The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“EXECUTIVE SESSION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S1300-S1302 on March 5, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
F_____
NOMINATION OF PEDRO A. DELGADO HERNANDEZ TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume executive session to resume consideration of the Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez nomination.
Under the previous order, the time until 4 p.m. will be equally divided between the Chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to use part of my time, we are finally going to vote to end the filibusters of four judicial nominees to the Federal district court in Arkansas, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and California.
None of these nominees is controversial. Timothy Brooks is to fill a vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas; Pedro Delgado Hernandez is to fill a vacancy in the District of Puerto Rico; Pamela Reeves is to fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of Tennessee; and Vince Chhabria is to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Northern District of California. They were voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support from both the Republicans and Democrats.
Incidentally, all of them have the highest rating by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary--a ``well-qualified'' rating. It is rare to have all four nominees with that high rating.
I mentioned this because nominees who would normally have just gone through in a matter of weeks have been held up, and held up, and held up, and held up, for no good reason. Pamela Reeves was originally nominated in May of last year--almost 1 year ago. Timothy Brooks and Pedro Delgado Hernandez were originally nominated last June. Vince Chhabria was nominated last July. Everybody knows they all could have been confirmed last year. They all had strong Republican and Democratic support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but instead Republicans blocked their confirmation all year long until they had to be returned to the President at the end of the year. These nominees then had to be renominated and reprocessed. People who had already gone through the whole procedure had to go through it all over again.
After they had been voted out with strong support by the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans again forced us to file cloture to end the filibusters of these nominations. It will have taken the Senate 8, 9, and 10 months to bring these nominees up for a vote, and that is shameful.
What this does to the nominees is outrageous. These are people with distinguished careers, and all of a sudden, they have to put it on hold. Once they are nominated to be a judge, everything in their life is put on hold. Most of them have to take a big cut in pay to take the job to begin with, and then they sit there month after month after month.
Everybody has told them there is no controversy to their nomination, and that when their nomination does come to a vote, they will be easily confirmed. At some point they have to say: When is this when? It was not last year when it should have been, and we are well into this year when it comes before the Senate.
I have heard some Republican Senators say the filibuster is dead now that the rules have changed. That is simply wrong. The Senate Republicans are just filibustering nominees for the sake of filibustering them under different rules. They refuse to consent to vote on dozens of pending noncontroversial judicial nominees, and that means these nominees sit on the floor for months, and months, and months before we have to overcome unnecessary procedural hurdles. The result is that precious time and resources better devoted to other critical business is wasted on overcoming the dilatory tactics of Senate Republicans.
We could be done with this, and debating and voting on things that are critically important to this country--everything from rebuilding the decaying bridges and roads of this Nation, to health care for the elderly, to health research and all the things we need. Instead we spend time on the pettifoggery and, I would say, total balderdash in the arguments from the other side holding up these nominees.
These are the same people who shut down the Federal Government last year. This government shutdown cost the taxpayers of this country tens of billions of dollars and cost the private industry tens of billions of dollars more. They caught so much grief for this disruption that, I suppose, they do not want to have a complete shutdown of the Federal judiciary. Instead, they do it by a sort of water torture--drip, by drip, by drip. They are doing the same thing to the Federal judiciary that they did to the Federal Government, trying to close it down. It may be the case that Republicans cannot stop a noncontroversial judicial nominee from eventually receiving an up-or-down vote, but they have done a pretty darn good job of delaying five judicial nominees from filling longstanding vacancies. This kind of needless delay only hurts the American people. It is hurting the Federal judiciary. It is one of the reasons so many people in this country are angry at what happens here, when they see one thing after another delayed and slowed up.
I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the qualified judicial nominees before us, and I hope the Senate Republicans will not continue to try to shut down the Federal judiciary. I hope they have learned how much the American people are angry at them for shutting down the Federal Government last year, which cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
Timothy Brooks is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the Western District of Arkansas. He has worked in private practice at Taylor Law Partners LLP for approximately 25 years, first as an associate (1989-
1993) and subsequently as a partner (1993-current). He has extensive experience as a litigator before both State and Federal courts, and in both civil and criminal cases. Mr. Brooks earned his J.D. with honors in 1989 from the University of Arkansas School of Law, where he served as an editor on the University of Arkansas Law Review. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Brooks well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He received the support of both of his home State senators, Senator Boozman and Senator Pryor. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.
Pedro Delgado Hernandez has worked in private practice at O'Neill & Borges LLC for nearly 15 years, first as an associate (1986-1990) and then as a partner (1990-current). From 1995 to 1996, he served as a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico. He previously served as solicitor general for Puerto Rico's Department of Justice by appointment from 1993 to 1995. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Juan Torruella, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, from 1984 to 1986. He served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1979 to 1985. He earned his B.S. from the University of Puerto Rico in 1979. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law in 1983. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Hernandez well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, its highest rating. He received the support of Representative Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico. The Judiciary Committee reported him by voice vote to the full Senate on October 31, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.
Pamela Reeves has worked in private practice since 2002 at Reeves, Herbert & Anderson, P.A., as an attorney and managing attorney. She previously worked as a partner at Watson, Hollow & Reeves, P.L.C. from 1988 to 2002. She also served as an adjunct professor for trial practice at the University of Tennessee Law School (1991-1996). Following graduation from law school, she worked as an associate at Griffin, Burkhalter, Cooper & Reeves from 1979 to 1985. She earned her J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1979. She has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, and one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Tennessee, from 2006 to 2012. If confirmed, she would be the first woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Reeves well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, its highest rating. She received the support of her home State senators, Senator Alexander and Senator Corker. The Judiciary Committee reported her by voice vote to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again by voice vote on January 16, 2014.
Vince Chhabria has served as a San Francisco deputy city attorney for government litigation since 2005, and has served as the co-chief of appellate litigation since 2011. He previously worked in private practice as an associate at Covington & Burling LLP from 2002 to 2004, and as an associate at Keker & Van Nest LLP in 2001. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. Chhabria served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges: Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1998 to 1999; Judge James Browning on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1999 to 2000; and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2001 to 2002. Mr. Chhabria earned his J.D., Order of the Coif, in 1998 from Berkeley Law School. If confirmed, he would serve as California's first Article III judge of South Asian descent. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Chhabria well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, its highest rating. He received the support of his home State senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. The Judiciary Committee reported him favorably with bipartisan support to the full Senate on November 14, 2013, and again with bipartisan support on January 16, 2014.
I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. And I continue to hope that Senate Republicans will change course so that we can work together to confirm without further delay noncontroversial nominees to longstanding judicial vacancies.
At some time reality has to catch up with the rhetoric around this place. I heard speeches earlier today on how people want to stand up for law enforcement. I would remind everybody that one of the things we have actually done in this body and the U.S. House of Representatives to help law enforcement was the bulletproof vest program.
This is a bipartisan program that was started by the former Republican Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and myself to provide bulletproof vests to police departments that could not afford them. We have had some of the most gripping testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The distinguished Presiding Officer may recall one police officer from a northern State who came to testify before us. He told us how much he loved being a police officer. He said the only thing he loves more than being a police officer are his parents, his wife, and his children. He said: ``If it were not for this,'' and he reached under the table and pulled up a bulletproof vest. You could see two bullets stuck in it. He said, ``If I had not been wearing this, I never would have seen my parents or my wife or my children,'' all of whom were sitting behind him.
He said, ``Please keep this program going.'' His family got to visit him in the hospital where he had a couple of cracked ribs. If he had not been wearing his bulletproof vest, he said they would have been visiting him in the morgue instead.
I only mentioned this story because every single Democrat has agreed to the reauthorization of the bulletproof vest bill. We have not had a single Republican step forward to say: We will stand up to protect the men and women in uniform of this country who protect us. Having served 8 years in law enforcement, I find that shameful.
I say, stop trying to shut down the Federal judiciary, but also stand up for the protection of the men and women in uniform in the police departments throughout this country.
From the time Senator Campbell and I first started working on this bill decades ago, this bill has always been a bipartisan bill. Decades ago, we heard testimony from a police officer talking about seeing his parents, wife, and children when he has had to face gunfire in the line of duty.
Do not let us hear from the same parents, spouses, or children about why we did not protect their husband or wife, son or daughter, when we could have. Why did we play silly games when not one single Republican would step forward and say: Let's pass this bulletproof vest bill. Let's stand up for the men and women in uniform in this country.
Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the Hernandez nomination.
Mr. LEAHY. Is there a time for a vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Currently, there are 3 minutes of debate time remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on the nomination?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
YEAS--98
AlexanderAyotteBaldwinBarrassoBegichBennetBlumenthalBluntBookerBoozmanBoxerBrownBurrCantwellCardinCarperCaseyChamblissCoatsCoburnCochranCollinsCoonsCorkerCrapoCruzDonnellyDurbinEnziFeinstein FischerFlakeFrankenGillibrandGrahamGrassleyHaganHarkinHatchHeinrichHeitkampHellerHironoHoevenInhofeIsaksonJohannsJohnson (SD)Johnson (WI)KaineKingKirkKlobucharLandrieuLeahyLeeManchinMarkeyMcCainMcCaskillMcConnellMenendezMerkleyMikulskiMoranMurkowskiMurphyMurrayNelsonPaulPortmanPryorReedReidRischRobertsRockefellerRubioSandersSchatzSchumerScottSessionsShaheenShelbyStabenowTesterThuneToomeyUdall (CO)Udall (NM)VitterWalshWarnerWarrenWhitehouseWickerWyden
NOT VOTING--2
CornynLevin
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________
