[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10991-10997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JENNIFER A. DORSEY 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 nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Jennifer A. Dorsey, of 
Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Student Loans

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are here today because, unfortunately, 
the financial burden on our Nation's college students dramatically 
spiked overnight 8 days ago, including for over 100,000 students across 
my home State of Washington, where 56 percent of college graduates 
leave school with a student loan debt, and the average amount they owe 
is more than $22,000. Just when they are getting started on their 
careers, instead of buying a house or buying a car or just paying the 
bills, their student loan bills are piling up with interest.
  Now interest rates for Federal student loans, which have been kept at 
a low rate of 3.4 percent, have doubled to 6.8 percent. For these 
students and for millions of students across the country, that is a tax 
hike of $1,000. That is not fair to students, and it is certainly not 
good for our economy. Congress has to act to fix it.
  This isn't just an abstract issue for me; it is very personal. Pell 
grants and student loans were what allowed my six brothers and sisters 
and I to go to college after my dad got sick and had to leave his job. 
They are what made college affordable, and they are what allowed each 
one of us to pursue a career and give back to our communities. Because 
our government was there to help my family and help us through hard 
times, those seven kids in my family grew up to be a firefighter, a 
lawyer, a computer programmer, a sports writer, a homemaker, a middle 
school teacher, and a Senator. In my book, that was a good investment 
by our country and our government.
  My family's story is far from unique. In fact, last week I traveled 
around my home State of Washington listening to student after student 
after student describe the real-life impact this rate hike would have 
on them. Students such as Elizabeth from Vancouver, WA: She is a 
sophomore at the University of Washington. She comes from a family of 
five children with immigrant parents who work hourly low-wage jobs.
  She told me growing up, the idea of paying for college was 
overwhelming, but thanks to scholarships and grants and loans she is 
able to pursue her dream of becoming a broadcast journalist. However, 
her part-time work-study position barely covers her bills, and she says 
she is constantly plagued by stress as she worries about how she is 
ever going to overcome what she calls her ``debt sentence.''
  The reality is this is a simple issue. College is already too 
expensive for students such as Elizabeth, and Congress shouldn't make 
it worse. So I am very proud to join my colleagues in supporting the 
Keep Student Loan Rates Affordable Act to extend the 3.4 percent 
interest rate, and I urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to 
join us and pass it.
  With student loan debt now exceeding $1 trillion, students and their 
families deserve due process and thoughtful consideration of issues 
such as financial aid. Students have already contributed billions to 
deficit reduction, but the problem is the Senate Republican leadership 
has insisted in all of their proposals that we balance the budget on 
the backs of struggling students and their families. So far, they have 
refused to put the interest of students and tomorrow's middle class 
ahead of Tax Code spending that benefits the wealthy.
  What they have introduced is a bill that includes no cap on how high 
student loan rates could go--something CBO tells us would mean students 
could be locked in at rates over 8 percent in just a few short years. 
In effect, it would be better to do absolutely nothing now than to take 
up and pass the Republican bill.
  I bet everybody listening knows a family member or a coworker who is 
up to their neck in student debt. It is a weight that keeps them from 
helping

[[Page 10992]]

to grow our economy or start a family or take risks with their careers, 
and it is a weight that is not easily shed.
  We can't continue to do this to generation after generation of 
college students and expect to be able to compete in the 21st-century 
economy. We have to do everything we can to remove barriers to 
education, not erect new ones.
  The clock has run out. We need to act now because for millions of 
Americans, affordable college has been the ticket to the middle class, 
and we can't allow it to slip away. We can't allow access to college to 
become unattainable for so many of our families.
  I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in investing in America's 
future by reversing this student loan increase and making college more 
affordable for America's middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad I stayed to hear the Senator 
from Washington speak because I think this highlights the issue. That 
is a terrific political speech, but it bears no resemblance to what is 
actually happening in the student loan debate.
  The distinguished Senator from Washington talked about rates going 
up. Rates are going up for over 7 million--7 million--middle-income 
students in America who are going to be taking out loans this year, and 
the Democratic proposal does nothing for them. Their proposal does 
nothing for them.
  All the Democrats are trying to do is a political fix for 1 year for 
students taking out 40 percent of the loans who are already the 
beneficiary of Pell grants, as she so ably expressed, who have their 
interest paid while they are in college. These students are borrowing 
subsidized loans. These students may receive a Pell grant of up to 
$5,550. They have their interest paid while they are in college. This 
accounting system used by the Congressional Budget Office is very 
generous to students as opposed to taxpayers, because it is done under 
the Federal Credit Reporting Act, which is more generous to students, 
in this case, than taxpayers.
  What about the over 7 million middle-income students who are just 
swinging in the wind under the Democratic proposal? It does nothing for 
them.
  On the other hand, we have the President of the United States, a 
Democrat, and we have the House of Representatives, a majority of 
Republicans, and they fundamentally agree on one idea: Let's have a 
permanent solution. Let's figure out what it costs the taxpayer to 
allow the government to issue loans--the government is lending over 
$100 billion a year--and loan it to the students at no profit--at no 
profit--so the students can use it--all of them, not 40 percent of 
them, not just low-income students but middle-income students as well--
and all of them will have their rates lowered.
  So what will the effect be? Their proposal would fix at 3.4 percent 
for 1 year the student loan interest rate on 40 percent of the loans. 
Our bipartisan proposal would fundamentally--as does the President's 
proposal and the proposal passed by the House of Representatives--lower 
the rate to 3.66 percent for all undergraduates. It would be not just 
for the students borrowing 40 percent of the loans but for all middle-
income students and graduate students as well. Their rates would be 
lower than 6.8 percent.
  What is good about a short-term political fix that makes middle-
income students and graduate students pay hundreds of millions of 
dollars more over the next 10 years? What is good about that? All it 
does is provide an opportunity to make a well-rehearsed political 
speech about student loans.
  We all want to encourage students to go to college. We are looking 
for a way to give them some predictability and some certainty so 
students don't have to worry, when they graduate from Maryville High 
School in Tennessee where I went, that Congress isn't going to do its 
job. All the other side is going to do is stand up and make political 
speeches that have nothing to do with the issue.
  In this case, the President has done his job by recommending a long-
term solution. The Republican House of Representatives has done its 
job. It passed a long-term solution that lowers rates for everybody. A 
group of six Senators are doing our jobs. We have introduced a 
bipartisan proposal that reduces rates for everybody, and it is a long-
term solution, while a number of the Democratic Senators are playing 
political games. They are ignoring reality. They are going to freeze 
for 10 years higher interest rates on loans for over 7 million--7 
million--middle-income students across this country who are headed to 
college--rates that are nearly twice as high as the bipartisan proposal 
here, which is fundamentally like the proposal by the President and the 
proposal by the House of Representatives.
  What is the wisdom in that? I don't see it, and I don't think the 
students will see it.
  As far as balancing the budget on the backs of students, the only 
people around here who have done that are the Democrats when they 
passed the health care law. They put in that law a takeover of the 
Federal student loan program and, according to the CBO, they had an 
amount of savings of $55 billion, and they used part of it to reduce 
the debt.
  So the CBO says these are savings because the Democrats took over 
student loans and the Democrats said they will use it to reduce the 
debt, use it for the Pell grant program, and they used it to help pay 
for the health care law. Every single year for the next several years, 
students are being overcharged to help pay for the health care law.
  So if we want to get into a big political discussion about who is 
overcharging students in order to reduce the deficit or pay for the 
health care law, we can have that. But that is not what we want to do. 
We want a result, and we have suggested to the Senate--and I am going 
to say it one more time: Instead of a 40-percent political fix for 1 
year, we have suggested a long-term solution for 100 percent of the 
students. It reduces their rates. It cuts nearly in half the interest 
rate for every single undergraduate loan--every single one, which is 
two-thirds of the loans--and it is based on an idea that was in the 
President's budget, that has already been passed by the House of 
Representatives, and that has been introduced by three on that side of 
the aisle and three on this side of the aisle.
  A Senate that is interested in a result instead of political 
gamesmanship would be sitting down and trying to work that out. That is 
what we want to do.
  We can play games, too, I suppose. I can go get my statistics and 
come back to the floor and say those over on the Democratic side, when 
they passed the health care bill, did it on the backs of students. When 
they balanced the budget--which they haven't done--they tried to do it 
on the backs of students. And when they found some money for Pell 
grants, they overcharged the students to whom they were loaning money. 
That is true. I could do that, and I could say that, but I didn't come 
here to spend all my time saying that. I came here to get results.
  So this is not a game for 11 million students across this country. 
They are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for college. 
Just as the Senator from Washington said, it is not easy to do. They 
expect us to come here with our backgrounds and say: We are going to do 
the best we can. Instead of making this similar to what we call the 
doctors fix, where every year we play a little politics and add a 
little money to pay doctors who work with Medicare patients--that is a 
terrible thing to do, but we do it every year--and now we are going to 
treat student loans in the same way. In a Presidential election year, 
everybody will make a big speech about it. Eleven million students will 
sit around wondering how they are going to pay for college, waiting for 
the people in Washington to make a decision about that. We should not 
be doing that.
  We have great promise here. We have a President making a long-term 
solution, the House of Representatives of a different party agreeing 
with him, and six of us on both sides of the aisle proposing a solution 
that is a permanent

[[Page 10993]]

solution for 100 percent for the 11 million people who will be 
borrowing over $100 billion this year.
  Why would they on the other side of the aisle insist on a solution 
that forces 7 million mostly middle-income students to pay 6.8 percent 
when they could be paying 3.66 percent? Why would you do that? Because 
you have not thought about it, I think.
  A lot has been going on. We have had an immigration debate and a 
number of other things, so maybe Senators have not taken a look at 
that. I have. I have had a chance to do that. I have been the president 
of a university. I have been the Education Secretary. I know something 
about the student loan program. I did not like it when the Federal 
Government took it over. I admire our U.S. Secretary of Education. I do 
not think he ought to be the banker of the year. I think we have banks 
to make loans, but that is not the way it is. The taxpayers now make 
all the government loans--over $100 billion a year.
  Students are making their plans. They are going to be arriving at 
colleges in August and September. We have a bipartisan proposal that 
will lower interest rates for every single student taking out a student 
loan. Yet our friends on the other side want to leave middle-income 
students out of it, force them to pay twice as much as they should be 
in interest rates for the next 10 years. That makes no sense. We ought 
not do that.
  Tomorrow what we ought to do is pass the Burr-Manchin proposal that 
is supported on both sides of the aisle. To the extent it differs with 
the President's proposal--which is very slight--and with the proposal 
of the House of Representatives--which is not much--we should then sit 
down, work something out over the next 3 days, pass it and send it to 
the President and go on to the next issue. Instead, we have political 
speeches about how hard it is to go to college. We all know how hard it 
is to go to college. It is difficult to do. We all want to help. But if 
we have a solution, we ought to adopt it.
  I could play politics too. I know how. Every one of us in this room 
knows how, otherwise we would not be here. This is not a time for 
playing politics. This is serious business; 11 million students getting 
18 million loans, $100 billion-plus from the American taxpayers. We 
have a proposal before us that is fair to the taxpayers--it will not 
cost them any money--it is fair to the students--it does not balance 
the budget or pay for the health care program or any other thing on the 
students' backs--and it gives students, many of whom who have no credit 
rating, no other way to get money, a chance to get several thousand 
dollars a year at one of the lowest possible rates available in the 
country. The proposal that is before the Senate that is bipartisan is a 
permanent solution. It says to the student going to the University of 
Tennessee or Alaska or Minnesota: If you get a loan this year from the 
government and you are an undergraduate, the interest rate is 3.66 
percent. Your rate on that loan won't change. If you are a middle-
income student, the Democrats' plan says it is 6.8 percent, and they 
say: Wait. Wait for what? Wait for rates to go up?
  Why don't we establish this program for students at a time when rates 
are low? That is to their advantage. Let's have a permanent solution at 
a time when rates are low. They may go up and, therefore, students may 
pay more, but they will pay a lot less than they would in the private 
market. They will have a lot more certainty than if we just come around 
and play politics with this every year to try to gain some advantage 
with this student group or that student group.
  So we have an opportunity before us. The immigration bill passed 
before the recess. It showed a good deal of the ability of people on 
both sides of the aisle to work together. We did that with the farm 
bill. We did that with the water resources bill. I would submit this is 
100 times easier than any of those bills.
  When I went home to Tennessee before the Fourth of July recess, I 
said to somebody who asked me: We are that far apart and we have the 
President and the Republican House and a bipartisan group of Senators 
all in about the same place. This ought to be easy to do.
  It is still easy to do, but I would implore my Senators to look at 
the facts--those on the other side of the aisle--and realize I do not 
think they want to go home and explain why they are leaving over 7 
million middle-income students twisting in the wind, paying twice as 
much on interest rates for the next year as the proposal that they are 
about to vote against tomorrow. I think that will be pretty hard to 
explain, and I will bet there will be a lot of explaining to do if that 
is the end result.
  So I pledge--as I have been working with Secretary Duncan, with the 
White House, with Democrats and Republicans--to try to get a result 
here. I think we can still do it in the next few days. I would hope we 
can have a vote on both proposals tomorrow. My guess would be both 
would fail at this point, but at least that would show we are seriously 
working toward a solution, and we can sit down and merge these small 
differences that exist between the bipartisan group here, the 
Republican House, and the President of the United States.
  I yield the 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.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Immigration

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the immigration bill 
we passed a couple weeks ago. It was a significant achievement. I have 
already congratulated all of those in the so-called Gang of 8 who put 
together the initial draft. It was an example of bipartisanship and 
recognizing that the other fellow has a point of view--that you respect 
that--and then you work out your differences. That was an example of 
the Senate at its finest and what we ought to be doing on every piece 
of legislation around here.
  The final result: 68 votes to 32 votes. Its prospects we know not 
what because of the different approach in the House and the inability 
on so many things we have passed here to go to the conference committee 
to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate.
  So I am very appreciative, and I have given my congratulations to all 
of those who have participated in that immigration bill.
  There is a huge flaw. It is a huge flaw in not recognizing that when 
we want to secure the border, as supposedly was done in order to gain 
14 Republican votes to get us to the huge vote of 68 votes for the 
bill, a major amount of money was added for border security. That is 
not the flaw. Some may question the amount of money. Indeed, there was 
$6.5 billion in the initial Gang of 8 compromise for border security. 
But when it came with the Corker-Hoeven amendment, there was $46.3 
billion more, of which over $44 billion was for border security. That 
is not what is the flaw, although one can argue it.
  The flaw is that the amendment that was offered by the Senator from 
Mississippi and me was not even allowed to be considered, which was to 
increase not some $50 billion-plus for border security--which was the 
land border--but to add a mere $1 billion for maritime security. That 
is the flaw. As a matter of fact, if you want border security, it is a 
fatal flaw. Why? You put up an impenetrable wall--whether it be a 
fence, an electric fence, an electronic fence, whether it be UAVs, more 
Border Patrol agents--as a matter of fact, in the Corker-Hoeven 
amendment, $30 billion of that additional border security was just for 
Border Patrol agents--all of which is going to make it fairly effective 
in border security of not allowing people to pass, but it is the land 
border.
  So what is going to happen? You go right around the land border on 
the maritime border.
  It is either going to be on the west coast, on the Pacific, or it is 
going to

[[Page 10994]]

be on the east coast, either the Gulf of Mexico and all the Gulf States 
or the Atlantic, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Because 
if someone can be smuggled into one of them and therefore get an 
identity, then they have free access. Puerto Ricans are American 
citizens. They have free access to get to the rest of the United 
States.
  So maritime security becomes paramount. But we could not get people 
here who wanted to spend over $50 billion on border security, which is 
the land border, which, in fact, is in the bill--they would not allow a 
Republican Senator, Mr. Wicker, and me to add $1 billion for maritime 
security.
  Specifically, under our amendment, it would have addressed just that 
part of border security with regard to the Department of Homeland 
Security. But if we want an effective border security, we have to then 
get into a whole host of things other than Customs and Border Patrol. 
We have to get additional resources for the Coast Guard. We have to 
consider not only UAVs being flown by the Department of Homeland 
Security, through Customs, et cetera, over the maritime border, we have 
to put more Coast Guard out there.
  I would suggest a new platform that would be very effective would be 
what the Navy is testing right now, which is blimps. It is a very cost-
effective, long dwell time, that gives enormous coverage at sea by one 
blimp. I have ridden in those blimps.
  The Navy is testing them. I went with the Navy out of Fernandina 
Beach as they were doing the testing for Mayport Naval Station. It is 
incredible what you can do on the dwell time of a blimp. Of course, the 
fuel used is de minimus. The cost of an entire mission for a blimp, 
some 24 hours of fuel, is the same as cranking up an F-16 taxiing out 
to the runway. That amount of energy, fuel spent is what would be spent 
on a blimp for an entire 24-hour period as it is doing surveillance.
  So if we are going to be sincere about border effectiveness, then, in 
fact, we are going to have to pay attention to the maritime border as 
well as the land border. Why are Senator Wicker and I concerned about 
this? He comes from a Gulf Coast State, Mississippi. I come from the 
State that has the longest coastline of any State save for the State of 
Alaska.
  My State of Florida has over some 1,500 miles of coast. It is a place 
that will be a haven for smugglers of people and drugs. If we think we 
are tightening border security by over $50 billion being applied to the 
land border, where are the smugglers going to go? They are going to go 
right around. It is just like water will flow and it will meet the 
place of least resistance. It will continue to flow. So, too, will the 
smugglers.
  I wish to say I am disappointed that people on that side of the aisle 
would not allow Senator Wicker's and my amendment to be considered in 
the last minute. It obviously is not controversial. Yet, for whatever 
reason, it was denied. I hope as we proceed on the immigration bill--
and I hope we are able to proceed if the House will act--I hope in the 
final product it will be considered and added so we can truly have a 
secure border, a maritime border as well as a land border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon we will be voting on a district 
court nominee. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jennifer 
Dorsey. That is for the U.S. district judgeship for the District of 
Nevada. Before I outline the basis for my opposition, I wish to inform 
my fellow Senators and the American public regarding facts on judicial 
nominations.
  We continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
about how we are obstructing nominees or treating this President 
differently. Those complaints are without foundation. I will quantify 
my answer to prove my point. There is no crisis in the manner in which 
we are confirming nominees. This is all part of a larger strategy to 
justify breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the 
Senate.
  The fact is that after today the Senate will have confirmed 199 lower 
court nominees. We have defeated two. That is 199 to 2. Who can 
complain about that record? The success rate happens to be 99 percent 
for the nominees sent by President Obama, considered on the floor of 
the Senate.
  We have been doing it at a very fast pace as well. During the last 
Congress we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd 
Congress. That Congress sat from 1993 through 1994. This year we have 
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first 
year of President Bush's second term.
  So far this year we have confirmed 27 judges. If confirmed today, Ms. 
Dorsey will be the 28th confirmation this year. Let's compare this with 
a similar stage, which would be President Bush's second term, when only 
10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. So we are now at a 28-to-10 
comparison, with President Obama clearly ahead of where President Bush 
was. But somehow we are hearing complaints.
  As I said, we have already confirmed more nominees this year, 28, 
than we did during the entirety of the year 2005, the first year of 
President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court judges were 
confirmed. After today only three Article III judges remain on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar; two district nominees and one circuit 
nominee.
  Yet we hear the same old story. Somehow our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, the Senate majority, the Senate Democrats, cite this as 
evidence of obstructionism. Compare that to June 2004, when 30 judicial 
nominations were on the calendar, 10 circuit, 20 district.
  I do not recall any Senate Democrat complaining about how many 
nominations were piling up on the calendar, nor do I remember protests 
from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving 
too slowly.
  Some of those nominees had been reported out of committee more than 1 
year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never did 
get an up-or-down vote. The bottom line is that the Senate is 
processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. I do not know 
why that message cannot get through. It is an excuse to abuse the rules 
of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate.
  President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the 
beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President 
Bush in the first year of his last term in office. It is not clear to 
me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in 
an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet 
that is the complaint we hear over and over and over again from the 
other side.
  I wanted to set the record straight. It is a sad commentary that I 
have to spend so much time when figures speak for themselves. But I 
will set the record straight again before we vote on the nomination of 
Ms. Dorsey.
  I have concerns with this particular nominee. I think all Members are 
aware of the press accounts of campaign contributions which were made 
at the time this nomination was under consideration. We have not 
received a full explanation of what happened. Nevertheless, I am 
concerned about the appearances of these contributions and how such 
actions might undermine the public confidence that our citizenry must 
have in the judicial branch of our government.
  I also have concerns about Ms. Dorsey's qualifications to be a 
Federal judge. She has no criminal law experience. She has participated 
in only six trials, one as a sole counsel, one as first chair, and four 
as second chair. I am concerned that her lack of experience will be a 
problem when she gets to the bench.
  It is not surprising to me that the American Bar Association's 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a partial ``not 
qualified'' rating. I am also concerned with her understanding of the 
proper role of a judge.
  While in law school, she wrote a note that praised the Justices who 
wrote Roe v. Wade. She praised them for the willingness to ``forge 
ahead to create a just outcome without regard to the

[[Page 10995]]

usual decisional restraints.'' Then, she said, ``The majority made the 
just decision and then forced history and stare decisis to fit that 
decision.''
  Ms. Dorsey praised judges who made their decision--and I want to use 
her words--``without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Those 
words are not the kind of words judges should be using. That is not the 
kind of judges we want, those who are activist judges who impose their 
own policy preferences rather than in following enacted law or 
precedent.
  What do we want? We want judges who will be restrained by precedent 
and by the laws Congress passes. Although Ms. Dorsey said she no longer 
supports what she once wrote, I am unconvinced she will be able to lay 
her policy preferences aside when they conflict with what the law 
dictates she ought to do.
  For all the reasons I mentioned above, I cannot support the nominee. 
I have two news articles that describe the campaign contribution issue 
I discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent that those articles be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 3, 2013]

   Donations to Reid-Connected PACs Legal, but Don't Seem Quite Right

                         (By Jane Ann Morrison)

       U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't break laws 
     when he asked Las Vegas attorney Will Kemp to donate to the 
     Senate Majority PAC to help elect Democrats in the 2012 
     cycle.
       The senator, a lawyer himself, knew Kemp and Robert Eglet 
     had won a huge verdict of $182 million from Teva 
     Pharmaceutical Industries in a case in which large vials of 
     Propofol were partially blamed for a hepatitis outbreak.
       Kemp wasn't new to donating to Reid. He had been a donor to 
     Friends for Harry Reid in the past 2010 cycle and had given 
     $4,800. According to opensecrets.org, Kemp's largest donation 
     in the past three years was for $8,500 to the Democratic 
     Party of Nevada. And while he leaned Democratic, he also gave 
     to some Republicans.
       However, ethical questions abound about whether Reid's 
     latest judicial nominee, Jennifer Dorsey, a partner in Jones, 
     Kemp and Coulthard, could have seen--or hoped to see--her 
     chances for an appointment enhanced by a series of 
     contributions from Kemp and his partner, J. Randall Jones.
       It's the time line and the size of the amounts that are 
     creating that sewage smell.
       Despite that, Reid said Friday he believed she would be 
     confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
       Check out what happened when:
       October 2011: Kemp wins his big Teva case, not his first 
     big payday as a longtime trial attorney.
       Jan. 9, 2012: Kemp donates $8,500 to the Democratic Party 
     of Nevada, generally considered the party designed to elect 
     Reid first and foremost and other Democrats as an 
     afterthought.
       Sometime in January or February 2012, according to Kemp's 
     statements to political analyst Jon Ralston, Reid asks Kemp 
     and his partners to donate to the Senate Majority PAC. It's 
     unclear whether his donation to the party fell before or 
     after Reid's request. Kemp didn't return a call Friday to 
     clarify the time line.
       March 31, 2012: Dorsey donates $2,500 to Friends for Harry 
     Reid. Sometime that month she expressed her interest in a 
     federal judgeship. The same day, Kemp contributes $2,500 to 
     the Friends of Harry Reid.
       April 30, 2012: Reid returns her money but keeps Kemp's.
       May 1, 2012: The day after Dorsey's money is returned, Kemp 
     donates $100,000 to the Senate Majority PAC, and law partner 
     Jones donates $5,000 to the Democratic Party of Nevada.
       May 14, 2012: Two weeks later, Jones donates $50,000 to the 
     Senate Majority PAC.
       June 12, 2012: Reid recommends Dorsey to the White House.
       Aug. 23, 2012: Jones donates $8,000 to the Democratic Party 
     of Nevada.
       Sept. 19, 2012: She is nominated by President Barack Obama.
       Oct. 23, 2012: Jones makes a $10,000 contribution to the 
     Democratic Party of Nevada.
       At a meeting at the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Friday, I 
     asked Reid to address the perception that the donations were 
     made for a purpose.
       He answered, ``It's too bad that her being a member of that 
     law firm is causing some problems for her.'' He noted he had 
     known Kemp for decades. ``He's one of the finest trial 
     lawyers in the country, and that's not just hyperbole, that's 
     true.''
       Reid went on to condemn the Citizens United decision in 
     January 2010, which allows unlimited corporate and labor 
     money in campaigns as independent expenditures. Reid called 
     it one of the four or five worst decisions in the history of 
     the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Reid said he abides by the rules and does not control the 
     Senate Majority PAC. He asked Kemp to donate, but PAC 
     officials dealt with the lawyer after that.
       By my tally, based on the Open Secrets website, in 2012, 
     Kemp and Jones between them gave $150,000 to the Senate 
     Majority PAC and $28,500 to the Democratic Party of Nevada, 
     and Kemp gave an extra $2,500 to Friends of Reid, for a total 
     of $181,000.
       In previous years, Kemp and Jones had given but not at that 
     level.
       In 2010, Kemp gave Reid $4,800; Jones gave him $11,700. 
     Kind of a big jump from $16,500 to Friends for Reid in one 
     cycle to $181,000 to Reid, the Majority PAC and the 
     Democratic Party in the 2012 cycle.
       That's a lot of Democratic lovin'. Especially for two 
     lawyers who also pony up for Republicans.
       Reid mentioned the nearly $150 million that Las Vegas Sands 
     Corp. boss Sheldon Adelson had given to elect Republicans in 
     2012 and how a Rhode Island man made a federal judgeship 
     though he and his wife donated $700,000 to Democrats since 
     1993.
       While $150,000 sounds like a lot to me, Reid said it's all 
     relative because the Senate Majority PAC raised more than $60 
     million.
       Reid must be conflicted. He competes successfully at 
     raising money, whether it's for his own campaign, the party 
     or various PACs. Yet he says, ``I think this whole campaign 
     finance thing has gotten way out of hand.''
       Later he mused, ``It may not corrupt people, but it is 
     corrupting.''
       Dorsey, 42, said she doesn't talk to reporters. But if she 
     knew her partners were donating all this money at the time 
     she was seeking a judgeship (and how could she not know), she 
     should have stopped it. But then she did donate $2,500 after 
     asking for the job. Maybe she thought it was expected. Or 
     maybe the judicial candidate's judgment about perception 
     isn't so keen.
       When her partners had never donated in such large sums 
     before, it smacks of old-style payola. It may be legal, but 
     it's not right.
       However, I suspect the canny Reid is correct, Dorsey will 
     get confirmed. Senators of both parties won't want to see 
     their own donations restricted as they themselves race for 
     the almighty dollar.
                                  ____


              [From www.reviewjournal.com, Apr. 26, 2013]

 Judicial Nominee's Law Firm Gives $150,000 to PAC Linked to Harry Reid

            (By Steve Tetreault, Stephens Washington Bureau)

       Washington.--As U.S. Sen. Harry Reid was considering Las 
     Vegas attorney Jennifer Dorsey for a federal judgeship in 
     May, two senior partners at her law firm made $150,000 in 
     contributions to a political action committee associated with 
     the Nevada senator, records show.
       While apparently legal, the donations were called 
     ``problematic'' by a legal expert, who said they could be 
     perceived as attempting to buy a judicial appointment as 
     Dorsey's confirmation is pending before the Senate.
       Dorsey also made a personal contribution of $2,500 to 
     Reid's campaign committee in March 2012, shortly after they 
     initially spoke about her interest in becoming a federal 
     judge, according to Senate records. Reid returned that 
     contribution a month later, as he proceeded to check out her 
     credentials and experience as a litigator.
       In June, Reid agreed to recommend Dorsey to the White House 
     for a post on the U.S. District Court, and she was nominated 
     by President Barack Obama in September.
       Reid in a statement said Dorsey's ``academic background and 
     courtroom experience speak for themselves. She has great 
     respect from her peers and colleagues in Nevada and I am 
     confident she will serve the bench with distinction.''
       As Dorsey was being vetted by Reid, senior partners at her 
     firm, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, made contributions to Senate 
     Majority PAC, a super PAC created by former Reid strategists 
     to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Reid, the Senate 
     majority leader, and other leading Democrats traveled 
     extensively last year to raise money for the PAC, which is 
     co-chaired by a former Reid chief of staff.
       Founding partner Will Kemp made a $100,000 contribution on 
     May 1, 2012, according to campaign finance records. Founding 
     partner J. Randall Jones made a $50,000 contribution on May 
     14, 2012.
       Reid declined comment on the firm's contributions to the 
     political action committee. His spokeswoman, Kristen Orthman, 
     emphasized that Dorsey's personal contribution to Reid's 
     campaign was returned as the senator weighed her possible 
     nomination and wanted to avoid an appearance of conflict.
       Dorsey did not respond to requests for comment Thursday and 
     Friday. A secretary at her office said the attorney usually 
     does not comment to reporters.
       Neither Kemp nor Jones responded to calls or to email 
     queries made through their secretaries on Friday.
       Lawyers making contributions to politicians and their 
     causes is commonplace. Nor is it unusual for lawyers to want 
     to see

[[Page 10996]]

     friends and legal partners ascend to the prestigious federal 
     bench.
       It's when the two appear to mix that problems can arise, 
     legal experts said.
       ``This feels problematic to me,'' said Charles Geyh, John 
     F. Kimberling professor of law who teaches and writes on 
     ethics at the University of Indiana Maurer School of Law. 
     ``There's no denying a perception problem here. Politically 
     it seems like a dangerous thing to undertake.''
       Carl Tobias, the Williams Professor of Law at the 
     University of Richmond, cautioned against jumping to 
     conclusions.
       ``I can't draw a cause-and-effect relationship'' between 
     the partners' donations and Dorsey's nomination, said Tobias, 
     a former professor at the Boyd School of Law at the 
     University of Nevada, Las Vegas. ``I think people could ask 
     whether it appears that they were trying to promote one of 
     their partners. You'd like to have the answers to those 
     questions.''
       Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., declined to comment on Friday. In 
     recent weeks he has declined comment on Dorsey's nomination, 
     saying he prefers to let the confirmation process move 
     forward before saying how he would vote.
       This week Heller declined an invitation to appear at 
     Dorsey's confirmation hearing. Although Dorsey was nominated 
     in September, only last month did Heller return the customary 
     ``blue slip'' to the Senate Judiciary Committee, signalling 
     that he did not object to a confirmation hearing.
       Heller and Reid clashed earlier over Clark County District 
     Judge Elissa Cadish, whom Reid had nominated to a federal 
     judgeship but whom Heller had blocked over a gun rights 
     dispute. Heller allowed Dorsey's nomination to proceed a few 
     weeks after Cadish withdrew her nomination, leading to 
     speculation that he and Reid had struck a deal.
       Dorsey, who turned 42 on Friday, appeared Wednesday before 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing. 
     The Las Vegas native obtained degrees from UNLV and 
     Pepperdine University School of Law. She became a partner at 
     Kemp, Jones and Coulthard in 2004, where she has specialized 
     in complex civil litigation.
       Dorsey answered questions about her experience and her 
     approach to the law posed by Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, 
     Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The senators 
     seemed satisfied with her performance, said Tobias, who 
     watched a webcast of the session.
       Dorsey was introduced to the committee by Reid, who called 
     her a ``fine woman who will be a great addition to the bench 
     in Nevada. She has really a sterling reputation among her 
     peers.''
       Reid said Dorsey's nomination was in line with his desire 
     to place more women on the federal bench. If confirmed, 
     Dorsey would join District Judges Miranda Du and Gloria 
     Navarro as Reid-backed Nevada federal court appointees.
       In 1998, Reid backed attorney Johnnie Rawlinson for a 
     District Court judgeship in Nevada, and two years later 
     promoted her confirmation to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.
       Dorsey has received a mixed rating from the American Bar 
     Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, a 
     15-member panel that rates federal judge nominees on 
     integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, 
     and on a scale of ``well qualified,'' ``qualified'' and ``not 
     qualified.''
       In Dorsey's case, the ABA said a ``substantial majority'' 
     (10-13 members) rated her ``qualified'' while a minority 
     rated her ``not qualified.''
       Reid declined this week to comment on the rating, which 
     matched ratings for Du and Navarro when they were under 
     Senate consideration. He had made no secret of his disdain 
     for the ratings, which he said rely too heavily on prior 
     judicial service as opposed to ``real world'' qualifications.
       In 2010, Reid said the examiners should ``get a new life 
     and start looking at people for how they are qualified and 
     not whether they have judicial experience.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and 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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to William M. ``Mo'' Cowan

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about my 
friend who is leaving the Senate this week, Massachusetts Senator Mo 
Cowan. I have to admit that when he first arrived I was excited because 
I was no longer going to be 100th in seniority. That job went to Mo, 
and I would be 99. However, quickly after he was sworn in, I realized 
he was one of the nicest and smartest Members of this body. During his 
recent farewell speech, Mo referred to me as the North Dakota sister he 
never knew he had. I already have six siblings, but I would welcome him 
into the Heitkamp family any day.
  In all seriousness, Mo was an excellent addition to this body. After 
the Boston massacre tragedy, he showed incredible leadership skills. He 
was a source of guidance and comfort to countless folks from 
Massachusetts in the weeks and months that followed that horrific act 
of terrorism.
  During his short tenure, Mo has distinguished himself in this body. 
First, Mo listens more than he talks. His acute observation skills have 
made him a trusted adviser to many. Equally important, Mo's 
observations are without judgment; rather, Mo listens and tries to 
understand how he can advance the issue and not judge the speaker's 
motivations.
  Mo is a serious thinker, always trying to find a path forward to 
resolve the important issues of our time. I can only imagine the 
important and great legislation Mo would have advanced if he had more 
time here.
  Although Mo is a serious guy, he also loves to laugh--mostly at his 
own expense. Mo's desk in the Senate was often the gathering site for 
many freshman Senators because everyone was just a little happier and a 
little smarter after spending time with Mo.
  Mo is also an extraordinarily humble human being--not the false 
modesty of a seasoned politician but the humility that comes from a 
deep faith and a lifetime of self-reflection. One should never mistake 
that humility for a lack of self-confidence. Mo is very surefooted and 
anchored in the one great belief that his job is and always will be to 
make the world a more just place for his sons and for all the children 
of our country.
  So beyond the ritual of carving a name in a desk and his recorded 
rollcall votes on important issues like immigration, what will be Mo 
Cowan's Senate legacy? History may mark his time here in a footnote, 
but Mo's impact has been much greater. I cannot speak for others in 
this body, but because I served with Mo Cowan, I will be a better 
Senator. I will listen more and talk less. I will always remember not 
to judge the motivations of others; instead, seek solutions with 
others. I will redouble my efforts to make our great country a more 
just place for our children.
  I will miss you, Senator Mo Cowan. You are a great Senator, but more 
importantly, you are a wonderful and kind human being. Thank you for 
your service to our country.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mrs. HAGAN. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of Jennifer Dorsey to be a judge on the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Nevada.
  Jennifer Dorsey has spent her entire legal career at the Las Vegas, 
NV firm of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP, where she has been partner for 
the past 9 years. She has diverse experience in civil and criminal 
matters, trial and appellate work, and State and Federal courts, and 
has tried more than a dozen trials to verdict. The committee has heard 
from Judge Deanell Tacha, who was nominated by President Reagan to the 
Tenth Circuit and is now the dean of Pepperdine University School of 
Law, in support of Jennifer Dorsey. She wrote:

       I am well acquainted with Ms. Dorsey and can say, with full 
     confidence, that she is an outstanding candidate for the 
     federal judiciary who would serve with great distinction . . 
     . She is a distinguished lawyer, a highly respected member of 
     her community, and a true servant of the public good.

  Her qualifications notwithstanding, Jennifer Dorsey has been the 
target of a false controversy over political donations made by her law 
firm colleagues. It is ironic that the same Senate Republicans who have 
filibustered any attempt to regulate or scrutinize political donations, 
and who objected to my

[[Page 10997]]

request during the Bush administration to include political campaign 
contributions by nominees in the committee questionnaire, are now using 
donations by a nominee's colleagues to smear the nominee. These 
donations that the ranking member claimed he was concerned about were 
not even known to the nominee until they were reported in local 
newspapers. Ms. Dorsey has answered the ranking member's questions on 
this issue under oath and I consider it settled. Senate Republicans did 
not ask such questions of President Bush's nominees, even nominees who 
themselves made donations to President Bush or their home State 
Republican Senators after they knew that they were being considered for 
a judgeship. Perhaps now Senate Republicans think we should look at 
donations made by nominees' friends and neighbors?
  This is just one more example of Senate Republicans playing games 
with President Obama's judicial nominees, rather than actually looking 
at the nominees' records. False controversies about nominees like Paul 
Watford, Patty Schwartz, Andrew Hurwitz, Caitlin Halligan, and Jeffrey 
Helmick over who they represented, or who they clerked for, demean the 
confirmation process.
  Jennifer Dorsey is one of the 33 judicial nominees who needed to be 
renominated this year. Unfortunately, the Senate is not able to 
consider another district of Nevada nominee, Judge Elissa Cadish, whose 
nomination was withdrawn after the Republican Senator from Nevada 
refused to return his blue slip on her nomination. The concern with 
Judge Cadish seemed to be that in 2008 she had accurately stated 
existing Second Amendment jurisprudence. Judge Cadish was originally 
appointed to the Nevada bench by a Republican Governor, and in a 2011 
judicial performance evaluation, conducted by the Las Vegas Review-
Journal, 88 percent of the lawyers who responded said she should be 
retained on the bench, which was among the highest of all judges 
evaluated. So I remain disappointed that her nomination was withdrawn 
and that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate were not permitted to 
consider it, especially since the vacancy to which Judge Cadish was 
nominated is now a judicial emergency vacancy.
  In addition to the 33 renominations at the start of this year, 
President Obama has nominated another 28 individuals to be circuit and 
district judges this year, and has now had more nominees at this point 
in his presidency than his predecessor did at the same point. Senate 
Republicans are nonetheless criticizing President Obama for making too 
few nominations while protesting that the fact that many vacancies do 
not have nominees cannot possibly be the fault of Senate Republicans. 
These Senators are saying that they have no role in the process. Of 
course, only a few years ago, before President Obama had made a single 
judicial nomination, all Senate Republicans sent him a letter 
threatening to filibuster his nominees if he did not consult Republican 
home State Senators. They cannot have it both ways.
  I take very seriously my responsibility to make recommendations when 
we have vacancies in Vermont, whether the President is a Democrat or a 
Republican, and other Senators should do the same. After all, if there 
are not enough judges in our home States, it is our own constituents 
who suffer. It should be only a matter of weeks or months, not years, 
for Senators to make recommendations. Republican Senators who demanded 
to be consulted on nominations should live up to their 
responsibilities, and fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise 
the President on nominations. They should follow the example of 
Democratic Senators: the administration has received recommendations 
for all current district vacancies in States represented by two 
Democratic Senators. When Senate Republicans refuse to make 
recommendations for nominees, and then delay votes on consensus 
nominees, they are not somehow hurting the President, they are hurting 
the American people and our justice system.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining 
time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jennifer A. Dorsey, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Nevada?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Begich
     Coats
     Flake
     Graham
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. The President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

                          ____________________