[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 249-254]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF BEVERLY BALDWIN MARTIN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                        FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to report the following nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Beverly 
Baldwin Martin, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Eleventh Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the Senator 
from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak under 
the time allotted to Senator Sessions and that I be followed by my 
colleague Senator Isakson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise today to speak on behalf of a good friend, a 
very fine jurist, Judge Beverly Martin, who has been nominated by 
President Obama to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I have had the good fortune of knowing Judge Martin, who is a native 
of Macon, GA, for many years and could think of no one with more 
integrity, professional competence, and appropriate judicial bearing to 
sit on the Nation's second highest bench.
  Judge Martin is a fourth-generation lawyer. Her great-grandfather, 
grandfather, and her father were all lawyers in Macon, GA. They started 
the law firm of Martin & Snow in Macon, which is where Judge Martin 
also began the practice of law after graduating from the University of 
Georgia School of Law in 1981.
  I talked to my good friend Cubbege Snow, Jr., who was one of the 
senior partners at the firm at that point in time. I said: Cubbege, 
tell me about Beverly. What did you do with her when she came fresh out 
of law school to be the fourth generation Martin in that law firm?
  He said: Saxby, she started just like everybody else; we put her 
collecting accounts, which is the one thing lawyers have to do when 
they start out is that sort of menial type work.
  I remember one day walking by her office and she is obviously on the 
phone with somebody trying to collect an open account, and she finally 
screamed at whoever it was on the other end and said, ``If you do not 
pay this bill, I am going to lose my job.''
  So Beverly Martin started at the bottom of the ladder in the practice 
of law. She has worked herself up to the point now of being one of the 
finest district court judges we have in our State.
  My good friend Jerry Harrell, who is also a member of that firm, says 
the thing he remembered best about now Judge Martin when she was 
practicing law is that she is very bright, but she approached 
everything from a true commonsense standpoint and that she was a very 
level-headed individual.
  Judge Martin was drawn from private practice to Atlanta to go to work 
in the attorney general's office by then Attorney General Mike Bowers. 
She was there for a 10-year period. And in 1997 she was appointed U.S. 
Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia after serving for a couple 
of years as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  During her tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia 
in Macon, Judge Martin was known as a tough prosecutor. She handled 
cases herself in a way that was not only very professional but in a 
very meaningful way.
  At the same time, she was very compassionate outside of the 
courtroom. In fact, she started a program in Macon, Valdosta, Columbus, 
and Athens that is called the Weed & Seed Program. It is now a 
nationwide program that is run through U.S. Attorney offices. Judge 
Martin was a strong proponent and received national recognition for the 
work she did with the Weed & Seed Program in our State. She also held 
day camps for inner-city kids during the summertime. She served on 
various boards, including the board of Macon State College and Majority 
Women of Achievement, which board she serves on with my wife Julianne.
  Her lengthy tenure as a prosecutor has given her a uniquely informed 
perspective. When handling criminal cases, as many of my colleagues 
know, a prosecutor must be tough but fair in carrying out their 
responsibilities. This experience has served her well as she has served 
on the District Court. It makes her exceptionally well qualified to 
serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  While on the district court, Judge Martin was faced with several 
difficult criminal matters. In 2002, she refused to intervene and halt 
the scheduled execution of a man convicted of killing a Columbus, GA, 
police officer.
  More recently, in 2008, she rejected arguments that Georgia's method 
of capital punishment was unconstitutional, determining that it more 
than conformed with the recent Supreme Court guidance on the issue.
  In his choice of Judge Martin, the President not only picked a fine 
Georgian to sit on the nation's second highest bench, but he has also 
picked a topnotch legal mind.
  More revealing about Judge Martin as a jurist than my remarks are the 
anonymous lawyer comments that have been written about her during her 9 
years on the bench. Words such as ``smart,'' ``bright,'' 
``respectful,'' and ``fair'' appear frequently. One lawyer wrote, ``Her 
legal ability is matched by her courtroom demeanor, which is the best 
around.''
  Another said, ``She always calls it as she sees it. She has no 
leaning.''
  Mike Bowers, attorney general and her mentor of 15 years, said she is 
the most evenhanded judge he has ever appeared before.
  In fact, Mike, who is now in private practice, told me that he tried 
the very first jury trial case before Judge Martin. In Federal trials, 
the lawyers are all required to stand at a lecturn where they ask their 
questions to the witnesses, and it is not appropriate to get too close 
to the jury. But all of us used to try to do that because you could 
sometimes be more effective. He said: One day I was trying this case 
before Judge Martin, the very first case she had tried, and I obviously 
got a little too close to the jury. Being the evenhanded judge she is, 
she looked at her 15-year mentor and she said, very professionally: Mr. 
Bowers, please back away a respectful distance from the jury. He said: 
I remember it very well.
  That is the evenhandedness with which Judge Martin has always 
conducted herself on the bench. I have no doubt Judge Martin will serve 
the people of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida very well on the Eleventh 
Circuit. She is, to put it plainly, a fair and wise judge. The 
President couldn't have chosen a more qualified individual for the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I am proud to lend my support to her 
and look forward to her swift confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator 
Chambliss to endorse the confirmation and hopefully unanimous 
confirmation of Judge Beverly Martin to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court 
of Appeals. I thank President Obama for sending this nomination forward 
and for the consultation his people had with Senator Chambliss and 
myself. I thank Senator Leahy, chairman, and Ranking Member Sessions 
from Alabama of the Judiciary Committee for the diligence with which 
they approached this confirmation and the speed with which we have now 
brought it to the floor.
  I am proud that the vote on Judge Martin today will be the first vote 
of the 2010 session of the Senate. As Senator Chambliss said, Judge 
Martin comes from a long, distinguished family of lawyers from middle 
Georgia.

[[Page 250]]

She comes to the bench with a balanced temperament and the evenhanded 
process that comes from growing up in middle Georgia and having respect 
for one's fellow man.
  I don't know Judge Martin and did not know Judge Martin until she was 
nominated. I am not an attorney so I didn't have a lot to fall back on 
when I made my first judgment. I decided what I would do is what I 
always did in my 33 years of business. I figured you could always find 
out what was at the heart of someone by calling those who competed with 
them, other members of the same profession. So I called lawyers, 
judges, prosecutors around Georgia, friends I had, and said: Tell me 
what you know about Judge Beverly Martin. Without exception, every 
response was positive.
  It was interesting. One district attorney said: I like her because 
she has the tenacity of a prosecutor. She was a prosecutor for the 
northern district of Georgia. I talked to a dear friend of mine who is 
on the Georgia Supreme Court who said she has the temperament for a 
judge. I talked to another practicing attorney, who had tried cases 
before her and had competed with her when she was a practicing attorney 
herself, who said: Johnny, she is tough. She is fair. But she has a 
passion for the law, a passion for doing what is right.
  I don't think you can come up with a finer endorsement than those 
three quotes.
  I also join Senator Chambliss in acknowledging and studying one's 
record. Some of her decisions I think have been outstanding. As a 
former prosecutor, she understands the dangers our law enforcement 
officers go through. She understands the value they serve. I think her 
ruling not to stay the execution of a murderer of a Columbus, GA 
policeman was absolutely the right decision. Her defense of the Georgia 
death penalty law as being constitutional was not only appropriate but 
right. Throughout all of her decisions, one thing is for sure: Whether 
you agreed or not, she gave it the thought and time necessary to make 
what she felt was the right decision.
  In 2000, the Senate confirmed Judge Martin to the northern district 
court in Georgia. It did so unanimously. It is my hope that on this day 
the Senate once again will unanimously approve the confirmation of 
Judge Beverly Martin to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the nomination of 
Judge Beverly Baldwin Martin who President Obama nominated to the 
Eleventh Circuit on June 19. I remain at a loss as to why it has taken 
this long for her nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. 
Judge Martin's nomination is one of the few that has had strong 
bipartisan support. Both of her home State Senators, Senator Chambliss 
and Senator Isakson, have expressed their support for the President's 
nominee from the beginning. I have also expressed my support for Judge 
Martin and I believe she will be easily confirmed when the vote occurs.
  As I have said many times, Republicans have been and are ready and 
willing to proceed to a roll call vote on her nomination for months 
but, for whatever reason, our Democratic colleagues, the leadership, 
would not take yes for an answer. Instead, they chose to force votes on 
controversial nominees such as David Hamilton and Andre Davis. Given 
those nominees' records, it was no secret they would engender 
opposition and that it would take some time for their records to be 
examined and to be prepared for debate.
  I do not know the reasons for not calling up Judge Martin's 
nomination sooner. I hope it wasn't to purposely delay this 
noncontroversial nomination in order to create an illusion that a lot 
of judges are being obstructed. Certainly we have been accused of 
obstructing nominations in the last few months and we have heard these 
allegations repeated on the Senate floor and in the press, often 
supported by inaccurate and misleading information. Some of my 
Democratic colleagues have said they want to confirm judicial nominees 
at the same pace the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed President 
Bush's nominees. I think my colleagues should be careful what they wish 
for, because President Obama's nominees have fared far better than 
President Bush's. For those who were not here then, and for those who 
don't--or won't--remember, I wish to take a moment to describe exactly 
what happened during that time.
  President Bush began his Presidency by extending an olive branch and 
renominating two prior Clinton nominees to seats on the Circuit Courts 
of Appeal--one step removed from the Supreme Court. He renominated 
Democratic nominees. How was he repaid for that? The Democrats took the 
olive branch and broke it and gave it back to him. It began soon after 
President Bush was elected when a group of well-known professors--
liberal activist professors--Laurence Tribe, Marsha Greenberger, and 
Cass Sunstein, met with the Democratic leadership and proposed changing 
the ground rules of the confirmation process in a meeting, apparently--
certainly not open to the public. They proposed that Senators should 
consider a nominee's ideology--this had not been historically done--and 
for the first time in the history of the country, they proposed that 
the burden be shifted to the nominee to somehow prove they were worthy 
of the appointment instead of having the Senate respect the presumptive 
power of the President to make nominations and then object if that 
nomination was a concern to them. So it was clear to me then that as a 
result of that meeting, a majority of the Democrat Members of this body 
agreed to what they proposed. After the Democrats took control in the 
107th Congress, then-Majority Leader Daschle promised to ``use whatever 
means necessary'' to defeat President Bush's judicial nominees.
  Before the 2001 August recess, the Democrats granted hearings for 
only two circuit court nominees, and one was Roger Gregory, a former 
Clinton nominee who was renominated. They even refused to hold a 
hearing for now-Chief Justice John Roberts. His nomination at the time 
was to the District of Columbia circuit which had been scheduled for a 
hearing before the change in the Senate majority. Then, in an 
unprecedented and, I think, partisan move, our Democratic colleagues 
indiscriminately returned every single one of President Bush's 40 
pending judicial nominations. There was no consideration of an 
individual nominee's record. There was no consideration of bipartisan 
support for the nominee. It was a simple obstruction, it appeared to 
me. Thirty of these nominees were later confirmed by voice vote or by a 
substantial majority.
  This was followed by another unprecedented event: the systematic 
filibuster of highly qualified nominees, many of whom were later 
confirmed by voice vote or a substantial majority. The Democrats 
filibustered 30 attempts to hold up-or-down votes on at least 17 
judicial nominees, highly qualified nominees--some rated unanimously 
well qualified by the American Bar Association. Senator Reid summed up 
what they were doing during the filibuster of Priscilla Owen--a 
fabulous nominee; a justice on the Texas Supreme Court; a great lady--
he opposed her nomination and he said in his quote: ``There is not a 
number of hours in the universe that would be sufficient'' to debate 
her nomination.
  So, today, we hear outrage that President Obama's nominees have been 
waiting for weeks or months for a confirmation vote. President Bush's 
nominees to the circuit courts waited an average of 350 days--almost a 
year, on average; I was here--from nomination to confirmation. That was 
just the average. The majority of President Bush's first nominees to 
the circuit courts waited years for confirmation votes and some never 
even received a hearing

[[Page 251]]

in committee, despite being highly qualified, outstanding nominees. 
Priscilla Owen, Justice Owen of the Texas Supreme Court, waited 4 years 
for a confirmation vote. John Roberts, Jeffrey Sutton, and Deborah Cook 
all waited 2 years. Dennis Shedd and Michael McConnell waited for more 
than a year and a half. Terrence Boyle, who was nominated by President 
Bush for the Fourth Circuit, languished close to 8 years and never 
received a vote, even though he passed out of the Judiciary Committee 
with a majority, and the Democrats had the majority. Miguel Estrada, 
rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, was 
filibustered through seven cloture votes and never confirmed. Charles 
Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, Williams Myers, Henry Saad, William Haynes--
all I think outstanding nominees--all were filibustered and never 
confirmed. So I ask my Democratic colleagues: Did we have any outrage 
from that side then?
  Let's look at the current pace of nominations. Unlike President Bush, 
President Obama did not extend an olive branch by renominating any of 
the outstanding pending nominees President Bush had submitted who were 
being held up. In fact, he ignored a request by all of the Republican 
Members of this body to do that. Instead, he chose Judge David Hamilton 
as his first nominee. He could hardly be characterized as a consensus 
nominee. Thirty-nine Senators--all Republicans--voted against him after 
a full debate.
  The treatment of President Obama's and President Bush's nominees for 
the Fourth Circuit will illustrate what I am saying. During the 110th 
Congress, despite the 33-percent vacancy rate on that court, four of 
President Bush's well-qualified, consensus nominees to that court, the 
Fourth Circuit, were needlessly delayed and ultimately blocked. 
President Bush nominated Steve Matthews in September of 2007. Despite 
his stellar qualifications, he was forced to wait 485 days to even get 
a hearing and the hearing never came. His nomination was returned in 
January of 2009. Chief Judge Robert Conrad of the district court had 
the support of his home State Senators and received an ABA rating of 
unanimously well qualified. Despite overwhelming support and 
exceptional qualifications, including having played point guard for 
Clemson in the ACC, he waited 585 days for a hearing that never came. 
His nomination was returned. Judge Glen Conrad had been chosen by Janet 
Reno, President Clinton's Attorney General, to investigate one of the 
allegations against President Clinton. Out of all of the prosecutors in 
America, she chose Judge Conrad. It is an outrage that he was not 
confirmed. He was a stellar nominee and should have been confirmed. The 
bar respected him and so did the Democratic administration.
  Finally, Rod Rosenstein, whom the ABA rated unanimously well-
qualified and who served in the Department of Justice in both Democrat 
and Republican administrations, waited 414 days for a hearing that 
never came. His nomination was returned on January 2, 2009.
  President Obama's Fourth Circuit nominees have fared far better. Take 
Judge Andre Davis. He received a hearing a mere 27 days after his 
nomination, a committee vote just 36 days later, and was confirmed in 
early November of last year. Justice Barbara Milano Keenan was 
nominated on September 14, 2009. She received a hearing just 22 days 
later and was voted out of committee 23 days after that. Both Judge 
Albert Diaz and Judge James Wynn were nominated on November 4, 2009. 
The committee quickly held their hearing on December 16, 2009--despite 
the fact that the Senate was consumed with the healthcare debate--and 
their nominations are listed on the committee's agenda for this week.
  The raw numbers also demonstrate that this is not the simple ``apples 
to apples'' comparison that some have tried to make it out to be.
  President Obama has nominated little more than half the judicial 
nominees that President Bush had nominated at this point in his 
Presidency. Despite holding a time consuming Supreme Court confirmation 
hearing, the Judiciary Committee has still managed to hold hearings for 
all of President Obama's nominees, except for the few that were 
nominated just before the recess last month and were not ripe for 
hearings before the break. Compare that to this point under President 
Bush when 31 of his judicial nominees had yet to receive hearings.
  And, not only has the Senate confirmed nearly the same percentage of 
President Obama's judicial nominees as were confirmed at this point 
under President Bush, but we are moving faster. Indeed, President 
Obama's circuit court nominees have received confirmation votes mere 
months after being nominated--far quicker than President Bush's circuit 
court nominees, who waited an average of 350 days. Many waited years 
and many never even received an up-or-down vote. The simple fact is 
that President Obama has nominated fewer and we have confirmed more.
  All of this is not to lay the groundwork for some sort of payback, 
but to set the record straight. Republicans have not held a private 
retreat to plot how to block judicial nominees. We have not taken 
orders from outside groups to block nominees based on their ideology. 
We have not blocked nominees because we do not want them to sit on a 
specific case. We have not once attempted to filibuster nominees in the 
Judiciary Committee. That is how Democrats treated President Bush's 
nominees. Those are the facts.
  We have not and will not do any of those things. Instead, we will 
continue to thoroughly analyze the records of President Obama's 
nominees, and hold fair and rigorous hearings to ensure that each 
nominee possesses the impartiality, the commitment to the rule of law, 
the integrity, the legal expertise, and the judicial restraint 
necessary to sit on our Nation's judiciary.
  As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to 
continuing to work with the chairman to process nominations in the 
bipartisan manner that we have established over the past year.
  I yield the floor.
  I see our outstanding chairman, Senator Leahy, is here. I know he 
wants to get back to the committee. I appreciate his leadership. He is 
a person I enjoy working with. We spat a little over these nominations, 
but he allows us to have full and fair hearings when we have them, and 
I think I can't ask for more than that.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we return for the second session of the 
111th Congress, the Senate at last considers the long-stalled 
nomination of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Court of Appeals 
for the Eleventh Circuit. Even though Judge Martin is a well-respected 
district court judge with the strong support of both of her home State 
Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, her 
nomination has been stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar for over 4 
months since it was promptly reported by the Judiciary Committee 
without a single dissenting vote.
  The delays for consideration of the nomination of Judge Martin, along 
with delays for seven other judicial nominations currently on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar, are the result of a Republican strategy to 
stall, delay, and obstruct that began last year. I urge the Senate 
Republican leadership to reconsider their strategy and instead join 
with us and with President Obama to fill the more than 100 vacancies 
that have now accumulated on our Federal courts around the country.
  The obstructionist tactics that we saw last year from Republicans led 
to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. 
Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit 
and district courts were confirmed all last year. The 12 Federal 
circuit and district court nominees confirmed last year was less than 
half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. 
In the second half of 2001, a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to 
confirm 28 judges. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary 
Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 
of his judicial nominees.

[[Page 252]]

  Republicans have refused to agree to the consideration of qualified, 
noncontroversial nominees for weeks and months. Last December, only 3 
of the available 13 judicial nominations on the Senate Executive 
Calendar were considered. By contrast, in December 2001, the first year 
of President Bush's administration, Senate Democrats proceeded to 
confirm 10 of his judicial nominees. At the end of the Senate's 2001 
session, only four judicial nominations were left on the Senate 
Executive Calendar, all of which were confirmed soon after the Senate 
returned in 2002. At the end of President Clinton's first year, just 
one judicial nominee was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. At the 
end of President George H.W. Bush's first year, a Democratic Senate 
majority left just two judicial nominations pending on the Senate 
Executive Calendar.At the end of the first year of President Reagan's 
first term--a year in which the Senate confirmed 41 of his Federal 
circuit and district court nominees--not a single judicial nomination 
was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. This past December, Senate 
Republicans left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action and 
insisted on returning 2 of them to the President so that they would 
have to be renominated.
  None of the eight judicial nominations currently pending on the 
Executive Calendar are controversial. Six were reported by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. We have wasted 
weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider 
nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously and then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were 
finally allowed to be considered.
  Judicial vacancies have now skyrocketed to over 100, undoing years of 
hard work. The lack of Senate action last year is attributable to 
Senate Republicans and no one else. President Obama has reached across 
the aisle to consult with Republican Senators. The nomination before 
the Senate today is another example of that. He has made quality 
nominations. While President Obama has moved beyond the judicial 
nominations battles of the past and reached out to work with 
Republicans and make mainstream nominations, Senate Republicans 
continue their tactics of delay.
  When President Bush worked with Senators across the aisle, I praised 
him and expedited consideration of his nominees. When President Obama 
reaches across the aisle, the Senate Republican leadership delays and 
obstructs his qualified nominees. The Republican leadership has 
returned to their practices in the 1990s, which resulted in more than 
doubling circuit court vacancies, and led to the pocket filibuster of 
more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. The crisis they created 
eventually led even to public criticism of their actions by Chief 
Justice Rehnquist during those years.
  Instead of praising President Obama for consulting with Republican 
Senators, the Senate Republican leadership has doubled back on what 
they demanded when a Republican President was in the White House. No 
more do they talk about each nominee being entitled to an up-or-down 
vote. That position is abandoned and forgotten. Instead, they now seek 
to filibuster and delay judicial and even executive nominations. They 
have also abandoned their initial position at the start of this 
Congress that they would filibuster judicial nominees on which home 
State Senators were not consulted. It turned out such consultation and 
home State Republican Senator support did not matter when they 
unsuccessfully filibustered President Obama's first judicial nominee, 
Judge David Hamilton. He was filibustered despite the support of 
Senator Lugar, his home State Senator and the longest serving 
Republican in the Senate.
  Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees 
to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total 
was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in his first year of a 
Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made 
nine nominations all of which were confirmed. The number of 
confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority 
allowed confirmation in the 1996 session.
  This is wrong. The American people deserve better. The cost will be 
felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal 
courts.
  During President Bush's last year in office, we had reduced judicial 
vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election 
year. When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of 
the 13 Federal circuits. As matters stand today, judicial vacancies 
have spiked and are being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the 
highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the 
vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still 
being filled. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a 
Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, 
with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had 
proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference 
to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 
1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, 
current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure 
of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or 
denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of 
Federal judges.
  We have seen this unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on 
issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has 
affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements 
and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to 
find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those 
who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should 
be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations 
are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any 
delaying tactic they can.
  These obstruction tactics took dangerous lows last year when Senate 
Republicans voted to leave our troops without funding at a time when we 
are fighting two wars. Had the Senate Republican filibuster of the 
Defense Department appropriations bill been successful, they would have 
cut off funding for our troops in the field. Senate Republicans also 
filibustered the veterans bill.
  Judge Martin's nomination is the longest pending of the judicial 
nominees currently on the Executive Calendar. Judge Martin is a well-
respected Federal district court judge. Her nomination received a 
unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and has the 
support of both Republican home State Senators, Senator Chambliss and 
Senator Isakson. Judge Martin has spent 25 years in public service as a 
Federal judge, as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, as 
an Assistant U.S. attorney in that office, and as an assistant attorney 
general in the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia. Judge 
Martin's nomination should have been an easy one to have confirmed 
months ago. Republicans should have thanked President Obama for 
consulting with the home State Republican Senators and moved forward. I 
wish we could have reached a time agreement sooner. It should not have 
taken 4 months.
  I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and allow 
prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting Senate 
consideration: Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey, nominated to the 
Third Circuit; Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to the 
Fourth Circuit; Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth 
Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third 
Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; 
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, nominated to the Eastern District of 
Washington; and William Conley, nominated to the Western District of 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield 6 
minutes to the Senator from Delaware, an

[[Page 253]]

extraordinarily valuable member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I thank the Senator. It is a pleasure to serve with him 
on the Judiciary Committee and see the work he is doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        in praise of lisa brown

  Mr. KAUFMAN. I rise once again to recognize one of America's great 
Federal employees.
  One year ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as President 
of the United States. As with every change in administration, the White 
House welcomed many new staff members, appointed by the President to 
help him carry out his policy goals.
  I have spoken many times about career Federal employees who serve 
regardless of which political party controls the executive branch. 
Today, I want to use my time to highlight the important work performed 
by those Federal employees who serve in appointee positions. Although 
their jobs depend on the outcome of elections and political 
circumstances, they are no less accountable to the people and no less 
dedicated in their service.
  This holds true for the appointees from both parties, who, given the 
opportunity, eagerly leave jobs in the private and nonprofit sectors to 
serve in government. Many of our Nation's elected leaders once served 
in this capacity, including some of my Senate colleagues.
  On this first anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, many are 
reflecting on the past 12 months and trying to gauge his 
administration's success. One thing I am certain about is that he could 
not carry out his ambitious agenda without the help of the talented 
White House staff.
  The great Federal employee I am honoring today has the challenging 
job of making sure the White House staff are working together and that 
all of the information the President needs reaches his desk.
  Lisa Brown serves as White House staff secretary. It is a position 
many Americans are unfamiliar with, but it is one of the most important 
in the West Wing. The staff secretary is responsible for keeping the 
lines of communication between the President and his senior staff open 
and organized. Nearly every memo destined for the President's desk must 
first pass through the hands of the staff secretary, who filters the 
most pressing items and ensures that the President's decisions are 
conveyed to the appropriate staff member. Think about how complex that 
is.
  Lisa is a native of Connecticut, and she graduated magna cum laude 
from Princeton with a degree in political economy. She also holds a law 
degree with honors from the University of Chicago.
  After clerking for the late Judge John Godbold, on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Alabama, Lisa was a partner at the 
Washington law firm Shea & Gardner. While working in the private 
sector, she also engaged in pro bono work in the area of civil rights 
and disabilities law. During that time, Lisa gained valuable expertise 
in these fields, which she would later put to use in her government 
service.
  In 1996, Lisa began working as an attorney adviser in the Justice 
Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After a year in that role, she 
was appointed deputy counsel to Vice President Gore, and in 1999 she 
was appointed as his counsel. At the same time, Lisa served on the 
executive board of the President's Committee for Employment of People 
with Disabilities. She also worked on legislative issues with the Vice 
President's Domestic Policy Office.
  After the Clinton administration ended, Lisa moved to the nonprofit 
sector, where she became executive director of the American 
Constitution Society for Law and Policy. When President Obama was 
elected, he asked her to return to government service as a key part of 
his White House team.
  Despite her busy schedule in one of America's most stressful work 
environments, Lisa still finds time to raise a 6-year-old son with her 
husband Kevin. Juggling family responsibilities and a demanding 
workload is a challenge she shares with many other West Wing staffers.
  Lisa and other political appointees are a living reminder of the 
elective nature of our government. When the people decide to give 
control of the executive branch to the party in opposition, that party 
is always ready to call on a cadre of talented and dedicated citizens 
ready to shape policy.
  Many of them bring to their jobs the unique perspective of having 
worked for a previous administration, and they frequently leave higher 
paying jobs to return to government service. When they do so, they are 
not only signing on to serve the President. They also commit to long 
and stressful hours working on behalf of the American people to whom 
the President and his West Wing staff are answerable.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the 
service of Lisa Brown and all those working and who have worked in the 
West Wing under Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and their 
predecessors.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished assistant 
Republican leader on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that all time 
remaining on either side be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on 
the nominee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the nominee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Beverly Baldwin Martin, of Georgia, to be United States Circuit 
Judge for the Eleventh Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     Roberts
     Udall (CO)

[[Page 254]]


  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of 
the Senate's actions.

                          ____________________