[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10868-S10870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JAMES H. PAYNE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
          NORTHERN, EASTERN, AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF OKLAHOMA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of James H. 
Payne, of Oklahoma, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of James H. 
Payne, of Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the 
Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm four 
additional

[[Page S10869]]

Federal judges. These nominees all participated in hearings on October 
4 and were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last 
Thursday, when the committee persevered with our previously scheduled 
meeting in spite of the extraordinary circumstances that prevailed here 
on Capitol Hill.
  In spite of the postponement of other matters by other committees, in 
spite of the closure of the Dirksen Senate Office Building and the 
unavailability of our hearing and meeting room and in spite of our 
continuing focus and efforts to finalize an antiterrorism bill, last 
Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded to meet and report 
these 4 judicial nominees, 13 nominees to be U.S. attorneys for 
districts around the country and an Assistant Attorney General for the 
Department of Justice. Then, last Thursday afternoon we held a hearing 
for an additional five judicial nominees that was chaired by Senator 
Schumer, which I attended along with Senators Kennedy, Durbin, and 
DeWine.
  Thus, last week while Republicans were voting as a bloc to filibuster 
the foreign operations appropriations bill and stall initiatives vital 
to building an international anti-terrorism coalition, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee continued to do its work. Two weeks ago the Senate 
confirmed our fourth court of appeals judge for the year, topping the 
total confirmed in the first year of the Clinton administration and 
topping the zero from 1996 when a Republican majority in the Senate 
refused to confirm even a single nominee to the courts of appeals all 
year.
  Two weeks ago the Senate also confirmed another district court 
nominee. That brought the total judges confirmed so far this year to 
eight, exactly twice the number that had been confirmed by the same 
time in the first year of the first Bush administration and by the same 
time in the first year of the Clinton administration. In spite of our 
record pace since July in confirming judicial nominees, every 
Republican Senator voted last week to stall Senate consideration of a 
vital appropriations bill ostensibly to ``protest'' what they contend 
is a supposed ``slowdown'' on the consideration of judicial nominees. 
The facts belie their unfounded contention.
  The Senate's continuing progress in spite of the numerous roadblocks 
and obstructions erected by Republicans throughout the year was 
evidenced again last Thursday and will be again today when the Senate 
votes to confirm another four judges.
  At the end of this series of rollcall votes on these district court 
nominees to fill vacancies in Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Nebraska, the 
Senate will have confirmed 12 judges since July. Since I became 
chairman, Republicans finally allowed the Senate to reorganize at the 
end of June and Members were assigned to the Judiciary Committee on 
July 10, the committee has held seven hearings involving judicial 
nominees.
  We have already held as many hearings for judicial nominees as were 
held during the first year of the first Bush administration and more 
than were held during the first year of the Clinton administration. In 
addition, I have scheduled an eighth hearing involving judicial 
nominees for this week.
  Our Republican critics have come up with a new statistic in an effort 
to diminish our accomplishments. Last week they took to talking in 
terms of average judges per hearing. Since it is their statistic, I 
guess they can figure it any way they want. I would observe that I can 
find no time this year when we had included only 1.4 judicial nominees 
per hearing. I should also observe that after the hearing on Thursday 
we will have included 23 judicial nominees at eight hearings. Even 
``fuzzy math'' would have to concede that we are at more than double 
the ``average'' Republicans cite.
  They do not explain that when President Bush unilaterally decided to 
change the more than 50-year-old practice of involving the American Bar 
Association in professional peer reviews while nominations were being 
considered, and that his decision has had consequences at other stages 
of the process. They do not acknowledge that only two of this 
President's first 18 nominees were for district court vacancies. They 
are oblivious to the fact that when early hearings were noticed and 
held many of these nominees had not completed paperwork and complete 
files.
  They ignore the structure and practice for judicial confirmation 
hearings that has been followed by Republican and Democratic chairmen 
of the committee for more than 25 years in including three to five 
district court nominees with a nominee to a court of appeals and to the 
extent district court nominees did not have completed files or were 
controversial and not rushed into a hearing there might be a good 
explanation for the lack of a full complement of nominees at a hearing. 
They refuse to acknowledge the extraordinary parallel effort we 
continue to make to hold hearings for the numerous executive branch 
nominees that are simultaneously pending.
  They are apparently frustrated that we have already confirmed four 
nominees to the courts of appeals and will match and likely exceed the 
number of court of appeals nominees confirmed in either 1989 or 1993. 
They seek to discount the judges confirmed by referring to three of 
them as ``Democrats.'' These are nominees from President Bush that they 
have somehow determined are ``Democrats'' and whose confirmations 
should not be considered or counted in their partisan view, I guess.
  The answer to their criticism is very simple: Since July 11 we have 
held 7 hearings and included 19 judicial nominees. That is more 
nominees than received hearings by October 18 in the first year of the 
first Bush administration or by October 18 in the first year of the 
Clinton administration. Thus, whether measured by confirmations or by 
judicial nominees who have received hearings, in spite of the change in 
majority in the middle of this year and the delays that Republicans 
have caused in the process of reorganizing, we are ahead of the pace of 
the first year of the Clinton administration and the first year of the 
first Bush administration. The Republicans' charges of a slowdown could 
not be farther from the truth.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate are on pace to match or 
exceed the confirmations of judges at the end of the first year of the 
Clinton administration and at the end of the first year of the first 
Bush administration.
  In order to obscure this record pace, our Republican critics compare 
where we are now, on October 23, with where those Senate's were after 
they adjourned in late November. The facts are that on October 23, 
1989, the Senate had confirmed only seven of President George H.W. 
Bush's judicial nominees. On October 23, 2001, this year we will have 
confirmed 12 of the judicial nominees of President George W. Bush.
  Among the seven nominees confirmed by October 23, 1989 were three to 
the courts of appeals. This year we have already confirmed four judges 
for the courts of appeals.
  By October 23, 1993, the Senate had confirmed eight judicial nominees 
for President Clinton. Today we confirm our 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th 
judicial nominees since July this year. Among the nominees confirmed by 
this date in 1993 were two nominees to the courts of appeals. This year 
we have already confirmed four judges to the courts of appeals.
  We are actually confirming more judges and confirming them faster 
than in either of the first years of either the Clinton or first Bush 
administration. In addition, I suspect that we are acting faster with 
respect to more judges, including more nominees to the courts of 
appeals, than at virtually any time during the last several years in 
which a Republican majority controlled the Senate and the Judiciary 
Committee and President Clinton was doing the nominating.
  Further, in addition to the 12 judges the Senate has confirmed, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee has included seven additional nominees in 
confirmation hearings and I have scheduled another hearing later this 
week for another four judicial nominees, as well as another Department 
of Justice nominee. Thus, by the end of this week, in addition to the 
dozen judges confirmed, another 11 will have had hearings before the 
committee. If the Senate remains in session this year as late into 
November as it did in 1989 and 1993, we may have the opportunity for 
another hearing involving several more judicial nominees.

[[Page S10870]]

  The record of the Senate since July is a good one. In spite of unfair 
criticism and the wrongheaded delays and obstruction of Republicans, 
the Senate remains on track to meet and exceed the judicial 
confirmation totals for the first year of the first Bush administration 
and the first year of the Clinton administration.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President I am pleased that the Senate today will 
confirm two outstanding jurists, Claire V. Eagan and James H. Payne, to 
be U.S. District Court judges in my State of Oklahoma.
  President Bush could not have chosen two finer individuals to serve 
our country as district court judges.
  These individuals are exceptionally well-qualified and will prove to 
be great assets to the judicial system in Oklahoma and our country.
  Judge Eagan has been confirmed to serve as district judge for the 
Northern District of Oklahoma. She is currently a U.S. magistrate judge 
for the northern district where she has served for 3 years. Prior to 
that she served as a litigation attorney with the firm of Hall, Estill 
for 20 years. During that time, she handled a wide array of litigation 
as well as significant pro bono work and bar activities.
  As a magistrate, she has gained judicial experience in criminal, 
civil, habeas, and bankruptcy matters. She also supervised the court's 
settlement program and devoted considerable time to early case 
resolution.
  Judge Eagan is recognized as both a leader and instructor in the 
fields of trial and appellate practice and alternative dispute 
resolution. She has served on the faculty at the University of Tulsa 
College of Law and as an adjunct settlement judge for Tulsa Country 
District Court.
  Judge Payne has been confirmed to serve as district judge for the 
Eastern District of Oklahoma. He is currently a U.S. magistrate judge 
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma where he has served for 13 years. 
Prior to that he served as a private practice attorney with the firm of 
Sandlin and Payne for 15 years, handling civil matters. He also served 
3 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the eastern district. He has 
maintained an active role in the community by providing pro bono 
services to several local charitable organizations.
  As a magistrate, he has gained experience in a broad range of 
criminal and civil issues. He has implemented an Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Program for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, which has 
allowed him to conduct an average of 100 settlement conferences per 
year.
  Following graduation from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, 
Judge Payne's 30-year legal career has included military service as an 
Air Force Judge Advocate General officer.
  I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Hatch, and the Judiciary 
Committee for their work on these nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of James H. Payne, of Oklahoma, to be United 
States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts 
of Oklahoma? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 307 Ex.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make an 
announcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there were a number of hearings scheduled 
for today and tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee, hearings to be 
chaired by Senators Schumer, Biden, and Feinstein, which have been 
postponed. The reason we have done this is because of all the 
conditions of rooms and all, so we can save the time for the 
nominations hearing which has been scheduled for Thursday afternoon to 
be chaired by Senator Edwards, provided we can find the room for it. 
That will go on. The others are routine hearings which can be done at 
any time.

                          ____________________