[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S848-S850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
[[Page S849]]
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Leonard Terry Strand, of
South Dakota, to be United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 15 minutes of debate,
equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as was just reported, we will
vote on the nomination of Len Strand from Iowa. I am very pleased to be
here to support him, just as I was here a few days ago to support Judge
Ebinger from Iowa, who was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on
Monday, and I hope this person will likewise be unanimously approved.
I said this on the floor earlier this week, but for the benefit of my
colleagues who didn't get a chance to hear that wonderful speech I
gave, in my opinion, the Iowa nominees, Judge Ebinger and now Judge
Strand, are the two best judicial candidates this President has
nominated. Earlier this week I discussed the extensive selection
process these nominees underwent. I will not go into those details
again, but I will say that I am very pleased the process produced such
a nominee as Judge Strand.
Judge Strand has deep Iowa roots. He received his undergraduate
degree from the University of Iowa in 1987 and his law degree from the
University of Iowa College of Law in 1990. Upon graduation, he joined
one of the most prestigious law firms in Iowa as an associate, where he
specialized in employment law and commercial litigation.
During his time at the law firm, he received several awards,
including ``Super Lawyer'' for Iowa and the Great Plains region for 6
years straight. During his time at the firm, he was very involved in
his community. He has been a member of a wide range of organizations
important to Iowa, all the way from the symphony orchestra, to the
medical center, to the YMCA.
In 2012 Judge Strand was appointed as a magistrate judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. In this capacity, he
has handled hundreds of cases, which has prepared him well to be a
Federal district judge, article III.
The ABA considers him--as you know the classifications--``unanimously
well qualified'' for this position.
As I did Monday for Judge Ebinger, I urge all my colleagues to
support his nomination today, and we will be voting on it shortly.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the nomination of
Leonard Strand to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Federal
district court in the Northern District of Iowa. I will vote to support
his nomination.
The next district court nominee pending after we return from the
President's Day recess will be Waverly Crenshaw, an exceptional
African-American nominee who is nominated to a judicial emergency
vacancy in the Middle District of Tennessee. Mr. Crenshaw has the
support of his Republican home State Senators, Senators Alexander and
Corker, and he was voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee last
July. There is no reason to continue to delay the confirmation of such
a qualified nominee who is urgently needed for Tennesseans to receive
swift justice. I hope the Senators from Tennessee can convince their
majority leader to schedule a vote for Mr. Crenshaw as soon as we
return from recess. I further hope that the majority leader will
continue to regularly schedule judicial confirmation votes to ensure
that our Federal judiciary is fully functioning.
Since Republicans took over the majority last January, they have
allowed votes on just 15 nominees. In stark contrast, at this point in
the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency in 2008, when Senate Democrats
were in the majority, we had confirmed 40 judicial nominees. Senate
Republicans' obstruction has resulted in judicial vacancies soaring
across the country--rising by more than 75 percent. Judicial vacancies
deemed to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has
nearly tripled in that time. Senate Democrats worked hard to reduce
these judicial emergency vacancies to 12, but under Republican
leadership, they have now risen to 32. There is an urgent need for the
Senate to confirm highly qualified nominees who will get to work in
Federal courthouses across the country where justice for too many
Americans has been delayed. Judge Strand will fill just one of these
emergency vacancies. There are dozens more to fill.
Judge Strand is an excellent judicial nominee who has served in our
Federal judiciary since 2012 as a U.S. magistrate judge in the district
court for the Northern District of Iowa. Prior to joining the bench, he
spent over 20 years in private practice as a partner at the Cedar
Rapids, IA, law firm Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC. The ABA
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge
Strand ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the Federal district court, its
highest possible rating. He has the strong support of his home State
Senators, Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee and Senator
Ernst.
After today, 17 judicial nominees will remain pending on the Senate
floor. These nominees are from Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey,
Nebraska, New York, California, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. Many of
these nominees will fill emergency vacancies, and nearly half of these
nominees have Republican home State Senator support. Furthermore, there
are another 15 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee
from California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin.
It is our constitutional duty as Senators to provide advice and
consent on these judicial nominees. The Federal judiciary is dependent
on us to fulfill this obligation, and the American people expect that
we will do the jobs we have been elected to do in the U.S. Senate. This
is why the demand from certain moneyed Washington interest groups that
Republican Senators oppose the confirmation of any judicial nominee
this year, regardless of a nominee's merit or qualifications, is so
destructive. Not only would this require Senators to cede their role
and judgement to outside political action committees, but refusing to
confirm any judicial nominees for the rest of this year would also make
the high number of vacancies in our Federal judiciary even worse. This
would hurt the American people and weaken our justice system. We cannot
allow this to happen.
In the first 5 weeks of this year, the Senate has voted on five
judicial nominees. During this time, we have also debated and voted on
legislation and confirmed executive nominees. There is no reason why
the Republican majority cannot continue to hold confirmation votes on
judicial nominees when we return. In 2008, when I was chairman of the
committee with a Republican President, we worked to confirm judicial
nominees as late as September of the Presidential election year. In
fact, that year Senate Democrats confirmed 28 of President Bush's
judicial nominees, 22 of these in the last 7 months of 2008. This
includes the confirmation of 10 of President Bush's district court
nominees pending on the Senate floor in a single day by unanimous
consent on September 26, 2008.
I urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Strand and look
forward to continuing to work with my fellow Senators to ensure that we
continue to vote on the remaining pending judicial nominees when we
return from recess.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back all time on this side, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the Strand nomination?
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
[[Page S850]]
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 23 Ex.]
YEAS--93
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Boxer
Cruz
Graham
Moran
Rubio
Sanders
Sullivan
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the President will be immediately notified
of the Senate's action.
____________________