[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.
____________________