[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10412-10413]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee approved the PATENT Act with a strong bipartisan vote. As the 
Senate continues to consider this important, balanced legislation aimed 
at curbing abusive patent litigation practices, it is critical that the 
court of appeals that considers patent claims be at full strength. 
Legislation alone cannot solve the problems facing Main Street 
businesses from abuses of the patent system; we also need dedicated 
judges, such as Kara Farnandez Stoll, on the bench to faithfully apply 
the law.
  Ms. Farnandez Stoll was first nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal circuit more than 7 months ago. Her hearing was 
held more than 3 months ago and 2 months ago she was unanimously 
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously 
rated her ``well qualified'' to serve on the Federal circuit--its 
highest possible rating. The Hispanic National Bar Association, the 
Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the American Intellectual Property 
Law Association strongly support her confirmation. Once confirmed, Ms. 
Farnandez Stoll will be the first woman of color to serve on the 
Federal circuit. Yet her nomination has been languishing on the Senate 
Executive Calendar.
  Nearly 6 months into this new Congress, the Republican leadership has 
scheduled votes to confirm only 4 district court judges. We have not 
confirmed a single judge this work period. Not one. This is simply 
unacceptable. In addition to Ms. Farnandez Stoll, there are 11 other 
consensus judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive 
Calendar.
  The other nominees pending on the calendar include five U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims, CFC, nominees. We are well past the 1 year anniversary 
of when each were first nominated and are closing in on the anniversary 
of all five having had hearings before they were first reported 
unanimously out of committee. The five CFC nominees were again reported 
out of committee unanimously at the beginning of this year. We have 
heard no opposition to any of these nominees, yet they have been in 
limbo for months and months because the Republican leader has refused 
to schedule a vote. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is where our 
citizens go to seek redress against the Federal Government for monetary 
claims. The cases this court hears include claims of unlawful takings 
of private land by the U.S. Government without proper compensation 
under the fifth Amendment, claims of veterans seeking disability 
benefits for combat-related injuries, and vaccine compensation claims.
  We are debating trade policy in the Senate, yet the nomination to 
fill one of four current vacancies on the U.S. Court of International 
Trade--CIT--has sat idle on the Senate Executive Calendar for months. 
Like the CFC nominees, the CIT nominee had a hearing last year, was 
favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice 
vote last Congress, and again earlier this year.
  Also pending on the calendar are nominees to fill vacancies on the 
Western District of Missouri, the Western District of New York, and 
three nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies--two on the Eastern 
District of New York and one on the Eastern District of California, all 
but one of whom were first nominated last year.
  There is nothing keeping the Senate from confirming all 12 nominees--
nothing, except for the mindset of delay for delay's sake, which is 
unfortunately the hallmark of the majority's leadership on judicial 
nominations.
  The Senate has a duty to consider judicial vacancies no matter which 
party holds the majority. In the 17 months I chaired the Senate 
Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years in office, 
the Senate confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district court judges. I 
also served as chairman during the last 2 years of the Bush 
administration and we confirmed another 68 district and circuit court 
judges.
  In contrast to the 4 district judges we have confirmed this year, 
when the Democrats were in an equivalent position in the 7th year of 
the Bush administration, we had confirmed 18 judges--including 15 
district and 3 circuit court judges--by June 24, 2007.
  That's 18 judges under a Democratic majority compared to 4 under the 
Republican majority. That is nearly five times as many judges confirmed 
under a Democratic majority with a President of the opposite party than 
today's Senate Republican majority.
  Nevertheless, the Republican majority continues to make excuses for 
their continued obstruction and delay on confirming President Obama's 
judicial nominees. Their excuse is that the Democratic majority was 
able to confirm those 18 judges by this date in 2007 only because those 
nominees were held over from the previous year. What the Republicans 
fail to note is that 6 of the 18 judges confirmed by June 24, 2007 
first had their hearing in 2007, were reported out of committee without 
needless delay, and were confirmed promptly.
  We began this Congress with 38 district and circuit court vacancies, 
including 12 vacancies deemed ``judicial emergencies'' by the 
nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. While 38 is the 
lowest number of vacancies during the entire Obama administration, it 
is still higher than the low of 28 district and circuit court vacancies 
during the Bush administration, which was achieved due to Democratic 
cooperation.
  There are now 55 district and circuit court vacancies, including 27 
that have been deemed ``judicial emergency'' vacancies. Of the 55 
vacancies, 41 are in States with at least one Republican home State 
Senator. Of great concern to the timely administration of justice are 
four circuit court vacancies that are ``judicial emergencies''--two in 
Texas, one in Alabama, and one in Kentucky--that have each been vacant 
and without nominees for well over a year, including one Texas circuit 
court vacancy that has been vacant for nearly 3 years. These 3 States 
alone also account for 12 district court vacancies without a currently 
pending nominee, half of which are ``judicial emergency'' vacancies.
  While I know that the senior Senator from Texas, who is also the 
assistant republican leader, likes to say that it is the President who 
``has to nominate the judges,'' we are all well aware of the central 
role home State Senators have in making recommendations to the 
President to fill vacancies in our States. I urge all Senators to work 
meaningfully with President Obama to get these vacancies filled.
  As we head into July 4 recess, the Senate Republican leadership 
should be allowing us to clear the calendar of the 12 noncontroversial 
consensus judicial nominees to let them get to work for the American 
people.
  I would remind the current majority leader of his floor remarks from 
June 2008, the last year of the Bush administration when Democrats held 
the majority in the Senate:


[[Page 10413]]

       On the issue of judicial confirmations, my good friend the 
     majority leader and I discussed this matter publicly at the 
     beginning of this Congress, and we agreed that President 
     Bush, in the last 2 years of his term, should be treated as 
     well as President Reagan, Bush 41, and President Clinton were 
     treated in the last 2 years of their tenures in office 
     because there was one common thread, and that was that the 
     Senate was controlled by the opposition party.

  I hope he stays true to the words he spoke when the shoe was on the 
other foot. I urge the majority leader to immediately schedule a vote 
for Kara Farnandez Stoll and the CFC and CIT nominees so they can get 
to work serving the American people.

                          ____________________