[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17359-17365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF SHARON L. GLEASON TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                         THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Sharon L. Gleason, of Alaska, 
to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska and 
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, of California, to be United States District 
Judge for the Northern District of California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour for debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I am glad the Senate will confirm two 
more highly experienced Federal judges this morning. I wish to take a 
moment to speak in support of the nomination of one of Alaska's finest 
State judges to the Federal bench.
  Today, the Senate will vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Sharon 
Gleason to be a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Alaska. I know Sharon quite well, and I recommended her to the 
President for this opening.
  I can say without hesitation that she is one of Alaska's finest. She 
is smart, she is compassionate, well rounded, and possesses an ample 
supply of common sense.
  Alaska's judicial candidates are rated by their peers, and Judge 
Gleason consistently receives among the highest marks possible. For 
these reasons, and many others, I hope all my Senate colleagues will 
join me in supporting her nomination.
  Her confirmation will make Judge Gleason the first female judge 
appointed to the Federal bench in Alaska history. That is truly 
momentous for our State and long overdue.
  I know many Alaskans back home--and 4 hours earlier--are watching 
these floor proceedings today because of the significance of this 
appointment.
  Sharon was appointed to the Anchorage Superior Court in 2001 by Gov. 
Tony Knowles, who was my boss when he served as mayor of Anchorage. On 
the Superior Court, Judge Gleason has presided over a large variety of 
cases, including complex civil litigation, divorce and custody 
proceedings, child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, and criminal cases.
  Judge Gleason now serves as the presiding judge of the Third Judicial 
District in Alaska. That position is responsible for overseeing 70 
percent of the caseload of the entire State trial courts and includes 
40 judges and 20 magistrates.
  Her record as a judge has been excellent. She is widely praised for 
her judicial temperament, her fairness on the bench, and especially her 
pioneering work on behalf of families and children. For that work, she 
was awarded the prestigious Light of Hope award in Alaska.
  Sharon is an active member of her community, serving on numerous 
legal committees. She also is a heck of a clarinet player, and she has 
been playing in the Anchorage Symphony Orchestra for more than 25 
years.
  Judge Gleason received the unanimous bipartisan support of every 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The American Bar Association 
has rated her ``unanimously well qualified,'' their highest possible 
rating for a Federal judge.
  If confirmed, Judge Gleason will follow a long line of excellent 
Federal judges in Alaska. She will replace retiring Judge Jack Sedwick, 
who has served our State with distinction for nearly a decade on the 
Federal bench.
  Judge Sharon Gleason is one of my State's finest legal minds, and I 
am confident she will continue to fairly and effectively serve Alaskans 
from the Federal bench.
  I urge all my colleagues to support her nomination to the U.S. 
District Court.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 17360]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this is a big day for us in Alaska 
and in Alaska's legal history. The Senate is today considering the 
nomination of Sharon Gleason. Sharon is the first woman to be nominated 
for United States district court judge in Alaska. She is an outstanding 
nominee and I regard it as a privilege to speak in support of her 
nomination today.
  Sharon Gleason is a native of Rochester, NY. She earned her 
bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis. She received 
her law degree from the University of California-Davis. Upon graduation 
from Davis, Sharon was elected to the Order of the Coif, which is the 
national legal honor society. Following her graduation, she clerked for 
Edmond Burke, who was the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.
  This was the beginning of an exceptional legal career in the State of 
Alaska for Sharon Gleason. After 17 years in private practice, Sharon 
was selected to serve on the Alaska Superior Court for the Third 
Judicial District in Anchorage. She came to the bench in 2001. In 2009, 
Sharon was elevated to the role of presiding judge for the Third 
Judicial District. This is the judicial district that is the busiest of 
our four judicial districts in the State of Alaska.
  I think it is important to take a moment here to explain how the 
process works in the State of Alaska for appointment as a judge. Sharon 
was selected, again, to serve on the Superior Court. All applicants for 
State judicial positions are vetted by the Alaska Judicial Council. 
There is a commission that is composed of attorneys and of public 
members, and the top candidates are recommended to the Governor for 
consideration and ultimate appointment. That merit process was created 
by the Alaska constitution, and it was intended to keep the politics 
out of the judicial selection process, and it is a process that many of 
us in the State of Alaska are quite proud of. We think it is a very 
effective process and works well. Every candidate is formally evaluated 
on issues such as integrity, professional competence, fairness, 
judicial temperament, and suitability of experience.
  As a member of the Alaska bar, I get the bar survey polls to evaluate 
the individuals as their names go forward, and you look through the 
categories to rate each candidate. I think if you were to ask any 
Alaska attorney about the rigor of this process, you would get the same 
answer, that it is a very effective process. The grading is tough, and 
those who are not up to the challenge do not slip through any cracks. 
The Governor may only appoint a candidate who has been recommended by 
the Alaska Judicial Council.
  Once selected, a Superior Court judge must stand for periodic 
retention elections. The Alaska Judicial Council reevaluates each judge 
standing for retention and then makes a recommendation to the voting 
public on whether that judge should be retained. Once again, the 
process is quite rigorous. The judicial council surveys attorneys, 
jurors, law enforcement, court employees, social workers, guardians ad 
litem, and court-appointed special advocates. The scores then are made 
public. So it is a very open process. It involves many, many within the 
Alaska legal community and is quite transparent.
  Sharon Gleason last stood for retention in 2010, and she scored high 
on measures of legal ability, impartiality, integrity, temperament, and 
diligence. In her 2010 retention questionnaire, Judge Gleason stated 
this about her job:

       The workload is particularly demanding . . ., involving 
     many long days and weekends. But I continue to love going to 
     work just about every day . . . I strive to be the best 
     judicial officer that I can be in every case that comes 
     before me.

  Those were the words of Judge Gleason. I think that is an excellent 
outlook for a member of our judiciary, and Alaskans clearly agreed. The 
Alaska Judicial Council recommended her retention and she was retained 
with nearly 61 percent of the vote.
  As a product of the Alaska court system, Sharon Gleason has 
functioned with great distinction in a merit-based, nonpartisan, and 
nonpolitical environment. In advance of the vote we will hold here in 
the Senate in about a half hour, I took the opportunity to survey some 
judges who either worked with Sharon in Alaska or who have had the 
opportunity to work with her. One of them reported that Judge Gleason 
has presided over complex technical cases that lasted several weeks and 
required her to pour over thousands of pages of exhibits and 
transcripts. She has also presided over child custody cases, making 
sure that she understands the needs of each child and how to assist or 
require the parents to raise their children appropriately. She is at 
work late each night and at least one full weekend day every week. She 
insists upon litigants being respectful of one another in litigation 
and during the hearings. She spends many hours evaluating herself to 
ensure that she is not only meeting her own standards about being fair 
to all sides but also behaves in a manner that leaves the parties to 
know she is being fair. She takes great pains to articulate to parties 
how she will run a hearing and why she is ruling as she does. She has 
tremendous control of her own demeanor so that she maintains control of 
proceedings. As a result, parties almost universally leave a hearing or 
a case feeling she has understood them and thought carefully about her 
decision. She acts with an appreciation that for the litigants involved 
the case before her is the most important thing in their lives at the 
time. She is, and I believe will continue to be, a superb judge.
  Another judge said: Sharon's skills as a capable trial court judge 
and an excellent presiding judge are well known to Alaskans. She will 
be missed by her colleagues in the State court but she will make a 
fantastic addition to the Federal district court.
  The American Bar Association has evaluated Judge Gleason as being 
``well qualified'' for elevation to the U.S. district court. I think 
she will make an exemplary U.S. district court judge. I am proud to 
support this nomination, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm two more 
of President Obama's judicial nominees. If my colleagues feel like they 
have been spending a lot of time on the Senate floor voting on judicial 
nominees, I would tell them they have. In just a little over a month, 
we have confirmed 20 article III judicial nominees for lifetime 
appointments. In total, the Senate has confirmed 71 percent of the 
President's judicial nominees since he took office.
  I would like to say a few words about the nominees.
  First, Sharon Gleason is nominated to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Alaska. Judge Gleason received her bachelor of arts 
from Washington University in St. Louis in 1979 and her juris doctorate 
from the University of California, Davis, School of Law in 1983. She 
then served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Edmond Burke of the Alaska 
Supreme Court.
  After her clerkship, Judge Gleason became an associate at the law 
firm Reese, Rice, and Volland in Anchorage, AK, where she worked on a 
variety of civil litigation. Judge Gleason became a partner in 1989 and 
remained at the firm until 1995 when she became a sole practitioner.
  In 2001, Judge Gleason was appointed to the Anchorage Superior Court 
by then-Governor Tony Knowles. She was retained by voters in 2004 and 
again in 2010.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Judge Gleason with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' 
rating.
  We will also be voting on Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. She is nominated to 
be United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
California.
  Judge Gonzalez Rogers earned her bachelor's degree from Princeton 
University in 1987 and her juris doctorate from the University of 
Texas, Austin School of Law in 1991.
  She began her legal career with Cooley LLP and served as a member of 
the General Business Litigation practice and the Real Estate Litigation

[[Page 17361]]

practice. She focused on large and complex civil litigation matters, 
including real estate and technology-related litigation.
  In addition to her legal practice, Judge Gonzalez Rogers also chaired 
the Judiciary Committee for the northern California Hispanic National 
Bar Association and the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association. In 
these roles, she investigated candidates for the judiciary and 
recommended endorsement where appropriate.
  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Judge Gonzalez Rogers as a 
superior court judge for the State of California on July 25, 2008. She 
was reelected without opposition in 2010.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Judge Gonzalez Rogers with a unanimous 
``Qualified'' rating.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are 
considering the historic nomination of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California.
  When she is confirmed, she will be the first Latina district judge in 
the Northern District of California.
  Judge Gonzalez Rogers first came to my attention through a bipartisan 
Judicial Advisory Committee that I have set up in California. This 
committee recommended her to me, and I interviewed her personally.
  Judge Gonzalez Rogers is a tested judge with a proven track record of 
success and dedication to the northern California community. It was my 
privilege to recommend her nomination to President Obama.
  She lives in Piedmont, CA. She and her husband have three children--
Christopher, Maria, and Joshua.
  Judge Gonzalez Rogers was born in Houston, TX. Her parents were each 
the oldest of nine siblings and grew up in south Texas. Spanish was 
their first language.
  Her father served in the U.S. Army and went to college with 
assistance from the G.I. Bill.
  Out of a large extended family, she was one of only three family 
members to attend college.
  She earned her undergraduate degree from Princeton University, where 
she excelled, graduating cum laude in 1987.
  During school breaks and weekends, she spent her time cleaning houses 
and cutting grass to help pay her tuition.
  She attended law school at the University of California at Berkeley, 
ultimately earning her law degree from the University of Texas at 
Austin.
  She began the practice of law at the prestigious San Francisco firm 
Cooley LLP. At that time, no Latina woman had been elected into the 
partnership of any major San Francisco law firm.
  In her own words, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ``worked hard to break that 
mold by becoming an excellent attorney worthy of invitation to the 
partnership.'' She was elevated to Cooley's partnership in 1998.
  In her application to my committee, she described her story as the 
``American dream,'' and she said that she ``would be honored to spend 
the remainder of [her] professional career serving the country that has 
given [her] so much.''
  She currently serves as an Alameda County superior court judge. Judge 
Gonzalez Rogers is an impressive jurist--smart, personable, and with 
mainstream views of the law--who I believe would serve very well as a 
Federal district judge.
  On the Superior Court, she has presided over both a criminal and 
civil calendar. She currently oversees a docket of more than 500 civil 
cases.
  She has also been active in the community. She was appointed by the 
presiding judge to serve as foreperson of the Alameda County Civil 
Grand Jury--an active investigative body that examines complaints about 
the administration of county government.
  She served as cochair of Citizens for Piedmont Schools, leading a 
campaign to pass ballot measures for the benefit of the local school 
systems. Each measure passed with over 80 percent of the vote.
  Her dedication to her community is admirable, as is her dedication to 
the law.
  As she said in her own words, ``I have a deep respect for judicial 
leadership, for judges who manage the process and their courtrooms 
well, apply the law fairly, and explain their reasoning clearly. 
Reasonable people can disagree. We need judges who will listen and then 
decide. I hope to have a long judicial career to live up to this 
standard.''
  I have no doubt she will live up to that standard, and I strongly 
believe she will be an outstanding Federal judge.
  The Judiciary Committee reported her nomination by voice vote in 
September, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm her nomination 
today.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
California Superior Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as the Senate 
prepares to vote on her confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of California. Judge Gonzalez Rogers was recommended 
to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a 
great addition to the Federal bench.
  Judge Gonzalez Rogers has been a skilled lawyer and judge during her 
career. After graduating from the University of Texas School of Law, 
she practiced complex civil litigation at Cooley Godward in San 
Francisco, becoming a partner at the firm in 1999. In 2008, she was 
appointed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Alameda County 
Superior Court, where she currently serves. She has also served as 
regional president for the Hispanic National Bar Association.
  I congratulate Judge Gonzalez Rogers and her family on this important 
day and urge my colleagues in the Senate to join in voting to confirm 
this highly qualified nominee to the Federal bench.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). 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, today the Senate is going to finally 
consider two of President Obama's highly qualified nominees to fill 
Federal district court vacancies in Alaska and the Northern District of 
California. They were unanimously voted out by the Judiciary Committee 
2 months ago. I am sorry it has taken so long because of objections on 
the other side, but I am glad they now will be considered.
  Both Sharon Gleason and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers have the strong 
support of their home State Senators and both were reported by the 
Judiciary Committee unanimously over 2 months ago. I thank the majority 
leader for securing votes on their nominations. I am disappointed that 
the Senate Republican leadership would not agree to a vote on the other 
23 judicial nominees waiting for final Senate action. These delays are 
inexcusable and damaging.
  All 25 nominees on the Senate calendar are qualified and have the 
support of their home State Senators, Republican and Democratic. 
Twenty-one of these judicial nominations were unanimously approved by 
the Judiciary Committee. Senate Democrats are prepared to have votes on 
all these important nominations. I know of no good reason why the 
Republican leadership is refusing to proceed on the 23 other judicial 
nominations that they have stalled before the Senate.
  The Senate Republican leadership has, again, insisted that the Senate 
skip over two circuit court nominees who would fill judicial emergency 
vacancies on the Second and Ninth Circuit. They, too, were reported 
unanimously and have the support of their home State Senators. There is 
no good reason that the Senate is being prevented from confirming the 
nominations of Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to fill a judicial 
emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit and Morgan Christen of Alaska 
to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.

[[Page 17362]]

  Senator Grassley and I have worked together to ensure that each of 
these 25 nominations was fully considered by the Judiciary Committee 
after a thorough, fair process, including completing our extensive 
questionnaire and questioning at a hearing. This White House has worked 
with the home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats, and each of 
the judicial nominees being delayed from a Senate vote is supported by 
both home State Senators. The FBI has conducted a thorough background 
review of each nominee. The American Bar Association's Standing 
Committee on the Federal Judiciary has conducted a peer review of their 
professional qualifications. When the nominations are then reported 
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, there is no reason for months 
and months of further delay before they can start serving the American 
people.
  With the vacancy rate on Federal courts throughout the country near 
10 percent, the delay in taking up and confirming these consensus 
judicial nominees is damaging. Last week, The Wall Street Journal 
reported on the impact of these vacancies at a time when the criminal 
docket on Federal district courts is growing. The article states:

       Exacerbating the problem are vacancies on the Federal 
     bench. Despite the surge in case loads, the number of 
     authorized federal judgeships has risen just 4% since 1990. 
     Of the 677 district court judgeships currently authorized, 
     about 9.5% are vacant. (``Criminal Case Glut Impedes Civil 
     Suits'')

  As a result, according to Judge McCuskey of the Central District of 
Illinois, ``civil litigation has ground to a halt.'' These delays 
affect both individuals and businesses. The article highlights that 
over 2,000 citizens of Merced, California who filed suit in 2007 over 
toxic chemical contamination stemming from a 2006 flood are still 
awaiting resolution, and only one civil trial has been held in the 
matter. In the article, Senior Judge W. Royal Furgeson of the Northern 
District of Texas is quoted warning that if decisions on contracts, 
mergers and intellectual-property rights ``can't be reached through 
quick and prompt justice, things unravel for business.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a copy of this article at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. A report published last month by the Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts demonstrates the extent of these delays in Federal 
court. Across the country, there are over 15,000 civil cases that have 
been pending for more than three years without resolution. The 
Administrative Office's data show that many of the circuits with the 
highest number of vacant district judgeships also have the highest 
backlog of pending cases. The Ninth Circuit has over 1,700 civil cases 
that have been pending for more than three years. There are currently 
14 district judgeships vacant in that circuit, including five vacancies 
that the Administrative Office has classified as judicial emergency 
vacancies. The Fifth Circuit has over 1,300 civil cases that have been 
pending for more than three years. There are eight district judgeships 
vacant in that circuit, six of which are emergency vacancies.
  Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are 
to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their 
day in court. While 3 years may be necessary for some of the most 
complex business disputes, it is unacceptable for hardworking Americans 
who are seeking their day in court. When an injured plaintiff sues to 
help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff 
should not have to wait for 3 years before a judge rules on his or her 
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they 
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  With almost one in 10 Federal judgeships currently vacant, the Senate 
must come together to address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on 
Federal courts around the country. Bill Robinson, the president of the 
American Bar Association, warned recently in a letter to Senate leaders 
that excessive vacancies and high caseloads, ``deprive . . . our 
federal courts of the capacity to deliver timely justice in civil 
matters and has real consequences for the financial well-being of 
businesses and for individual litigants whose lives are put on hold 
pending resolution of their disputes.'' Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy 
and Chief Justice Roberts have also warned of the serious problems 
created by persistent judicial vacancies. This is not a partisan issue, 
but an issue affecting hardworking Americans who are denied justice 
when their cases are delayed by overburdened courts.
  During President Bush's first 4 years, the Senate confirmed a total 
of 205 Federal circuit and district court judges. As of today, we would 
need another 89 confirmations over the next 12 months to match that 
total. That means a faster confirmation rate for the next 12 months 
than in any 12 months of the Obama administration to date. That would 
require Senate Republicans to abandon their delaying tactics. I hope 
they will. This is an area where the Senate must come together to 
address the serious judicial vacancies crisis on Federal courts around 
the country that has persisted for well over 2 years. We can and must 
do better for the millions of Americans being made to suffer by these 
unnecessary Senate delays.
  More than half of all Americans--almost 164 million--live in 
districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that could be filled 
today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the nominations now 
pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 25 states are served by 
Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by these 
nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed by 
delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should explain 
why they will not consent to vote on the qualified, consensus 
candidates nominated to fill these extended judicial vacancies.
  I have heard some Senators excuse the delays and the extraordinary 
numbers of nominations left pending on the Senate calendar by claiming 
that our progress on nominations this year has been among the best in 
history. This is not true on its face, and ignores the Senate's failure 
to confirm judges in the first 2 years of the Obama administration, a 
practice which has led to historically high vacancies. The 56 circuit 
and district court nominations we have confirmed thus far this year is 
well behind the 68 we confirmed in the third year of President George 
W. Bush's first term. What makes the claim of progress even more 
misleading is that of the 56 nominations we confirmed this year, 17 
could have and should have been confirmed when they were reported by 
the Judiciary Committee last year and instead took us until June of 
this year to consider. Even including these nominees on this year's 
total, the Senate's progress this year barely cracks the top 10 years 
for confirmed nominees in the last 35 years.
  The truth is that the actions of the Senate Republican leadership in 
stalling judicial nominations during President Obama's first 2 years 
led to confirmation of few judges, leading to high vacancies. 
Republican leadership allowed the Senate to confirm only 47 circuit and 
district court nominations last year and set the modern record for 
fewest nominations confirmed with only 13 the year before--a total of 
60 nominees confirmed in President Obama's first 2 years in office--
leading to judicial vacancies that stood at 97 at the start of this 
year. In stark contrast, at the start of President Bush's third year, 
2003, judicial vacancies stood at only 60 because the Senate had 
confirmed 72 of his circuit and district court nominations the year 
before and 28 in his first year in office, a total of 100 in the 17 
months prior to 2003 with a Democratic majority.
  The 100 circuit and district court nominations we confirmed in 
President Bush's first 2 years leading to a vacancy total of 60 at the 
beginning of his third year is almost a complete reverse of the 60 we 
confirmed in President Obama's first 2 years, leading to nearly 100 
vacancies at the start of 2011. Yet, even following those years of real

[[Page 17363]]

 progress, in 2003 we proceeded to confirm more judicial nominations--
68--than there were vacancies at the start of that year and reduced 
vacancies even further. We worked to reduce vacancies on the circuit 
courts to single digits and throughout the Federal judiciary to fewer 
than 30.
  The two nominees we consider today should have been confirmed 2 
months ago. Sharon Gleason is nominated to fill a vacancy in the 
District Court for the District of Alaska. She is currently the 
Presiding Judge on the Superior Court for Alaska's Third Judicial 
District, where she has served for nearly a decade. Judge Gleason spent 
17 years in private practice and clerked for Chief Justice Edmond Burke 
of the Alaska Supreme Court. The ABA's Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her ``well qualified'' to serve, 
its highest rating. Her home State Senators, Senator Murkowski, a 
Republican, and Senator Begich, a Democrat, gave Judge Gleason their 
strong support when they introduced her to the Committee at a hearing 
in July. If confirmed, Judge Gleason will be the first woman to serve 
as a Federal district court judge in Alaska.
  Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is nominated to serve as a United States 
District Judge for the Northern District of California. Since 2008, she 
has served as a judge for the Superior Court of California in Alameda 
County. Judge Gonzalez Rogers previously worked for 12 years as a 
litigator in private practice in the San Francisco office of Cooley 
LLP, and served for 2 years as a civil grand juror for Alameda County. 
Originally appointed to the Superior Court by Republican Governor 
Arnold Schwarzenegger in October 2008, Judge Gonzalez Rogers has the 
strong support of both of her home State Democratic Senators, Senators 
Feinstein and Boxer.
  I hope that the Senate can build on our progress today by considering 
the other 23 judicial nominations pending on the Senate calendar. With 
less than 5 weeks left before Senate adjournment for the year, the 
Senate needs to consider at least 5 judges every week in order to begin 
to catch up and erase the backlog that has developed from the delays in 
the consideration of consensus nominees caused by the Senate Republican 
leadership. We should not end another year with the Senate Republican 
leadership refusing to give final consideration to qualified judicial 
nominees and insisting on their nominations being returned to the 
President to begin the process all over again. Such delaying tactics 
are a disservice to the American people. The Senate should fulfill its 
constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to 
provide justice to Americans around the country.


                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10, 2011]

                 Criminal Case Glut Impedes Civil Suits

                (By Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller)

       An explosion of criminal prosecutions in the nation's 
     overextended federal courts has left civil litigants from 
     bereaved spouses to corporate giants waiting years for their 
     day in court.
       The logjam, prompted particularly by criminal cases related 
     to drugs and immigration, as well as by the proliferation of 
     more-obscure federal criminal laws, threatens the functioning 
     of the nation's judicial system, say some judges and 
     attorneys.
       ``We need the resources to do both'' civil and criminal 
     law, says W. Royal Furgeson, a senior federal judge in 
     Dallas. If decisions on contracts, mergers and intellectual-
     property rights ``can't be reached through quick and prompt 
     justice, things unravel for business.''
       In the Northern District of California, a widely watched 
     intellectual-property fight between Google Inc. and Oracle 
     Corp. has stalled to an indefinite halt. The two-year-old 
     case, in which Oracle alleges that Google's Android 
     smartphone software infringes its copyrights and patents, was 
     scheduled to go to trial last month. Judge William Alsup 
     postponed it ``due to a lengthy criminal trial.'' In a 
     written order, he said the trial would occur ``in due 
     course.''
       Oracle and Google declined to comment. Judge Alsup's clerk 
     said he was too busy to comment.
       Over the past three decades, the U.S. has steadily added to 
     the federal rule book through new criminal statutes and 
     regulations that carry criminal penalties. Combined with 
     beefed-up enforcement, that has led to a 70% jump in the 
     number of pending federal criminal cases in the past decade--
     to over 76,000, according to the Administrative Office of 
     U.S. Courts.
       Civil litigation, which accounts for over three quarters of 
     federal court cases, is getting squeezed the most. In 2007, 
     fewer than 7% of civil cases were more than three years old. 
     By last year, that percentage more than doubled, with nearly 
     45,000 cases in a holding pattern.
       While some of the case overload stems from mass litigation, 
     such as damage claims from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, much of 
     it traces back to the crowded criminal docket, say judges and 
     other legal experts. The Constitution and the Speedy Trial 
     Act of 1974 mandate criminal cases take precedence over civil 
     cases.
       Exacerbating the problem are vacancies on the federal 
     bench. Despite the surge in case loads, the number of 
     authorized federal judgeships has risen just 4% since 1990. 
     Of the 677 district court judgeships currently authorized, 
     about 9.5% are vacant.
       Instead of waiting, many civil litigants are settling their 
     disputes. That can be appropriate in many cases, but there is 
     ``no shortage of plaintiffs who wind up taking inadequate 
     settlements'' or businesses that make unnecessary payments to 
     end the expense and uncertainty of litigation, says Ian 
     Millhiser, a policy analyst at the Center for American 
     Progress, a liberal think tank.
       Elizabeth and Nicholas Powers were awaiting jury selection 
     in their employment-discrimination suit against the 
     University of Illinois when the federal judge assigned to the 
     case earlier this year called a sudden halt to instead tackle 
     a mounting series of criminal cases.
       Their 2008 lawsuit, which named the Board of Trustees of 
     the University of Illinois as defendant, alleged Ms. Powers 
     received lower pay for her work than male employees. It also 
     alleged Mr. Powers, who also worked for the university, was 
     treated differently than the wives of male professors who 
     worked at the school.
       After the delay, the couple decided to settle for $85,000 
     rather than wait for a new trial. An attorney for the 
     University of Illinois declined comment on the settlement.
       The judge in the case, Mike McCuskey, who is also the chief 
     federal jurist for the central district of Illinois, said in 
     an interview he has no choice but to push back civil cases 
     because of his criminal caseload. In 1997, federal court 
     statistics show, Judge McCuskey's district had 55 civil cases 
     that were pending more than three years. Last year, it had 
     1,200.
       ``Civil litigation has ground to a halt,'' Judge McCuskey 
     said, adding that ``you've got a right to sue but you do not 
     get a right to a speedy jury trial.''
       The Illinois jurist blames the glut of criminal cases on a 
     shift in jurisdiction. Many cases that once would have been 
     handled by state courts, including those dealing with drugs, 
     weapons and child pornography, are now being filed federally. 
     Congress has passed statutes that duplicate existing state 
     laws but often carry heavier sentences, an added attraction 
     to law-enforcement officials.
       One of the nation's heaviest loads can be found in the 
     federal courts of the eastern district of California, which 
     covers an inland swath from north of Los Angeles to the 
     Oregon border. Its per-judge caseload is 1,129 and getting 
     worse with the September retirement of Judge Oliver Wanger. 
     Because he won't be replaced, his cases will be divided among 
     those who remain.
       One of Judge Wanger's cases was a lawsuit involving 
     hundreds of people from a neighborhood in Merced, Calif., 
     stemming from a 2006 flood and subsequent concern about toxic 
     chemical contamination from a nearby industrial site.
       In 2007, current and former residents filed suit in federal 
     court against municipal entities and the former owners of the 
     industrial site seeking damages.
       Judge Wanger divided the case into smaller trials, which 
     would allow him to intersperse those hearings with other 
     ongoing cases. But only one of those civil trials has been 
     held so far.
       Mick Marderosian, the plaintiffs' attorney, said many of 
     his 2,000 clients are waiting for a resolution of the case, 
     now heading towards its fifth year. ``We get calls every day 
     from clients asking what is happening, what is causing the 
     delay,'' he said.
       Kathy Ramos said she and her husband, a truck driver, spent 
     $35,000 repairing their home after the flood. Her husband 
     dropped plans to buy his own rig and the couple is still 
     paying credit-card debts from the home-repair work. As for 
     the lawsuit, ``we would just like to have it over with,'' she 
     said.
       To get around the eastern district's problems, the suit has 
     been transferred to a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif.
       For two and a half years, Amy Bullock has been waiting for 
     her day in court seeking damages for the death of her husband 
     in a 2006 truck accident. Her suit was filed in Denver 
     federal court two years later against Daimler Trucks North 
     America LLC, formerly Freightliner LLC.
       It has been postponed twice, once in November 2010, about 
     two weeks before the trial was supposed to start, and again 
     this October to make way for a firearms case.

[[Page 17364]]

       ``It was devastating to hear it was postponed,'' says Ms. 
     Bullock.
       Daimler disputes the merits of Ms. Bullock's claim, which 
     revolves around the truck's safety design and whether it had 
     adequate safety restraints in its sleeper compartment. Its 
     attorney, Peter Jones, a Denver lawyer, nonetheless agrees 
     that the delays represent ``a huge inconvenience to the 
     clients and the witnesses who are involved on both sides.''
       The trial is now scheduled for March 2012. Said the 41-
     year-old Ms. Bullock: ``I'm looking forward to having my day 
     in court but, honestly, I feel like it may never happen.''


                          Vermont's Rebuilding

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few moments about the 
positive impact next year's Transportation-HUD appropriations bill is 
going to have on my home State of Vermont, particularly as we continue 
rebuilding from Hurricane Irene's destructive forces back in August.
  I want to praise subcommittee chair Patty Murray and ranking member 
Susan Collins. Their hard work and dedication ensures the final bill, 
filed last night, provides both appropriate funding for disaster relief 
accounts and also moves heavy truck traffic out of historic downtowns 
both in Vermont and in Maine.
  As you and the others know, ever since Hurricane Irene, I have spoken 
over and over again on the floor of the Senate but also in meeting 
after meeting of the Appropriations Committee and probably in hundreds 
of hours in discussions with both Republican and Democratic Senators, 
especially on the Appropriations Committee, about the needs to Vermont.
  Irene was devastating to our small State of Vermont. Both my wife and 
I were born in Vermont, and never in our lifetime have we seen anything 
like what we saw--record rains, and flash floods simply washed away 
homes, farms, businesses, roads, and bridges all over the State, 
including some that had been there for 100 years. Of all the body blows 
we suffered when Irene raked our State from border to border, repairing 
the damage to our roads and our bridges and our rail lines is one of 
our most urgent priorities, especially in a State in which we have 
already had substantial snowfalls.
  The huge expense of mending our transportation network is well beyond 
the ability of a small State such as ours. When we tallied up the 
destruction, it became quickly very clear that Vermont is going to need 
more Federal help than the money that is now in the pipeline. In fact, 
we are not alone in that. The same can be said of other States ravaged 
by Irene.
  With many Federal aid disaster programs underfunded, I am especially 
pleased that this bill contains $1,662 million to replenish the Federal 
highway disaster relief fund. That is going to help Vermont and the 
other States that were so badly damaged rebuild vital roadways and 
bridges. Of course, these connections are crucial to distributing aid, 
rebuilding our economy, and serving as a lifeline to small communities, 
and, working with Governor Shumlin, Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, 
and community leaders across Vermont, it became clear right away that, 
given the mammoth destruction of the storm, certain waivers are going 
to be needed to allow States to have these emergency funds without 
unnecessary burdens or delays. We have made adjustments to these caps 
in the past after major natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina 
and Andrew and tornadoes in the South.
  I traveled around the State the day after Irene. It was hard to 
believe it was such a beautiful day. The Sun was shining. It looked 
like the nicest summer day you could imagine, except that as the 
Governor and I and General Dubie, the head of our National Guard, went 
by helicopter, we would go along and we would see a beautiful road, 
houses, farms, a river running along one side, everything peaceful, and 
we would go about a mile, and all of a sudden the river was on the 
wrong side of the road and hundreds of yards of road had disappeared, 
there were gaping holes 50-, 100-, 150-feet deep and businesses, 
houses, barns in the river, destroyed. These are places that have not 
changed for 100 years but did in this. I remember saying to the 
Governor: We will get the aid.
  I was already getting e-mails from some of my colleagues--both 
Republicans and Democrats--here in the Senate saying that Vermont had 
always supported their States when they had disasters, and they would 
support us. But the Governor and I and everybody else realized that we 
had to have waivers in the final bill to do the things we needed. They 
are essential to ensuring that Vermont can promptly begin work on 
emergency and permanent repairs sooner rather than later. It is the 
middle of November, and they no longer make asphalt after about the 
middle of November. Severe winter weather is right around the corner. 
So it will make it nearly impossible to rebuild before March or April.
  When I proposed the waivers in this bill, I can't tell you how much I 
appreciated the fact that Senators Murray and Collins supported that, 
as did Republicans and Democrats alike, on the appropriations bill. It 
may seem like a small thing, but to our little State, it is the 
difference between economic disaster and being able to rebuild, and I 
can't thank Senators enough for supporting me on these waivers.
  The bill also includes another high priority for Vermont: moving 
heavy trucks off the State's secondary roads and onto our interstate 
highways. Overweight truck traffic in our villages and downtown poses a 
threat to the State's infrastructure, but it is also an unnecessary 
safety risk to both motorists and pedestrians.
  The Leahy-Collins provision in this bill will end the steady parade 
of overweight trucks in Vermont and Maine from rumbling through our 
historic downtowns and small, narrow roads that come within a few feet 
of schools, houses, businesses, and town greens. It will help Vermont 
businesses and communities struggling even more right now because of 
the large number of State and local roads already heavily damaged 
during the recent flooding.
  When we first met in the Appropriations Committee and I first raised 
the needs of Vermont, I have to admit that I got emotional in that 
appropriations meeting, as I did here on the floor. It is because I saw 
my fellow Vermonters, some, people I have known literally all my life, 
who drew from their deep reservoirs of resiliency and resolve in the 
wake of Hurricane Irene; people helping people they don't even know but 
saying, ``That is the way we do it in Vermont''; people moving even 
before FEMA or anybody else came to help with the disaster, moving to 
make sure that people who might need to get to a hospital, even if we 
had to carve a road through woods for them, it would be done. This is 
the Vermont way.
  But I was moved to tears going through the State and seeing things 
that I remembered as a child that had always been there and I assumed 
would be there all my life destroyed in a matter of hours.
  These storms are going to enter the history books alongside the 
horrific floods of 1927 in our State--something I remember my 
grandparents and parents talking about. I remember my grandparents and 
parents saying: We hope we never see something like this again. They 
didn't, but their son did, and I can't tell you how much it hurt.
  But I cannot tell you how much it means to me that, again, Senators 
joined with me in saying: We will find the money Vermont needs. Back in 
1927, the National Government helped our State recover, as it should, 
because, after all, we are the United States of America. The American 
people come together in times such as these, just as Vermonters have 
always been among the helping hands extended to other States at their 
time in need. So the progress this bill makes in helping Vermont and 
other States meet their urgent needs is a testament to the 
determination of many in this body. Again, Republicans and Democrats 
have been willing to set aside ideological differences and partisan 
tensions to accomplish the work the American people expect from their 
government.
  When I first proposed this increase in disaster aid not only for 
Vermont but for every other State, when I first proposed these waivers, 
I hoped they would happen. None of us knew whether they would. I am 
pleased now to see a bill where they have. It came about

[[Page 17365]]

because Senators from all over the country of both political parties 
worked together. You know, I wish we had more of that in Washington 
these days. I would like to think that maybe this is a wonderful step 
forward and we are all going to benefit from it.
  Mr. President, I know we are shortly to vote on the judicial 
nominations. I would ask the Chair how much time remains before that 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13\1/2\ minutes remaining before the 
vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just to notify other Senators, I am shortly 
going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I will then ask us to come 
out of the quorum at noon, and unless I hear that somebody wishes to 
speak on either of the nominees, I will then move that time be yielded 
back. I will not do that until 12:00. But I now suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see nobody on either side who wishes to 
speak. I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back on the two 
nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
nominations?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the first nomination is called up, I 
will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Sharon L. Gleason, of Alaska, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Alaska.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Ex.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Blunt
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Inhofe
     McConnell
     Paul
     Rubio
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Durbin
     Isakson
     Lee
     Risch
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, of California, to 
be United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
California?
  Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Crapo
     DeMint
     Inhofe
     Paul
     Shelby
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Durbin
     Isakson
     Lee
     Risch
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on vote Nos. 206 and 207, the 
confirmations of Sharon Gleason to be United States District Judge for 
the District of Alaska, and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to be United States 
District Judge for the Northern District of California, I was 
unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have supported the 
nominations and voted yea on both.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess until 3 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________