[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16095-16098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF PAUL WILLIAM GRIMM TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                        THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

  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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Paul William 
Grimm, of Maryland, to be United States District Judge for the District 
of Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after months of unjustifiable delays, the 
Senate will finally be allowed to vote on one of President Obama's 
qualified, consensus judicial nominees. The nomination of Paul William 
Grimm to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland 
was reported by the Judiciary Committee nearly-unanimously 6 months 
ago. Judge Grimm and the people of Maryland have been forced to wait 6 
months for this day for no good reason. He is one of the 19 judicial 
nominees who should have been confirmed before the August recess.
  Since 1997 Judge Grimm has served as a United States Magistrate Judge 
and since 2007 as Chief Magistrate Judge on the United States District 
Court for the District of Maryland. Prior to joining the bench, Judge 
Grimm had wide legal experience as a lawyer in Maryland State 
government, private practice, and as a Judge Advocate General. The ABA 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him 
``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court, its highest 
possible rating. He has the strong support of his home State Senators, 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. There was no opposition on the 
merits to his confirmation when he was considered by the Republican and 
Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
  This is another judicial nominee whose service has been stalled by 
unnecessary, partisan obstruction. In her recent comments at Huffington 
Post, Jen Bendery correctly noted:

       The pattern throughout the president's tenure has been 
     uncontroversial judicial nominees clearing the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee but going nowhere [on] the Senate floor. 
     Then, after months of opposition, GOP leaders agree to clear 
     some of the backlog and long-stalled nominees sail through 
     virtually unopposed. . . . [W]hat has changed is the degree 
     to which obstruction has become standard operating procedure 
     since Obama took office. After four years, Obama has seen 
     about 75 percent of his nominees confirmed. By contrast, the 
     Senate confirmed . . . 88.7 percent of Bush's nominees by 
     this point in [his] presidency.
       Two months ago, the Senate went into recess without taking 
     action on 19 judicial nominees, nearly all of whom have 
     support from both parties.

  Regrettably, the Senate has not been allowed to make real progress 
for the American people by reducing the number of judicial vacancies. 
There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more 
than 80 vacancies this past March when the Majority Leader was forced 
to take the extraordinary step of filing cloture petitions on 17 
district court nominations. There are now more than 80 vacancies once 
again.
  In stark contrast, there were only 29 vacancies at this point in 
President George W. Bush's first term and we had lowered vacancies 
during those four years to 28, not the 83 at which they stand today. 
When George W. Bush was President, we routinely considered four to six 
judges per week. In 2002, we confirmed 18 judges in 1 day. That is what 
it takes to make real progress. The Senate should proceed to consider 
and confirm all 19 judicial nominations ready for a final vote without 
further delay.

[[Page 16096]]

  There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on the 
19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and are pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. President 
Obama has consistently reached across the aisle, consulted with home 
State Senators from both parties and appointed moderate, well-qualified 
judicial nominees. Seven of the 19 nominees currently waiting for final 
Senate consideration are supported by Republican home State Senators. 
Seventeen of these nominees received bipartisan support in the 
Judiciary Committee. The Senate should be learning the lesson of the 
recent elections and working in a bipartisan manner to consider and 
vote on these nominees. It is time for the obstruction to end and for 
the Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve 
the American people. Delay for delay's sake is wrong and should end.
  Whatever justification Senate Republicans contended they had by 
resort to their misapplication of the Thurmond Rule to stall judicial 
nominations before the election is gone. The American people have voted 
and chosen to reelect President Obama. The President is not a lame 
duck. He is the President elected and reelected by the American people. 
It is time for the Senate to vote on his judicial nominees.
  From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a 
presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with 
bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee 
reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before 
now. That is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lame duck 
session, whether after a presidential or midterm election.
  Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's 
judicial nominees, including one very controversial circuit court 
nominee, in the lame duck session after the elections in 2002. I 
remember, I was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved 
forward with those votes. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial 
nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006, 
and proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lame duck session 
after the elections in 2010, as well. The reason that I am not listing 
confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because 
that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees 
approved by the Judiciary Committee in September.
  That is our history and recent precedent. Those across the aisle who 
contend that judicial confirmations votes during lame duck sessions do 
not take place are wrong. It is they with their obstruction who are 
creating a wrongheaded precedent. The Senators from Kentucky, 
Tennessee, Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina and 
Mississippi should all remember the judicial nominees from their home 
States Democrats moved forward to confirm in lame duck sessions in 
2002, 2004 and 2010.
  If the Senate will be allowed to vote on these 19 judicial nominees, 
we can help fill nearly one-quarter of our Nation's Federal judicial 
vacancies. We can fill almost one-third of all judicial emergency 
vacancies. Most importantly, we can help hardworking Americans to have 
better access to justice.
  I congratulate Judge Grimm and his family as well as the Senators 
from Maryland who have continued to press for this day. There is no 
reason the Senate should not be allowed to vote on the other 18 long-
pending judicial nominations. The American people deserve no less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, for only the fourth time in over 
70 years, we will confirm a Federal judge during a lame-duck session in 
a Presidential election year. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, the Senate has confirmed judicial nominees during a lame-duck 
session in a Presidential election year on only three occasions since 
1940. It occurred in 1944, 1980, and 2004. So for those who say we are 
treating this President differently, I would say we have treated him 
far better than most Presidents have been.
  This year we have already confirmed 31 District Judges and five 
circuit judges. That meets or exceeds the confirmations for 
Presidential election years in recent memory.
  That is more confirmations than we did in 2008; it exceeds the 
district confirmations in 2004 and ties the circuit confirmations for 
that year. It is the same number of district confirmations in 2000, and 
it is considerably more than we confirmed in 1996. So for the past five 
Presidential election years, this year stands near the top for judicial 
confirmations.
  Yet, despite that record, and despite the fact that we are about to 
confirm yet another district court nominee, all we hear from the other 
side are complaints. I must say, it makes it quite difficult to work 
cooperatively with the other side when, no matter what you do, all you 
hear are complaints.
  Lately we have heard the other side argue that since the President 
won reelection, we should not follow past practice, but rather we 
should confirm a large number of nominations during this lame duck 
session.
  The last time a President was reelected--President Bush in 2004--we 
heard a different tune from Democrats. That year the other side was in 
no hurry to confirm President Bush's nominees. In fact, only 3 judicial 
nominees were confirmed after the November 2004 election. That year, 
following President Bush's reelection, 23 judicial nominations that 
were pending either on the Senate Executive Calendar or in the 
Judiciary Committee were returned to the President when the Congress 
adjourned in December.
  Recently one of my colleagues on the other side stated, ``From 1980 
until this year, when a lame duck session followed a presidential 
election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan 
Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed.''
  I suppose this is meant to imply there is some long record of routine 
confirmations following a Presidential election. But that is simply not 
the case.
  Let me tell my colleagues what that means: One Circuit confirmation 
in 1980 and 3 District confirmations in 2004. That's it. From 1980 
through 2008, those four nominations represent the entire list. There 
were no such confirmations in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2008.
  Furthermore, limiting this list to ``reported with bipartisan 
committee support'' fails to take into account that many judicial 
nominees in the past administration were subjected to a ``pocket 
filibuster.'' That means, of course, that they never had a hearing or 
opportunity to be reported out of Committee. So it is somewhat 
misleading to suggest the Senate routinely confirms nominees during 
Presidential lame-duck sessions of Congress.
  Again, the last time a President was reelected, only three of his 
nominees were confirmed following the election. Today we will add to 
that exclusive list, and the Senate has a time agreement for a vote on 
a second District nominee before we adjourn.
  This afternoon, we are considering the nomination of Paul William 
Grimm to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland. 
With his confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 159 of President 
Obama's nominees to the District and Circuit Courts.
  During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate 
confirmed a total of 28 judges, 24 district and four circuit. This 
Presidential election year we have exceeded those numbers. We have 
confirmed five circuit nominees, and Judge Grimm will be the 32nd 
district judge confirmed. That is a total of 37 judges this year versus 
28 in the last Presidential election year.
  So once again, I want to set the record straight, and I hope I have 
done so. Republicans have been more than fair to this President and his 
judicial nominees.
  Judge Grimm received his J.D. degree in 1976, graduating magna cum 
laude from the University of New Mexico School of Law. He began his 
legal career serving in the U.S. Army Judge

[[Page 16097]]

Advocate General, JAG, Corps. After resigning his active duty 
commission in 1979, he established a general practice law partnership 
of Daniels and Grimm. In 1980, Grimm left the firm to serve as a 
prosecutor in the Baltimore County state's attorney's office. In this 
position, he handled both misdemeanor and felony cases. From 1981 to 
1984, Judge Grimm served in the Maryland attorney general's office as 
the chief of litigation and administration for the Department of 
Licensing Regulation.
  Judge Grimm had his first prolonged stint in private practice serving 
as an attorney for the firm of Niles, Barton and Wilmer from 1984-1987. 
He was initially hired as an associate, but was promoted to partner in 
1985. At Niles, Barton and Wilmer, he handled products liability cases, 
fidelity and surety cases, general tort cases, professional malpractice 
cases, and construction cases. In 1987, he joined Jordan, Coyne, Savits 
and Lopata as the managing partner of the Baltimore Branch. In 1991, he 
returned to Niles, Barton and Wilmer when Jordan, Coyne closed its 
Baltimore office.
  Throughout his time in private practice, his typical clients included 
government agencies, insurance companies, private corporations, 
partnerships, law firms, accounting firms, and individuals.
  In 1997, the U.S. District Judges for the District of Maryland 
appointed Judge Grimm to be a United States Magistrate Judge. In 2006, 
he was elevated to Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
  Judge Grimm has served as an Adjunct Professor of law at the 
University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law, 1990-present, 
and at the University of Baltimore School of Law, 1997-present. The 
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
has rated him unanimous well qualified.
  I support this nomination and congratulate Judge Grimm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Mikulski 
in recommending to the Senate the confirmation of Judge Paul William 
Grimm of Maryland to be a U.S. district judge for the District of 
Maryland.
  I am very proud of the process Senator Mikulski has instituted for 
making recommendations to the President to fill judicial appointments. 
I believe that under this process, we are able to get the very best to 
recommend to the President and then to our colleagues for confirmation. 
Judge Grimm clearly falls within this line.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Grimm's 
nomination by a voice vote on June 7 of this year. Judge Grimm was 
nominated to fill the vacancy that was created in Maryland when U.S. 
District Judge Benson E. Legg took senior status in June.
  Judge Grimm brings a wealth of experience to this position. Early in 
his career he served in the military in the Judge Advocate General's 
Corps, handled commercial litigation in private practice, and served as 
an assistant attorney general in Maryland. He also sat as a Federal 
magistrate judge in Maryland for 15 years.
  Judge Grimm was born in Japan and received his undergraduate degree 
from the University of California in 1973, and graduated from the 
University of New Mexico School of Law in 1976. Judge Grimm was 
admitted to the Maryland bar in 1977.
  He has strong roots, legal experience, and community involvement in 
the State of Maryland. Judge Grimm lives with his family in Towson, MD.
  After graduating law school, Judge Grimm began his legal career in 
Maryland as a captain in the United States Army Judge Advocate 
General's Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. He then worked in the 
Pentagon before heading back to the Baltimore region, alternating 
between working in private practice and working in the State attorney 
general's office, while continuing to serve as a U.S. Army JAG Corps 
officer with occasional stints in the Pentagon.
  In 1997 Judge Grimm was selected as a magistrate judge by the judges 
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2006, Judge 
Grimm became the chief U.S. magistrate judge in Baltimore.
  In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Grimm to serve as 
a member of the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. In 2010 he was designated as chair of the Civil Rules 
Committee's Discovery Subcommittee.
  I mention that because it is evident from the Chief Judge's 
appointment that Judge Grimm is a nationally recognized expert on 
cutting-edge issues of law and technology. He has written numerous 
authoritative opinions, books, and articles on the subject of evidence, 
civil procedure, and trial advocacy. He also continues to inspire the 
next generation of lawyers by teaching classes at both of our law 
schools. On several occasions Professor Grimm has been awarded the 
title of outstanding adjunct faculty member. As a magistrate judge, 
Judge Grimm has found time not only to teach but to be an outstanding 
professor. He has shown his commitment in so many ways to public 
service.
  As a magistrate judge, Judge Grimm is responsible for handling 
criminal matters such as issuing search warrants, conducting 
preliminary criminal proceedings, and presiding over misdemeanor 
criminal cases.
  Judge Grimm is also responsible for handling civil cases and has 
presided over bench and jury trials with the consent of the parties. 
Judge Grimm has conducted settlement conferences, resolved discovery 
disputes, and handled other nondispositive matters at the referral of 
the U.S. district judges.
  Judge Grimm has estimated that in his 15 years as a magistrate judge 
he presided over approximately 50 civil trials, 150 criminal 
misdemeanor trials, including jury and bench trials. He is well 
qualified and has the experience necessary to serve on our district 
court. He received a unanimous rating of well qualified, the highest 
possible rating for a judicial nominee from the American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As I 
previously mentioned, he received a voice vote of confidence from the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I am absolutely confident that Judge Grimm possesses the 
qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice to make him an 
outstanding United States District Court judge for the District of 
Maryland.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation here on the Senate 
floor.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
nomination of Judge Paul Grimm on which we will vote shortly.
  I am so proud to be here to support the nomination of Judge Paul 
Grimm. He is a stellar Marylander, he has an outstanding legal mind, 
and he has been nominated to serve on the District Court of Maryland.
  Senator Cardin and I recommended Judge Grimm to President Obama with 
the utmost confidence in his abilities, talent, and competence for the 
job. The ABA agreed with us and gave him the highest rating of 
``unanimously well qualified.'' I wish to thank Senators Reid and 
McConnell for breaking the logjam so that we could bring this to 
everyone's attention, and I commend Senator Leahy for the swift 
movement through the committee process.
  I have had an opportunity to recommend several judicial nominees and 
I take my advise-and-consent responsibility very seriously. I have four 
criteria. My nominee must have absolute integrity, judicial competence 
and temperament, a commitment to core constitutional principles, and a 
history of civic engagement in Maryland, so the nominee is familiar 
with the life and times of the people they will adjudicate over. I 
mention these standards often because I mean it.

[[Page 16098]]

  Judge Grimm does exactly that. He brings the right hard-working 
values to the bench, and the necessary experience, having sharpened his 
legal skills for many years as a litigator, a Judge Advocate General, a 
lawyer, a JAG officer, an indispensable asset to the District Court of 
Maryland, and as a chief magistrate judge.
  Judge Grimm knows what it means to be of service to the legal 
profession, to Maryland, and to the country. He is a public servant 
first and foremost. His father was in the military. Judge Grimm started 
very early prosecuting courts martial while attending law school on an 
ROTC scholarship. He then served in the JAG Corps for 3 years beginning 
at Aberdeen Proving Ground and later at the Pentagon. But it didn't end 
there. He went on to serve as a Reserve JAG officer for 22 years, 
ultimately retiring as a decorated lieutenant colonel.
  His life and resume are a display of civic engagement, from his 
service on numerous bar associations in Maryland, professional 
organizations, and, at the same time, he was a Boy Scout leader. He 
also helped young students in high school learn how to do a mock court.
  Let's go, though, to his being a good lawyer. Judge Grimm is known as 
a trailblazer in the Maryland community. He is well respected not only 
for his extensive writing and teaching but his commitment to the 
improvement of the practice of law and the administration of justice. 
He has spent his entire legal career in Maryland, and he is absolutely 
prepared for service on the court and for the court. He has already 
served 16 years as a magistrate judge in the District Court of 
Maryland, and for 6 of those years he has been the chief magistrate.
  Prior to taking the bench, Judge Grimm served 13 years as a litigator 
in private practice and handled primarily civil cases. He was an 
assistant attorney general for Maryland and a prosecutor in Baltimore 
County. Also, as my colleagues can see, his experience and service are 
unparalleled. Most recently, he served on the advisory committee for 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since 2009 and was later 
designated as the chair of the Discovery Subcommittee.
  He has been honored by the ABA, the Maryland Daily Record, which is a 
kind of legal paper in Maryland, and he has been twice recognized by 
the University of Maryland Law School. By every index of what makes a 
great judge--absolute integrity, judicial temperament, legal 
experience, well regarded by peers and all who appear before him--I 
think this is a nominee we want to maintain a constitutional imperative 
of an independent judiciary, where judges come from the best background 
and have the best values. It is critical that we have judges who are 
able to do that, and I hope my colleagues join me in voting for Judge 
Paul Grimm.
  I also hope with the other 19 nominees on the calendar, many of whom 
have been voice-voted through the committee, we also confirm those 
during this lameduck session.
  Mr. President, I have completed my presentation on the outstanding 
qualifications of Judge Paul Grimm. I now yield the floor and note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield back all time on this side.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back all time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Paul William Grimm, of Maryland, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Maryland?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Ex.]

                                YEAS--92

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Blunt
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Franken
     Kirk
     Merkley
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Vitter
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
the previous order with respect to treaty document 112-7, the vote on 
ratification will occur at 2:15 Tuesday, tomorrow, December 4, with all 
the provisions of the previous orders remaining in effect. What this 
does is rather than having the vote at noon on the disability treaty, 
we would have it after our caucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid on the table.

                          ____________________