[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 154 (Thursday, November 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11590-S11592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF TERRY L. WOOTEN TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Terry Wooten
to be U.S. District Judge, that the Senate vote immediately on his
confirmation, that the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the nomination of Terry Wooten to be a judge on the District Court for
the District of South Carolina. I was pleased to recommend him to
President Bush for this esteemed position.
Just hours ago, Judge Wooten was favorably reported to the floor by
the Judiciary Committee in an 19-0 vote. The Committee's unanimous vote
and the Senate's speed in considering him today is a testament to his
qualifications, character, and ability.
Judge Wooten has spent almost all of his professional life in public
service. He has served ably and diligently as a U.S. Magistrate Judge
since 1999. Prior to that, he worked as a federal prosecutor for seven
years. In the U.S. Attorney's office, he served as the lead Task Force
attorney for major drug and violent crime prosecutions.
Morever, he was the Republican chief counsel on the Judiciary
Committee while I was Ranking Member, and did an exceptional job in
that capacity.
It is unfortunate that some allegations were raised during the
committee's consideration of his nomination. However, once the
investigation of this matter was complete, it was clear that there was
no merit to them whatsoever.
During the Judiciary executive business meeting earlier today,
Chairman Leahy and Senator Biden, who was chairman of the committee at
the time Judge Wooten was a staff member, both spoke favorably of his
nomination. I appreciated their remarks. I was also very pleased that
all members of the committee supported his candidacy.
Judge Wooten is a man of honesty and integrity, and this process has
simply reaffirmed that fact. I am confident that he will make an
excellent addition to the District Court.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my fellow
South Carolinian, Terry Wooten, who will be confirmed today to the U.S.
District Court for South Carolina.
Terry Wooten graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of South
Carolina in 1976 where he continued on to law school. Following law
school, he worked in a private two-man firm that focused on criminal
defense and personal injury cases. Two years later, he served as
Assistant Solicitor for Richland County where he handled hundreds of
cases including murders, criminal sexual conduct, robberies, drug
offenses, burglaries, and many other local offenses for 4 years. As a
result of his notable service as a local prosecutor, Senator Thurmond
invited him to move to Washington and work as the chief counsel of the
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff for 5 years. He then
served with distinction as Assistant U.S. Attorney for South Carolina
for 7 years. In this challenging position, he was assigned to the major
drug and violent crime section. Judge Wooten excelled in this role and
also served as the chief liaison between the relevant Federal agencies
and the U.S. Attorney's office on drug and violent crime cases in the
state. He is well known and respected by all local law enforcement
agencies for his hard work with violent crime and drug offenders. In
1999, this humble, yet very capable man was chosen to be a magistrate
judge where he did a marvelous job.
Terry Wooten comes to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina judgeship with extensive experience as a State
prosecutor in Richland County, as the Assistant U.S. Attorney, and as a
Magistrate Judge. He was chosen for the position of Magistrate Judge by
the judges of the Federal District Court for the District of South
Carolina. I can think of no better testament to his character and
qualifications and am pleased he will be joining their ranks. He will
serve our judicial system well.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate the nominee and his family
on his nomination and on what is soon to be his confirmation by the
Senate and appointment by the President to the United States District
Court for South Carolina. I thank all members of the Judiciary
Committee for their attention to this nomination and thank the majority
leader for his help in scheduling this vote.
Since July 2001, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and the
committee membership was set, we have maintained a strong effort to
consider judicial and executive nominees. With the confirmation of
Judge Wooten, we reach additional milestones. Judge Wooten is the 17th
judicial nominee we have confirmed since July. That is more total
judges this year than were confirmed in 1989, the first year of the
first Bush administration, and as many as were confirmed in all of the
1996 session. Of course, in 1996, the Senate majority at that time did
not proceed on a single nominee to a Court of Appeals and limited
itself to confirming only 17 judges to the District Courts. We have
this year already confirmed four nominees to the Courts of Appeals.
Thus, despite all the upheavals we have experienced this year with
the shifts in chairmanship and, more importantly, the need to focus our
attention on responsible action in the fight against international
terrorism, we have matched or beaten the number of confirmations of
judges during the first year of first Bush administration and the last
year of the first Clinton term.
As a judge on the United States District Court, Judge Wooten will
have a vital role to play in protecting and preserving our civil
liberties in the days ahead. Our system of checks and balances requires
that the judicial branch review the acts of the political branches.
Judge Wooten served as the Republican Chief Counsel of the Judiciary
Committee when he worked for Senator Thurmond. Senator Thurmond has
been an advocate for this nominee from the beginning. Earlier today the
Judiciary Committee considered the Wooten nomination and voted without
objection to report it to the Senate. Our bipartisanship in these
matters was amply demonstrated by our moving as soon as possible in the
wake of a serious allegation of wrongdoing to consider and report a
former Republican staff member for the respected senior Republican in
the Senate.
I held an expeditious hearing for Judge Wooten on August 27, during
the
[[Page S11591]]
August recess of the Senate. On the morning of the hearing, we received
serious allegations about him. These allegations raised questions about
whether he had provided confidential materials to people outside the
committee and the Senate with regard to the Clarence Thomas nomination.
I asked Judge Wooten questions about the allegations and his actions,
and he answered my questions.
Senator Hatch and I agreed that the best course of action would be to
ask the FBI to investigate this situation fully. We had been awaiting
the results of that investigation until just recently. Once members of
the Judiciary Committee had a chance to review the FBI materials and
all other materials surrounding this nomination, we brought it to a
vote.
I believe that the allegations raised against Judge Wooten were
serious and were worthy of inquiry. It appears to me from materials
published in the aftermath of the confirmation battle that confidential
committee materials were made available, contrary to our rules, to some
outside the committee and the Senate. Having asked Judge Wooten about
his involvement and having received his denials, I cannot say that
there is a strong evidentiary basis on which to challenge his
credibility or his denials with regard to his involvement in such
matters.
I have taken Judge Wooten at his word and voted to report his
nomination. This afternoon I will vote in favor of this
nomination. This week we held our ninth hearing on judicial nominations
since I became chairman, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and
this committee was assigned its membership on July 10, 2001. We held
our fifth hearing on judicial nominations since September 11. Overall
we have held hearings on 28 judicial nominees, including seven to the
Courts of Appeals. Since September 11 we have held hearings on 21
judicial nominees, including four to the Courts of Appeals.
Within 2 days of the terrible events of September 11, I chaired a
confirmation hearing for the two judicial nominees who drove to
Washington while interstate air travel was still disrupted. Then on
October 4, 2001 we held another confirmation hearing for five judicial
nominees, which included a nominee from Nebraska who was unable to
attend the earlier hearing because of the disruption in air travel.
On October 18, 2001, in spite of the closure of Senate office
buildings in the wake of the receipt of a letter containing anthrax
spores and Senate staff and employees were testing positive for anthrax
exposure, the committee proceeded under extraordinary circumstances in
the U.S. Capitol to hold a hearing for five more judicial nominees. The
building housing the Judiciary Committee hearing room was closed, as
were the buildings housing the offices of all the Senators on the
committee. Still we persevered.
Two weeks ago, while the Senate Republicans were shutting down the
Senate with a filibuster preventing action on the bill that funds our
Nation's foreign policy initiatives and provides funds to help build
the international coalition against terrorism, the Judiciary Committee
nonetheless proceeded with yet another hearing for four more judicial
nominees on October 25, 2001.
Yesterday we convened the fifth hearing for judicial nominees within
eight extraordinary weeks--weeks not only interrupted by holidays, but
by the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the receipt
of anthrax in the Senate, and the closure of Senate office buildings.
Yesterday's hearing was delayed by another unfortunate and unforseen
event when one of the family members of one of the nominees grew faint
and required medical attention. With patience and perseverance, the
hearing was completed after attending to those medical needs.
In addition, during the time during which we held five hearings on
judicial nominees, we devoted our attention and efforts to expedited
consideration of anti-terrorism legislation. Far from taking a ``time
out'' as some have suggested, this committee has been in overdrive
since July and we redoubled our efforts after September 11, 2001.
With respect to law enforcement, I have noted that the Administration
was quite slow in making U.S. Attorney nominations, although it had
called for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys early in the year. Since
we began receiving nominations just before the August recess, we have
been able to report and the Senate has confirmed approximately 50 of
these nominations. We have a few more with incomplete paperwork and we
await approximately 35 nominations from the administration. These are
the President's nominees based on the standards that he and the
Attorney General have devised. I have asked for the standards and
criteria they are using, but, as far as I am aware, have not received
the courtesy of a reply.
I note, again, that it is most unfortunate that we still have not
received even a single nomination for any of the U.S. Marshal
positions. U.S. Marshals are often the top Federal law enforcement
officer in their district. They are an important frontline component in
homeland security efforts across the country. It now appears that we
will end the year without a single nomination for these 94 critical law
enforcement positions.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, many of us have
been disdaining partisanship to join together in a bipartisan effort in
the best interests of the country. There were reports within 10 days of
September 11 that some Republicans were disappointed because they would
not be able to filibuster appropriations bills and contend that the
Senate was treating Bush judicial nominees as badly as they had treated
the Clinton nominees. Their initial disappointment apparently
dissipated within days because they did initiate a 3-week filibuster of
the foreign operations appropriations bill. That is the bill that
contains funding for our international antiterrorism coalition building
activities as well as other essential military and humanitarian
programs. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and that filibuster
ultimately faded.
There have been other press accounts that some Republican operatives
are trying to engage the White House and, even more unfortunately, the
Department of Justice in a partisan effort to try to take political
advantage of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Were those
efforts to go forward, that would be disappointing. The bipartisan
effort against terrorism is not something that Republicans should try
to manipulate in such a way. Had the Senate moved more efficiently on
nominations over the last 6 or 7 years, we would not have had so many
vacancies perpetuated under their previous Senate majority. And
finally, as the facts establish and as our actions today again
demonstrate, we are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with
nominees who have strong bipartisan support. These include a number of
very conservative nominees. We have proceeded on nominees with mixed
ABA peer reviews, including an Arizona nominee who was included in the
hearing just yesterday. As I have noted, we have already confirmed more
District Court judges since July of this year than were confirmed in
the entire first year of the first Bush administration. Had the
administration not changed the confirmation process from the precedents
that had served us for more than 50 years, we might have been able to
confirm a few more.
The President has yet even to nominate to 46 District Court
vacancies. I hope that he will work with the Senate to make sure those
nominations will be consensus nominees and that they can be considered
promptly. Because the White House was slow to name District Court
nominees this year, the bulk of those who have not had hearings do not
even have ABA peer review ratings. When this administration
unilaterally changed the process from that followed by all prior
Presidents beginning with Eisenhower, it backloaded the process. There
are still nine nominees, received since September 10, who do not have
ABA peer reviews.
Several others have received mixed reviews that require additional
time and study. I have noted that at our most recent hearing we
included a District Court nominee from Arizona with a review that
includes a minority of the peer review declaring the candidate ``not
qualified'' to be a District Court judge. In addition, there are at
least two more with those mixed ratings and at least one District Court
nominee with a ``not qualified'' rating. Those ratings caution against
rushing people through the confirmation process.
With this confirmation today, the Senate will have confirmed another
[[Page S11592]]
five District Court judges just this week. We held a hearing for five
more District Court nominees yesterday. We have an additional three
District Court nominees who could be considered as soon as they finish
their paperwork and answer questions about their criminal histories.
Thus, having confirmed 13 District Court judges in record time, we
could confirm an additional eight with cooperation from the White
House, nominees and our Republican colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Terry L.
Wooten, of South Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the District
of South Carolina.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Terry L. Wooten, of South Carolina, to be United States District
Judge for the District of South Carolina? On this question, the yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland) and
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 333 Ex.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
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
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
NOT VOTING--2
Cleland
Miller
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. REID. 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.
____________________