey State attorney general's office where he 
rose up the ranks to become the first assistant attorney general. He is 
now a partner in private practice at a Roseland, NJ, law firm.
  Mr. Vazquez has litigated both criminal and civil cases, which I am 
confident will make him a fine and well-balanced jurist. As a Federal 
prosecutor, he handled a wide variety of Federal criminal cases, 
including major narcotics prosecutions, as well as securities and 
health care fraud cases. In the state attorney general's office, he 
focused on criminal matters, including public corruption and financial 
fraud. In private practice, he specialized in criminal and civil law.
  He has excellent credentials. He graduated summa cum laude from Seton 
Hall University School of Law and earned his undergraduate degree from 
Rutgers University--two prominent New Jersey educational institutions. 
He also clerked for a well-respected judge on the New Jersey Superior 
Court bench, appellate division.
  Mr. Vazquez has also given back to his community. He won numerous 
awards for his dedication to his community and to law enforcement, 
including the Latino Legal Community Award from Seton Hall University 
School of Law's Latin American Law Students Association; the Excellence 
in Hispanic Leadership Award from the New Jersey Department of 
Community Affairs' Center for Hispanic Policy; and recognition from the 
New Jersey County Prosecutor's Association and the New Jersey State 
Police.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has unanimously rated Mr. Vazquez well-qualified to be a 
district court judge, the highest possible rating. Last September, he 
was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous 
voice vote. I am confident this well-qualified nominee will serve 
honorably on the Federal bench.
  I urge my fellow Senators today to confirm Mr. Vasquez as a United 
States district judge to the district of New Jersey. I look forward to 
continue working with Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy and 
Senate leadership to confirm more judicial nominees to fill vacancies 
in the district of New Jersey so that we can eliminate existing 
judicial emergencies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to express my 
enthusiastic recommendation for John Michael Vazquez's nomination and 
confirmation to the United States District Court for the District of 
New Jersey, which the Senate will be voting upon shortly.
  Mr. Vazquez's credentials are impressive. He is a New Jerseyan who is 
eminently qualified and highly experienced, and I am confident that he 
will be an outstanding jurist whose judicial temperament, observance of 
precedent, and personal integrity will be beyond reproach.
  There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance to the Justice 
Department that I often am reminded of, and it can't be quoted too 
often when we are looking to perform one of our most vital duties, 
selecting those best qualified judicial nominees. It reads: ``Justice 
in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as it first 
resides in the hearts and souls of its citizens.'' I believe that 
justice does, in fact, reside in the heart and soul of John Vazquez and 
that he will bring that judicial heart and soul to the task, as well as 
the benefit of a long and distinguished legal career in private and 
public service.
  Mr. Vazquez began his legal career at the law offices of Michael 
Critchley & Associates after completing a clerkship with the Honorable 
Herman D. Michels of the New Jersey Appellate Division. He graduated 
summa cum laude from Seton Hall University School of Law and from 
Rutgers College. His intellect is of the highest order. He would bring 
a long and distinguished career to the District of New Jersey bench if 
and when he is confirmed. He is currently a partner at Critchley, Kinum 
& Vazquez, practicing commercial, securities, and civil litigation, as 
well as white collar criminal defense.
  Before his time in private practice, he served the people of New 
Jersey in the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General as the first 
assistant attorney general. As the second highest ranking law 
enforcement official in the State, Mr. Vazquez conducted the day-to-day 
operations of the 9,500-person department and various divisions within 
the department, including criminal justice, consumer affairs, civil 
rights, elections, and gaming enforcement divisions, to mention a few. 
He previously served in that particular office as a special assistant 
to the attorney general. Before that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, 
where he focused on health care fraud, securities fraud, and terrorism 
investigations. These experiences have given him a clear appreciation 
of the separation of powers, the importance of checks and balances, and 
I believe he will bring that view to the bench.
  The American Bar Association rated him unanimously ``well qualified'' 
for the nomination, and I agree. He was voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee unanimously. When I think about the breadth and scope of what 
comes before a Federal district court judge, I can only think about the 
breadth and scope of his experience. He understands both sides of the 
legal equation--the prosecution and defense of the accused. He is a 
member of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, the Essex County 
Bar Association, the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Association 
of the Federal Bar of New Jersey, and the Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.
  Mr. President, I can say without equivocation that justice does 
indeed reside in the heart and soul of John Vazquez. He is an eminently 
qualified nominee with impressive credentials and experience who will 
fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of New Jersey. In 
addition to intellect, judgment, temperament, observance of the rule of 
law, and separation of powers, he diversifies our judiciary as a 
Hispanic American, which is something I think is also very important--
to be able to have any American walk into any court in the land and 
believe the possibility that someone like them may very well be sitting 
in judgment of them. When you have all the elements of what we want in 
the Federal judiciary and we are able to achieve that element of 
diversity as well, I think it is the highest moment.
  I urge the Senate to unanimously support him, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Vazquez nomination?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the

[[Page S243]]

Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]

                                YEAS--84

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Lankford
     Sullivan
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Alexander
     Boxer
     Corker
     Cruz
     Flake
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Nelson
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Stabenow
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the President will be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________