[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5733-5736]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF VINCENT L. BRICCETTI TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF JOHN A. KRONSTADT TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Vincent L. Briccetti, 
of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New 
York, and John A. Kronstadt, of California, to be United States 
District Judge for the Central District of California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 1 hour of debate 
equally divided between the two sides.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak out of turn as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kirk are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. KIRK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will confirm two more of the 
President's judicial nominees. Both of these nominees are for seats 
termed ``judicial emergencies.'' My Republican colleagues and I 
continue to demonstrate our cooperation. We have worked with the 
Democratic majority in moving consensus nominees through the committee 
and on to the Senate floor. With today's votes, we will have confirmed 
17 judicial nominees in just 39 short days the Senate has been in 
session this Congress. Twelve of these confirmations were for those 
positions that are termed ``judicial emergencies.''
  We have reported out of committee a total of 32 judicial nominees. 
That is 51 percent of the total nominees who have been submitted to the 
Senate by the President of the United States. To date we have held five 
nomination hearings with 21 judicial and executive nominees giving 
their testimony. We have another hearing scheduled for tomorrow, with 
four judicial nominees and one executive nominee on the agenda. With 
this productive pace, we have taken positive action on 60 percent of 
the judicial nominations sent to the committee this year by the 
President.
  Today the Senate will consider two nominations: First, Vincent 
Briccetti, nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern 
District of New York. He received a B.A. from Columbia University and a 
juris doctorate from Fordham University School of Law. The nominee 
began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable John M. 
Cannella, U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York.
  After a short term in private practice, he served as an assistant 
U.S. attorney. That was also for the Southern District of New York. 
Later, he became a deputy chief appellate attorney. After working as an 
associate attorney in a law firm, the nominee started his own firm in 
1992 and, as I report to my colleagues regularly on the ABA standing 
committee on the Federal judiciary, that committee has unanimously 
rated this nominee ``well-qualified.''
  The second nominee is John Kronstadt, nominated to be U.S. District 
Judge, Central District of California. He received his B.A. from 
Cornell University and juris doctorate from Yale Law School. He began 
his legal career as law clerk to the Honorable William P. Gray, U.S. 
District Court, Central District of California. This nominee practiced 
law for nearly 24 years, most recently as a partner with Arnold & 
Porter.
  On November 14, 2002, Gov. Gray Davis appointed Judge Kronstadt to 
the Los Angeles County Superior Court. There he presided over criminal, 
civil, and family law matters. Again, reporting on the American Bar 
Association rating of this nominee, the nominee had substantial 
majority ``qualified,'' a minority, ``well qualified.''
  I support these two nominees and urge my colleagues to support them 
as well. I congratulate each of the nominees for their achievement and, 
more importantly, for their long period of public service which will 
continue after their confirmation by the Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for 
California Superior Court Judge John A. Kronstadt, as the Senate 
prepares to vote on his confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the 
Central District of California. Judge Kronstadt was recommended to the 
President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great 
addition to the Federal bench.

[[Page 5734]]

  Judge Kronstadt has had a distinguished career. After graduating from 
Yale Law School, he served as a Federal law clerk for Judge Gray on the 
Central District of California. With his confirmation, Judge Kronstadt 
will be returning to the same court where he served as a clerk. 
Following his clerkship, he was in private practice, specializing in 
complex litigation, antitrust, copyright and securities. Since 2002, 
Judge Kronstadt has served as a superior court judge in Los Angeles.
  I congratulate Judge Kronstadt and his 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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are 
considering the nomination of Judge John Kronstadt to the U.S. District 
Court for the Central District of California here today.
  I had the privilege of recommending Judge Kronstadt's nomination to 
President Obama.
  Since 2002, he has served as a judge on the California Superior Court 
for Los Angeles County.
  Judge Kronstadt first came to my attention through the Judicial 
Advisory Committee that I have set up in California. This is a 
bipartisan committee that reviews judicial candidates for me based on 
their legal acumen, reputation for skill and professionalism, breadth 
of personal experience, temperament, and overall commitment to 
excellence in the field of law.
  Judge Kronstadt stood out from among the candidates for the vacancy 
on this court because he has all of these qualities in spades.
  He has an outstanding academic record, with a bachelor of arts degree 
from Cornell University and a law degree from Yale Law School.
  He started his legal career on the very court to which he is now 
nominated, serving as a law clerk to Judge William Gray of the U.S. 
District Court for the Central District of California.
  Judge Kronstadt also brings a distinguished background in private 
practice. Prior to becoming a judge, he spent roughly two dozen years 
as a litigator trying complex civil cases before Federal courts, State 
courts, and administrative agencies.
  He started as an associate and then became a partner at the law firm 
of Arnold & Porter--first in Washington, DC, and then in Los Angeles. 
Between years with that firm, he also spent 15 years managing his own 
firm with three colleagues. That was the firm of Blanc, Williams, 
Johnston, & Kronstadt.
  On the Los Angeles County Superior Court, his docket consists 
primarily of civil cases, ranging from employment litigation to 
contract disputes to intellectual property and other commercial 
matters. He has overseen some 250 trials, as well as countless pretrial 
proceedings.
  He has amassed a stellar in his almost 9 years on the court: only one 
of his decisions has ever been reversed. Within the Los Angeles area, 
Judge Kronstadt is regarded as one of the finest judges on the bench. 
Fellow judges, litigants, and local lawyers describe him as 
``incredibly smart,'' ``very fair,'' ``even-tempered,'' and a ``hard 
worker'' who ``cares an incredible amount about the jury system.''
  He has been a leader on the bench, serving on the court's executive 
committee, and chairing its Community Outreach Committee, among other 
positions.
  Beyond his educational and professional qualifications, Judge 
Kronstadt has also shown an impressive dedication to education and the 
teaching of students throughout his career.
  Since 2002, he has spent roughly 1,500 hours as a volunteer with the 
Constitutional Rights Foundation, including serving as the foundation's 
president.
  This is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in Los Angeles that 
seeks to ``educate young people to become active and responsible 
participants in our society'' and to teach them about ``the importance 
of civic participation in a democratic society.''
  Judge Kronstadt developed a program for the Foundation known as 
``Courtroom to Classroom.'' This program facilitates visits by judges 
to eighth and eleventh grade public school classrooms throughout the 
Los Angeles area.
  Judges who volunteer provide copies of the Constitution to the 
students and organize mock trial activities to allow them to experience 
constitutional law and the courtroom at a young age.
  And while in private practice, he developed a training program for 
the Los Angeles County Bar Association that reached over 1,000 new 
attorneys.
  I am very pleased to support Judge Kronstadt's nomination. He has 
shown a firm commitment to the rule of law, and a dedication to public 
service in a variety of ways.
  I believe he is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. District 
Court for the Central District of California. The Judiciary Committee 
unanimously reported his nomination last month, and he is much-needed 
on the central district bench--that court has been designated as a 
judicial emergency district by the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts. I thank the leader for bringing his nomination to the floor, 
and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to support Vincent L. 
Briccetti, a superb lawyer who will be a brilliant and experienced 
addition to the bench of the Southern District of New York.
  Vince has reached the apex of his profession through sheer hard work 
and raw intelligence. The son and grandson of Italian butchers, Vince 
was born in Mt. Kisco, NY, and grew up working in the butcher shop 
while he went to school, eventually graduating from Columbia University 
and Fordham University School of Law. He spent many of his summers 
working as a waiter.
  After graduating from law school, he earned a prestigious clerkship 
with Judge John M. Cannella in the Southern District of New York, and 
then entered private practice for 2 years. Vince's dedication to the 
rule of law had already begun, but his public service commenced when he 
entered the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York 
in 1985. For 4 years, he tried an impressive array of cases, including 
a sweeping tax fraud case that earned him too many awards to list here 
today. He then became the deputy chief of the Appellate Division of the 
U.S. Attorneys' Office and defended the office's convictions and 
practices on appeal.
  Following a distinguished career at the prestigious law firm of Paul, 
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, he steered his practice back to White 
Plains and established his own law firm there. For the last 17 years, 
he has practiced as a criminal defense lawyer in State and Federal 
court. He has tried approximately 50 cases to verdict or judgment. I 
have heard from judges and practitioners alike that Vince is a lawyer 
whose involvement invariably improves the outcome of any specific case 
with which he is involved and who has in general been one of the Bar's 
great assets. He has treated his duty as a lawyer to dedicate time to 
pro bono work--through serving on the local Criminal Justice Act 
panel--not as an obligation, but as a calling. To quote former Federal 
district court Judge Stephen C. Robinson's letter to this committee:

       On at least three separate occasions, when I had some doubt 
     as to whether a party before me was receiving adequate and 
     appropriate counsel, I asked Vince to take up the 
     representation. Vince always stood ready to respond to my 
     requests for assistance in the name of justice. I can tell 
     you that all of the judges in our courthouse held Vince in 
     the highest regard.

  While he ran his own firm and represented clients, Vince also 
continued to assist the government by serving as a special prosecutor 
at the behest of the Westchester County District Attorney when he or 
she was conflicted out of a prosecution. The current district attorney 
in Westchester County has commended him as ``possessed of the highest 
moral character and integrity.''
  Everywhere you go in and around New York, you hear superlatives about 
Vince Briccetti: That he is the very model of an ethical, fair, 
dedicated lawyer; that while he is a terrific advocate, there is no one 
you would rather

[[Page 5735]]

see on the opposite side of a case to ensure a full and fair hearing of 
the issues at stake; and that he is a dedicated member of the New York 
community. It will be a tribute not just to Vince but to the bench when 
we add ``thoughtful and brilliant federal judge'' to the encomia. The 
time has come to confirm Vince for this judiciary emergency vacancy 
that has been open for more than 18 months.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we continue to work to bring down the 
number of judicial vacancies that have remained at historically 
alarming levels for the last 3 years. One in every nine Federal 
judgeships remains vacant as judicial vacancies stand at 96.
  I thank the majority leader for scheduling votes on two more judicial 
emergency vacancies. Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a 
judgeship in the Southern District of New York and John Kronstadt to 
fill a judgeship in the Central District of California. I believe they 
both could be confirmed unanimously. They were reported by the 
Judiciary Committee unanimously more than one month ago.
  With cooperation from both sides of the aisle, the Senate could 
consider many more of the 17 judicial nominees currently ready for 
final action, and could do so before the Senate takes its Easter recess 
at the end of this week. Doing so would fulfill our responsibility to 
help address the vacancies crisis that puts at serious risk the ability 
of Americans to get a fair and timely hearing for their cases in 
Federal court.
  All 17 of the judicial nominations pending on the Senate's Executive 
Calendar were reported by a majority of the Judiciary Committee after 
members had an opportunity to review thoroughly extensive materials 
provided in response to our questionnaire, to question the nominees at 
a hearing, and to send written follow-up questions to the nominees. All 
of them are ready for final Senate action. With Federal judicial 
vacancies continuing to hover around 100, we should act responsibly by 
voting promptly on these nominations.
  Two of the nominees currently awaiting a Senate vote have twice been 
considered by the Judiciary Committee and twice reported with strong 
bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are 
Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Michael Simon to fill 
an emergency vacancy on the district court in Oregon. Two of the 
nominations have been reported favorably by the committee three times--
that of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth 
Circuit and that of Jack McConnell, reported with bipartisan support to 
fill a vacancy on the District of Rhode Island. Another currently 
pending nomination has been reported favorably four times, that of 
Judge Edward Chen to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern 
District of California. All of these nominations have long been ready 
for a Senate vote. So are nominations now pending to fill a judicial 
vacancy on the DC Circuit, judicial emergency vacancies in Tennessee, 
Florida and another in New York, two vacancies in Virginia, two 
vacancies in New Jersey, another vacancy in New York, and a vacancy on 
the district court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
  It is actually a sign of progress that we are today proceeding to 
confirm two judicial nominees reported last month. I hope that we can 
work to restore regular order in considering judicial nominations and 
that, at a minimum, the Senate will be allowed to proceed before the 
recess to confirm those judicial nominations reported with bipartisan 
support. All 17 of the pending nominees have a strong commitment to the 
rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All 
should have an up or down vote after being considered by the Judiciary 
Committee, and without weeks of needless delay.
  If we join together we can make real progress by considering all of 
the judicial nominations now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the 
Senate were to take favorable action on the 17 judicial nominations 
currently pending and awaiting final Senate consideration, we could 
reduce vacancies to below 90. In fact, we would be able to reduce them 
below 80 for the first time since July 2009.
  Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, 
and they have persisted for too long. Whereas the Democratic majority 
in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's 
first 2 years, judicial vacancies still number 96 more than 26 months 
into President Obama's term. By now, judicial vacancies should have 
been cut in half, but we have barely kept up with attrition.
  Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies dramatically as we 
did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed 
course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of 
confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 
years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced 
judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, 
with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate--
which was reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's 
term, to 6 percent by this date in President Bush's third year, and 
ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008--has now swelled to nearly 11 
percent.
  The two nominations we consider today demonstrate that there is no 
reason the Senate cannot consider and confirm the President's 
nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. Both nominees show 
President Obama's commitment to working with home State Senators to 
identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. I 
thank Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer and Gillibrand for working 
with President Obama on these nominations and congratulate them along 
with the nominees and their families.
  Judge John Kronstadt has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy in the Central District of California. He currently serves on 
the Los Angeles County Superior Court and previously spent 24 years in 
private practice. Judge Kronstadt earned his B.A. from Cornell 
University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. The Judiciary Committee 
reported his nomination unanimously on March 10.
  Vincent Briccetti has been nominated to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy in the Southern District of New York. An attorney for the past 
30 years, Mr. Briccetti has spent time in private practice and as a 
Federal prosecutor. He was unanimously rated by the American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary as well 
qualified to serve on the district court. Mr. Briccetti earned his B.A. 
from Columbia University and his J.D. from Fordham University School of 
Law. The Judiciary Committee also reported his nomination unanimously 
on March 10.
  I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I see him taking 
credit for what he calls ``our rapid pace.'' I am glad to see him echo 
my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial 
nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush 
administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been 
treated.
  We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President 
Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations, 
bringing the vacancy rate down from 10 percent to just over 4 percent. 
We confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I 
was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far, 
well into President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only 
been allowed to consider 77 of President Obama's Federal circuit and 
district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmarks we set 
during the Bush administration.
  The Senate must do better. We must work together to ensure that the 
Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to 
Americans in courts throughout the country. Judicial vacancies on 
courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to 
fulfill its constitutional role.

[[Page 5736]]

They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their 
day in court. This is unacceptable.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. I hope that we will follow their advice 
and make progress to ensure that the Federal courts are able to 
function for all Americans.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield back time on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nomination of Vincent L. Briccetti, of New York, to be United 
States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, is 
confirmed.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of John A. Kronstadt, of California, to be United States District Judge 
for the Central District of California?
  Mr. CORNYN. 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 editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burr
     Graham
     Vitter
     Wicker
  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.

                          ____________________