[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3443-3451]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there are many reasons why the Senate is 
known as one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies. This Chamber 
has seen some of the most important debates and votes since the 
beginning of our Republic. As a freshman Senator--I know my colleague, 
the Presiding Officer, is also a freshman Senator and soon we will be 
joined by a series of freshman Senators and my good friend, the Senator 
from Illinois, is here as well--I think we have all been struck by how 
much history has been made in this very Chamber.
  I am reminded, as we saw last evening some of the exchanges between 
the majority leader and the Republican leader, there is still an awful 
lot that I at least feel, as a newcomer, I have to learn. But one thing 
has become clear to me since being sworn in a little over a year ago. 
Some of the very safeguards that were created to make this a serious 
and responsible deliberative body have been abused in a way that 
damages this institution. In some instances, this abuse also runs 
contrary to our national interest.
  This became very clear to me several weeks ago during the nomination 
and voting on Justice Barbara Keenan. Senator Jim Webb, my colleague, 
and I had the honor of nominating Virginia Supreme Court Justice 
Barbara Milano Keenan to the Federal Appeals Court for the Fourth 
Circuit. She is one of the most highly regarded jurists in Virginia. 
She received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. She 
was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously last October, and 
then her nomination ground to a halt, first for weeks and then for 
months. In fact, her nomination was filibustered, if you can call it 
that. I recall in school thinking the filibuster was something that was 
only going to be used on rare occasions of issues of national concern 
to make sure minority rights were protected.
  Justice Keenan was filibustered, in effect, because one Senator 
placed a hold on her. Consequently, cloture had to be filed. That was 
despite the strong endorsement Justice Keenan had received from our new 
Republican Governor, Governor McDonnell. I appreciate his support of 
Justice Keenan.
  A funny thing happened when we forced the vote both on cloture and 
the nomination: She was confirmed unanimously. Filibustering a nominee 
who gets a unanimous vote, something is not right with that. That is 
not the way this body is supposed to work.
  This experience was truly an eye-opener for me. I see dozens of 
executive branch nominees caught up in this web. My understanding is, 
right now, in the second week of March, literally the Obama 
administration has 64 nominees pending. These are nominees where, 
despite overwhelming committee votes, they have languished on the 
calendar for months, often because one Senator has a completely 
different gripe about a completely unrelated issue.
  The Presiding Officer knows, she and I were both Governors, we were 
both CEOs. I think it is incredibly important, whether you are a 
Governor, whether you are a CEO of a private company, and particularly 
if you are

[[Page 3444]]

the President of this great country, you ought to be able to have your 
management team in place, clearly, 14 months after the inauguration of 
President Obama.
  I certainly do not believe the Senate should be a rubberstamp for 
nominees. Far from it. In cases where there is legitimate disagreement 
about qualifications of any particular nominee, I am all for having a 
debate and then a straight up-or-down vote. But that has not been the 
case. It has not been the case with Justice Keenan, and I am going to 
cite one other individual today, and I know my other colleagues are 
going to be citing others.
  The individual I wish to talk about is Michael Mundaca. He has been 
nominated by President Obama to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 
for Tax Policy--a very important job in crafting tax and revenue 
policies. He is both highly qualified and well respected, having worked 
previously at high levels of the Treasury Department and in the 
international tax department of Ernst and Young. He has a law degree 
from UC Berkeley School of Law and was executive editor of the 
California Law Review.
  As I understand it, Mr. Mundaca's nomination was approved 
overwhelmingly, 19 to 4, in the Senate Finance Committee before 
Christmas. Since then, he has been denied a vote in this body, not over 
any substantive concerns. If there is a concern about Mr. Mundaca's 
qualifications, a Senator ought to come and make that case, and we 
ought to have a debate. No, that is not the reason. It is because one 
Senator or group of Senators has decided to try to leverage this 
nomination to some other end. To me, that is simply not fair.
  This morning--I see my colleagues starting to arrive--many Senators 
who are relatively new to the body will take to the floor. We are the 
new guys and gals, the freshmen and the sophomores. Maybe we do not 
understand all the rules and traditions. We basically spent our first 
year trying to learn those rules and traditions.
  But one of the issues that has united us in all coming here this 
morning is because the nomination process is broken, and we are asking 
all our colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to come together, not as 
partisans but as Americans.
  In the last four Presidential terms, there have been two Democrats 
and two Republicans holding the White House. I am confident we would be 
here regardless of who occupies the White House because a President 
deserves his or her management team to be in place 14 months after 
inauguration. If there are problems with their nominees, they ought to 
be debated and brought to the floor and discussed, not simply left in 
limbo. We need to start doing our job and start voting up or down on 
these nominees who are languishing on the Senate calendar.
  I see my colleague who is much more experienced than this freshman, 
my good friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. I now yield 4 minutes to 
my friend, Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the Senator.
  The last 2 years have seen the American economy on the brink of 
collapse, battered by an economic maelstrom not seen since the Great 
Depression and now slowly--too slowly--recovering its strength. 
President Obama's Recovery Act led the way, and we have seen its 
benefits over the last year with job losses slowing significantly. He 
inherited an economy losing, I think, 700,000 jobs a month, and it is 
now back to nearly break even.
  An essential element of this recovery has been encouraging thriving 
export markets. Last week, President Obama laid out his plan to double 
exports in 5 years, an initiative which could create up to 2 million 
jobs. As the President said: ``In a time when millions of Americans are 
out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.''
  But for international trade to function, our government must 
participate fully in international trade negotiations, advocating fair 
and open trading rules that allow American businesses to compete and 
export.
  Yet a single Senator, the Republican Senator from Kentucky, has 
blocked the President's nominees for two key trade positions--nominees 
who cleared the committee with strong, positive votes. Michael Punke, 
nominated as Deputy Trade Representative to Geneva, and Islam Siddiqui, 
nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, deserve an up-or-down 
vote in the Senate.
  In this economic crisis, why in the world would a Senator hold up 
such important appointments for our exports and for our economy, 
hobbling this administration's ability to fully participate in 
international trade talks?
  The Senator from Kentucky has told us why: to try to force U.S. Trade 
Representative Ron Kirk to file a complaint regarding Canada's recently 
passed antismoking law. Yes, believe it or not, the Senator from 
Kentucky is blocking the appointment of critical U.S. international 
trade officials to try to force the administration to put pressure on 
Canada to change its antismoking law.
  I am sure the tobacco industry is important in the Senator's home 
State, and protecting home State jobs is important. But hampering our 
ability to negotiate our trade agreements in this time of economic 
distress is not the way to do it. The Senator's hold is particularly 
ironic and unproductive, since trade officials, such as these nominees, 
are the ones charged with negotiating resolutions to trade issues such 
as the one that appears to motivate the Senator from Kentucky. 
Ambassador Kirk recently commented that the absence of these officials 
is having a significant impact and indicated the situation is causing 
some countries to question our commitment to serious trade talks. ``We 
would be greatly advantaged not only just from the manpower and 
intellectual strength these two individuals bring, but I think it would 
help us regain some of our credibility,'' is what Ambassador Kirk said.
  Let's be clear. The Senator from Kentucky has said he does not have 
any objection to these nominees. He is only blocking the nominations as 
leverage against the President and Ambassador Kirk. That is pure 
obstructionism.
  It is these kinds of political power plays--one Senator actually had 
70 nominees on hold--that lead to such cynicism in the country about 
our ability to work together and get things done. When a Senator blocks 
basic governmental action--action that all agree is of national 
importance--for purely parochial and political reasons, the public 
rightly wonders what is going on.
  If the Senator from Kentucky disagrees with the Canadian Legislature, 
fine, he should voice that disagreement publicly and try to persuade 
the President of the merits of his point of view. He is welcome to do 
that. Instead, he has chosen to add to the obstructionist tactics that 
are poisoning this Chamber and preventing the Government of the United 
States from doing its business. That may serve the immediate political 
goals of his party, but it is wrong for our country and it is wrong for 
all Americans who depend on an effective U.S. Government. I urge the 
Senator from Kentucky to release his holds.
  I yield the floor back to Senator Warner from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of Senator 
Whitehouse and his pointing out one more example of a qualified nominee 
who needs to be voted on up or down.
  I now call upon my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Burris.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and 
the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. It is a pleasure for me to 
join in this very important discussion in the Senate.
  I am proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this morning 
to discuss some of the obstructionism we have seen from the other side 
on a number of Presidential nominations. It is the duty of this Senate 
to provide advice and consent on more than 2,000 government officials 
appointed by the President of the United States. These individuals 
range from Cabinet level

[[Page 3445]]

officers to agency administrators, ambassadors, Federal judges, and 
more. They are tasked with leading important agencies and offices such 
as the Transportation Security Administration, our diplomatic missions 
around the world, and various law enforcement organizations.
  These nominees generally make it through committee on near-unanimous 
bipartisan votes. They are extremely dedicated public servants who 
stand ready to defend our national security, advance our shared 
interests, and carry out the important work of the American people. But 
when these nominations come out of the committee, they invariably hit a 
roadblock. They hit a stone wall. They are stalled the moment they come 
to the Senate floor. That is because my Republican friends are holding 
up dozens of these nominations.
  Scores of important offices remain vacant because of the same 
partisan tactics of distraction and delay that we have seen time and 
time again from the other side. It is not that my Republican colleagues 
have any problems with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. 
They enjoy bipartisan support in committee. They carry the high esteem 
of both Democrats and Republicans. When we are finally able to break 
the filibuster and have an up-or-down vote, these individuals are 
almost always confirmed unanimously, as the judge from Senator Warner's 
State of Virginia was, with a vote of 99 to 0. It was senseless for 
that nomination to be held up for that long.
  But thanks to the same old political games, it is difficult to get 
cloture on these nominations so we can get a floor vote in the first 
place. The same Republican Senators who vote in favor of these nominees 
in committee--the same Senators who later support them on the floor--
try to keep us from moving forward as a full Senate. This is 
obstructionism at its worst. This is pure politics at the expense of 
the American taxpayers.
  This is a waste of our time and effort, and the American people 
deserve better. They sent us to Washington to solve big problems--to 
create jobs, to reform health care, to strengthen our educational 
system. But my Republican friends are not interested in working 
together to confront these challenges. Instead, they drag their feet on 
noncontroversial things such as Presidential nominations in hopes of 
scoring political points. They bring this body to a standstill just so 
they can advance a partisan agenda. Meanwhile, dozens of important 
Federal agencies are without leadership at the highest levels. 
Thousands of government employees are working without the public 
servants who have been appointed to lead them--all because of 
Republican political games.
  So I would ask my good friends from the other side of the aisle to 
abandon these tactics of distraction and delay. Let's have a 
substantial debate about the issues, not an argument over procedure. 
Let's stop wasting time and start working together to solve the 
problems we face. In the meantime, let's confirm these nominees so they 
can take up their appointed offices and begin to serve the American 
people.
  I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues from the 
freshman and sophomore classes to point out the obstruction that we are 
seeing from the other side of the aisle in holding up these executive 
branch nominees. It is unfortunate, with so many challenges facing this 
country, that we have to be on the floor of the Senate today talking 
about obstructionism rather than talking about what we can do to 
address the real issues facing this country.
  One of those important issues has to do with how we get this economy 
going again. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside 
of the United States; and for American companies to grow and expand, to 
create jobs, we have to increase exports of goods and services. That is 
the simple reality.
  There are several actions we need to take to help American companies 
compete overseas. Tomorrow, for example, I am going to be back on the 
Senate floor talking about what we can do to strengthen the Small 
Business Administration's export lending and promotion services. 
Certainly another thing we need to do is to protect the interests of 
American companies and workers in the trade arena.
  As we have already heard from Senator Whitehouse, that is why it is 
unconscionable that the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to be 
Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, Michael Punke, is being 
held up by a single Senator.
  Senator Tester came to the floor last week to ask Senator Bunning to 
stop blocking Mr. Punke's confirmation. Now, after reading yesterday's 
New York Times, I felt compelled to also speak about the hold on this 
confirmation. Yesterday's story in the paper reported on China's 
aggressive filing of complaints with the WTO. In the last 12 months, 
China filed more complaints with the WTO than any other country, even 
though it is cleaning the clock of every country on the planet, 
including the United States, when it comes to trade.
  China racked up a nearly $200 billion trade surplus with the rest of 
the world last year. Its trade imbalance with the United States is 4 to 
1. Yet the top position of the United States at the WTO--you guessed 
it, the position that Mr. Punke has been nominated for--is being held 
up, is still vacant because there is one Senator who is unhappy with 
Canada's tobacco law.
  That is right. As Senator Whitehouse has already told us, the hold on 
Mr. Punke has nothing to do with whether he is qualified to be 
ambassador to the WTO. His confirmation was unanimously recommended by 
the Finance Committee 3 months ago. No, this critical post remains 
vacant because one Senator--Senator Bunning--is angry that Canada 
banned flavored cigarettes as a way to combat teen smoking.
  I certainly understand the tobacco industry fears the Canadian law 
will be interpreted broadly to ban American-blend cigarettes. But 
blocking the confirmation of our WTO ambassador over this issue at this 
time, when expanding exports is critical to our economic recovery, is 
counterproductive, and it is an abuse of Senate rules. The point has 
now been made. So now is the time for Senator Bunning to lift this hold 
so we can confirm Mr. Punke and we can get this critical position 
filled and make sure that American businesses have a level playing 
field when it comes to exports.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in the 
freshman and sophomore classes today to highlight a recurring problem 
in the Senate--the Republican holds on the confirmations of crucial 
executive branch nominees. These are not controversial people, as you 
will hear from what I am going to tell you from my part of the story 
today and what you have heard from some of my colleagues.
  As a former prosecutor and the manager of a prosecutor's office of 
more than 400 people, I know from personal experience how important it 
is to have a strong leadership team in place. Only with a strong 
leadership team can an executive implement his or her vision. In our 
current economy, a vision for increased trade and export promotion is 
particularly important, and the President has one.
  Earlier this year, he announced a plan, widely supported by CEOs of 
large and small corporations, to double American exports overseas in 
the next 5 years. Export promotion is a topic that is of special 
interest to me, as I chair the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, 
Innovation and Export Promotion.
  I truly believe if we are to move this economy again, we have a world 
of opportunity out there. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers 
are outside of our borders. This is a different world with growing 
buying power in countries such as India and China, where instead of 
just importing goods

[[Page 3446]]

we can be making stuff again; we can be sending it out so that 
customers in these other countries can be buying it.
  Look at the numbers. A diversified base of customers helps a business 
weather the economic ups and downs. According to research, businesses 
that export grow 1.3 percent faster--and they are nearly 8.5 percent 
more likely to stay in business--than companies that don't export. 
These are the facts. So it is hard to believe, when we have a laser 
focus on the economy right now, when that is all I hear about from the 
people of my State, that my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
holding up the President's nominees for positions that promote American 
exports abroad. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Right now, Republican holds are blocking votes on the confirmations 
of Michael Punke, nominated to be Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, and 
``Isi'' Siddiqui, nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator. These 
nominees have five decades of experience in international trade between 
the two of them, including extensive private sector and government 
work. They work with Democrats and they work with Republicans. They 
just want to get this economy moving again. But our friends on the 
other side of the aisle are placing holds on them at the very time when 
we all know this is the direction in which we need to move. These are 
exactly the type of people who could help expand American agricultural 
and small business exports and grow our economy.
  These two nominees have been fully vetted and received strong 
bipartisan support in their Finance Committee hearings. They were 
recommended by the Finance Committee to the full Senate by a vote of 23 
to 0--including the affirmative vote of the Senator who has since 
placed a hold on Mr. Punke. No one would believe this. The reason for 
the hold? The Senator in question wants Mr. Punke to commit to forcing 
Canada to repeal parts of an antismoking law passed by the Canadian 
Parliament.
  So we have people in Rhode Island, in Illinois, in Minnesota, in New 
Hampshire who are looking for jobs, and they know that a key part of 
this is to increase exports to be able to sell our goods to other 
countries. Yet these guys are placing a hold on the very people who can 
get this work done because they are concerned about a law passed by the 
Canadian Parliament. It is too good to be true but, sadly, it is true.
  Holding these nominees in limbo has dire consequences for our ability 
to promote American products abroad. Our international partners 
actually use the absence of Mr. Punke and Dr. Siddiqui as an excuse to 
stall progress on serious negotiations. You know what they say. They 
say: You don't have your guys in place. You don't have your people in 
place, so we are not negotiating with you, America.
  Blocking these nominees gives cover to other nations that want to 
keep the United States from getting fair market access in the global 
trading system for American agriculture, manufacturing, and services.
  A coalition of 42 food and agricultural groups wrote Senators Reid 
and McConnell in January to call for quick approval. They said: U.S. 
food and agricultural exports are under assault in many markets with 
trading partners erecting even more barriers in recent months. It has 
to stop.
  In the United States, we further export promotion policy through a 
variety of different executive agencies, and Republicans aren't just 
holding up USTR reps, they are also holding up Eric Hirschhorn, the 
nominee to head up the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce 
Department. This is the division at Commerce that screens exports to 
make sure national security, economic security, cyber-security, and 
homeland security standards are upheld when we export sensitive 
technologies.
  The head of this bureau engages in strategic dialogues with high-
level government officials from key transshipment countries such as 
Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates in order 
to prevent sensitive technologies from being diverted to China, Iran, 
and North Korea. Leaving this position unfilled sends a negative 
message to the domestic exporting community, to our allied governments, 
and it hurts our security. Why would we want to leave this position 
unfilled?
  Mr. Hirschhorn has spent more than 30 years involved in issues 
related to export control. As an author of numerous articles and ``The 
Export Control and Embargo Handbook,'' which is widely recognized as 
the leading text on the issue, Hirschhorn displays an unparalleled 
understanding of the importance of export control systems and work.
  These are a few examples of the pivotal positions being held up by 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If you are going to talk 
the talk about moving this economy, about exports, about trade, about 
getting our goods out there, building things again, then you should 
walk the walk. You should not be holding up Siddiqui and Punke and 
Hirschhorn. These are noncontroversial people. Nobody watching C-SPAN 
has ever heard of them before. They are not in the middle of some 
controversial mess. They are trying to get our country moving again. 
That is what this is about. For people who are trying to get jobs, 
trying to move this country, they need people in place in the 
government to help them. Take those holds off, get this moving, put 
these people in place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to decry the attack of my 
Republican colleagues on the executive branch of the United States of 
America. The Constitution, which we are sworn to uphold, calls for a 
balance of power between three branches of government--the executive 
branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. In it, it 
gives us a certain ability to test the fitness of high appointees to 
the executive branch. That is the advise and consent clause of the 
Constitution.
  The Constitution does not have a delay and obstruct clause. It has an 
advise and consent clause. That means we have the responsibility, on a 
timely basis, to review high appointees to the executive branch and 
give our opinion. If we vote a person down, then indeed that nomination 
does not go forward.
  What we have here is not a sincere application of advise and consent. 
We have a systematic effort underway to undermine the credibility and 
the capability of the President's team here in America.
  This is a list of nominations that is being held up. This is not one 
nomination here and one nomination there. These are dozens and dozens 
of key appointees who will make the executive branch operate. Let's 
look at some of these. The Federal Election Commission, the Department 
of Energy, the Small Business Administration, the National Labor 
Relations Board, the Legal Services Corporation, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Army, the Executive Office of the President, the 
Amtrak Board of Directors, the National Transportation Safety Board, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Farm Credit 
Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury, the Department 
of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of State, 
the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
National Council on Disability, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Fellow Americans, I think you get the picture that this is a list in 
a systematic effort to undermine the ability of the executive branch to 
do its job. If we simply look back at the nominations on which we have 
had to file cloture and hold a vote in this Chamber, two-thirds of 
those nominees have passed by more than 70 of this body. Many of them 
had 80 or 90 votes because there was no sincere objection to this 
individual, be it he or she, in a number of these departments. But it 
was a systematic effort to delay the capability of the executive branch 
of the United States of America. That is unacceptable. We are not 
empowered as a

[[Page 3447]]

Chamber, in this Constitution, to delay and obstruct and prevent the 
executive branch from doing its job.
  I call upon my Republican colleagues who are conducting this attack 
on the President and his team to honor their constitutional 
responsibilities to advise and consent, to take this list and if there 
are a couple of key nominees that you have serious concerns about, then 
indeed let's have that debate here on the floor. But these dozens need 
to be set free to do their job. That is how the balance of powers is 
envisioned in the Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to raise questions 
about why the Republicans in the Senate are holding up a number of 
nominations. We have heard some of that articulated this morning by a 
number of our colleagues. I have a specific example of what this kind 
of obstruction leads to. It is with regard to a circuit court 
nomination, in this case a judge in the Middle District of 
Pennsylvania. This is someone I have known a long time, someone I have 
known to be not only capable to do the job a U.S. Court of Appeals 
judge must do, but also someone who has demonstrated his ability on the 
district court for many years. The person I am speaking of is Judge 
Thomas I. Vanaskie, who has been nominated for a position on the Third 
Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.
  As I said, I have known him a long time. He is someone who has been a 
legal scholar, someone who has a long and distinguished career on the 
Federal bench as well as a career as an advocate when he was practicing 
law.
  I ask unanimous consent a fuller statement of his record and resume 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               biography

       Judge Vanaskie's biography highlights both his scholarly 
     and professional accomplishments and the high esteem in which 
     he is held by his colleagues in the legal profession. He 
     graduated magna cum laude from Lycoming College in 
     Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where he was also an honorable 
     mention All-American football player, a first team Academic 
     All-American, the college's outstanding male student athlete, 
     and the recipient of the highest award given to a graduating 
     student.
       At Dickinson School of Law, from which he graduated cum 
     laude in 1978, Judge Vanaskie served as an editor of the Law 
     Review and received the M. Vashti Burr award, a scholarship 
     given by the faculty to the student deemed ``most 
     deserving''.
       After graduating, Judge Vanaskie served as a law clerk for 
     Judge William J. Nealon, Chief Judge of the U.S. District 
     Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
       Judge Vanaskie practiced law for two highly regarded 
     Pennsylvania firms before his appointment to the U.S. 
     District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 
     1994.
       He became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and 
     completed his seven-year term in 2006.
       He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the 
     Information Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference 
     of the United States where he served as Chair for three 
     years. He has also participated in several working groups of 
     the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, mostly 
     recently on the Future of District CM/ECF Working Group, 
     tasked with determining the design and development of the 
     next generation of the federal judiciary's electronic case 
     filing program.
       He is an adjunct professor at the Dickinson School of Law 
     and has also been active in civic and charitable efforts in 
     his hometown of Scranton.


                               accolades

       Lawyers who have appeared before Judge Vanaskie have 
     expressed tremendous respect for his intellectual rigor and 
     the disciplined attention he brings to the matters before 
     him.
       One attorney who has tried over a dozen cases before Judge 
     Vanaskie has described him as ``objective, fair, analytical, 
     dispassionate, extraordinarily careful, and very respectful 
     of appellate authority.'' This same practitioner said that he 
     has not always agreed with Judge Vanaskie's decisions, but he 
     has always felt that his rulings reflected what the Judge 
     considered to be the most appropriate result, and the result 
     that he was obligated to impose under the law.
        U.S. District Judge William J. Nealon, for whom Judge 
     Vanaskie clerked has described him as ``superbly qualified . 
     . . He's outstanding . . . He's brilliant. He's objective. 
     And he's tireless . . .''
        Judge Vanaskie recognizes that for many citizens, his 
     decisions will be the final word on their claims. He treats 
     people with respect and honors their right to be heard. His 
     deep understanding of and respect for the law will serve him 
     well in ruling on cases and authoring opinions that will be 
     influential in the Third Circuit and beyond.


                           career highlights

        In 2008, Judge Vanaskie presided over the first known 
     court appearance of aging mobster Bill D'Elia where he 
     pleaded guilty to two federal felonies. He later sentenced 
     ``Big Billy'' to serve in federal prison.
        Late last year, Judge Vanaskie sentenced the former 
     Superintendent of the Pittston Area School District to 13 
     months in federal prison and a $15,000 fine for accepting 
     $5,000 cash in kickbacks from a contractor he supported in 
     obtaining a contract with the school district. The case is 
     part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and the IRS and 
     is being prosecuted by a team of federal prosecutors.
        He ruled that the government could not deport Sameh 
     Khouzam, a native of Egypt and a Christian, because the State 
     Department did not review Egyptian diplomatic assurances that 
     Khouzam would not be tortured upon his return. ``The fact 
     that this matter implicates the foreign affairs of the United 
     States does not insulate the executive branch action from 
     judicial review,'' the Judge wrote. ``Not even the president 
     of the United States has the authority to sacrifice . . . the 
     right to be free from torture . . .''
        He presided over the trial and sentencing of an Old Forge 
     man who spent more than $413,000 that he stole from victims 
     of an investment scam. ``You stole these people's money,'' 
     said the Judge. ``I can't sugarcoat it.''

  Mr. CASEY. Judge Vanaskie graduated with high honors from Lycoming 
College and was an honorable mention All-American football player 
there. He attended the Dickinson School of Law in Pennsylvania, 
graduated with honors in 1978, was editor of the Law Review, clerked 
for Judge William Nealon, who was then the Chief Judge for the Middle 
District of Pennsylvania. Judge Vanaskie went on to have a 
distinguished career as a lawyer. He got to the Middle District Court, 
the U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania in 1994, became the Chief 
Judge, just like Judge Nealon, the judge he served. Judge Vanaskie 
became the Middle District's Chief Judge in 1999 and his 7-year term as 
Chief Judge was completed in 1996.
  He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Information 
Technology Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 
where he served as Chair for 3 years.
  I will submit for the Record, as I mentioned before, what many people 
have said about him in addition to his record. I will read one of those 
at this moment. Judge Nealon, someone who has been on the District 
Court of Pennsylvania, the Middle District, for more than a generation, 
since 1962--here is what that judge said about Judge Vanaskie. He said:

       He is superbly qualified, he is outstanding, he is 
     brilliant, he is objective and he is tireless.

  There is not much more you could say that would be higher praise than 
that from not only a colleague but someone who has had decades of 
experience presiding over complex matters in the district courts.
  In my own judgment, Judge Vanaskie demonstrated, when he was on the 
district court, the kind of legal acumen and scholarship and commitment 
to the rule of law that made him stand out on the district court. I 
know I personally have experience with that; I appeared before him. I 
remember in particular trying a case in front of him. He is someone I 
knew very well for many years, someone I had great respect for, but 
also someone I knew personally. Despite that personal connection, I do 
remember him ruling against me on a number of objections. That alone is 
testament to his integrity. It is widely shared.
  When you consider all of that legal experience, unquestioned ability 
on the district court, unquestioned ability to handle very complex 
matters that prepared him to serve on the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals and that he was voted out of committee close to unanimously--I 
think there were three votes against him. I will doublecheck this, but 
I think the vote was 16 to 3. I will make sure we check that for the 
Record.

[[Page 3448]]

  Having said all that, I cannot understand why our friends on the 
other side of the aisle would want to hold up someone who has such a 
brilliant record, who is committed to being and has already 
demonstrated a commitment to be a fair-minded judge, someone who will 
set aside their personal points of view, their personal biases, to rule 
on matters that come before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 
Circuit. It does not make much sense when you consider the support he 
has received. But it seems, as on so many of these nominations, the 
impediment here is not a set of questions, not a set of unresolved 
issues. The impediment is too many Senators on the other side of the 
aisle who want to use the nomination process to achieve political 
objectives. That, in my judgment, is what is happening.
  What they should do for the American people is set aside those 
political objectives and get people confirmed, just as they would hope 
that their nominees, people they support under a Republican President, 
would be confirmed.
  This is just one example, but I think a very telling example, of what 
our friends are doing when they hold up a judge who has that kind of 
record of service, of commitment to justice and the rule of law. I 
think it speaks volumes about what is happening in the Senate on 
nominations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the gridlock 
in the Senate and the effect it has on our ability to do our jobs as 
legislators. If you talk to the average person on the street, he or she 
will probably tell you that Americans are pretty frustrated with their 
government right now. People think government does not work and that 
politicians care more about fighting with each other than they do about 
helping American families.
  Some days I can hardly blame the people who hold this opinion. We are 
now in the second year of President Obama's administration and we have 
only just begun to fill the spots in the executive and judicial 
branches because of filibusters, holds, and other procedural tactics 
that have delayed an extraordinary number of people. We had no Under 
Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department despite the 
fact that our country has just experienced arguably the worst economic 
crisis since the Great Depression. We have no Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services. You would 
think when we have been considering health care reform legislation in 
the past year, it might be helpful to confirm an Assistant Secretary 
for Legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services.
  There are so few members of the National Labor Relations Board, the 
Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the NLRB's current 
decisions have any legal standing, yet we have failed to confirm a 
single one of President Obama's three nominees.
  In one of the most egregious examples of obstructionism, the Senate 
failed to vote on the appointment of the first nominee for 
Transportation Security Administration Chief, the person charged with 
keeping our Nation's airlines safe. In the interim, a terrorist tried 
to attack Northwest flight 253. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nominee 
eventually withdrew himself from consideration, saying he was 
``obstructed by political ideology.''
  I have said it before and I will say it again: I have no problem with 
standing on principle. Our first President, George Washington, 
supposedly once said we pour House legislation into the senatorial 
saucer to cool it. Whether or not that story is true, the Senate has 
long served as the cooling Chamber, the place where reason and 
thoughtful debate occur in our Congress. The filibuster is a key tool 
for the way the minority can stand up to a majority that is acting 
irrationally in the heat of the moment. So I have no problems with my 
colleagues threatening to filibuster nominees or legislation that they 
actually oppose.
  That is what the Founders intended. The Senate has an important role 
to play in giving the President its advice and consent on nominations. 
I take that role very seriously. But too often my colleagues filibuster 
nominees they actually support in an effort to extract other promises 
or just to slow the Senate down.
  In February, the Senate finally confirmed the noncontroversial 
administrator of the General Services Administration after 9 months. 
The vote was 94 to 2. Similarly this month, my colleagues forced a 
cloture vote, they forced a cloture vote to approve a judicial nominee 
for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then confirmed 
unanimously, 99 to 0.
  Yet we are forced to vote for a filibuster. That is nuts. This is a 
perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the 
Senate. It used to be the filibuster was reserved for matters of great 
principle. Today it has become a way to play out the clock. Some of my 
colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method 
possible to keep the Senate from doing anything then they are in 
creating jobs or helping Americans struggling in a difficult economy.
  They seem to actually want the government to fail. Why else delay 
things you actually agree with? No wonder Americans are frustrated with 
the government. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the Senate 
to stop playing politics or pursuing personal agendas and start 
approving well-qualified nominees without forcing unnecessary delay.
  For our government to function the way it is supposed to, it needs to 
have personnel. Let's give the executive branch and the judicial branch 
the people they need so we can help government function in the way it 
is supposed to and reassure Americans that government does work for 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise, along with my 
colleagues this morning, to draw attention to the growing dysfunction 
exacted on this institution's ability to confirm both judicial and 
executive branch nominees.
  Having served five terms in the House of Representatives, I have come 
to expect a certain amount of political revelry and combat. While I was 
honored to serve in the House, and I have fond memories of the often 
raucous debates there, I had high expectations that the Senate would 
truly be a place of deliberation and bipartisan goodwill.
  Of late, however, it seems the worst political gamesmanship has 
infiltrated the Senate. Perhaps the proverb ``the grass is always 
greener on the other side'' applies here, but I do have to tell you, I 
think the level of gridlock we have faced in the last year is 
unprecedented.
  We have seen roadblock after roadblock as we have tried to exercise 
one of the most basic functions of the Senate, that of making sure we 
have a full complement of Federal judges and ensuring the departments 
and agencies of the sitting administration are filled with competent 
public servants.
  In contrast, by this date during President Bush's first term in 
office, the Senate, with a Democratic majority, had confirmed twice as 
many circuit and district court nominations. The obstruction of present 
judicial nominees is all the more galling when you note that they were 
reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent.
  Two weeks ago today, we were forced to invoke cloture on Barbara 
Milano Keenan to be U.S. circuit judge. Her nomination was held up for 
months. We finally had to say enough is enough and shut off the 
filibuster. When we finally voted on cloture, it was invoked 99 to 0, 
meaning not a single Senator was willing to stand and oppose the 
nominee.
  You know in your State, Mr. President, this is the kind of 
superficial partisanship the American people are fed up with. In 
addition to judicial nominees, President Obama's executive branch 
appointments have suffered from a similar kind of gamesmanship. One 
would be hard-pressed to find one single department in this 
administration whose work has not been interrupted by phony delays.

[[Page 3449]]

  Let me give you an example. After having invoked cloture and overcome 
a filibuster on Martha Johnson to be the Director of the General 
Services Administration, not a single Senator was willing to stand in 
opposition to the nominee. Cloture was invoked and she was confirmed by 
a 96-to-0 margin.
  I know partisanship is rampant in this town, but the American people 
deserve to know what is happening in the Senate. We are reaching a 
heightened level of imprudence, the kind George Washington warned us 
about in his farewell address in 1796.
  In outlaying the principle we first all have an obligation to govern, 
Washington stated, ``All obstructions to the execution of the national 
laws [ . . . ] with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or 
awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities 
are destructive of this fundamental principle.''
  As I close, the American people know this town causes grown men and 
women to bicker and fight like children. Children have an excuse, they 
are children. We are not. We can do better, and I urge my colleagues to 
set aside their partisan differences, end this gridlock, and begin 
working together for the good of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.
  I am joining my freshman colleagues on the floor to express my 
amazement at the difficulty this body is having conducting even the 
simplest legislative functions.
  When I came to Washington last year from the North Carolina State 
Senate, I was certainly under no illusions that the process here would 
be lightening fast. In fact, I believe strongly we should take the time 
to make reasoned judgments about legislative and executive branch and 
judicial nominees. The American people are better served when we take 
the time to make the best decisions.
  But there is a difference between taking time for reasoned judgment 
and impeding progress for the sole purpose of delay. There currently 
are 67 executive branch nominations awaiting action by the full Senate. 
Every one of these has been approved by the committee of jurisdiction, 
many having been approved unanimously. Thirty-one of those sixty-seven 
nominees were approved in committee last year and have been waiting for 
months for action by the full Senate.
  One individual awaiting action by the Senate, Michael Punke, has been 
nominated to be our ambassador to the World Trade Organization. He was 
approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in December.
  As my colleagues know, the member countries of the WTO are currently 
engaged in a round of trade talks that could have enormous implications 
for American workers and industries. Would it not make sense to have 
the best possible American representation at those talks? Should we not 
want someone there who is advocating forcefully on behalf of our 
American workers, producers, and businesses?
  It has been reported the delay in considering this particular 
nomination is connected to a concern one Senator has regarding a recent 
tobacco law passed in the Canadian Parliament. Well, I represent the 
largest tobacco State in the country. I will be honest, I understand 
the concerns of my fellow tobacco-State Senator regarding this 
legislation.
  But I guess I have not been here long enough to understand how 
concerns with Canadian tobacco legislation lead you to the conclusion 
that you should prevent the United States from being represented in 
international trade negotiations. How are we supposed to address our 
issues with Canada and all trading partners when our seat at the table 
is empty? That is just one example. The calendar is full of nominees 
who deserve a vote.
  In fact, there are two judicial nominees on the calendar from North 
Carolina who would be easily confirmed should they come up with for a 
vote, Jim Wynn and Al Diaz, nominees for the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. They were both approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 
January. But truth be told, we have not just been waiting since 
January, we have been waiting since 1994.
  There has been an opening for a North Carolina judge on the Fourth 
Circuit since 1994. Partisan politics has gotten in the way of filling 
that vacancy time and again. Finally, we have not one but two qualified 
judges, supported by both myself and Senator Burr. Let's bring them up 
for a vote.
  The government cannot function without qualified appointees in place. 
Let's stop the delays and bring these nominees up for a vote so they 
can get on with the business of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to call on the Senate to do 
something the rest of the American people are doing, our job. Most of 
President Obama's nominees to the executive branch and our Federal 
courts are not even remotely controversial. The country needs them on 
the job, and their responsibilities, their careers, and the stress on 
their families should not be caused by holds and other pointless 
delays.
  We face serious challenges as a nation. Unemployment and 
underemployment rates are unacceptably high. Our courts have 
unprecedented backlogs. We are fighting two wars and have the 
persistent threat of terror that casts a shadow over our security.
  We need a functioning Federal Government. The American people expect 
this. Yet some in this body are too tied up in ``politics as usual'' to 
get our government working again. Rather than making sure we get the 
government up and running by allowing our votes on key administration 
nominees, the Senate is mired in perpetual stalling, failing to perform 
its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Qualified 
people nominated to hold key positions in the administration are 
languishing in the Senate because of procedural abuses. These should 
end.
  I have introduced a resolution which would help address some of these 
abuses. My resolution would bring holds by one Senator outside the 
shadows, time limit them, and place requirements that, after 2 days, 
holds must be bipartisan to continue.
  These commonsense improvements ought not be necessary. But in today's 
Senate, unfortunately, they are. I fully support scrutinizing all 
positions requiring confirmation. In fact, that is why my suggested 
resolution actually says, if you have bipartisan support--and there 
might be a reason to look at it other than just pure politics--I think 
we should look at it.
  But useless delay is not getting us anywhere. I am not asking for a 
rubberstamp from anyone. But a desire to assert leverage over the 
administration or a desire to frustrate the government's efforts to 
work for the American people is unacceptable for holding up nominees.
  Too often we have seen nominees held for months only to be confirmed 
by overwhelming margins. Judge Barbara Keenan was recently confirmed to 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the breathtakingly close vote of 
99 to 0. This was after her nomination was held up for 4 months 
following approval by the Judiciary Committee.
  There are currently 16 other judicial nominees who, similar to Judge 
Keenan, have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are awaiting 
floor time. Unfortunately, they are subject to partisan and meritless 
delays. The result is, our district and appellate courts will continue 
to be backlogged and justice will not be served in communities all 
across the United States of America.
  Judicial nominations have a sad history of partisanship in recent 
years. The delays and games that have replaced the Senate's role to 
advise and consent have now bled into all executive branch nominations 
at unprecedented levels.
  Just last month, the media reported 80 nominees were being held up by 
one Senator. These holds included the Under Secretary for Military 
Readiness

[[Page 3450]]

and top officials at the Departments of State and Homeland Security. 
These holds were unrelated to the actual nominee and solely concerned 
parochial and political interests. Our national security should never 
be subjugated to one Senator's politics.
  We also had the President's nomination to the Transportation Security 
Administration tied up and ultimately withdrawn because of partisan 
bickering unrelated to his responsibilities to secure our airports. 
This is unacceptable. Does it no longer matter whether there is someone 
at the helm of the agencies responsible for securing our airports?
  How is this acceptable behavior in the Senate? It would not be 
acceptable behavior around my kitchen table. If it is not acceptable 
there, it should not be acceptable here. There are too many examples of 
qualified, noncontroversial nominees, such as Martha Johnson, the GSA 
Administrator with impeccable qualifications whose nomination was held 
for 9 months. Yet she was confirmed by a 96-to-0 vote once the hold on 
her nomination was removed.
  These nominations are being blocked even though they have broad 
bipartisan support.
  I urge my colleagues to remove their holds on noncontroversial 
administration nominees and allow confirmation votes.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many Senators are speaking on the Senate 
floor today about the Republican delays and obstruction of President 
Obama's nominations to fill critical posts throughout the executive 
branch.
  Republicans have engaged in a partisan effort to block scores of 
nominations, preventing up-or-down votes in the Senate. This Republican 
effort has prevented the Senate from considering well-qualified public 
servants like Professor Chris Schroeder, who was first nominated by 
President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by 
voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months. Not a single 
Republican explained the reason for the delay.
  Republican Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's 
nomination into the new session. It was returned to the President with 
no action. President Obama nominated Professor Schroeder again this 
year, and again his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee 
with Republican support. An esteemed scholar and public servant who has 
served with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and in the Justice Department, Professor Schroeder has support across 
the political spectrum.
  We treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of Legal 
Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President 
Obama's, confirming all four nominees to lead that office quickly. We 
confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a vote of 96 
to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week after his 
nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In contrast 
Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last June. It 
is time for an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
  In addition to the many executive branch nominees currently stalled 
on the Senate calendar, there are 18 judicial nominees that have been 
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee--most of them 
unanimously--who await Senate consideration. That is more nominees than 
the total of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees--
17--that have been confirmed since he took office. This sorry state of 
affairs is the result of a Republican strategy to stall, obstruct, and 
delay that has existed throughout President Obama's time in office. The 
casualties of this effort are the American people who seek justice in 
our increasingly overburdened Federal courts.
  By this date during President Bush's first term, the Senate had 
confirmed 41 Federal circuit and district court nominations. That was a 
tumultuous period in which Senate Democrats worked hard to make 
progress with a staunchly partisan Republican President. It included 
the period of the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks upon the Senate. 
In contrast, the Senate has confirmed just 17 Federal and circuit court 
nominees--just 17--during President Obama's first term.
  We are currently on pace to confirm fewer than 30 Federal circuit and 
district court nominees during this Congress, which would be easily the 
lowest in memory. That number stands in sad contrast to the 100 judges 
we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee for 17 months 
during President Bush's first term. When we were reviewing the judicial 
nominees of a President of the other party, and one who consulted 
across the aisle far less than President Obama has, we confirmed 100 
judges in just 17 months. President Obama is in his 14th month and 
Senate Republicans have allowed only 17 Federal circuit and district 
court judges to be confirmed. We are 24 behind the pace we set in 2001 
and 2002.
  The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 35 of President 
Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees to the Senate for 
final consideration and confirmation. Eighteen of those nominees are 
still awaiting a vote by the Senate. The Senate can more than double 
the total number of judicial nominations it has confirmed by 
considering the other judicial nominees already before the Senate 
awaiting final action. We should do that now, without more delay, 
without additional obstruction. There are another five judicial 
nominations set to be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week. 
They will bring the total awaiting final action by the Senate to 23. 
Confirming them without unnecessary delay would put us back on track.
  While Republican Senators stall, judicial vacancies continue to 
skyrocket. Vacancies have already grown to more than 100, undoing years 
of our hard work repairing the damage done by Republican pocket 
filibusters of President Clinton's judicial nominees. When I chaired 
the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's last year in office, we 
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.
  More than 30 of the vacancies on our Federal courts today are 
classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' This is another reversal of our 
hard work during the Bush administration when we reduced judicial 
emergencies by more than half. Those vacancies have now increased 
dramatically, encumbering judges across the country with overloaded 
dockets and preventing ordinary Americans from seeking justice in our 
overburdened Federal courts. This is wrong. We owe it to the American 
people to do better.
  President Obama deserves praise for working closely with home State 
Senators, whether Democratic or Republican, to identify and select 
well-qualified nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. Yet 
Senate Republicans delay and obstruct even nominees chosen after 
consultation with Republican home State Senators. President Obama has 
worked closely with home State Republican Senators, but Senate 
Republicans have still chosen to treat his nominees badly. Last year, 
President Obama sent 33 Federal circuit and district court nominations 
to the Senate, but the Senate confirmed only 12 of them, the fewest 
judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a Presidency in more 
than 50 years.
  Senate Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of 
Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite support 
for his nomination from the senior Republican in the Senate, Dick Lugar 
of Indiana. Republicans delayed for months Senate consideration of 
Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit despite the 
endorsement of both her Republican home State Senators. When

[[Page 3451]]

Republicans finally agreed to consider her nomination on January 20, 
she was confirmed unanimously. Whether Jeffrey Viken or Roberto Lange 
of South Dakota, who were supported by Senator Thune, or Charlene 
Edwards Honeywell of Florida, who was supported by Senators Martinez 
and LeMieux, virtually all of President Obama's nominees have been 
denied prompt Senate action by Republican objections.
  I noted when the Senate considered the nominations of Judge Christina 
Reiss of Vermont and Mr. Abdul Kallon of Alabama relatively promptly 
that they should serve as the model for Senate action. Sadly, they are 
the exception rather than the model. They show what the Senate could 
do, but does not. Time and again, noncontroversial nominees are 
delayed. When the Senate does finally consider them, they are confirmed 
overwhelmingly.
  In December, I made several statements in this Chamber about the need 
for progress on the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I also spoke repeatedly to Senate leaders on both sides of 
the aisle and made the following proposal: Agree to immediate votes on 
those judicial nominees that are reported by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee without dissent, and agree to time agreements to debate and 
vote on the others. I have recently reiterated my proposal and urged 
Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy of obstruction. There 
is no justification for these nominations to be dragged out week after 
week, month after month.
  The last time the Senate considered judicial nominations was weeks 
ago. Indeed, on March 2, the Republican filibuster and obstruction of 
the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia to be a Fourth 
Circuit Judge had to be ended by invoking cloture. Senate Republicans 
would not agree to debate and vote on her nomination and the majority 
leader was required to proceed through a time consuming procedure to 
end the obstruction. The votes to end debate and on her confirmation 
were both 99 to 0. That nomination had been reported in October. So 
after more than 4 months of stalling, there was no justification, 
explanation or basis for the delay. That is wrong. That was the 17th 
filibuster of President Obama's nominations.
  The 18 judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration are: 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; Justice Rogeriee 
Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the First Circuit; Judge James 
Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert 
Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward 
Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; Justice Louis 
Butler, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin; Nancy 
Freudenthal, nominated to the District of Wyoming; Denzil Marshall, 
nominated to the Eastern District of Arkansas; Benita Pearson, 
nominated to the Northern District of Ohio; Timothy Black, nominated to 
the Southern District of Ohio; Gloria M. Navarro, nominated to the 
District of Nevada; Audrey G. Fleissig, nominated to the Eastern 
District of Missouri; Lucy H. Koh, nominated to the Northern District 
of California; Jon E. DeGuilio, nominated to the Northern District of 
Indiana; Tanya Walton Pratt, nominated to the Southern District of 
Indiana; and Jane Magnus-Stinson, nominated to the Southern District of 
Indiana. Twelve of the 18 were reported from the Senate Judiciary 
Committee without opposition; one had a single negative vote. The 
stalling and obstruction should end and these nominations should be 
considered by the Senate and voted upon without further delay. When 
they are, they, too, will be confirmed overwhelmingly.
  I also want to highlight my concern about the new standard the 
Republican minority is applying to many of President Obama's district 
court nominees. Democrats never used this standard with President 
Bush's nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority. In 8 
years, the Judiciary Committee reported only a single Bush district 
court nomination by a party-line vote. That was the controversial 
nomination of Leon Holmes, who was opposed not because of some litmus 
test, but because of his strident, intemperate, and insensitive public 
statements over the years. During President Obama's short time in 
office, not one, not two, but three district court nominees have been 
reported on a party-line vote as Senate Republicans look for any reason 
to oppose every nomination. I hope this new standard does not become 
the rule for Senate Republicans.
  Of the 17 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed, 14 
have been confirmed unanimously. That is right. The delay and 
obstruction is so baseless that when votes are finally taken, they are 
overwhelmingly in favor and most often unanimous. There have been only 
a handful of votes cast against just three of President Obama's 
nominees to the Federal circuit and district courts. One of those, 
Judge Gerry Lynch of the Second Circuit, garnered only three negative 
votes, and 94 votes in favor. Judge Andre Davis of Maryland was stalled 
for months and then confirmed with 72 votes in favor. Judge David 
Hamilton was filibustered in a failed effort to prevent an up or down 
vote.
  So why all the obstruction and delay? It is part of a partisan 
pattern. Even when they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless 
demand that the Senate go slow. The practice is continuing. There have 
already been 17 filibusters of President Obama's nominees. That is the 
same number of Federal circuit and district nominees the Senate has 
confirmed during the entirety of the Obama administration. And that 
comparison does not include the many other nominees who were delayed or 
who are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate Republicans refusing to 
agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial nominees.
  I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their destructive strategy 
and to work with us to provide final consideration without further 
delay to the 18 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar 
awaiting final action. We can make real progress if they will join with 
us and we work together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________