`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6033-S6038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF STEPHANIE MARIE ROSE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                   FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

  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 Stephanie Marie Rose, of 
Iowa, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are beginning about 3 minutes late. I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in such a way that the 
vote still starts at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. When the Senate recessed more than a month ago, 22 
judicial nominees to fill vacancies in courtrooms around the country 
were left pending, awaiting a Senate vote. Today, Senate Republicans 
have agreed to vote on just one of those nominees. I want to commend 
Senator Harkin for working with Senator Grassley and the Majority 
Leader to get this vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose of Iowa. I 
urge votes on the other nominees, as well, without further delay.
  There are currently 78 Federal judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies 
during the last few years have been at historically high levels and 
have remained near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the 
President. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal judgeships is currently 
vacant. Vacancies on the Federal courts are more than two and one half 
times as many as they were on this date during the first term of 
President Bush. One key reason for these numerous vacancies and for the 
extensive backlog of nominees is that Senate Republicans allowed votes 
on just one district court nominee per week for the last seven weeks 
before the August recess. This unnecessarily slow pace of consideration 
of judicial nominees has disserved the American people and should not 
continue.
  The across-the-board obstruction and foot dragging from Senate 
Republicans since day one of President Obama's tenure means that we are 
likely to complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than 
when he took office. The partisan obstruction from Senate Republicans 
has been particularly damaging with respect to Federal trial courts. In 
a sharp departure from the past, Senate Republicans have stalled Senate 
approval of district court nominees, including those Republican home 
state Senators support.
  Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, 
district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of 
weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of 
those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. 
Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and 
district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost 
always confirmed unanimously. During the 18 months that I was chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, we confirmed 83 of 
President Bush's district court nominees, and only one of them received 
any votes in opposition. Even though some Senate Democrats opposed the 
nominee, we nevertheless scheduled a vote for him just 11 days after he 
was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  Indeed, only five district court nominees received any votes in 
opposition in all 8 years of the previous Republican presidency, and 
none was a party-line vote. Among those nominees was one so extreme 
that he had announced that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring 
because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same 
frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' That observation was much like the 
outrageous recent comments about rape by a Republican House member and 
Senate candidate.
  In all, the Senate confirmed 264 of President Bush's district court 
nominees, and only five of them received any votes in opposition. 
Senate Democrats were willing to work with a very conservative 
Republican President to fill vacancies on our Federal trial courts. We 
recognized that filling vacancies on district courts is essential to 
ensuring that the American people have functioning courts to serve them 
and provide access to justice. We know that it is unacceptable for 
hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer 
unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the 
cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to 
wait 3 years before a judge hears the

[[Page S6034]]

case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they 
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  In The Atlantic Andrew Cohen has written recently about the ``Human 
Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays.'' In that article, the Chief 
Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania describes the costs of 
vacancies on individuals in Pennsylvania and the pervasive and harmful 
delays they are suffering because there are not enough judges.
  At this point in President Bush's first term, Senate Democrats had 
worked with Republicans to confirm 165 of his district court nominees. 
Despite the fact that President Obama has worked with home state 
Senators of both parties to select moderate, superbly-qualified 
judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented 
obstruction of Federal trial court nominees for the last four years.
  As Carl Tobias noted last month in a letter to the New York Times:

       Republican senators have created and applied practices that 
     substantially depart from procedures employed in prior 
     administrations, even as recently as that of President George 
     W. Bush. The most important change is the refusal by the 
     G.O.P. leadership to enter voting agreements on well-
     qualified, uncontroversial district court nominees, so they 
     languish for months on the Senate floor.

  Professor Tobias is correct, and the result is that at this point in 
his first term President Obama's district court nominees have had to 
wait nearly three times longer for a Senate vote and the Senate has 
confirmed more than three dozen fewer.
  Senate Republicans have made a habit of delaying and opposing 
President Obama's district court nominees, voting against more than a 
quarter of them--36 out of 127 to be precise. And they stall 
confirmations for months of noncontroversial nominees including those 
supported by home state Republican Senators who are eventually 
confirmed overwhelmingly.
  This extreme partisanship has not just resulted in persistently high 
vacancies--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently observed that 
it is also ``bad for the legal system'' as a whole. He indicated: ``It 
makes the judiciary look politicized when it is not, and it has to 
stop.'' District courts in particular should not be politicized. The 18 
district court nominees currently pending before the Senate were not 
chosen based on some ideological litmus test. They were selected for 
their legal excellence, whether as practicing attorneys or sitting 
judges.
  Recently, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania signaled his 
newfound willingness to abandon the unprecedented delays and 
obstruction that his caucus has employed against President Obama's 
trial court nominees. I only wish he had done so 2 years ago. What 
Senate Republicans have been doing is wrong and hurts all Americans 
seeking justice in our Federal courts.
  Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose to 
fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Iowa. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible 
rating. She has the bipartisan support of her home state Senators. I 
worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to ensure prompt 
Judiciary Committee consideration of her nomination, which was reported 
with a virtually unanimous voice vote by the Judiciary Committee nearly 
five months ago. The only objection came as a protest on another issue 
by Senator Lee.
  Stephanie Rose currently serves as the first woman U.S. Attorney for 
the Northern District of Iowa, where she has been serving since 2009. 
Ms. Rose has devoted her entire career to public service, having served 
for 15 years as a Federal prosecutor and having been promoted to Deputy 
Criminal Chief in 2008. In her tenure as a Federal prosecutor, she has 
tried 33 cases to verdict. When confirmed, she will be the first woman 
to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa and only 
the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history.
  With the elections approaching, the Senate will recess, again, in 
just a few weeks. When the Senate recessed in 2009, 10 judicial 
nominees were left without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate 
recessed in 2010, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a 
final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed last year, in 2011, 
19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final vote. I urge 
Senate Republicans not to continue their practice of stalling qualified 
nominees from confirmation. I urge them to agree to schedule debate and 
votes on the 18 district court nominees from California, Connecticut, 
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania 
and Utah who, like Stephanie Rose, could be confirmed with strong 
bipartisan support and without further delay. A dozen of those nominees 
would fill judicial emergency vacancies.
  Let us act on these nominations. There is no doubt that recent 
precedent shows we can do this even in September of a Presidential 
election year. In 2008, the final year of President Bush's presidency, 
Senate Democrats were willing to confirm 10 of his district court 
nominees in a single day, all by unanimous consent. It took only a few 
seconds. Earlier in that Republican presidency, and again with a 
Democratic Majority, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees in just 
one day and vacancies went down to 60 throughout the country, on the 
way down to 28. If we confirm all of the district nominees ready for 
final Senate action today, we can similarly reduce vacancies back down 
to 60.
  I hope that Senate Republicans will not extend their wrongheaded 
application of the ``Thurmond Rule'' and further stall confirmation of 
consensus, well-qualified district court nominees. Given our 
overburdened Federal courts and the need to provide all Americans with 
prompt justice, the Senate should be working in a bipartisan fashion to 
confirm these nominees without further delay.
  I ask unanimous consent the article to which I referred be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          [From the Atlantic]

    In Pennsylvania, the Human Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays

                           (By Andrew Cohen)

       The William J. Nealon courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
     (Wikimedia Commons) Daniel Wasserman had seen enough. An 
     Orthodox rabbi affiliated with Shaare Torah Synagogue in a 
     suburb of Pittsburgh, Wasserman had grown tired of state 
     interference with Jewish funeral rituals, ancient and 
     eternal, which require burial within 24 hours and which 
     prohibit embalming. He resented the threats of fines and 
     penalties he was receiving from state officials trying to 
     enforce a 19th-century funeral director's law. He believed he 
     was being singled out for the practice of his religious 
     beliefs.
       And so Rabbi Wasserman did what many people do in America 
     when they believe their constitutional rights--their First 
     Amendment rights, their rights to religious freedom--are 
     being infringed by state action. He sued the state. On August 
     6th, in federal district court in Scranton, in the Middle 
     District of Pennsylvania, Rabbi Wasserman's lawyers sought an 
     injunction to preclude state officials from continuing to 
     threaten him for what he considers to be the lawful exercise 
     of his religious beliefs. The lawsuit, his attorneys allege, 
     is designed to: preserve and restore the historical right of 
     clergy to conduct religious burial and funeral rites free 
     from interference and harassment by the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania and professional, secular funeral directors who 
     serve no health or safety interest.
       But justice won't come quickly for Rabbi Wasserman--if it 
     comes at all. There simply aren't enough federal judges in 
     the Middle District of Pennsylvania to handle his case. U.S. 
     District Judge John Jones, the well-regarded jurist to whom 
     the Rabbi's case was assigned, couldn't get the urgent 
     injunction hearing onto his schedule until late September. 
     The timing didn't discourage the Rabbi but it clearly 
     frustrated the judge. ``Obviously when you receive something 
     like this you have to move with some alacrity,'' Judge Jones 
     told me late last month. ``But you can only land so many 
     planes in one hour.''


                              the district

       Boundary-wise, the Middle District of Pennsylvania is the 
     largest federal judicial district in the state. It covers the 
     state capital of Harrisburg, which means it is the chief 
     venue for litigation against the state of Pennsylvania. It 
     comprises no fewer than 32 counties, up and down the center 
     of the state, from Adams County to York County, from the 
     state's northern border to New York to its southern border 
     with Maryland, the Mason-Dixon line. There are four 
     courthouses in the district, including one in Williamsport, 
     which is several hours drive away from either Harrisburg or 
     Scranton.

[[Page S6035]]

       All of this volume and distance would be manageable if the 
     Middle District were fully staffed with federal trial judges. 
     It is not--and it hasn't been for years. ``We are down a 
     third of our active court,'' Judge Jones says. In March 2009, 
     the first vacancy in the Middle District was created when 
     Judge Richard Caputo (more on him later) took senior status. 
     Another vacancy was created in April 2010, when the Senate 
     confirmed the appellate nomination of U.S. District Judge 
     Thomas I. Vanaskie. Two long years later, just this past May, 
     President Obama nominated two men to fill those posts.
       Both Middle District nominees--Malachy E. Mannion and 
     Matthew W. Brann--were quickly endorsed by the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee by voice vote, which means there were no 
     substantive objections raised by Republican members of that 
     Committee. Both nominees also have the support of the state's 
     two senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, 
     who have publicly lobbied their Republican colleagues this 
     year to allow the nominations to come to a vote on the Senate 
     floor. So far, those efforts have failed. But the Senate is 
     expected to take up new judicial nominations in the next week 
     or so.


                               the judges

       While the Senate fiddles, what's life like for the current 
     judges of the Middle District? Very difficult. Judges 
     frequently have to drive three hours or more a day to handle 
     cases in Williamsport. The aforementioned Judge Caputo, who 
     is in his early 70s, carries the most cases of any of the 
     judges--more than 500 civil and criminal combined--despite 
     his senior status. ``He's hanging in because he feels like he 
     is letting the court down if it doesn't,'' Judge Jones says 
     of his colleague. ``Because of the judge he is he won't 
     relent.'' But compared to some of his other colleagues in the 
     Middle District, however, Judge Caputo is practically a kid.
       Sitting in senior status, picking up the slack for the 
     empty full-time benches, are Judge Edwin M. Kosic, Judge 
     William J. Nealon, Judge Richard P. Conaboy and Judge William 
     W. Caldwell--all of these men are at least 86 years old. Two 
     other Middle District Judges in senior status--Judge Sylvia 
     H. Rambo and Judge James M. Munley--are both over 76 years 
     old. ``All have a substantial case load,'' Judge Jones says, 
     ``but we've created this absurdity where we are leaning on 
     aging'' and perhaps frail senior judges. Judge Nealon, for 
     example, a remarkable jurist by any standard, has more than 
     150 cases--at age 89.
       The Middle District today is so understaffed, its current 
     judges so overwhelmed by their relentless workload, that the 
     Chief Judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit, the federal appeals 
     panel which covers Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic 
     states, has authorized trial judges from the Eastern District 
     of Pennsylvania to cross over and help their colleagues in 
     the Middle District. But it's not like the Eastern District 
     has it much better. There are now six judicial vacancies 
     there (five judges have in the past few years taken senior 
     status). President Obama has yet nominated no one--no one--to 
     replace those Eastern District trial judges.


                              the problem

       Washington talks ceaselessly about the slow pace of 
     judicial nominations. But few advocates are able to cite 
     specific examples of what judicial vacancies mean for the 
     American people, for litigants like Rabbi Wasserman, who look 
     to the courts to resolve disputes. Part of the reason for 
     this is prudence--current litigants I spoke with for this 
     article were reluctant to publicly complain about how long it 
     is taking their federal civil cases to be resolved. No one 
     wants to tick off their judge. But that doesn't mean such 
     delays aren't real--and pervasive. I ended up asking a 
     federal judge himself to detail the cost of judicial 
     vacancies.
       ``Inevitably, what it leads to is extra time to decide 
     almost any motion that is filed,'' Judge Jones told me. `` . 
     . . [T]he federal courts are stacked up with motions to 
     dismiss and motions for summary judgment which are very fact 
     specific and require a great deal of time. When you have 
     fewer judges, and the judges who are in service have more 
     motions, everything is delayed.'' The judge calls it the 
     ``justice delayed syndrome'' and it impacts individuals like 
     the rabbi as well as large corporations who must factor into 
     their business plans the ``uncertainty'' inherent in long, 
     drawn-out litigation.
       Rebecca Kourlis, a former justice of the Colorado Supreme 
     Court and now executive director of the Institute for the 
     Advancement of the American Legal System, is even more blunt. 
     ``Vacancies in the judiciary create holes in the judicial 
     system,'' Kourlis told me last week, ``and civil cases are 
     the most likely to fall through those holes. What this means 
     is that civil cases suffer increased continuances and delays 
     and the possibilities of changing judges in mid-stream. For 
     civil litigants, this means untenable disruptions to their 
     lives and businesses, the possibility of increased costs, and 
     overall, a breach of the promise of access to justice.''


                              the politics

       For this piece, I picked the ``judicial emergency'' in the 
     Middle District of Pennsylvania to make a point. Although I 
     have been a strident critic (see accompanying box) of the 
     Republican use of the Senate filibuster to keep bipartisan-
     approved nominees off the bench, there is no denying that the 
     Obama Administration has in many cases made a bad situation 
     worse by failing to quickly nominate judges when vacancies 
     occur. There is simply no excuse, for example, for the length 
     of time it took the White House to appoint Mannion and Brann 
     to help fill the void in the Middle District. None.
       Sen. Toomey, the Pennsylvania Republican, refused comment 
     for this story. His Democratic counterpart, Sen. Bob Casey, 
     would say only that both sides ``need to come together to 
     fill these critical positions'' and that ``the real-life 
     consequences of delay are unacceptable.'' Both men, it is 
     fair to say, don't want to say anything publicly to tick off 
     the Republican leadership in the Senate, leadership which 
     already has announced to the world that it intends to confirm 
     no more of President Obama's federal appellate nominees by 
     invoking what's become known as the ``Thurmond Rule.''
       The story of the Middle District is one of basic 
     governance. It's about the executive branch and the 
     legislative branch failing to perform its constitutional 
     function of ensuring a viable judicial branch. It's about 
     politicians in Washington failing or refusing to provide to 
     the American people--in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 
     for example--one of the most elemental services a government 
     can provide to the governed--functioning courts of law. It's 
     a disgrace that those old judges in Pennsylvania have to work 
     like that. It's even more of a disgrace that Congress and the 
     White House can't timely agree on their replacements.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time and ask it be under the control 
of Senator Harkin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Leahy, for his courtesies.
  I rise in support of the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose to be 
U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. In addition, she 
has the support of Senator Harkin and is well regarded throughout my 
home State of Iowa. She was reported out of our committee on voice 
vote. She was previously confirmed by this Senate for her current 
position, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.
  Ms. Rose is a Hawkeye through and through, receiving two degrees from 
the University of Iowa--her B.A. in 1994 and her J.D. in 1996. 
Obviously, Ms. Rose was on the fast track through law school.
  After graduation from law school, she wisely chose to remain in 
Iowa--and Iowa is fortunate for that decision. She first served as a 
law clerk in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of 
Iowa. In 1997, she was hired as a full-time attorney in that same 
office, where she has risen through the ranks and now heads that 
office.
  She served as a special assistant U.S. attorney from 1997 to 1999 and 
as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1999 to 2009. During this time, she 
was lead counsel in the prosecution of more than 250 cases. These cases 
spanned a wide range of legal issues from violent crimes and drug 
offense to immigration violations and money laundering. Additionally, 
she has handled approximately 45 Federal civil cases. These cases have 
included postconviction relief and asset forfeiture matters, as well as 
Freedom of Information Act and property return lawsuits.
  In 2009, Ms. Rose was nominated by the President and then confirmed 
by the Senate to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District 
of Iowa. In this role, she oversees most every aspect of the office. 
This includes overseeing the civil and criminal work completed by 
office staff and making final determinations regarding charging 
decisions, plea offers, and civil settlements.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Rose as ``well qualified'' for this 
position of district judge.
  In addition, she is supported by the legal community and judges 
throughout our State. Newspaper articles published in the Cedar Rapids 
Gazette on February 2 and February 20, 2012, captured some of that 
support.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these two 
articles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Gazette, Feb. 2, 2012]

                     Rose Picked for Federal Bench

                          (by Trish Mehaffey)

       Cedar Rapids.--President Barack Obama nominated U.S. 
     Attorney Stephanie Rose late Thursday as the next federal 
     judge in the Southern District of Iowa.

[[Page S6036]]

       Rose, of Center Point, said she received the call from Sen. 
     Tom Harkin in late afternoon and then got the news release 
     from the White House.
       ``This has been a really involved process and I'm honored 
     to be selected, especially with the other talented women that 
     were also nominated,'' she said last night. ``If the Senate 
     confirms me, I will be happy to serve and look forward to the 
     diversity of the Southern District and the new 
     opportunities.''
       Obama said Rose and Michael Shea, whom he nominated 
     Thursday as a federal judge in Connecticut, have 
     ``demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness 
     Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system. I am 
     grateful for their willingness to serve and confident that 
     they will apply the law with the utmost impartiality and 
     integrity.''
       In a news release, Harkin, D-Iowa, said Rose is a ``superb 
     attorney and among jurists, prosecutors and the defense bar 
     has a reputation as an extremely fair and ethical prosecutor 
     who possesses great legal ability, intellect, and judgment.''
       ``There is no question in my mind that Stephanie Rose would 
     be an outstanding federal judge,'' he continued. ``. . . I 
     urge my Senate colleagues to confirm her for this important 
     position as quickly as possible.''
       Rose served 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney before 
     being appointed the top prosecutor in 2009. She will be the 
     first woman to serve as a federal judge in the Southern 
     District and only the second woman to serve on the federal 
     bench in Iowa's history.
       Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Teig, who retired last 
     year after 31 years, said Thursday that Rose will make an 
     ``excellent'' federal judge.
       ``She has experience in the courtroom and as an 
     administrator,'' Teig said. ``She has a broad view of the 
     federal legal system and she's very intelligent. Stephanie 
     will make a great additional to the federal bench.''
       Teig worked with Rose throughout her career with the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office.
                                  ____


                   [From the Gazette, Feb. 20, 2012]

          Colleagues Call Rose a Good Choice for Federal Bench

                          (By Trish Mehaffey)

       The career path of a U.S. attorney and nominee for federal 
     judge could have taken a much different course if she had 
     followed her early passions for music and journalism.
       When Stephanie Rose told her parents she was going into 
     law, they were surprised at first. She was the girl who sang 
     and danced, played the piano and oboe, majored in sociology 
     and loved to write.
       Stephanie Rose of Center Point, the federal prosecutor for 
     the Northern District of Iowa, has been nominated by 
     President Barack Obama as the next federal judge in the 
     Southern District. (Brian Ray/The Gazette)
       But Rose said she started looking at a law career because 
     of her childhood experience growing up with foster siblings. 
     Rose's mother and father were foster parents, and one of the 
     children in their custody had to go through a painful 
     parental termination because her biological mother, who was 
     in and out of jail, fought the proceeding.
       Through the appeal process, the Iowa Supreme Court 
     terminated the mother's rights, changing children's rights in 
     Iowa and allowing the girl to be adopted into a permanent 
     home.
       That showed Rose how the law can change people's lives.


                           Acclaimed in field

       ``Fairness,'' above all else, is the one word judges, 
     prosecutors and even defense attorneys, who have been 
     adversaries of Rose over the years, kept mentioning last week 
     to describe her. They said she is a good choice for the 
     federal bench because she's extremely intelligent, 
     hardworking, compassionate, humble, open-minded and 
     forthright.
       President Barack Obama nominated Rose two weeks ago to 
     become the next federal judge in the Southern District of 
     Iowa when U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Pratt retires July 
     1.
       Rose, 39, of Center Point, has worked in the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office since graduating from law school, one of 
     the youngest hired at the time. She worked her way up to the 
     top spot in 2009, prosecuting more than 800 felony cases. She 
     was lead prosecutor on 260 of those cases and has handled 
     another 45 civil cases and 34 appeals.
       Assistant Johnson County Attorney Andy Chappell, who has 
     been friends with Rose since law school, said it's difficult 
     to ``imagine anybody more deserving.'' Rose is bright, 
     straightforward and incapable of pretense, he said.
       Assistant U.S. Attorney C.J. Williams said Rose's ability 
     to quickly comprehend complex issues has helped her succeed. 
     She received recognition and awards for prosecuting two 
     complicated cases involving Internet pharmaceutical 
     companies, where doctors were prescribing pills online to 
     patients they never treated, he said.
       The six-year case spanned many states and required the 
     review of hundreds of documents. Some may have not pursued 
     it, Williams said, but the challenge never deterred Rose.
       Her determination paid off. The case ended with 26 
     convictions in this district, more than $7 million in 
     forfeitures and more than $4 million that went to agencies in 
     Dubuque, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.
       ``She is very skilled,'' said U.S. District Judge Mark 
     Bennett, who presided over Rose's first jury trial. ``She 
     learns from any mistakes and doesn't repeat them. She doesn't 
     have a personal agenda. She goes by the law.''
       U.S. District Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District 
     said her prosecution record is impressive for her age because 
     not all federal judges have that kind of experience, 
     especially in criminal law.
       ``Stephanie has won the respect of prosecutors and defense 
     lawyers,'' Jarvey said.


                          Respect from defense

       Steve Swift is one of the defense attorneys who say she has 
     earned a good reputation among the defense bar. He joined a 
     dozen other defense attorneys who supported Rose for her U.S. 
     attorney nomination. They said she was fair and went by the 
     law in handling the controversial prosecution of more than 
     380 illegal immigrants charged in the 2008 Agriprocessors 
     raid.
       ``She's not politically connected, not active in a party . 
     . . this is based on merit,'' he said. ``She's a great 
     advocate for the government, very forthright--no 
     shenanigans.''
       Leon Spies, a defense attorney, said Rose has always been 
     interested in seeing that ``justice is accomplished.'' It's 
     more important for her to ``get it right than to win,'' he 
     said.
       Spies, also the president of the Academy of Trial Lawyers, 
     nominated Rose to the academy in 2008 because she exhibited 
     what the organization strives for--the ``highest quality of 
     trial advocacy and ethical responsibilities to clients and 
     the law.''
       ``It's a quite an honor to be nominated,'' said David 
     Brown, a Des Moines attorney and secretary/treasurer of the 
     academy. ``There are over 8,000 lawyers in Iowa and there are 
     only 250 members. There are less prosecutors and less women, 
     but not by design.''
       Rose is one of 15 women in the academy.
       Sen. Tom Harkin said all those qualities are why he 
     recommended Rose for the U.S. attorney job and for the 
     federal bench.
       ``I was enthralled by her at the interview,'' Harkin said. 
     ``She has such a presence and such eloquence without the 
     window dressing,'' he said laughing. ``She's genuine and 
     sincere.''
       Harkin said he doesn't foresee any problems with her being 
     confirmed. More than 80 percent of President Barack Obama's 
     nominees have been confirmed so far.


                              What's next

       Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law in 
     Richmond, Va., who analyzes the judiciary, said it's in 
     Rose's favor that she has been through a previous 
     confirmation because it could go more quickly.
       ``It's kind of murky right now with the presidential 
     election,'' he said. ``The confirmation process could slow 
     down and even stop until after the convention. It's good that 
     she has home state support from Sen. Chuck Grassley, who's on 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee, but there are 21 others 
     (federal judge nominees) ahead of her.''
       However, Tobias didn't rule out the chance that Rose could 
     be confirmed in time to take the bench in July.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Assistant U.S. attorney C.J. Williams described Ms. 
Rose's ability to quickly comprehend complex issues. Former assistant 
U.S. attorney Bob Teig, who retired last year after 31 years, said 
Thursday that Rose will make an ``excellent'' Federal judge. He went on 
to say:

       She has experience in the courtroom and as an 
     administrator. She has a broad view of the federal legal 
     system and she's very intelligent. Stephanie will make a 
     great addition to the federal bench.

  U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said:

       She is very skilled. She doesn't have a personal agenda. 
     She goes by the law.

  U.S. District Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District said her 
prosecution record is impressive, noting ``Stephanie has won the 
respect of prosecutors and defense lawyers.''
  Ms. Rose is also a member of the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
Membership in the academy is limited to just 250 attorneys whose 
primary focus is on trial advocacy. Membership in this distinguished 
group is by invitation only, with unanimous approval by the Board of 
Governors. So Ms. Rose is 1 of only 15 women on the academy.
  Mr. Leon Spies, the gentleman who nominated Ms. Rose for the academy, 
said he nominated her because she exhibited exactly what the 
organization strives for, ``the highest quality of trial advocacy and 
ethical responsibilities to clients and the law.''
  If confirmed--and I am sure she will be confirmed--Ms. Rose will be 
the first woman to serve as Federal judge in the Southern District and 
only the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history. 
I congratulate Ms. Rose and wish her well as she assumes her duties as 
a U.S. district judge.
  With her confirmation today the Senate will have confirmed 156 of 
President Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts. The fact 
is we have

[[Page S6037]]

confirmed over 80 percent of President Obama's district nominees. 
During the last Presidential election year, the year 2008, the Senate 
confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. This 
Presidential election year we will have exceeded those numbers. We have 
confirmed five circuit nominees, and Judge Rose will be the 29th 
district judge confirmed. That is a total of 34 judges this year versus 
28 in the last Presidential election year. Yet even as we make 
consistent progress in filling judicial vacancies, there are still 
voices out there claiming otherwise.
  For example, early last month the Des Moines Register of my State ran 
an editorial titled ``Judges Remain Hostages in the Senate.'' They 
stated in that editorial, in reference to the nomination of Ms. Rose, 
``She will be lucky to come up for confirmation when the Senate 
reconvenes.'' Of course the vote had already been scheduled at that 
point, but they overlooked that fact.
  The Register and other critics who erroneously blame vacancy rates in 
the Federal judiciary on Republican obstructionism overlook other facts 
as well. You have heard me say on the Senate floor that the Senate can 
only confirm judges who have been sent here from the White House. So if 
the White House has not sent judges here, we cannot, obviously, confirm 
judges who have not been submitted to the Senate.
  In that regard, I would like to point out something from the New York 
Times--because a lot of times I think the New York Times would not do 
much to give us a basis for our position that we have done a pretty 
good job of confirming judges, and why aren't judges up here. An 
article dated August 17, 2012, sheds some light on this very subject. 
In that article, ``Obama Lags on Judicial Picks, Limiting His Mark on 
Courts,'' this newspaper, the Times, points out how President Obama 
made judicial nominations a lower political priority. The article 
discusses how two Supreme Court nominations, personnel upheavals, and 
the President's emphasis upon diversity also slowed the nominations 
process for lower court judges. In fact, even as we continue to confirm 
judges, the President continues to lag in nominations, including 
nominations to so-called judicial emergencies.
  Today only 32 of the 78 current vacancies have a nominee here from 
the White House. Stated differently, nearly 60 percent of the current 
vacancies are without nominees. That has been the pattern for most of 
this administration.
  Once again, I wanted to set the record straight, and I hope I have 
set it straight. Republicans have been more than fair to this President 
and his judicial nominees, considering the fact that we have so many 
vacancies that have not had a nominee submitted to the Senate for our 
consideration.
  Again, I congratulate Ms. Rose.
  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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier in greater detail about 
the nomination of Stephanie Rose to serve as a district court judge in 
Iowa's Southern District. That is the vote that is coming up at 5:30.
  As the Senate begins to vote, I want to reiterate what an outstanding 
nominee she is. It is no surprise the American Bar Association rated 
her ``unanimously well qualified,'' which is their highest rating.
  After graduating from law school in just 2 years in the top 5 percent 
of her class, she served for 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in 
the Northern District of Iowa under attorneys who were appointed by 
both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. She was lead 
counsel in 260 felony cases and made 34 oral arguments before the 
Eighth Circuit. Most notably, she received a national award from the 
Department of Justice for prosecuting the largest unlawful Internet 
pharmacy case in the United States. Her work was so impressive that in 
2009 I recommended her to the President to serve as U.S. attorney. In 
2009 the Senate unanimously confirmed her, and she has been outstanding 
in her work as U.S. attorney since then.
  Throughout her career of public service Ms. Rose has worked to uphold 
the rule of law, made our neighborhoods safer, promoted civil rights, 
and advanced the cause of justice. She possesses all the qualifications 
necessary to be a remarkably good Federal judge. She is a superb 
attorney and among jurists, prosecutors, and the defense bar she has a 
reputation of someone who is unfailingly fair and ethical and one who 
possesses exceptional legal ability, intellect, and judgment.
  Finally, let me reiterate my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the 
chairman, but also, again, to Senator Grassley, my senior Senator from 
the State of Iowa, and to their staffs, especially Jeremy Paris and Ted 
Lehman, and Senator Grassley's chief of staff, David Young, for their 
support and all their assistance in getting this nomination through.
  I also thank my chief of staff Brian Albert, and Dan Goldberg, Derek 
Miller, and Pam Smith on my staff and my committee staff.
  In essence, Ms. Rose is a person of truly outstanding intellect and 
character. She is exceptionally qualified to serve as U.S. district 
judge for the Southern District of Iowa. I urge my colleagues to 
support her confirmation when the vote occurs in just a few minutes.
  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. HARKIN. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 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 Stephanie Marie Rose, of Iowa, to be United States District Judge 
for the Southern District of Iowa?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     DeMint
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Coburn
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Rubio
     Shaheen
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.

[[Page S6038]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________`