[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2922-2925]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF RICHARD GARY TARANTO TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                        FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF ANDREW PATRICK GORDON TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Richard Gary Taranto, 
of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, 
and Andrew Patrick Gordon, of Nevada, to be United States District 
Judge for the District of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
divided in such a way that the vote occur at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Last week, Senate Republicans were given an opportunity to 
end their partisan and wrongheaded filibuster of Caitlin Halligan to 
the D.C. Circuit. Instead, they voted against the Federal judiciary, 
the administration of justice, and the needs of the American people. 
The Republican filibuster has lasted for over 2 years, in which Senate 
Republicans have refused to vote up or down on this highly qualified 
woman to fill a needed judgeship on the D.C. Circuit. No one can 
honestly question whether she has the legal ability, judgment, 
character, ethics, and temperament to serve on the court. The smearing 
of her distinguished record of service is deeply disappointing.
  Narrow, special interest groups have misrepresented her as a partisan 
or ideological crusader. She is not. Senate Republicans attacked 
Caitlin Halligan's advocacy on behalf of her client, the State of New 
York, with which they disagree. It is wrong and dangerous to attribute 
the legal positions a lawyer takes when advocating

[[Page 2923]]

for a client with what that person would do as an impartial judge. That 
is wrong and not the American tradition. That is not what Republicans 
insisted was the standard for nominees of Republican Presidents.
  In a March 10 article entitled ``As Obama, Senate Collide, Courts 
Caught Short,'' The Boston Globe reported over the weekend about the 
stranglehold Senate Republicans have placed on nominations to fill 
vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. The Court is now more than one third 
vacant with 4 vacancies among its 11 authorized judgeships, in what the 
Globe noted is ``the worst vacancy rate in its history and higher than 
any other federal circuit court nationwide.'' The article further notes 
that the Republican filibuster of Caitlin Halligan is representative of 
what the Republicans have done to obstruct President Obama's nominees 
the last 4 years. It says:

       In what is a growing problem infecting the nation's federal 
     courts--both small and large, from San Francisco to 
     Allentown, Pa.--judges are taking far longer to gain approval 
     from the Senate. It's the result of a decline in decorum 
     among senators, the willingness of the Republican minority to 
     use tactics that were previously off-limits, and an overall 
     rise in partisanship. The result is that Washington gridlock 
     is resulting in docket gridlock across the country, with 
     courts not getting the judges they need as a result of 
     dysfunction in the Senate.

  I agree and I hope that Senate Republicans will stop their 
obstruction of the President's judicial nominees.
  Similarly, in a March 8 article in the New York Times, author Carl 
Hulse noted that the changes made to filibusters earlier this year:

     . . . have done little so far this session to curb 
     filibusters, as evidenced by the vote on Ms. Halligan and the 
     politically charged obstacles raised to confirmation votes on 
     Mr. Brennan and Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator who 
     found himself on the receiving end of a Republican filibuster 
     before winning confirmation as secretary of defense.

  Senate Republicans continue to abuse the nominations process by 
refusing to give up-or-down votes to nominees. I ask unanimous consent 
to have this article printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
statement.
  Also disconcerting were the comments and tweets by Republicans after 
their filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is 
wrong. It does our Nation and our Federal Judiciary no good when they 
place their desire to engage in tit-for-tat over the needs of the 
American people. I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 
of President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 
2002. Indeed, the filibuster of the nomination of Miguel Estrada was 
different. It was to obtain access to information about his work and 
whether he acted ideologically as his supervisor at the Office of 
Solicitor General had alleged. Had we gotten access to those materials, 
there would have been a vote on the Estrada nomination. Republican 
Senators now demand access to all sorts of materials while 
filibustering for the first time in our history the Secretary of 
Defense and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, as well 
as the nominee to head the CIA and judicial nominees. They cannot do 
that and still complain about the Estrada nomination. Nor was there any 
information missing in connection with the Halligan nomination. As the 
debate showed, the opposition was fictitious.
  Today the Senate will finally consider another circuit court 
nomination that has been needlessly stalled for 1 year. During the year 
that Richard Taranto's nomination has been pending, two more vacancies 
have opened up on the Federal Circuit. This judicial vacancy, now one 
of multiple vacancies on that court, has been left open for almost 3 
years, for no good reason.
  There is simply no reason for the year-long delay of Richard Taranto. 
During the year since he was reported without controversy by the 
Judiciary Committee, I do not know of a single Senator who has come to 
the floor to express any reservations about this nomination on the 
merits. After nearly 4 years when judicial vacancies have remained near 
or above 80, hardworking Americans seeking justice deserve better.
  Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Richard Taranto to 
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is currently a name 
partner at the Washington D.C. law firm Farr & Taranto, where he has 
spent the majority of his professional career. He previously served as 
Assistant to the Solicitor General and as a law clerk for Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork for 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Abraham 
Sofaer on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New 
York. He is a distinguished litigator, who has filed nearly 230 Supreme 
Court briefs in his career, and who has argued before that court 19 
times. He has also argued 20 cases before the Federal Circuit, the 
court to which he has been nominated. He was unanimously rated ``well 
qualified'' by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its 
highest rating. Richard Taranto was reported by the Judiciary Committee 
without controversy in March 2012 and, again, last month.
  The Senate will also be voting this evening on the nomination of 
Andrew Gordon to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. He 
is currently a partner at the law firm McDonald Carano Wilson LLP in 
Las Vegas, Nevada where he has practiced since 1994. Andrew Gordon has 
the bipartisan support of his home State Senators and he was reported 
by the Judiciary Committee 1 month ago. There are two additional 
nominees currently being stalled in Committee that would fill vacancies 
on the Federal court in Nevada but Senator Heller is objecting to their 
nominations. After his obstruction of one of the nominees for more than 
a year, that nominee finally asked that her nomination be withdrawn. 
She was a very good nominee and the people of Nevada will be worse off 
for not having her serve on that court.
  These are only 2 of the 20 judicial nominations currently ready for 
Senate consideration and confirmation. Both of these nominees should 
have been considered and confirmed last year. All of the 20 nominees 
now ready for final action had to be renominated this year after being 
returned at the end of the last Congress. The Senate should act swiftly 
to let these nominees get to work on behalf of the American people.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[From the Caucus, The Politics and Government Blog, the New York Times, 
                             Mar. 8, 2013]

          Democrats Cry Foul Over Wednesday's Other Filibuster

                            (By Carl Hulse)

       Senator Rand Paul may have staged a Senate-shaking 
     filibuster Wednesday, but his was actually only the second 
     most significant Republican filibuster of the day.
       In a vote just before Mr. Paul, the junior senator from 
     Kentucky, tried to blockade the nomination of John Brennan as 
     director of central intelligence over drone policy, the 
     Senate failed to end debate on the nomination of Caitlin J. 
     Halligan of New York to a seat on the federal appeals court 
     for the District of Columbia.
       The filibuster of Ms. Halligan didn't blow up on Twitter 
     the way Mr. Paul's impressive 12-hour stand did. But of the 
     two, it was the one that could renew a feud over rules 
     governing filibusters and how the Senate handles high-level 
     judicial nominations--an issue that has torn the chamber for 
     years.
       Democrats are already in discussions on how to respond to 
     the Halligan filibuster. They believe Republicans are dead 
     set against confirming qualified Obama administration 
     nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit. They accuse Republicans of 
     exaggerating their objections to Ms. Halligan to justify a 
     filibuster under a 2005 agreement that short-circuited the 
     last partisan showdown over filling judicial vacancies.
       That deal, crafted by the famous Gang of 14, put its 
     signatories on record as saying they would not block 
     confirmation votes on appeals court judges without 
     ``extraordinary circumstances'' as determined by each 
     individual. While only members of the gang signed it, it 
     became informal Senate policy and defused a crisis that had 
     Republicans threatening to execute the ``nuclear option'' and 
     bar filibusters against judicial nominees by a simple 
     majority vote instead of with the 67 votes historically 
     needed to change Senate rules.
       It also led to President George W. Bush winning three 
     appointments to the appeals court often considered a feeder 
     to the Supreme Court, giving conservatives an advantage on 
     the influential panel, which hears

[[Page 2924]]

      many federal-powers cases. In its current makeup, the court 
     consists of four judges appointed by Republican presidents 
     and three appointed by President Bill Clinton, with four 
     vacancies--the most ever on that court.
       In filibustering Ms. Halligan, several Republicans cited 
     extraordinary circumstances arising from her earlier work as 
     the solicitor general for the State of New York, particularly 
     on a case against gun manufacturers.
       ``Ms. Halligan advanced the novel legal theory that gun 
     manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers contributed to a 
     `public nuisance' of illegal handguns in the state,'' said 
     Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on 
     the Judiciary Committee, accusing her of judicial activism. 
     ``Therefore, she argued, gun manufacturers should be liable 
     for the criminal conduct of third parties.''
       Democrats cried foul. The real reason she was blocked, they 
     say, is that Republicans do not want to see the balance of 
     power on the D.C. appeals court shifted. They say that Ms. 
     Halligan was acting in her official capacity representing the 
     State of New York, not as a jurist, and that Republicans have 
     abandoned the extraordinary circumstances test engineered by 
     the Gang of 14.
       ``If you go back to that history of what occurred back 
     then, there is a real question of whether they have broken 
     the deal now,'' said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New 
     Mexico. ``This is a key circuit for the country. What they 
     are doing is not allowing these consensus candidate judges to 
     get votes.''
       Mr. Udall has been among a group of relatively newer 
     members of the Senate clamoring for significant changes in 
     the rules governing filibusters. One demand is that senators 
     act more like Mr. Paul, and take the floor to make their case 
     when they are trying to block a vote. In January, working to 
     avoid a divisive fight, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada 
     Democrat and majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of 
     Kentucky, the Republican leader, struck a deal making some 
     modest changes in filibuster rules.
       But those changes have done little so far this session to 
     curb filibusters, as evidenced by the vote on Ms. Halligan 
     and the politically charged obstacles raised to confirmation 
     votes on Mr. Brennan and Chuck Hagel, a former Republican 
     senator who found himself on the receiving end of a 
     Republican filibuster before winning confirmation as 
     secretary of defense. The filibuster is alive and well in the 
     Senate and, as Mr. Paul showed, may even be enjoying 
     resurgence as grand theater.
       Democrats say that despite what they see as clear 
     provocation, they are in no hurry to change the new rules 
     after just two months in place. They say they are more 
     inclined to explore new ways to confront Republicans over the 
     vacancies.
       Mr. Udall says one option might be for the president to 
     make multiple nominations, in effect daring Republicans to 
     find ways to cite extraordinary circumstances in multiple 
     instances.
       ``Rather than putting just one up, we should put before the 
     Senate all four and expose what is happening here,'' said Mr. 
     Udall, who acknowledged that Senate Democrats would need 
     White House cooperation.
       ``We need to design a strategy to counter the Republicans, 
     and we are going to need the president,'' he said.
       The fight will take time to unfold. Democrats say they will 
     wait to see how Republicans respond to future appeals court 
     nominees. But a series of filibusters against what they view 
     as acceptable nominees could quickly bring to a head the push 
     for a change in Senate rules.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Richard Gary 
Taranto, nominated to be U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit. 
Mr. Taranto's nomination was pending before the Senate last year. In 
accordance with Senate custom and practice, the nomination was placed 
on hold, along with other circuit Judge nominations, pending the 
outcome of the 2012 Presidential election.
  I also support the nomination of Andrew Patrick Gordon to be U.S. 
district judge for the District of Nevada. Mr. Gordon was nominated 
late last year, with his hearing held in December.
  Despite our continued cooperation with the President and Senate 
Democrats, we continue to hear unfounded criticism.
  For example, recently the White House posted on its Web site a 
statement ``The rising number of judicial vacancies is a direct result 
of unprecedented delays in the Senate confirmation process.'' The 
graphic went on to suggest that the President's nominees have to wait 
longer for confirmation than nominees of previous Presidents. It cites 
statistics that the President's nominees have to wait longer than 
nominees in prior administrations for floor consideration after being 
reported out of committee. There is no mention that in previous 
administrations there was a much longer wait for committee 
consideration. The end result, from nomination to confirmation, is 
about the same for Obama nominees as it was for nominees submitted by 
George W. Bush. There is no credible basis for alleging ``unprecedented 
delays.''
  President Obama is quoted as saying: ``A minority of Senators has 
systematically and irresponsibly used procedural maneuvers to block or 
delay confirmation votes on judicial nominees.'' Of course, President 
Obama, as Senator, supported the filibuster of the nomination of Samuel 
Alito, nominated to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  A few Senate Democrats have joined this chorus, claiming that the 
recent vote on the Halligan nomination was a violation of a Senate 
understanding or ``deal'' negotiated in 2005 by the so-called Gang of 
14.
  Unfortunately, some of those Senators have no understanding of what 
happened with Bush nominees, leading to that limited agreement. I am 
not going to recite that history here, but the record is there for 
those who are interested in the truth.
  It is a stretch to say that the Gang of 14 is any kind of Senate 
policy, informal or otherwise. It was an agreement among a few Members 
of that Congress. Most Senators who were part of that agreement no 
longer serve in the Senate. Senators who did sign the agreement, on 
both sides, subsequently voted against cloture on nominees--indicating 
that the agreement was never regarded as limiting the Senate on cloture 
votes. It is clear that agreement was limited to a small group, for a 
particular point in time.
  The allegation of a systematic and irresponsible use of procedural 
maneuvers to block or delay nominations is unfounded. Senate 
Republicans have sparingly used Senate rules. Only two nominees have 
been defeated by a filibuster. Compare that to the multiple filibusters 
on nominees of President Bush. Ten nominees were blocked by 
filibusters, with five ultimately being defeated.
  The fact is, in his first term, President Obama had the highest 
percentage of circuit confirmations over the past four Presidential 
terms. With regard to district confirmations, President Obama had more 
during the 112th Congress that in any of the previous eight Congresses, 
going back to 1994. So those who say that this President is being 
treated differently either fail to recognize history or want to ignore 
the facts or both.
  A second prong of this debate concerns the vacancy rate in the 
Federal judiciary. Blaming judicial vacancies on the Senate 
confirmation process is unfounded and a distortion of the process. The 
growth in vacancies is the result of a failure in the White House to 
send nominations to the Senate. Presently, 55 of the 87 vacancies--63 
percent--have no nominee. For the 30 vacancies categorized as 
``judicial emergencies,'' only 9 have a nominee. This has been a 
pattern through most of the Obama Presidency.
  Senators who suggest that Republican Senators are blocking all four 
vacancies on the D.C. Circuit should understand that two of those 
vacancies have no nominee. A Senator who suggests as a strategy to 
``put before the Senate all four and expose what is happening'' must 
first talk to the White House about the lack of nominees.
  With regard to today's nominations, I would like to say a few words 
about the nominees. I expect they will be approved, and congratulate 
each on his confirmation.
  Richard Gary Taranto is nominated to be U.S. circuit judge for the 
Federal Circuit. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1981, Mr. 
Taranto held several judicial clerkships. First, he served as a law 
clerk for Judge Abraham Sofaer on the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of New York. From 1982 to 1983, he clerked for Judge 
Robert Bork on the D.C. Circuit. Finally, he clerked for Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor from 1983 to 1984.
  After completing his clerkship with Justice O'Connor, Mr. Taranto 
worked as an associate with Onek, Klein & Farr. He also served for a 
few months

[[Page 2925]]

in the spring of 1986 as a legal consultant to the Secretary of State's 
Advisory Committee on South Africa.
  Beginning in the summer of 1986, he joined the U.S. Department of 
Justice Solicitor General's Office serving as an assistant to the 
Solicitor General. In 1989, he returned to the private sector as a 
partner in his old firm of Onek, Klein, & Farr, which soon after became 
Farr & Taranto. From 1989 to the late 1990s, his practice was heavily 
focused on the Supreme Court. He wrote briefs and argued cases on a 
wide variety of topics, including constitutional law, bankruptcy, 
patent, trademark, Federal procedure, antitrust, and copyright issues.
  In 1997, the focus of his practice shifted to handling patent appeals 
before the Federal Circuit. Before the Federal Circuit, he has 
represented patent holders and patent defendants across a variety of 
technology areas. He has experience with cases concerning international 
trade, government contracts, and money claims against the United 
States, all within the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.
  Mr. Taranto has argued 19 cases in the Supreme Court; 8 while in the 
Solicitor General's Office and 11 cases in private practice. He has 
also presented approximately 20 arguments in the Federal Circuit and 
appeared on briefs in a few others. He has also argued cases before the 
First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. The 
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
gave him a unanimous well qualified rating.
  Andrew Patrick Gordon is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
District of Nevada. Mr. Gordon received a B.A. from Claremont McKenna 
College in 1984, graduating cum laude. In 1987, Gordon graduated from 
Harvard Law School. Upon graduation, he joined Streich, Lang, Weeks, 
and Cardon in Phoenix, AZ. In 1992, he moved to Las Vegas, NV, where he 
assisted Streich Lang to expand into the Las Vegas market through an 
affiliate of the firm, Dawson and Associates. In 1994, he lateraled to 
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, working as an associate until 1997, when he 
became a partner. He remains with McDonald Carano Wilson to this day.
  Mr. Gordon's law experience is mostly in civil litigation in the 
areas of business, real property, construction, and employment. From 
1997 to 2004, his practice centered on litigation arising from 
commercial construction projects. Over the last 10 years, he has become 
more active in arbitration and mediation. Additionally, Mr. Gordon has 
sat on numerous committees of the Nevada State Bar, the U.S. District 
Court of Nevada, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 
He has tried at least nine cases to final judgment. The American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a 
rating of substantial majority well qualified--minority qualified.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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 Richard Gary Taranto, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Federal Circuit?
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Flake
     Harkin
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Reed
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
  The nomination was confirmed.


              Vote On Nomination of Andrew Patrick Gordon

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Andrew Patrick 
Gordon, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District 
of Nevada?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________