[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5019-5025]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               VENEZUELA

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, the reason I come to the floor is to call 
attention to a crisis that has fallen off

[[Page 5020]]

the front pages over the last few weeks; that is, the situation in our 
own hemisphere that is occurring in Venezuela. I recognize there have 
been news stories about an airplane that has been tragically 
potentially lost--or has been lost. We don't know the full outcome of 
that yet. I know the situation in Ukraine has captivated the attention 
of the public--and rightfully so--and I am pleased to see the Senate 
has taken important steps today toward addressing that issue.
  I wish to speak about something that is happening in our own 
backyard, in our own hemisphere; in fact, something that is impacting 
hundreds of thousands of people who live in Florida because they have 
family members who still live in the country of Venezuela.
  Since February 4 of this year, Venezuelans have been taking to the 
streets to complain about their government. These Venezuelans are from 
all walks of life, but they have truly been motivated by young people, 
by students.
  The origins of this public discontent are important to understand 
because they are not just purely political. It in fact has to do with 
the dysfunction and the failures of the government that is currently in 
charge of that country. The statistics bear out that dysfunction and 
their failures. For example, violence and insecurity is among the 
highest in the entire Western Hemisphere. The murder rate in Venezuela 
was 79 per 100,000 people in 2013.
  In the city of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, the murder rate is 
actually almost double that. It is 122 per 100,000, making it one of 
the most dangerous cities on Earth. The unbridled corruption that 
exists in terms of how State assets are used--Venezuela is an oil-rich 
country. There are individuals in that government who have empowered 
themselves of Venezuela's oil, not their oil, and are basically giving 
it away to countries such as Cuba and others and using it as their own 
personal piggy bank for personal enrichment and to fund their 
governmental operations at the expense of the people of Venezuela.
  Their inflation rate is 57 percent. In fact, this week Fitch ratings 
lowered Venezuela's sovereign debt rating into junk territory from B-
plus to B. They warned, by the way, that further downgrades are on the 
way.
  There is also this unprecedented scarcity of basic goods, including 
food staples; even things such as toilet paper there is a shortage of. 
I will show some graphics. This is a line of people waiting in the city 
of San Cristobal to go into a supermarket. We are talking about a rich 
country. This is not a Third World country. This is not a nation that 
is poor. This is a revenue-rich nation, among the most resource rich on 
the planet. Here is a line of people waiting to go into a grocery 
store, reminiscent of Cuba, for example, a country whose model this 
government follows, and we will talk about that more in a moment.
  Let me show my colleagues a picture of some store shelves inside a 
Venezuelan supermarket: completely empty, nothing on the shelves. This 
is the economic reality of the failure of the Maduro-Chavez government 
in Venezuela today, and this is why, among other reasons, people have 
taken to the streets to demonstrate.
  There was another catalyst: a sexual assault that occurred on a 
college campus, and students were protesting against law enforcement's 
unwillingness to address that assault. The government cracked down--but 
not on the sexual assaulters, not on the perpetrators, on the 
demonstrators.
  All of these things we have talked about--the failure of that State, 
the lack of democratic opening, the political abuses, the corruption, 
and the economic disaster of the Venezuelan Government--led to 
demonstrations that began on February 4 and continue throughout the 
country.
  I want to show you a picture of what those demonstrations looked 
like. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people took to the 
streets to protest, and they were protesting the things I have outlined 
already: the insecurity, the violence, the scarcity of basic goods, the 
lack of opportunity, the political repression.
  Meanwhile, Nicolas Maduro, the President of that country, and all of 
his cronies live a life of luxury--and we are going to talk about that 
more in a moment--because this government is surrounded by individuals 
who are living lives of luxury not just in Venezuela but in Florida.
  While the people take to the streets--and you saw the empty store 
shelves--there are people tied to the Government in Venezuela buying 
gold-plated iPads--I did not even know there was such a thing--in Miami 
and investing in enormous properties and mansions, with the money they 
are stealing, with the help of the Maduro government, from the people 
of Venezuela, leading to these protests.
  So what has been the response of the Maduro government? What has been 
the response to these legitimate complaints about what is happening in 
Venezuela?
  I am going to show you some images of what the response has been from 
the government.
  Here is the first. Here is their national guard. Here is their 
national guard battling with students in the streets, fully equipped 
with riot gear, ready to battle against them. This has been their 
response: repression at every turn in multiple cities.
  Here is the other response: teargas--teargas by a fully armored 
individual, firing teargas canisters into the crowd.
  Let me talk about the teargas for a moment. Let me show you this 
canister. This canister that was used against peaceful protesters 
actually has a marking. It says: ``HECHO EN BRASIL''--``MADE IN 
BRAZIL.'' And there have been reports, in fact, that there has been 
some U.S.-manufactured teargas being used against protesters in the 
streets in Venezuela.
  But if it stopped at teargas, it would be one thing. But it has not 
stopped at teargas. In fact, it is now known that the Interior Ministry 
of Venezuela authorized snipers to travel to Tachira State and fire on 
demonstrators.
  Here is a picture of a government official, of a law enforcement or 
army or national guard individual, or an Interior Ministry individual 
on a rooftop with a rifle and a scope aiming into a crowd.
  Here is a picture of a sniper. It does not end there. Those are not 
the only pictures we have.
  Here are more pictures of more snipers on rooftops.
  Here is another sniper aiming into the crowd, with a spotter next to 
him.
  Here is another blown-up picture of the same sniper.
  These are government-sponsored individuals. What civilized planet on 
Earth sends the national guard and the interior ministry of their own 
government, of their own country, with snipers to fire on their own 
people who are demonstrating because of the lack of freedoms and 
opportunity and economic degradation that exists in a country?
  They cannot deny this. Here are pictures, taken by demonstrators 
themselves, of the snipers ready to shoot down people. In fact, 36 
people have lost their lives.
  But it does not end just with the government snipers. Because what 
the government is trying to do here to hide their involvement is they 
have organized these progovernment militia groups, basically--these 
militant groups that they hide behind. These groups do not wear 
uniforms. They are called ``colectivos.'' They drive around the city on 
motorcycles, and they assault protesters. They break in and vandalize 
their homes. They have weapons that they use to shoot into the crowds 
and kill or harm people.
  There are three main groups. By the way, these groups began under 
Hugo Chavez's reign, and these groups are actually organized around a 
concept that has existed for years in Cuba--these committees to defend 
the revolution. These are neighborhood groups, so they know your 
family, they know who you are, they are always watching, and they 
organize themselves into armed militias. The government's claim is: 
Well, these groups are on their own. We are not coordinating with them. 
But, in fact, there have been multiple reports that these groups 
coordinate with the national guard to

[[Page 5021]]

take down barricades set up by protesters, to break into the homes of 
protesters, to vandalize homes, to terrorize people, and to kill.
  There are three main groups that I want to point out, these 
colectivos.
  La Piedrita is one of them. It is based in a working-class 
neighborhood of Caracas. It has a far-left ideology. It is armed. It is 
comprised of radicals who claim to be willing to die for their 
revolutionary ideals--whatever those are.
  In January, this group, by the way, tweeted that Henrique Capriles--
the opposition party's nominee for President in the last elections--is 
a racist and a fascist and accused him of intending to launch attacks 
on the poor and on impoverished neighborhoods.
  Another colectivo: the Patriotic Force of National Liberation. This 
group bases its beliefs on the teachings of a leftist revolutionary and 
murderer by the name of Che Guevara.
  A third group is the Tupamaro Revolutionary Movement. This is an 
armed communist political and militant organization that also operates 
out of Caracas.
  These are just three of these armed, un-uniformed, thuggish, criminal 
groups that operate under the auspices and at the direction of the 
government of Nicolas Maduro and the people who surround him.
  So what is the result?
  The result is there have been over 1,800 people detained in Venezuela 
since this began last month. Over 450 people have been injured. Over 50 
people have been tortured while detained--that we have reports on. And 
over 36 people have been killed.
  This is not happening on a continent halfway around the world. This 
is happening in our hemisphere, right now, in real time. And these 
numbers, they just summarize the depth and the scope and the breadth of 
what is happening in the regime's brutality in Venezuela.
  But these are not just statistics. Behind every single one of these--
behind the 36 who have been killed, behind the 1,800 who have been 
detained, behind the 450 who have been injured--are real people, with 
names and families and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and 
children. I want to tell you the story of a couple of them.
  The first is Marvinia Jimenez. Here in this picture you see her on 
her knees as part of a peaceful protest. And here you see an armed 
individual with a pistol pointed at her. She is on her knees and poses 
no threat. She has given herself up as a peaceful protester, as she 
confronts an armed individual associated with the government holding a 
pistol.
  What happened next in these pictures is these armed individuals from 
the Interior Ministry grabbed her by the wrist and head. They 
subsequently throw her to the ground. And here is what they do when she 
is on the ground. This individual here--a female, a member of the 
Interior Ministry--takes off her helmet and proceeds to beat her in the 
head with that helmet.
  Here is the picture. This is real. This is not a movie. This is 
happening. This is happening now.
  This happened to Marvinia Jimenez, and luckily someone caught it on 
their phone and was able to capture these images.
  These are uniformed individuals associated with the government. You 
saw she had given herself up and was on her knees. And this is what 
happens: She gets beaten in the face with a helmet.
  She lived to tell her story. But there are others who have not been 
so fortunate.
  Here is Geraldine Moreno. She was a college student in the city of 
Valencia.
  On February 19, she stepped outside of her home to see what was going 
on during an antigovernment protest. Six national guard members--six 
national guard members of the Maduro government--came by on motorcycles 
to break up the protest.
  As the demonstrators fled, they fired into the crowd, and she was hit 
by gunfire and fell to the ground. She struggled to get up, and just 
then one of the national guard members came up and shot her in the face 
at point blank range and killed her.
  Geraldine was someone's daughter. In fact, she was not just anyone's 
daughter, she was Rosa Orozco's daughter, and Rosa has lost her 
daughter forever.
  This is the youth of Venezuela. This is supposed to be Venezuela's 
future, and they are being indiscriminately mowed down in the street by 
the government of their own country.
  There are some inspiring stories too.
  As shown in this picture, this is Maria Corina Machado, a member of 
the Venezuelan opposition party in Parliament. She was here in 
Washington this week. She has bravely spoken out against these things 
going on in Venezuela, and bravely, the Government of Panama gave her 
the space to speak out on behalf of the people of Venezuela at a recent 
OAS meeting. But, shamefully, the rest of the countries that are 
members of the OAS--not the United States or Canada but every other 
country did nothing to defend her right to speak, and she was denied 
the right to tell the world the truth about what is happening.
  She could have stayed in exile and asked for political asylum, but do 
you know what this brave young woman did? She got on an airplane and 
flew back to Venezuela--to her country--to continue the fight there, 
peacefully, as a member of their Parliament, as a member of the 
opposition party.
  Well, when she arrived, she was immediately detained at the airport 
in Caracas. She was questioned by the thugs you just saw, who no doubt 
tried to intimidate her in that questioning. She was verbally attacked 
by government supporters at the airport. And then she got in her car to 
leave, to go to her destination, and these same thugs tried to run her 
car off the road. They are so incompetent that they could not even 
carry that out, thankfully. She finally made it to her destination.
  And then guess what happens this week. The speaker of their so-called 
National Assembly--an individual by the name of Diosdado Cabello--a 
Maduro loyalist, a criminal--decided to remove her, to basically just 
expel her from the National Assembly. She is no longer a member of the 
National Assembly--unilaterally dismissed by the equivalent of their 
Assembly's president, their speaker.
  The OAS's response to this has been shameful. The Organization of 
American States has been downright embarrassing and shameful. I thought 
it was best summarized by the opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who 
wrote in the New York Times on March 25:

       The outspoken response from human rights organizations is 
     in sharp contrast to the shameful silence from many of 
     Venezuela's neighbors in Latin America. The Organization of 
     American States, which represents nations in the Western 
     Hemisphere, has abstained from any real leadership on the 
     current crisis of human rights and the looming specter of a 
     failed state, even though it was formed precisely to address 
     issues like these.

  Why do we even need an OAS--an organization of democratically elected 
governments--why do we even need it, why are we even members of it, why 
do we even contribute funds of American taxpayers towards it, if it 
cannot meet and address systemic human rights abuses such as these?
  I am less than pleased, by the way, with our own government's 
reaction. This is not a partisan issue, but I have to say this. 
President Obama has expressed he is concerned about this. To his 
credit, the Vice President was stronger in condemning the Maduro 
regime.
  We are not just concerned about this. We should be outraged about 
this. Just as we are outraged when things go wrong in other parts of 
the world and weigh in with sanctions--and we should--add our voices--
and we should--this is happening in our own hemisphere, right 
underneath our nose. And it is shameful that the leadership of our 
government has so far not done more to address this. But we can change 
that, and I am hoping that we will.
  What I hope to do over the next few days is to propose specific 
sanctions against individuals and companies associated with the Maduro 
regime so they know there are consequences for what is happening here. 
And you think our sanctions have an impact on Russia in its violations 
of Ukrainian sovereignty? Sanctions against Maduro and his government 
would have a dramatic impact. Because all those people

[[Page 5022]]

who are around him who are getting rich off this regime, who are 
supporting these abuses so they can stay in power and keep making 
money, they all have bank accounts and property and restaurants and 
businesses and mansions in the United States of America. And if you 
support this, this government should sanction you.
  I ask what I did a few weeks ago in a speech on this subject: If the 
United States of America will not stand up and be a strong voice on 
behalf of people who all they seek is freedom and liberty that our own 
founding documents say belong to all people--rights given to them by 
their Creator--if the United States of America will not be a forceful 
voice, what nation on Earth will? They look to us. Our own model of 
freedom and our Republic inspires people. We say we stand for these 
principles. We need to defend them when they are threatened, especially 
in our own backyard.
  So I hope in the weeks to come we can pursue these targeted sanctions 
against some of these individuals associated with the government, like 
the Assembly president Diosdado Cabello, and others such as these 
individuals who we will come on the floor in the next few weeks and 
identify by name, those who benefit from the systematic violation of 
human rights in Venezuela, who are stealing money from the Venezuelan 
people, who are using the resources of that nation to enrich 
themselves. In the next few weeks, we will identify them by name and 
the properties they own and the assets they hold in our own Nation.
  But I implore my colleagues not to ignore this issue. This is 
happening right now, right in our own backyard, in our own hemisphere, 
and it is impacting real people at an extraordinary price.
  So I hope in the weeks to come that I--along with Senator Menendez 
and others who have united behind us and with us--will be able to 
convince enough of my colleagues to take the next step.
  We have already unanimously passed the resolution condemning all of 
this. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for that. The next step is to 
build in real consequences for being a part of this. My colleagues will 
have an opportunity to be a part of this in the next few days, 
especially when we return next week.
  I hope we can get a hearing on these sanctions in the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and I hope we can get passage of it on the floor, 
so we can send a clear signal to the people of Venezuela: The people of 
the United States of America are on your side. We support your cause. 
We will not forget what you are going through. We will not abandon your 
aspirations. We stand for the liberty and the freedom of all people, 
including those who do not live here with us.
  This is what we are going to have a chance to do in the next few 
days. I hope we can successfully take action.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I was not planning this today, but as 
many of my colleagues do, I do a morning coffee where anybody from my 
State of Ohio--as Senator Durbin does in Illinois, Senator Udall in New 
Mexico, and others--and my colleague from Ohio does one too, Senator 
Portman--people can come in from around the State and talk about what 
they want.
  A couple came in today, a father and a mother and two children. One 
looked to be maybe 10 and the other looked to be maybe 15. They came 
and wanted to talk to me about their private school. They have sort of 
a home school association, it sounded like, from a conservative part of 
Ohio, Southwest Ohio. We talked about what we could do to help them in 
terms of educating their children.
  Then, right before we parted--and I was going to see other people at 
this coffee; we had maybe 75 people there--the mother of these two 
children said: By the way, thank you for the Affordable Care Act.
  I said: How is that?
  She pointed to her son. She said: My son--I think he was 15. She 
said: My son is diabetic. As I learned later, he was diagnosed at the 
age of 6 and has injected insulin into his arm and his leg for 8 or 9 
years. She said: My son who is diabetic, we could not get insurance 
because of my son's preexisting condition, diabetes. We were turned 
down--I counted them. We were turned down 34 times for insurance. My 
family was turned down 34 times for insurance. Because of the 
Affordable Care Act we now have health insurance.
  She smiled. That is one of the most poignant stories I have heard 
about the importance of this new law. There are 160,000 people in my 
State who now have insurance that did not have it in December. But this 
family--you think about what this is all about. This family's peace of 
mind, this family's ability to focus on other things now, because they 
have insurance that they could not get, even though he had a job--the 
father had a job--I am not sure where the mother worked.
  But the point is, they were turned down, she said, 34 times because 
their son cost the insurance more money because he had a preexisting 
condition with diabetes. So I guess my question to my colleagues is, 
why do we want to repeal this? How do my colleagues, including many, 
many elected officials in my State who before have been resistant to 
the Affordable Care Act to win elections, saying: Repeal the Affordable 
Care Act--how do they explain that to this family--if they met this 
family and the mother said: We have insurance; we were turned down 34 
times. Why do you want to repeal this law? Why do you want to take it 
away from the 160,000 Ohioans who have insurance? Why do you want to do 
that to the 100,000 25-, 22-, and 19-year-olds in Ohio--in my State 
alone, one State of the 50 where 100,000 young people have insurance 
and they are on their parent's plan because of the Affordable Care Act.
  Some 900,000 Ohio seniors have gotten check-ups, no copay, no 
deductibles, free checkups, free osteoporosis screenings, and free 
physicals because of the Affordable Care Act.
  How do you take that away from those seniors? How do you take away 
the $900 in savings that the average senior in my State, who is on 
this--President Bush's, initially--drug plan, the Medicare drug plan? 
How do you take away that $900 savings? You are going to repeal 
ObamaCare? You are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take 
those away? How do you face the people like the family I met today? 
Thirty-four times she was turned down for insurance. I did not make 
this up. That is her number. She said: I counted; 34 times they turned 
our family down for insurance because my child has diabetes. How do you 
think that makes him feel, first of all. But equally importantly, she 
has the comfort and safety in her mind now of having insurance.
  I do not even understand. What do my colleagues do? Do they wake up 
every morning thinking: I want to take that insurance from 150,000 Ohio 
families; I do not want them to have it; I want to take those benefits 
from those 900,000 Ohio seniors. I want to make them pay $900 more.
  That is what they are saying: Repeal ObamaCare.
  We lose all of that, if they want to keep talking about taking these 
benefits away. Let's live with this law. Let's make it work well. It is 
starting to work really well in Ohio. We are having thousands of sign-
ups every single day. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of 
Hawaii, they are getting lots of people to sign up. Lots of young 
people are signing up. Let's move on. Let's stop debating this. Help 
make it work better. Let's talk about how we create jobs, not how you 
are going to

[[Page 5023]]

repeal some health care law that you did not like because it did not 
fit with your ideology or you did not like the President--whatever the 
reason my colleagues seem to not like the Affordable Care Act.
  History is going to say over and over: Why do you want to take these 
benefits away? This is working. Remember back with Medicare in 1965. 
They were not the tea party. They were called the John Birch Society 
back then. They did not like it. Insurance companies did not like it. 
But everybody liked it 5 years later.
  Social Security--the same forces, the same far right forces opposed 
it. Five years later, people liked it. This stuff works. It is going to 
make such a difference in people's lives. Forget about the 150,000. 
Forget about the numbers. Focus on that family--34 times turned down 
for insurance. She has insurance now. Her diabetic son can get the care 
he needs. That is such a wonderful thing.
  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. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Remembering Petty Officer Mark Mayo

  Mr. CARDIN. I rise to speak about the tragic death of a fellow 
Marylander, PO2 Mark Mayo. His heroic sacrifice is the truest display 
of the U.S. Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. The 
U.S. Navy confirmed yesterday that PO2 Mark Mayo put himself in harm's 
way to save his shipmate. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf 
of my fellow Senators, I offer condolences to the families, friends, 
and shipmates of Petty Officer Mayo.
  The tragic events this past Monday evening are still under 
investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, but what we 
know so far is that at approximately 11:20 p.m. there was a shooting on 
board the destroyer Mahan.
  A civilian who was behaving erratically approached the Mahan's 
quarterdeck and was confronted by the ship's petty officer of the 
watch. The two engaged in a struggle and the civilian was able to 
disarm the sailor.
  Petty Officer Mayo, serving as the chief of the guard, witnessed the 
fight and ran to the quarterdeck and placed himself between the 
civilian and his shipmate, the petty officer of the watch. The civilian 
opened fire and fatally wounded Petty Officer Mayo.
  U.S. Navy CAPT Robert Clark, Norfolk Naval Station's commanding 
officer, said:

       Petty Officer Mayo's actions were nothing less than heroic; 
     he selflessly gave his own life to ensure the safety of the 
     sailors on board.

  Petty Officer Mayo's parents, Sharon Blair and Decondi Mayo, said 
their son's actions reflected his strong, caring nature. As his mother 
put it: ``He protected people. He was a protector.''
  Petty Officer Mayo was born in Washington, DC, and moved with his 
family to Hagerstown, MD, in 1998. He enlisted in the Navy in 2007, 4 
months after graduating from Williamsport High School, where he was a 
Washington County wrestling champion, because he wanted to serve his 
country and because the Navy offers educational opportunities. He 
enlisted in the Navy, and he reported to Naval Station Norfolk in May 
of 2011. Petty Officer Mayo's mother, who is a geriatric nursing 
assistant, said he always wanted to work in law enforcement.
  Randy Longnecker, Petty Officer Mayo's former guidance counselor at 
Williamsport High School, recalled him as a kind and easygoing student 
who earned good grades, saying:

       He always wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing. 
     He liked athletics and being part of a team. He must have 
     fallen in love with the Navy.

  Petty Officer Mayo served tours of duty in Rota, Spain, and in 
Bahrain. He earned the Good Conduct Award, the National Defense Service 
Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War 
on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas 
Service Ribbon. He was a distinguished member of the Navy.
  Americans are privileged and fortunate to have such brave and 
outstanding young men and women serving in our Armed Forces. We must 
never forget the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf 
in defense of freedom.
  Petty Officer Mayo has made the ultimate sacrifice. While his death 
is tragic, we should remember and honor the way he lived and how he 
voluntarily chose to save a fellow sailor from harm. He is an American 
hero.
  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.
  Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Owens Nomination

  Mr. CRAPO. I rise to discuss the nomination of John Owens to the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Owens, who currently works as a lawyer in California, has been 
nominated to fill the seat that has been held for the last 25 years by 
Judge Stephen Trott of Idaho.
  Judge Trott took senior status on December 31, 2004, making the Trott 
seat the longest current vacancy of any seat on the Federal circuit 
courts.
  That doesn't mean that there haven't been previous attempts to fill 
this seat. In a letter to the Idaho Senate delegation in 2003, then 
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales stated:

       I also want to make clear the President's commitment to 
     nominate an Idahoan for a second Ninth Circuit seat if Judge 
     Trott retires or assumes senior status while President Bush 
     is still in office. Idaho has had two Ninth Circuit seats for 
     more than a decade, and that allotment is appropriate.

  As such, when Judge Trott did take senior status the following year, 
President Bush nominated Judge Randy Smith of Idaho to the Trott seat. 
At the same time another nominee was pending in the Senate to fill 
another Idaho vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.
  Regrettably, Senate Democrats used the longstanding Senate rules that 
were available at that time to block the confirmation of both Idaho 
nominees. The reason given by the California delegation for blocking 
the Randy Smith nomination to the Trott seat made clear that the 
objections had nothing to do with Judge Smith's qualifications and that 
they were willing to support his confirmation to the other Idaho seat, 
the Nelson seat, which is ultimately what happened.
  As such, the California delegation blocked Randy Smith's nomination 
to the Trott seat, not because they believed he was not qualified but 
because they wanted the seat moved to California--and he was not a 
Californian.
  The so-called Trott seat on the Ninth Circuit has been held by five 
different judges, including Judge Trott, since it was first created in 
1935.
  The first judge to hold that seat was from Oregon. The next two 
judges to hold that seat were from Washington State. Judge Sneed of 
California, the only judge in that seat to maintain his chambers in 
California, was the next to hold the seat. Finally, as I mentioned 
earlier, Judge Trott was the next to hold that seat, and he has 
maintained his chambers in Idaho for his entire 25 years on the bench.
  Despite the fact that California already has more than 20--that is 
right, more than 20--active and senior judges on the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, the California delegation apparently believes that 
Californians have been denied justice for the past 25 years and that 
the only remedy is to add yet another California judge, leaving the 
State of Idaho with only one, single active judgeship on the Ninth 
Circuit. Senator Risch and I had multiple conversations with the White 
House counsel in President Obama's first term where we expressed our 
interest in working with the White House and the California delegation 
to reach a resolution to this long-standing dispute in a

[[Page 5024]]

way that would satisfy both delegations.
  Clearly, the Idaho delegation and the Idaho people are disappointed 
by the President's decision to decline to nominate an Idahoan to fill 
the Trott seat.
  It is even more disappointing that declining to submit any nominee 
for the Trott seat in his entire first term, the President has chosen 
to wait until the Senate Democrats unilaterally broke the longstanding 
Senate rules regarding the consideration of nominees in order to push 
through this nomination, rather than working with the Idaho and 
California delegations to develop a mutually agreeable solution.
  If these new Senate rules had been in place when Judge Trott first 
took senior status, the California delegation would not have had the 
opportunity it took advantage of to block the appointment of Idaho 
nominees to this seat.
  This dispute is not about the qualifications of Mr. Owens. He has 
been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, 
and I would be happy to work with the California delegation to support 
his nomination for the next California vacancy on the Ninth Circuit.
  But I cannot support a process that is the result of an unfair 
breaking of the Senate's rules in order to push through a nominee that 
takes away a seat that has been an Idaho seat on the Ninth Circuit for 
25 years, leaving Idaho with only one seat on the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals.
  Sadly, because of the Senate Democrats' rule change, the Idaho 
delegation will not have the opportunity to stop this effort.
  Therefore, I will vote no on this nomination, and my hope is that, if 
confirmed, Mr. Owens will make the same decision that Judge Trott did 
25 years ago by also choosing to maintain his chambers in Idaho.
  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. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to support the nomination of John Owens to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This was approved by the Judiciary 
Committee without dissent.
  I would like to quickly mention his qualifications. He received his 
bachelor's with high distinction from the University of California in 
1993 and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He graduated first in his 
class at Stanford Law School in 1996.
  From 1996 to 1997 he was law clerk to Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a 
noted conservative jurist appointed by President Nixon to the Ninth 
Circuit. He then went on to serve as a law clerk to Supreme Court 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
  In 2001 John Owens became a Federal prosecutor, joining the U.S. 
Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, California. He began in the general 
crimes section, prosecuting a wide variety of violent crimes--drug 
crimes. He also served in the public corruption and government fraud 
section.
  From 2004 to 2012, he served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in San 
Diego. There, primarily his focus was prosecuting complex crimes, 
including fraud, health care, money laundering, public corruption, and 
national security.
  He has had occasion to receive more than one award, among them the 
Director's Award for Superior Performance from the Justice Department. 
Mr. Owens has broad support, and the American Bar Association has given 
him their highest rating of ``well qualified.''
  The problem that has arisen around this nomination, though, is not 
really his qualifications because the record will bear those 
qualifications out. It is the longstanding discussion over the seat 
vacated by Judge Stephen Trott. There is a history here, and I would 
like to explain it.
  This seat has been vacant for over 9 years--since Judge Trott took 
senior status in December 2004. It is the longest running vacancy in 
the entire Federal judiciary. The Ninth Circuit has the greatest number 
of pending appeals per panel. It takes longer than other circuits to 
resolve an appeal. It makes no sense for this seat on the busiest 
circuit to stay vacant any longer.
  My colleagues from Idaho have asserted that this is a vacancy which 
should be filled by someone from their State. Let me explain why that 
is not the case.
  Judge Trott, whom Mr. Owens would replace, spent his entire legal 
career in California before joining the Justice Department under 
President Reagan. Throughout his career he was licensed to practice law 
in one State--California. Beginning in 1965 he served as county 
prosecutor in Los Angeles. In 1975 he sought the position of DA from 
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors after then-district 
attorney Joseph Busch passed away. When John Van De Kamp was named 
district attorney, Trott was chosen as his chief deputy, the second in 
command in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. In 1981 
President Reagan appointed Mr. Trott to be U.S. attorney for the 
Central District of California.
  All these things are happening in California. He was recommended for 
the U.S. attorney position by Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California.
  In 1982, while serving as U.S. attorney, he again submitted an 
application to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to become DA 
after the DA, John Van De Kamp, was elected to be California's attorney 
general.
  Trott was nominated by President Reagan in 1983 to serve as Assistant 
Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of 
Justice. At his confirmation hearing for that position, Senator Pete 
Wilson of California introduced him. Judge Trott's official Judiciary 
Committee biography states that his legal residence at the time was 
California.
  Now, this is all about whether Trott occupies an Idaho seat or a 
California seat.
  In 1986 he was nominated by President Reagan to be Associate Attorney 
General. Once again Senator Wilson of California introduced him at his 
confirmation hearing, and once again his official Judiciary Committee 
biography states that his legal residence at the time was California.
  In 1987 President Reagan nominated Trott to the Ninth Circuit. The 
Judiciary Committee sent blue slips to Senators Wilson and Cranston of 
California. That is the point. The point is that historically Judge 
Trott has occupied a California seat. He stated in his committee 
questionnaire that his ``two clients have been the People of the State 
of California and the Government of the United States.''
  Judge Trott was confirmed in 1988 to a seat previously held by Judge 
Joseph Sneed, a California nominee. That judge's connection to the 
Ninth Circuit prior to his appointment was his 9-year tenure as 
professor at Stanford Law School. Judge Sneed established his chambers 
in San Francisco. These are the facts.
  Judge Trott was a California nominee to a California seat on the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as was his predecessor. Once confirmed, 
however, Judge Trott made a personal choice to establish his chambers 
in Idaho. This personal choice--essentially an arbitrary occurrence--
cannot result in a State losing a judgeship to another State.
  As we all know, the overwhelming practice of administrations and 
Senates of both parties has been to retain each State's representation 
on its respective circuit. Just look at the makeup of the circuits 
represented by the members of the Judiciary Committee. Both Iowans on 
the Eighth Circuit occupy Iowa seats. Three Alabamians on the Eleventh 
Circuit occupy Alabama seats. All of the Texas judges on the Fifth 
Circuit, who are not the first occupants of their seats, were preceded 
by Texans. The Senate recently confirmed Carolyn McHugh to the Tenth 
Circuit. Judge McHugh was strongly supported by Senators Hatch and Lee, 
and she replaced Michael Murphy, who had been a Utah nominee.

[[Page 5025]]

  I could go through the history of each circuit, and the same pattern 
would emerge time after time. This is not by accident. There is a 
reason for it. Presidents of either party must know which Senators to 
consult, and Senators must know which vacancies to make recommendations 
for.
  This might sound like inside baseball to some, but it is fundamental 
to the Senate's advice and consent role, and no Senator of either party 
would allow the arbitrary occurrence of a judge's personal choice of 
residence to remove a judgeship from the Senator's home State. This is 
a precedent this body cannot allow to be set.
  Some might accuse California of trying to take more than its share of 
seats. This is simply not so. There is no objective reason for the 
Trott seat to be transferred to Idaho, where Judge N. Randy Smith 
already occupies that State's seat on the circuit.
  By every metric--population, appeals generated, district court 
caseload--California has far less than its proportional share of 
circuit judgeships and Idaho already has its fair share. In fact, if 
Idaho were to get an additional judgeship, its representation on the 
Ninth Circuit would be 5\1/2\ times its share of caseload. That is 
ridiculous. Idaho would have twice as many seats as Montana and the 
State of our Presiding Officer, Hawaii, have even though those States 
generate more Ninth Circuit cases than Idaho. Nothing supports removing 
this seat from California to Idaho--not history, not population, not 
caseload. Nothing.
  Let me conclude by saying this: I don't begrudge the Senators from 
Idaho seeking additional Federal judicial resources for their State. 
Senators Crapo and Risch have introduced a bill to create a new 
judgeship on the Federal district court in Idaho. I represent four 
judicial districts that virtually always have caseloads at judicial 
emergency levels. One of them--the Eastern District of California--is 
the most overburdened judicial district in the country and has a 
caseload that is more than double the national average. So I understand 
the desire of the Senators from Idaho to ensure that a sufficient 
number of Federal judges are present in their State to resolve the 
disputes of their constituents. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the 
Federal Judgeship Act of 2013, which would create all the new 
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference, including one for 
Idaho. But the fact remains this seat on the Ninth Circuit was 
previously held by two Californians and it should be filled by a 
Californian. I very much hope the Californian will be John Owens, who 
has an impeccable record, bipartisan support, and whom I am proud to 
have recommended to President Obama, and whom I would urge my 
colleagues to support.
  I yield the floor.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are once again spending unnecessary 
floor time overcoming a procedural obstacle so we can move to an up-or-
down vote on a judicial nomination. John Owens is nominated to fill the 
longest open vacancy on our Federal courts. For more than 9 years, the 
busiest circuit court in our Nation--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit--has been running at less than full strength. In 2013, 
the Ninth Circuit had 12,761 appeals filed, several thousand more 
appeals than the next busiest circuit. It also had 14,171 appeals 
pending, three times more than the next busiest circuit. Each judge in 
that circuit has nearly 525 appeals pending per active judge. That is 
nearly 70 more appeals pending per active judge than the next busiest 
circuit. These caseloads are not sustainable and the delay in resolving 
these appeals hurts the American people. We should and must approve Mr. 
Owens's nomination, along with Michelle Friedland's nomination to the 
Ninth Circuit, as soon as possible.
  Mr. Owens was first nominated last August and his early October 
hearing date had to be moved after Republicans forced a shutdown of our 
government. A hearing on his nomination was finally held in late 
October. Mr. Owens could and should have been confirmed before we 
adjourned last year. Instead, because Republicans refused to consent to 
hold any nominations in the Senate, every single one had to be returned 
to the President at the end of last year. They then had to be re-
nominated and re-processed through committee this year and Mr. Owens 
was voted out of committee on a voice vote, without dissent, on January 
16, 2014.
  Mr. Owens is among six circuit nominees pending on the Senate floor. 
We last voted on a circuit nominee during the last work period in early 
March and before that we voted on a circuit court nominee in early 
January. If Republicans continue to obstruct the Senate from having up-
or-down votes on uncontroversial judicial nominees, at our current pace 
of filing cloture petitions once every month or so, we will not have 
time this year to vote on even those who are currently pending on the 
Senate floor.
  We have not had a vote on a judicial nomination this year that was 
not subject to a Republican filibuster. For all but two Republican 
Senators, I have started to notice a pattern of voting to end 
filibusters only if a nominee is from a State with at least one 
Republican home State Senator. Most recently this happened yesterday on 
the cloture vote for Judge Edward Smith of Pennsylvania. It should not 
require a judicial nominee to be from a State with one or more 
Republican home State Senators for some Senators to do the right thing. 
Filling vacancies so that our Federal judiciary can be fully 
functioning should not be a partisan issue.
  Born in Washington, DC, Mr. Owens earned his B.A., with high 
distinction, from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D., 
with distinction, Order of the Coif, from Stanford Law School. At 
Stanford, he was the Nathan Abbott Scholar, an award given to the 
student with the highest cumulative point average in the class. Mr. 
Owens served as executive editor of the Stanford Law Review where he 
earned the Stanford Law Review Board of Editors Award.
  After law school, Mr. Owens served as a law clerk to Judge J. 
Clifford Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and for Associate Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court. He has been a 
litigator in both public and private practice. In 1998, he joined the 
U.S. Department of Justice, where he would later serve as an Assistant 
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the Southern 
District of California. In 2008, Mr. Owens was promoted to serve as the 
Deputy Chief of Major Frauds in the Southern District office and later 
the Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2012, he rejoined private 
practice as a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson where he presently 
works. Over the course of his legal career, he has been counsel of 
record in more than 20 cases before the court on which he is nominated 
to serve.
  Mr. Owens has the support of his home State Senators--Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Boxer. I hope my fellow Senators will join me 
today to vote to end the filibuster of Mr. Owen's nomination.

                          ____________________