September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6033 

officer was killed and nine hostages 

were murdered during a rescue attempt. 

In observing this minute of silence, 

as in our resolution, we commemorate 

the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Munich 

Olympic terrorist attack, remember 

those who lost their lives, and reject 

and repudiate terrorism as antithetical 

to the Olympic goal of peaceful competition. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to 

thank the Senator from New York and 

my colleague, Senator RUBIO of Florida, for calling this historic tragedy to 

our attention on the sad 40th anniversary of the killing of the Israeli participants at the Munich Olympics. 

Having just witnessed, as the Senator 

from New York noted, the spectacular 

Olympics that were staged in London 

and realizing how the Olympics started 

as a way to transcend national differences and to create an Olympic global spirit, what happened in Munich was 

especially heartbreaking. We followed 

it in those early days of television as it 

was being reported on by some of the 

sports announcers who were actually 

at the Olympics. It was hard to believe, 

as hostages were being taken, that 

they would all be killed when it was 

over. 

I sincerely hope we in the world will 

learn a lesson from this tragedy—a lesson that violence begets violence and 

we need to end this sort of terrorist activity and stand together in that Olympic global spirit. 

Again, my thanks to Senators GILLIBRAND and RUBIO for their efforts to 

make this part of the London Olympics 

but also to make certain this day has 

not been forgotten here on the floor of 

the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to 

thank Senator GILLIBRAND for bringing 

this to the attention of the Senate and 

the American people and to thank Senators RUBIO and DURBIN for being here. 

It is hard to believe it has been 40 

years since that tragic event in which 

terrorists had the attention of the 

world during the Olympics in Munich. 

It is hard to believe that over the 

last 40 years we have experienced so 

much of the violence from extremists 

and terrorists. 

Tomorrow we will commemorate the 

11th anniversary of the attack on our 

own country. We recognize the only 

way we could stand up for this type of 

extremism is to never forget and to rededicate ourselves to do everything we 

can to root out extremists, to root out 

terrorists, and to never forget the consequences of their actions. 

I wish to thank Senator GILLIBRAND

and Senator RUBIO for the resolution 

we passed in this Congress to let those 

who were victimized 40 years ago know 

we will not forget them and that we 

continue to dedicate our efforts to root 

out this type of hatred and this type of 

extremism to make sure the Olympic 

spirit—which is world competition to 

bring peace in the world—is alive and 

well in the Senate and the United 

States of America. We will continue to 

commemorate what happened so we 

don’t forget and dedicate ourselves to a 

more peaceful world. 

I yield the floor. 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

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. 

f 

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 partyline 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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 wellqualified, 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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6036 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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. 

f 

LEGISLATIVE SESSION 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012—MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. 

THE FARM BILL

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, 

as we come back into session this 

evening and into September, as Chair 

of the Agriculture Committee I have 

one message for colleagues in the 

House of Representatives—for the 

Speaker, for the Republican leadership—and that is, we need a farm bill 

now. 

We have 20 days until the farm bill 

expires—only 20 days. If that happens, 

if the Republican leadership does not 

work with us to pass a 5-year farm bill, 

they are going to reset the clock for 

rural America all the way back to 1949. 

Because if the farm bill expires, we go 

back to Depression-era policies that include government planting restrictions 

and expensive price supports—absolutely unacceptable. 

Some of those policies even reference 

prices from before World War I. This 

would be terrible for our family farmers and ranchers. It would throw the 

markets into complete disarray. There 

is no reason this should be allowed to 

happen. The full Senate has worked together and passed a bipartisan farm 

bill. The House Agriculture Committee 

worked together and passed a bipartisan farm bill. It is time for the House 

to complete its work. The House Republican leadership has refused to let 

the bipartisan bill come up for a vote. 

Despite our best efforts in speaking 

with colleagues and working together 

over the August break to try to come 

up with a way to get this done, we find 

ourselves in a position now where our 

only opportunity is for the House to 

take up the bill that was passed by 

their committee and get this done. I 

have never seen a situation where a 

farm bill—this is my fourth one I have 

been involved with—comes out of committee on a bipartisan basis, and then 

the House will not take it up, which is 

exactly where we are. 

Instead, they sent us a so-called disaster relief bill that, unfortunately, 

only helps some livestock producers 

with the drought this year. It does 

nothing for the rest of the Nation’s 

farmers who have been hurt so badly 

this year by frost and freezes. Our farm 

bill does that. In fact, our farm bill is 

better for livestock. It is a permanent 

livestock disaster assistance program 

with a better structure and support 

than that which was sent by the House 

of Representatives. 

A full 5-year farm bill gives much 

more comprehensive disaster assistance to livestock producers and to 

other farmers who have been hit. Other 

farmers who have watched as their 

crops withered under the unforgiving 

Sun want to know that not only will 

we have a 5-year policy in place, but 

that we are going to strengthen crop 

insurance, which is really the backbone 

of supporting farmers in these kinds of 

situations. 

We strengthen crop insurance and expand it so more farmers can have access to risk management tools on their 

farms. That was the No. 1 issue that we 

heard in all of our hearings, to 

strengthen crop insurance. And that is 

what we did. That is one of the reasons 

we need to get a 5-year farm bill done. 

I am looking at my colleague from 

Iowa, the distinguished Senator who 

chaired the committee before me. I 

know he shares the same feeling that I 

do, that we need to get this bill done in 

the House of Representatives. 

We know our farm bill also fixes 

dairy support so dairies do not go 

through what they went through in 

2009, when thousands of farms went 

bankrupt. Frankly, not changing the 

policy for dairy is a disaster waiting to 

happen. So we need to get the farm bill 

done. 

We also reform programs. We know 

we have ended direct payments and altogether four different subsidies, saving $15 billion while strengthening crop 

insurance. We streamline and address 

duplication, crack down on waste, 

fraud, and abuse. In the end, our bill 

saves $23 billion for taxpayers—$23 billion to pay down the debt. The only 

real deficit reform we passed in the 

Senate was our farm bill, which we 

worked on together. 

Unbelievably, the House Republican 

leadership still stands in the way of 

passing our bipartisan bill or their own 

committee’s bipartisan bill. On 

Wednesday we are going to see thousands of farmers around the country 

coming to Washington with a simple 

message: We need a farm bill now. 

Members are going to have visits from 

farmers and ranchers from their 

States. House Members will be hearing 

from members in their districts. They 

have one simple message. Those farmers knew when there is work to be done 

you do not put it off to another day. 

Not if you are going to be successful as 

a farmer. And we shouldn’t be kicking 

the can down the road either. They 

can’t say: I don’t want to harvest my 

crops right now. I think I will do it in 

a few months or next year or tell the 

banker to wait until later so I can figure out what I have to make decisions 

on for next year. They know that when 

the crops need to be harvested, the 

work needs to get done now. 

Well, we have 19 days left. This is day 

20. We are going to count it down every 

day because we have to get this done in 

the House of Representatives. We did 

our job in the Senate on a bipartisan 

basis. I was very proud to join with our 

colleague Senator ROBERTS and all of 

our committee who worked so well together and worked so hard, and I again 

thank the leadership on both sides of 

the aisle for giving us the time to get 

it done. We got it done, and we did it in 

enough time to give the House time to 

do it in July before the August break. 

But that didn’t happen. Now it is time 

to get it done. The House Agriculture 

Committee did its job. It is time for 

the House Republican leadership to 

schedule a vote to get this done, to 

support rural America—our farmers 

and ranchers and families who are 

counting on the safest, most affordable 

food system in the world to be able to 

continue. We don’t need to kick this 

can down the road and create another 

crisis for farm country. 

Madam President, I wish to thank 

my colleagues who are waiting to talk 

about another very important subject. 

I appreciate their giving me the time 

for a few words. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 

would the Senator yield for a question? 

Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to 

yield. 

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I 

would like to compliment the Senator 

from Michigan for her great leadership 

on agriculture policy, food policy. A 

big part of this bill is making sure that 

our kids in America get adequate nutrition, that our elderly get good nutrition. Our summer and afterschool feeding programs and feeding programs for 

our seniors are all wrapped up in this 

bill too. 

I was in Iowa in August and met with 

a lot of farmers, and they were a little 

perplexed. 

They said: Wait a minute. You passed 

a bill in the Senate? 

I said: Yes. 

So I ask the Senator from Michigan, 

did not that bill have the support of all 

the major farm organizations? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. We had 

the support of farm groups and conservation groups all across the country. 

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from 

Michigan, did not her bill, the bill she 

engineered and got through here, have 

the support of consumer groups and 

parent groups? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARKIN. It had all that support? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. And because of the wonderful work of the Senator from Iowa on our school nutrition 

efforts and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, we had the strong support of families, educators, and schools 

across the country. 

Mr. HARKIN. Conservation groups 

supported the bill? 

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARKIN. Well, what farmers 

asked me was this: If you had a bill 

that passed the Senate, a bipartisan 

bill supported by all the major farm 

groups, supported by consumer and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE