[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4281-4283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF AMY BERMAN JACKSON TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Amy Berman Jackson, of the 
District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we yield back all time on this matter.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the leader withhold?
  Mr. REID. The chairman is here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for 
scheduling this confirmation vote today. I have been talking about this 
nomination since last year. Amy Jackson is one of four nominees to the 
vacancies that have plagued the District Court for the District of 
Columbia, this Nation's Capital, for some time. This is another of the 
nominations that could--and in my view should--have been considered and 
confirmed last year. Instead, it was one of two nominations to that 
court unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate 
action, despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the 
American people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal 
courts. The President has had to renominate Ms. Jackson, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider her and now, finally, the 
Senate is being allowed to consider her.
  I have spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on 
numerous occasions, including during the last 2 weeks. I have noted the 
criticism from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last 
November urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist 
on the District Court for the District of Columbia. We could and should 
have acted before adjourning last year in response to his request. All 
four nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee 
last year. They were needlessly delayed.
  When the Senate was allowed to consider and confirm Judge Boasberg on 
Monday, I, again, raised the question of the refusal on the other side 
of the aisle to proceed to consider the Jackson nomination. Ms. 
Jackson's nomination was reported without opposition by the Judiciary 
Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. Ms. Jackson is a 
former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and 
experience who the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the 
American Bar Association gave its highest peer review rating of ``well 
qualified.'' Representative Norton has called her one of the top 
practitioners in one of the District's top law firms and given her a 
strong endorsement. I expect this will be another of the nominations 
that has been needlessly delayed and then confirmed unanimously or 
nearly so.
  In addition to the Jackson nomination, there remain 10 additional 
judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration after having been 
reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Also reported from the Judiciary 
Committee and before the Senate are nominees to fill two judicial 
emergency vacancies in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the 
Second Circuit, two judicial emergency vacancies in California and 
vacancies on the Federal and D.C. Circuit, in Oregon, and two vacancies 
in Virginia.
  Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many 
and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice 
Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and 
many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken 
out and urged the Senate to act.
  Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This 
puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair 
hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary 
delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American 
people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a 
timely fashion.
  When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell 
last November, he noted that Senate action to fill the vacancies in DC 
was needed so that ``the citizens of the District of Columbia and the 
Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely on the Court could 
receive ``the high quality of justice they deserve.'' The Chief Judge 
wrote about the ``severe impact'' these judicial vacancies were having 
and observed that the ``challenging caseload'' of the Court ``includes 
many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of 
national significance.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
Chief Judge's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years 
of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we 
made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies 
from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 
10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than four 
percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to 
the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 
2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his 
judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations 
were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. 
We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the 
vacancies down significantly.
  By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but they 
have not been. Unlike in the first 2 years of President Bush's first 
term when with a Democratic majority the Senate reduced vacancies from 
110 to 60, judicial vacancies topped 90 in August 2009 and have 
remained above that level ever since. After tonight's confirmation, 
they will still number 95, putting at risk the ability of Americans to 
have a fair hearing in Court.
  The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by 
the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. 
Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal 
judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a 
backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. 
This is unacceptable.
  We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the 
Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with 
Democratic and Republican home state Senators to identify superbly 
qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the

[[Page 4282]]

Executive Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the 
support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All 
have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated 
faithfulness to the Constitution.
  During President Bush's first term, his first four tumultuous years 
in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We 
confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during 
President Bush's first 2 years in office and by this date in President 
Bush's third year had confirmed 110. So far in President Obama's third 
year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 73 of his 
Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of 
the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach 
it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which 
they have remained throughout these first three years of the Obama 
administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end 
of the Bush administration.
  I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see 
him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was 
encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees 
through the confirmation process.'' My friend from Iowa is fond of 
pointing to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, 
some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation by certain home 
state Senators with the White House. Nonetheless, I agree with the 
Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we 
do not have before us. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the 
qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate.
  In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements 
this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year 
could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was 
unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had 
Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after 
midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe 
how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of 
the 1980 presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. 
I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left 
without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new 
level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and 
judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too 
long.
  I thank Chief Judge Lamberth for his efforts on behalf of his Court, 
on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, and on behalf of 
our justice system. The American justice system is not some 
discretionary luxury. It serves an essential function in our democracy. 
I thank all the women and men who work every day in our courts to 
guarantee justice for the American people.
  I am glad that Amy Jackson's wait is finally over and congratulate 
her and her family on her confirmation.

                               Exhibit 1

                                       U.S. District Court for the


                                         District of Columbia,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 2010.
     Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the 
         District of Columbia.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the 
     judges of the United States District Court for the District 
     of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the 
     vacancies that exist at our Court.
       Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four 
     vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the 
     additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M. 
     Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31, 
     2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its 
     15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this 
     situation already is being felt and will only increase over 
     time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly 
     handles includes many involving national security issues, as 
     well as other issues of national significance. A large number 
     of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time 
     and attention from each of our judges.
       Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to 
     foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep 
     up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent 
     vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary.
       Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been 
     reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await 
     floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson) 
     have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported 
     out of Committee.
       We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's 
     vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the 
     Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us 
     continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                Royce C. Lamberth,
                                                      Chief Judge.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today we vote on our 13th judicial 
nominee in just 29 legislative days. In this session of the Senate, we 
have confirmed more judicial nominees than in the same time period for 
any of the previous four Presidents.
  I like to keep my colleagues up-to-date with our cooperation and 
progress on judicial nominees. We continue to process nominees at a 
fast pace in committee. We held our fourth nominations hearing 
yesterday and have heard from 17 judicial nominees this year. The 
Judiciary Committee met this morning and reported an additional 
district court nominee. We have now reported 23 nominees, nearly 40 
percent of the 58 judicial nominations made by President Obama this 
year. The committee has taken some step forward on 55 percent of the 
judicial nominees. We have delivered on our promise to move consensus 
nominees.
  Even with our fast pace, the current vacancy rate remains high. But 
with 94 vacancies in the Federal courts, the President has only put 
forward 44 nominees for those vacancies. That is 50 vacancies without a 
nominee. For seats designated judicial emergencies, 57 percent of those 
vacancies have no nominee.
  As I have said in the past, the burden is on the President to 
nominate consensus individuals for current vacancies. Yet, for the 
second time, President Obama has sent up a nomination to a seat which 
is not vacant. I think we can all agree the Senate's time and resources 
are valuable. My priority continues to be carefully reviewing 
nominations for vacancies which require our immediate attention.
  Today we vote on Amy Berman Jackson, nominated to be a U.S. district 
judge for the District of Columbia. Ms. Jackson is not the first 
nominee to be considered for this vacancy. Michael O'Neill, who served 
as chief counsel and staff director to then-Chairman Specter, was 
nominated by President Bush to fill this seat in June of 2008. He 
waited for more than 18 months for a hearing and a vote--neither of 
which he received. His nomination was returned to the President in 
January 2009. I am disappointed the Senate did not give Mr. O'Neill the 
courtesy Ms. Jackson is receiving today.
  Ms. Jackson received her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard College and 
her J.D. from Harvard Law School, cum laude. Upon graduation from law 
school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Harrison L. Winter 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  Ms. Jackson served as an assistant U.S. attorney before moving into 
private practice. She has focused on white-collar crime, plaintiffs' 
work involving multidistrict litigation and civil matters. The ABA 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated her 
as ``well qualified.''
  I congratulate the nominee and wish her well in her public service as 
a U.S. district judge.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back any time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page 4283]]

  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Amy Berman Jackson, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District 
Judge for the District of Columbia?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     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
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Ensign
     Inhofe
     Udall (NM)
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________