[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11489-11492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF JUDITH C. HERRERA TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Judith C. Herrera, of 
New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the District of New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of a New Mexican named 
Judith Herrera to be United States District Judge for the District of 
New Mexico. I believe everyone knows that the administration of justice 
is one of the most significant pillars of good government. I think in 
this instance the President has sent us an extraordinary person to be a 
judge in the District of New Mexico.
  We have a vacancy there because of a justice who took senior status. 
We have a tremendous overload, and I am very pleased that we finally 
got to the point where we could have another judge. Maybe we can begin 
to take care of this enormous overload. I thank everyone who worked on 
this nomination. Her credentials are impeccable. Every group that 
needed to recommended her.
  Judith Herrera is a resident of Santa Fe, NM. She attended the 
University of New Mexico.
  She then attended the Georgetown University Law Center where she 
earned her law degree.
  We, in New Mexico, are fortunate that Judy decided to return to New 
Mexico upon completion of her law degree.
  She began her career in public service shortly after returning to New 
Mexico, serving on the Santa Fe City Council from 1981 to 1986.
  She continued her service by sitting on the boards of St. Vincent 
Hospital in Santa Fe, St. Michael's High School Foundation, also in 
Santa Fe, and the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
  She has practiced law for more than 20 years in New Mexico, amassing 
in impressive resume and reputation in the legal community.
  I am confident she will be an outstanding member of the federal 
judiciary.
  I look forward to Judy Herrera's tenure on the bench.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Domenici, 
in urging the Senate to support this nomination. Judith Herrera is very 
qualified. I compliment the President for nominating her for this 
position. I compliment my colleague for recommending that nomination. 
She will serve us well on the district court in New Mexico.
  Ms. Herrera began her career as a prosecutor, and has spent many 
years in private practice. Currently, she is a partner at Herrera, 
Long, Pound & Komer in Santa Fe, NM. She has also served on the Santa 
Fe City Council and on the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents. 
Mrs. Herrera has served with distinction in all of these positions.
  I urge my fellow Senators to support her nomination.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the confirmation of Judith Herrera, who has been nominated to the 
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
  Ms. Herrera is an exceptional nominee and has a distinguished record 
of service in both the private and public sectors. After graduating 
from Georgetown Law School, Ms. Herrera worked as an Assistant District 
Attorney in Santa Fe, New Mexico where she prosecuted a variety of 
misdemeanor and felony offenses. She later entered the private sector 
and practiced in the areas of education and employment law.
  Ms. Herrera distinguished herself as one of the most effective 
advocates in New Mexico for employers defending wrongful discharge and 
discrimination cases. She later founded her own law firm, and currently 
serves as shareholder and president of that firm. Ms. Herrera has also 
served the local community of Santa Fe in a variety of ways. She was a 
member of the Santa Fe City Council, the Board of Trustees for St. 
Vincent Hospital, and the Board of Regents for the University of New 
Mexico. Ms. Herrera's broad experience as a trial attorney and her many 
hours of community service have prepared her for the challenges she 
will face as a Federal judge. I am confident that she will make a fine 
addition to the federal bench in the District of New Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate is proceeding to confirm Judith Herrera 
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Ms. Herrera 
is a partner with the Santa Fe firm of Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer, 
which she co-founded in 1987. She appears in court

[[Page 11490]]

frequently on behalf of employers, and their insurance companies, 
serving as defense counsel in employment discrimination and wrongful 
discharge cases. Before starting this practice, she handled education 
cases and also served briefly as a local prosecutor. She also 
previously served on the Sante Fe City Council. She has the support of 
both of her home-state Senators.
  Democratic support for the confirmation of Ms. Herrera, an active 
Republican, is yet another example of our extraordinary cooperation in 
this Presidential election year. Today's confirmation will make the 
180th judicial nominee to be confirmed since this President took 
office. With 80 lifetime judicial appointments confirmed in just the 
past year and a half alone, the Senate has confirmed more Federal 
judges than were confirmed during the all of 1995 and 1996, when 
Republicans first controlled the Senate and President Clinton was in 
the White House. It also exceeds the 2-year total for the last Congress 
of the Clinton administration, when Republicans held the Senate. This 
Senate has now confirmed more Federal judges than were confirmed during 
either Congress leading to a presidential election with a Democratic 
President and Republican Senate majority in 1996 and 2000.
  This marks the 180th judicial confirmation since President Bush took 
office. That is more than President Reagan, the acknowledged all-time 
champion, achieved in his entire 4-year Presidential term from 1981 
through 1984 working hand in hand with a Republican Senate majority. It 
is more than President Clinton was able to achieve in his entire 4-year 
Presidential term from 1993 through 1996, having to work with a 
Republican Senate majority during 1995 and 1996.
  I have already noted that at the Republican Senate leadership has 
again chosen to avoid debate of the nomination of J. Leon Holmes and 
Judge Dora Irizarry. These two district court nominees have been 
pending on the Senate floor longer than any of the other pending 
district court nominees. Just so that there is no confusion, that is 
the choice of the Republican Senate leadership to skip those 
nominations.
  The Holmes nomination will require significant debate. It was sent by 
the Judiciary Committee to the floor without recommendation, a highly 
unusual circumstance. That means that there was not a majority vote in 
committee to report the nomination favorably. The committee disserved 
the Senate by not doing its job of fully vetting the nomination and 
reaching a consensus or even a vote on the merits.
  With regard to Mr. Holmes, to excuse widely shared misgivings about 
this nomination partisan Republicans are falsely claiming that the 
opposition to him is based on his religion. That is a slander. 
Nonetheless, right wing groups like the Committee for Justice have run 
outrageous and false ads and propaganda against Democrats and have 
posted assertions that Democrats are anti-Catholic.
  Ms. Herrera is, of course, another among the scores of judicial 
nominees we have confirmed who are active in their faith. Ms. Herrera 
has stated in her Senate questionnaire that she is on the Board of 
Directors of the St. Michael's High School Foundation, a local Catholic 
high school, and she is a parishioner at St. Francis Cathedral. It is 
wrong for Republican partisans to seek political benefit by falsely 
claiming that Democrats are anti-Catholic and insulting for them to 
claim that Catholic Democrats are somehow not Catholic enough. Senator 
Durbin just released a study this week that shows that Democrats 
actually vote more often in agreement with the U.S. Conference of 
Catholic Bishops on domestic and international issues than their 
counterparts across the aisle. Yet the destructive Republican politics 
of division persist. These are unfortunate and dangerous schemes that 
will only further divide our people and our Nation. Anna Quindlen's 
recent column in Newsweek, Casting the First Stone, captures the heart 
of this current tendency to mix religion and politics into a concoction 
that some Republican strategists hope will help them at the ballot box. 
I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Newsweek, May 31, 2004]

                        Casting the First Stone

                           (By Anna Quindlen)

       It was nearly 25 years ago that Robert Drinan, a member of 
     Congress and an outspoken Jesuit (a redundancy if there ever 
     was one), so enraged the Vatican with his defense of abortion 
     rights that an order came down from Rome demanding priests 
     withdraw from politics.
       It appears that someone has had a change of heart.
       Or at least that's how it seems now that certain segments 
     of the Roman Catholic hierarchy are behaving like wholly 
     owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party, hellbent on a 
     course that will weaken the church's moral authority and 
     eventually deplete its membership. And all because of 
     abortion, the issue the celibate male leadership is least 
     equipped to personally understand.
       To paraphrase a Gospel passage, my Father's house is a 
     house of prayer, but they have made it a den of partisanship. 
     The archbishop of St. Louis announced that if John Kerry, the 
     Democratic candidate, showed up for mass he would be denied 
     communion. After threats from clerics in New Jersey, the pro-
     choice Democratic governor saved himself the embarrassment of 
     being turned away by saying he would no longer present 
     himself for the sacrament; the Democratic majority leader of 
     the state Senate responded by quitting the church and saying 
     he will likely join the Episcopalians. And in Colorado a 
     bishop went a step further, saying that any Catholic who 
     supports politicians who favor abortion rights, same-sex 
     marriage or stem-cell research should not take communion.
       Surely the next step is to put ushers at the door each 
     Sunday with a purity checklist. Adulterer? Out. Gay? Out. Tax 
     cheat? Gossip? Condom in your pocket? Out. Out. Out. My, how 
     empty those pews have grown. And the altar, too, where we 
     learned that too many priests had a secret life of sexual 
     abuse. Why were known pedophiles permitted to give communion 
     for years, while people of conscience at odds with Vatican 
     teaching (not church dogma) are prohibited from receiving it? 
     It brings to mind the always topical injunction that it's he 
     who is without sin who gets to cast the first stone.
       Too many bishops seem to have missed key seminary lessons: 
     the ones on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas that civil 
     and moral law are often two different things, or those on the 
     tradition in Catholic thought that a good law must be 
     enforceable, not a law like one prohibiting abortion that 
     will be so often broken that it leads to disregard for all 
     laws. Too many bishops seem to have forgotten the notion of 
     the individual examination of conscience. Instead they have 
     decided to examine conscience for us, particularly if we are 
     liberal Democrats.
       Leaders of the church began a schism between pew and pulpit 
     in 1968 with the publication of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. 
     The majority of the members of a papal commission on 
     contraception recommended that the church change its 
     opposition; the minority members won out, mainly because they 
     based their argument on the primacy of the pope. Even then, 
     power politics overrode the well-being of the people.
       But over time there was an unforeseen result of the 
     encyclical. The use of contraception became the church 
     prohibition millions of Catholics ignored, in part because 
     the directive was so out of step with modern life (as the 
     majority report suggested), in part because the issue was so 
     private. Little by little Catholics made their peace with 
     consulting their conscience instead of Father, especially on 
     intimate issues. The intermediaries became increasingly 
     irrelevant, especially when, in recent years, the full extent 
     of priestly sexual predation became known.
       These member of the church were derided by conservatives as 
     ``cafeteria Catholics,'' picking and choosing their beliefs. 
     Now we have cafeteria clergy, picking and choosing which 
     prohibitions they emphasize and which politicians they damn. 
     What of the pro-life policies of a living wage or decent 
     housing? The church is opposed to the death penalty, yet no 
     bishop has yet suggested he will deny the sacrament to those 
     who support capital punishment. And sanctions for Democratic 
     candidates have far outnumbered those for Republicans, even 
     Republicans who favor legal abortion. The timing of all this 
     is curious as well. It coincides with that new Catholic holy 
     day, the feast of the first Tuesday in November, known to 
     secularists as Election Day.
       It is one thing to preach the teachings of the church, 
     quite another to use the centerpiece of the faith selectively 
     as a tool to influence the ballot box, that confessional of 
     democracy. Even a member of Congress opposed to abortion 
     complained that church leaders were ``politicizing the 
     eucharist.'' If citizens who are Methodist, Muslim or Jewish 
     begin to suspect that Catholic politicians are beholden first 
     and foremost to Rome, a notion we thought was laughable and 
     bigoted when John F. Kennedy ran for president, who

[[Page 11491]]

     could blame them? Next month American Catholic bishops meet 
     for a retreat in Colorado. There they should speak out 
     against grievous sin, the sin of using communion to punish by 
     those who have not the moral authority to persuade.

  Mr. LEAHY. I also want to focus briefly on how Republicans continue 
to delay consideration of some Hispanic judicial nominees. For some 
time the only Hispanic nomination of this President to the first 42 
circuit court vacancies was the ill-fated nomination of a young man 
whose record was kept from the Senate by the Bush administration and 
who was opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, prominent Latino 
leaders of the civil rights community and by many others. This single 
nomination was in sharp contrast to the many Hispanic nominees sent to 
the Senate by President Clinton. In fact, eight of the Hispanic jurists 
serving on our circuit courts today were named by President Clinton, 
and at least three other Clinton Hispanic circuit nominees would be 
sitting on the bench now if they had not been denied consideration by a 
Republican-controlled Senate.
  When Democratic Senators supported the confirmation of Judge Edward 
Prado, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit, the Senate Republican leadership delayed consideration 
of that nomination for a month on the floor for no good reason, other 
than to allow us to vote on this Hispanic nominee would undercut their 
false charges that Democrats were anti-Hispanic. Judge Prado had a fair 
record, years of experience as a Federal District Court judge, and 
broad support from both sides of the aisle. Nonetheless, in order to 
get Judge Prado a vote, I had to come before the Senate on a number of 
occasions to urge his consideration because the Republican leadership 
was delaying final Senate consideration of his nomination.
  Now the Republican leadership seems to be returning to its earlier 
ways and is again passing over Hispanic nominees without explanation. 
Last October, 7 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably 
reported the nomination of Judge Dora Irizarry of New York to be a 
United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New 
York. This was not a nomination without some controversy. The American 
Bar Association accorded her a majority rating of ``not qualified,'' as 
it has several of this President's judicial nominees. Nonetheless, the 
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on her nomination. The Members of 
the Committee examined the nomination on the merits and reached their 
own judgment. With the support of Senator Schumer of New York, the 
nomination was favorably reported. While Senate consideration will 
include some brief debate, there is no reason this matter has not been 
scheduled and considered in the last seven months. It could easily have 
been considered during the course of an extended quorum call during any 
one of the many days when there is no significant business taking place 
on the Senate floor. As I have reiterated for months, there is no 
Democratic hold on this nomination. It merits a brief discussion, but 
we are prepared to vote on it. Republican delay has prevented action on 
this nomination.
  I do not recall this lengthy a delay in scheduling debate on a Latina 
nominee since the untoward Republican obstruction of Senate 
consideration of President Clinton's nomination of Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1999. 
That nomination of an outstanding judge, who had been appointed to the 
federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, was delayed for more than 
400 days in all and waited 7 months on the Senate floor, before we were 
able to force action and a vote on her confirmation. According to some 
accounts, she was delayed over Republican concerns that she would be 
chosen by President Clinton for the Supreme Court if a vacancy arose.
  Likewise, the Senate's Republican leadership has not yet scheduled a 
vote on the nomination of Ricardo S. Martinez to be a United States 
District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington or Juan R. 
Sanchez to be a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania.
  Despite Republican delays in the consideration of President Bush's 
Hispanic nominees, the Senate has already confirmed, unanimously, three 
of his Hispanic nominees to the circuit courts and 11 to the district 
courts. Ms. Herrera will be the 12th Latino district court nominee and 
15th overall confirmed by the Senate.
  Unfortunately this White House's commitment to diversity seems 
shallow when compared to its devotion to ideological purity. The 
President has nominated many more members of the Federalist Society 
than members of the nation's fastest growing ethnic group. The White 
House has sent over the nominations of more than 45 individuals active 
in the Federalist Society, which is more than twice as many Latinos as 
he has nominated. In fact, the President has chosen more individuals 
involved in the Federalist Society than Latinos, African Americans, and 
Asian Americans combined.
  We have made significant progress over the last three years in 
reducing Federal judicial vacancies. As of today, there are only 43 
total vacancies in the Federal court system. That stands in sharp 
contrast to the treatment Republicans accorded President Clinton's 
nominees. Indeed, under Republican leadership, from 1995 to the summer 
of 2001 the number of vacancies in the federal courts rose from 63 to 
110. We have now made up that 67 percent increase in vacancies the 
Republican Senate leadership had engineered between 1995 and 2001, and 
we have reduced vacancies from the 1995 level by one third, to the 
lowest vacancy level in 14 years. In spite of the way more than 60 of 
President Clinton's nominees were defeated by Republicans' objections, 
Senate Democrats have cooperated in the consideration and confirmation 
of 180 of this President's judicial nominations.
  We now have 16 vacancies in the circuit courts. That is the number of 
vacancies that existed when Republicans took majority control of the 
Senate in 1995. Unfortunately, through Republican obstruction of 
moderate nominations by President Clinton, those circuit vacancies more 
than doubled, rising to 33 by the time Democrats resumed Senate 
leadership in the summer of 2001. We steadily reduced circuit vacancies 
over the 17 months that Senate Democrats were in charge. Even though 
since 2001 an additional 15 circuit vacancies have arisen, we have done 
what Republicans refused to do when President Clinton was in the White 
House by not only keeping up with attrition but actually working to 
reduce vacancies. We have now reduced circuit vacancies to the lowest 
level since before Republican Senate leadership irresponsibly doubled 
those vacancies in the years 1995 through 2001.
  We should recognize the progress we have made. I certainly recognize 
the entirely different approach to judicial nominations Republicans 
have taken with a Republican President's nominations in contrast to 
their systematic obstruction of Senate action on President Clinton's 
judicial nominations. I would hope that we will be able to find ways to 
work together without too much more delay to consider the Hispanic 
nominees to the federal bench who Democrats are supporting.
  I congratulate Ms. Herrera and her family on her confirmation today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Judith C. Herrera, of New Mexico, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Miller) are necessarily absent.

[[Page 11492]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Ex.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baucus
     Biden
     Campbell
     Corzine
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Miller
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President shall 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________