[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7124-7127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MICHAEL FRANCIS URBANSKI TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Michael 
Francis Urbanski, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael Francis 
Urbanski, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the 
Western District of Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided 
in the usual form.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I was very gratified yesterday when the 
Senate unanimously voted to confirm Arenda Wright Allen as U.S. 
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, and I am very glad 
to be here to speak in support of Virginia's nominee to the Western 
District of Virginia, Judge Michael Urbanski.
  As I did yesterday, I wish to express my appreciation to the 
leadership of both parties in the Senate for scheduling these important 
confirmation votes. Filling existing vacancies on our courts is 
important to Virginia, it is important to America, particularly in 
these cases where the nominees are noncontroversial to either party 
and, thus, are able to be brought forward for reasonably quick 
confirmation.
  One of the bedrock principles in this country is access to justice, 
and it can clearly be said that vacancies on our courts create 
backlogs, bottlenecks and delays, and justice delayed is obviously 
justice denied.
  Again, I wish to express my appreciation to the leadership for moving 
these two very highly qualified nominees, Arenda Wright Allen, who was 
confirmed yesterday, and Judge Michael Urbanski, who will be voted on 
shortly.
  In that regard, I am proud of the work we have been able to do during 
my time in the Senate in finding dedicated, well-qualified jurists from 
Virginia to recommend to the President when vacancies do occur on the 
Federal bench. When I first arrived in the Senate, Senator John Warner 
and I developed a robust, collaborative selection process to review 
candidates. Senator Mark Warner and I have continued this thorough, 
deliberative process, and we were pleased to recommend Judge Michael 
Urbanski to President Obama in June of last year. President Obama first 
nominated Judge Urbanski for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of Virginia last December. He renominated Judge 
Urbanski earlier this year, and Judge Urbanski was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee without opposition on March 10 of this year.
  Senator Warner and I jointly reviewed a highly competitive field from 
the Western District of Virginia. Judge Urbanski stood out to me 
because of the resounding recommendations from the bar associations 
which he covers now as a magistrate judge. Those recommendations all 
noted Judge Urbanski's incredible work ethic. He has worked tirelessly 
as a magistrate judge to ensure the efficient administration of justice 
in the Western District of Virginia. He has served in this capacity 
since 2004. He also has an outstanding reputation for fairness and a 
good judicial temperament. He has contributed to the efficiency of the 
Western District of Virginia by being an effective mediator, resolving 
a substantial number of disputes without lengthy litigation. He also 
recently established a veterans court in the Western District. This 
court strives to utilize the many services available to our veterans in 
order to try to find alternatives to incarceration from nonviolent 
offenders and to break the cycle of recidivism.
  I am very proud to say Judge Urbanski is a product of Virginia's 
public universities. He graduated from the University of Virginia 
School of Law in 1981 and the Nation's oldest university, the College 
of William and Mary, in 1978.
  Prior to becoming a Federal magistrate judge, Judge Urbanski earned a 
reputation as one of the top trial lawyers in western Virginia. He was 
the head of the law firm of Woods Rogers' litigation section and 
practiced in Roanoke from 1989 to 2004. I have met personally with 
Judge Urbanski. I am convinced he has the correct judicial temperament, 
intelligence, and dedication to make an excellent district court judge. 
I also had the pleasure of meeting with his family, many of his 
friends, law clerks, and colleagues. His dedication to his family and 
to his community is abundantly apparent.
  Though I am proud Virginia has such an exemplary individual to put 
forward as a district judge nominee, the Judiciary Committee clearly 
shares this

[[Page 7125]]

view, having voted out Judge Urbanski unanimously. I urge all my 
colleagues to support his confirmation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday this Chamber came together to 
unanimously confirm Ms. Arenda Wright Allen to serve as a district 
judge in Virginia. I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
for their vote. I am confident that we will give the same support to 
another excellent nominee from Virginia under consideration today.
  I rise to speak in support Judge Michael Urbanski to serve as the 
next U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia.
  Judge Urbanski would be appointed to a court that is known for its 
rigor and quality. It is a court that requires a highly effective judge 
that is sensitive to the details of each case. I think Judge Urbanski 
is perfect for this job.
  He graduated from the College of William and Mary and the University 
of Virginia Law School. He also served as a law clerk for the Honorable 
James Turk, a district judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.
  Following his clerkship, he worked in the private sector where he 
built experience in antitrust litigation, counseling and 
investigations, contract and business tort litigation and intellectual 
property litigation.
  Since 2004, he has served as a magistrate judge in Roanoke, VA, where 
he has built strong connections to the community and a reputation as a 
fair and impartial judge.
  I would be remiss not to mention the overwhelming support his 
candidacy received from the legal community in which he will serve. In 
addition, the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia Women Attorneys 
Association and the Salem/Roanoke County Bar Association ranked Judge 
Urbanski as ``highly qualified'' or ``most highly qualified.''
  I again would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member 
Grassley for moving Judge Urbanski's nomination through the Judiciary 
Committee so that we could consider him today. As I testified at the 
hearing, I look forward to casting my vote in support of Judge 
Urbanski's nomination and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to do the same.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used in quorum 
calls during the debate on the Urbanski nomination be charged equally 
to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on the 
nomination of Michael Urbanski to be a U.S. district judge for the 
Western District of Virginia.
  Since we have returned from the April recess, we have done very 
little else other than consider judicial nominations. This will be the 
third judicial nominee to be confirmed in the last 3 days and the 23rd 
confirmed this year. In fact, after today, we will have confirmed six 
judges in just 8 days. I know the liberal interest groups have been 
pressuring the other side to consider more nominees even though we have 
been moving at a very brisk pace this entire Congress, but it is 
surprising to me, with all the issues facing the Nation at home and 
abroad, that we would spend 2 weeks on the floor considering little 
else.
  Our economy continues to struggle. Millions of Americans remain out 
of work and are unable to find jobs. The unemployment rate remains at 
approximately 9 percent. Those who do have jobs are finding it more and 
more difficult to get to work as gas prices are over $4 a gallon and 
inching even higher. Our Nation is facing significant national security 
issues. Every single day, our national debt continues to climb to 
unsustainable levels. These are incredibly important issues. I would 
not go so far as to say the majority does not care about the issues 
facing our Nation. Perhaps they are simply out of ideas. But as 
Americans continue to struggle in this economy, it is difficult to 
understand why we would spend 2 weeks voting on hardly anything but 
judicial nominations.
  As I said, the Senate has been moving swiftly this year on those 
nominations. We have confirmed 23 nominees in just 49 days. That is a 
rate of one judge almost every other day the Senate has been in session 
since convening in January.
  However, the Senate must not place quantity confirmed over quality 
confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important to the Federal 
judiciary and the American people for the Senate to simply rubberstamp 
these nominations.
  I was surprised during one of our recent debates to hear one of my 
colleagues on the committee come to the Senate floor and imply 
otherwise. During the debate on the confirmation of Edward Chen, a 
reference was made to what was characterized as the Senate's 
longstanding tradition--a deference to home State Senators with regard 
to the Federal district court nominations. That Senator stated that in 
his time in the Senate, where a Federal district court nominee is 
backed by the two home State Senators, it is usually almost pro forma 
that the nominee is confirmed.
  The fact is that home State Senators do have a great deal to say in 
who should serve the country on the bench. That is part of the advise-
and-consent process. But there are 100 voices in this body, and we 
speak for the American people who come before these jurists. We must 
ensure they are fit to serve as impartial arbiters.
  I do not consider the confirmation process for a Federal judicial 
nominee to be a pro forma process. I will continue to give scrutiny to 
all nominees regardless of home State support. I do not consider it 
delay or obstruction to fulfill that duty. If the other side chooses to 
do so, of course, that is up to them, but I will not simply rubberstamp 
those nominees. We will continue to process the nominees fairly and 
with the standard to which the people rightly hold us.
  I support today's nominee. Michael Francis Urbanski is nominated to 
be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia. He 
presently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge in the same district.
  Judge Urbanski received his BA with high honors from William & Mary 
in 1978 and his juris doctorate from the University of Virginia School 
of Law in 1981. Upon graduation, he served as a law clerk to the 
Honorable James C. Turk of the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Virginia. From 1982 to 2004, Judge Urbanski worked in 
private practice, first as an associate at the Washington, DC, office 
of Vinson & Elkins and then with the firm of Woods Rogers, where he 
became a principal in 1989. In 2003, the nominee was appointed to his 
present position. In 2010, Chief Judge James Jones appointed the 
nominee to chair an advisory committee on the new local rules adopted 
in the Western District.
  The American Bar Association Committee on the Federal Judiciary has 
given Judge Urbanski their highest rating--unanimously ``well 
qualified.''
  I am pleased to support this experienced nominee, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the nomination 
of Michael Francis Urbanski to fill a judicial vacancy on the District 
Court for the Western District of Virginia. I thank the majority leader 
for scheduling the vote today on this nomination, as well as the vote 
yesterday on another nomination to fill a vacancy in Virginia. With 
vacancies at 90 in Federal courts throughout the country, I hope that 
we can continue to work together in the remaining weeks of this work 
period to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs 
to fulfill its constitutional role.
  Our action to take up and vote on these nominations from Virginia, 
and to come to a time agreement to debate and vote on the long-delayed 
nomination of Ed Chen to the Northern District of California earlier 
this week,

[[Page 7126]]

show that the delays that have slowed our progress on nominations are 
unnecessary.
  Judge Urbanski has been a magistrate judge for 7 years on the court 
to which has now been nominated. Previously, he was in private practice 
in Roanoke, VA, and Washington, DC, and was a law clerk to the Western 
District of Virginia Judge James C. Turk. Judge Urbanski's nomination 
has the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Webb and 
Senator Warner. His nomination was reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee over a month ago. I expect that it will be 
unanimously confirmed today.
  In addition to Judge Urbanski, there remain another 10 judicial 
nominations on the Executive Calendar that have been ready for final 
Senate action for weeks and, in some cases, many months. Today we 
reported another five of President Obama's judicial nominations 
favorably. They are now, also, ready to be considered by the Senate. 
All of these nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a 
demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. They should have an up-
or-down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and 
without additional weeks and months of needless delay.
  Our ability to make this kind of progress regarding nominations has 
been hampered by the creation of what I consider to be misplaced 
controversies about many nominees' records. Recently, Republican 
Senators have tried to twist nominees' litigation experience against 
them. Their partisan attacks are not consistent. Republicans oppose 
some nominees by saying that they do not have sufficient litigation 
experience. When a nominee has extensive experience and is a successful 
trial lawyer, they reverse themselves and complain that the nominee has 
too much experience and will be biased by it.
  It is difficult to satisfy people whose standards change in order to 
explain their opposition. Republicans seem to react this way to 
President Obama, his actions and his nominees. Republicans were for a 
deficit commission until President Obama was for it; then they voted 
against it. They were for action in Libya until President Obama took 
action; then they were against it.
  They opposed Judge McConnell of Rhode Island supposedly because he 
was an excellent trial lawyer. They opposed Judge Chen of California 
despite his 10 years as a fair and impartial Federal judge magistrate, 
because he was a staff attorney litigating to protect civil rights. 
Both of these nominees have assured us that they understand the 
difference between being an advocate for a client and serving as a 
judge. I have no doubt that they do. Judge Chen demonstrated his 
impartiality in 10 years of work as a Federal magistrate judge. 
Republicans chose to ignore his demonstrated qualifications and 
experience. They likewise ignore the sworn testimony of the nominees at 
our hearings and their answers to Republicans own questions. When they 
do that, it makes you wonder what is driving their decisions to oppose 
these qualified nominees.
  These are Republican Senators who demanded that President Bush's 
nominees be confirmed despite their ideological commitment to 
conservative activism. In those years, Republicans argued that 
nominees' careers devoted to serving corporate interests and 
conservative causes were irrelevant to the Senate's inquiry and that 
all nominees should be confirmed if they met basic qualifications. In 
President Bush's first term, the Senate regularly considered 
nominations, confirming 205 to lifetime appointments. We remain well 
behind that pace, having been allowed to consider only 83 of President 
Obama's nominations in nearly 28 months of his term.
  Senate Republicans are now adopting a much different standard--and a 
shifting one at that. It almost seems like whatever might be claimed to 
justify strenuous opposition and voting no on an Obama nominee is 
justified by the end--opposing the President. That is wrong. That is 
wrong because this President has worked hard to consult with Republican 
home State Senators. Yet they still oppose them, including President 
Obama's first nomination that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana. 
Despite Senator Lugar's support, Republicans filibustered that 
nomination and delayed it for months. They have filibustered five of 
President Obama's judicial nominations to date.
  It is wrong because their actions have created a judicial vacancies 
crisis that persists to this day. If the 22 judicial nominees 
Republicans point to as being confirmed this year, 15 should have been 
confirmed last year and were needlessly delayed. One even required 
cloture to end an unprecedented filibuster against a Federal trial 
court nominee.
  With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of 
courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be 
debating and voting on each of the 15 other judicial nominations 
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar. The progress we have started to make these 
last 2 weeks is a sign that the Senate can do better to ensure that the 
Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to 
Americans in courts throughout the country.
  I congratulate Judge Urbanski and his family on his confirmation 
today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Daily Digest editor proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Michael Francis Urbanski, of Virginia, to be United States District 
Judge for the Western District of Virginia?
  Mr. MANCHIN. 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 Indiana (Mr. Coats), 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas 
(Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     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
     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
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burr
     Coats
     Cochran
     Hutchison
     Murkowski
     Vitter
  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.

[[Page 7127]]



                          ____________________