Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7810-S7814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NOMINATION OF MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Morrison C.
England, Jr., of California, to be United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Morrison C. England, Jr., of California,
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
California?
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions
to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately
notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate now return to
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

nomination of richard everett dorr

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Richard Everett Dorr to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri. He is a man who has dedicated large portions of
his career to public service, one of the qualities I most admire in a
nominee to the bench.
Mr. Dorr attended the University of Illinois at Champaign on a
football scholarship. He graduated with a B.S. in Marketing in 1965. In
1968, he graduated with a J.D. from the University of Missouri at
Columbia. During the next five years as a Judge Advocate, the nominee
regularly appeared as either a prosecutor or defense counsel in
criminal cases before Courts-Martial and Administrative Boards. During
this period, Mr. Dorr also served as a legal advisor to Administrative
Boards and as a Military Judge. He was also appointed to the Human
Relations Council, an Air Force program designed to educate service
members on appropriate behavior regarding racial diversity.
Upon returning to private life, Mr. Dorr was an associate at the firm
of Mann, Walter, Burkart, Weathers & Walter for 5 years. In this
position he practiced general civil law, including real estate,
business, domestic relations and general litigation cases. In 1978, he
started his own firm, Harrison, Tucker and Dorr and continued his
general civil practice. In 1996, Mr. Dorr became the Managing Partner
of the Springfield office of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, a major
law firm based out of Kansas City, Missouri. In this new position, he
has concentrated on business and commercial litigation.
Mr. Dorr was very active in the establishment of the Southwest
Missouri Legal Aid Corporation. He served on its first Board of
Directors from 1976 to 1982 and was the Corporation's President from
1978 to 1982. This organization provides legal aid to the poor who
normally could not afford for their cases to be heard in a court of
law.
Unfortunately, this is Mr. Dorr's second nomination to the federal
court. He was nominated by the first President Bush, but he did not
receive a hearing.
Throughout his life Mr. Dorr has given back to his community, first
in the Air Force, where he championed the cause of human rights, and
then by forming an organization that helped those who could not afford
access to the courts. Clearly, Mr. Dorr has the character and
temperament to be a fair and balanced federal court judge. I urge my
colleagues to confirm this most deserving attorney.

nomination of david godbey

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of David
Godbey to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas.
I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Godbey's distinguished legal
career, and I have concluded, as did President Bush, that he is a fine
jurist who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in Texas.
Mr. Godbey has a terrific record as a civil litigator and as a highly
effective state court judge.
Following graduation from Harvard Law School, where he graduated
magna cum laude, Judge Godbey clerked for Judge Goldberg of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, then accepted a job with Hughes &
Luce, a Dallas firm, in 1983.
For the next 11 years, he handled civil and commercial litigation in
Federal trial and appellate courts in Texas and elsewhere. He accepted
criminal appointments and represented clients in commercial arbitration
cases. He specialized in technology litigation, appeals, public-law
litigation, and oil and gas matters.
In 1994 Mr. Godbey was elected to a judgeship on the 160th Judicial
District Court in Texas. Judge Godbey has handled over 6,500 cases on
the bench, including approximately 230 jury trials, and his reversal
rate is well below 1 percent.
It is clear that Judge Godbey is well prepared for the Federal
district court bench. I know he will make a great judge in the Northern
District of Texas.

nomination of henry hudson

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Henry E.
Hudson's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.
Judge Hudson's many accomplishments as a prosecutor, State court
judge, and Federal law enforcement officer convince me that he will
excel on the federal bench in Virginia.
Upon graduation from American University in 1974, Mr. Hudson worked
as Assistant Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington, VA, prosecuting felony
and misdemeanor cases. From 1978-1979 he served as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he handed federal
criminal case; and from 1980 to 1986 he served as Commonwealth's
Attorney for Arlington County.
Mr. Hudson then served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
Virginia, gaining substantial supervisory and prosecutorial experience.
He headed an office of 70 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and 25 Special
Assistants and prosecuted major civil and criminal cases, including
``Operation Ill Wind,'' a federal investigation resulting in the
conviction of 54 individuals and 10 corporations for illegally
exchanging confidential defense contract bidding information.
Mr. Hudson served as Director of the U.S. Marshals Service from 1992
to 1993, and since 1998 Mr. Hudson has served as Circuit Court Judge
for the Fairfax County Circuit Court.
Judge Hudson received an ABA rating of Substantial Majority Well
Qualified and Minority Qualified. My support for Judge Hudson's
nomination to the Federal bench is unqualified. He will make an
excellent federal judge.

nomination of henry hudson

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination
of Judge Henry Hudson, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Senator Allen and I had the honor of recommending Judge Hudson to
President Bush for this position, and we have worked closely with
Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, and with our leadership to get Judge
Hudson's nomination to a confirmation vote.
It is important to note that the Virginia Bar Association ``highly
recommends'' Judge Hudson for this Federal judgeship.

[[Page S7811]]

In addition, Judge Hudson's nomination enjoys bipartisan support in
Virginia. Congressman Jim Moran and State Senate Minority Leader Dick
Saslaw, both Democrats, have penned letters of support for Judge
Hudson.
Judge Hudson enjoys such widespread support based on his extensive
experience with the law, and his reputation for having an appropriate
judicial temperament. For these reasons, the Senate Judiciary Committee
unanimously reported out his nomination.
Judge Hudson's legal career began with his service as a Deputy
Sheriff in Arlington County, Virginia, in 1969 and 1970. He then went
to law school, graduating from American University in 1974.
Subsequent to his graduation from law school, Mr. Hudson entered
legal practice as a prosecutor. First, he served as an Assistant
Commonwealth's attorney for 5 years and then as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
In 1986, Mr. Hudson was confirmed by the Senate and began his service
as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,
where he served until 1991.
After leaving the U.S. Attorney's office, Judge Hudson once again
received Senate confirmation and served as the Director of the United
States Marshals Service from 1992 to 1993.
After completing his work at the Marshals Service, Mr. Hudson entered
private practice until he was sworn in as a Judge on the Fairfax
County, Virginia, Circuit Court. Judge Hudson has served as a Judge on
this important court since 1998.
During his time on the Fairfax County Circuit Court bench, Judge
Hudson has been known as a fair, objective judge who conducts
proceedings with dignity and with the appropriate judicial temperament.
I am confident that he will continue his service on the Eastern
District of Virginia bench consistent with this reputation.
I urge my colleagues to support Judge Hudson's nomination.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, the Senate confirmed Judge Henry
Hudson to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. I am very pleased to see this fine man take his place on the
Federal bench, and I know that he will serve our Nation with
distinction.
Judge Hudson is very deserving of this high honor, and I commend
President Bush for nominating such a well-qualified and honorable man.
Throughout Judge Hudson's distinguished career, he has held several
positions of public trust, and he has always performed his duties with
the utmost integrity. Judge Hudson has also demonstrated a profound
respect for the rule of law, and he will no doubt be an asset to the
Eastern District of Virginia.
Judge Hudson has an illustrious legal background. Upon graduation
from the American University School of Law, he worked as an Assistant
Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia. There, he learned
the basics of trial work, and after 5 years, he became an Assistant
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As a Federal
prosecutor, Judge Hudson handled many important and oftentimes complex
criminal cases, including drug conspiracies, racketeering, and
political corruption cases. After his service as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney, Judge Hudson served as the Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington
County, Virginia. As Commonwealth Attorney, he was responsible for
prosecuting crimes such as homicides and violent sexual assaults.
Judge Hudson's vast knowledge of the law and his skills as a trial
attorney did not go unnoticed. In 1986, he was nominated and confirmed
as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As the U.S.
Attorney, Judge Hudson not only gained additional experience as a
Federal prosecutor, but also demonstrated an ability to supervise
others. He was responsible for an office staffed by 70 Assistant U.S.
Attorneys and 25 Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. During his tenure,
he supervised ``Operation Ill Wind,'' a Federal investigation of
unlawful defense contract bidding that resulted in the conviction of 54
people.
Judge Hudson was again honored in 1992 when he was selected as
Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest law
enforcement organization. This appointment serves as a testament to the
widespread admiration and respect enjoyed by Judge Hudson.
In 1998, Henry Hudson became Circuit Court Judge for the Fairfax
County Circuit Court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In this role, he
has performed admirably, demonstrating an outstanding legal mind and a
good judicial temperament. He has served the people of Fairfax County
well and will no doubt serve the Eastern District of Virginia with
equal competence and integrity.
Judge Henry Hudson will make an outstanding Federal judge. A
substantial majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee
on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Hudson as Well Qualified. Not only
does he have considerable legal expertise, but he is a fine man. I am
proud to see my friend, Henry Hudson, confirmed as a Federal District
Court Judge.

nomination of timothy savage

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination
of Timothy J. Savage to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
My review of Mr. Savage's career as a litigator and public servant
has convinced me that he will make a fine Federal judge.
Following graduation from Temple University School of Law, Mr. Savage
joined the Philadelphia firm of MacCoy, Evans & Lewis as a civil
litigator. In 1974 he and a partner started the firm of Savage and
Ciccone, where he turned to criminal defense work. Since 1976 Mr.
Savage has worked as a sole practitioner in Philadelphia, moving in the
last two decades to civil litigation and white collar crime
specialties.
Mr. Savage knows his way around the Eastern District, serving as a
mediator in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and as judge pro tem
in the Court of Commons Pleas in Philadelphia County.
Since 1977 he has served in a quasi-judicial role on the Pennsylvania
Liquor Control Board, making evidentiary rulings, overseeing
interrogation of witnesses, and authoring findings of fact and
recommendations for Board decisions.
Outside his law practice, Mr. Savage has served as counsel for a
local civil association and for the local Boys and Girls Clubs for the
last 20 years. He has also provided pro bono services to community
groups, his church, senior citizens and served on the Philadelphia Bar
Association's Volunteers for Indigent Persons panel.
I am confident Mr. Savage will serve well on the Federal bench in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

nomination of amy st. eve

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of
Amy J. St. Eve to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Ms. St. Eve's academic record is truly outstanding. She received her
undergraduate degree in History, with Honors and Academic Distinction
in All Subjects, from Cornell University.
She then graduated from Cornell's College of Law, where she was an
Articles Editor on the Law Review, a member of the Order of the Coif,
and recipient of numerous prizes for finishing her first and second
years at the top of her class.
After graduation, she joined the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell.
For four years, she worked as a litigator representing corporations in
civil and criminal matters. In 1994, Ms. St. Eve joined the Office of
the Independent Counsel, investigating the events surrounding the
Whitewater Development Corporation. She drafted the indictment and
second-chaired the trial that led to the conviction of Jim McDougal,
Susan McDougal and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker.
In 1996, she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern
District of Illinois. In this position, her responsibilities included
health care fraud, bank fraud, narcotics, trafficking, public
corruption and gang violence cases. Additionally, she served as the
Criminal Health Care Fraud Coordinator. For her work in this position,
she twice received the Award for Integrity from the U.S. Health and
Human Services Office of the Inspector General. She was also one of the
senior prosecutors in ``Operation Safe Road.'' This operation was
charged with ridding the Melrose Park Illinois Secretary of State
facility of corruption.

[[Page S7812]]

Currently, Ms. St. Eve is a Senior Counsel in the Litigation
Department of Abbott Laboratories.
Ms. St. Eve is one of the best and brightest of her generation. Her
and others like her are prime examples of a new generation of women who
are becoming the top legal minds in the legal community. Her nomination
is a fine example of the diverse judiciary that President Bush is
creating. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for her confirmation.

nomination of david cercone

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise in support of
David S. Cercone, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Cercone graduated from Duquesne University School of Law. Judge
Cercone then clerked for Hon. Paul R. Zavarella on the Allegheny County
Court of Common from 1978 to 1979. Judge Cercone has also been a sole
legal practitioner in Pennsylvania. From 1979 to 1981, Judge Cercone
served as the Assistant District Attorney for Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas and specialized in the prosecution of narcotics and
violent crime cases.
From 1982 to 1985, Judge Cercone served as the Pennsylvania district
justice magistrate. In 1986 to the present, Judge Cercone was the
youngest person ever elected, at 32, to the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County Pennsylvania. In 1993, Judge Cercone was appointed
administrative judge for the criminal division by the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania. Judge Cercone implemented an accelerated plea docket to
prevent jail overcrowding and to reduce case backlogs. He also
established the first ``drug court'' in western Pennsylvania for the
rehabilitation of drug offenders.
In his capacity as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Judge Cercone has ruled on many issues including medical
malpractice, auto accidents, criminal homicide, murder, arson,
insurance fraud, drugs, vehicular homicide, defamation, intoxication of
minors and criminal conspiracy of an escape of six inmates from the
Western State Correctional Institute. Judge Cercone has also prepared
annual reports for the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal
Division from 1994 to 1998.
Judge Cercone has been rated ``unanimous qualified'' by the American
Bar Association. I am confident Judge Cercone will serve on the bench
with integrity, intelligence, and fairness.

nomination of morrison england

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of
Morrison C. England to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District
of California.
I have enjoyed reviewing Judge England's distinguished legal career,
and I have concluded that he will make an excellent Federal judge in
California.
Judge Morrison C. England is a native of St. Louis and a graduate of
McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. He has had
more than a decade of private practice experience as a litigator and
transactional attorney and has served for the past six years as a
California state judge in Sacramento presiding over criminal and civil
cases. In 1996 Governor Pete Wilson appointed him as Sacramento
Municipal Court Judge and elevated him to Superior Court Judge on the
Sacramento Superior Court a year later. He currently serves in a
General Trial Court, presiding over both civil and criminal cases.
Previous to his judicial service, Judge England acted as Referee and
Judge Pro Tem in the Sacramento County Juvenile Court from 1991-96.
Clearly he has the experience a Federal judge needs.
Judge England also serves this country as a member of the U.S. Army
Reserve, JAG Corps, holding the rank of Major. Judge England's
nomination has been praised by his colleagues and Sacramento attorneys
alike. He has home state support and my support as well. He will make
an excellent Federal judge in California.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have the distinct honor of being on the
floor again to support the nomination of another fine candidate to the
Federal bench in Missouri. The President has nominated Dick Dorr of
Springfield, MO, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri. Mr. Dorr embodies well the principles laid out by
the President for nominees to the Federal bench. Above all, Mr. Dorr
respects the roll of a judge in our Federal system--to interpret the
law. In addition, Mr. Dorr is a respected trial attorney who will bring
years of experience in the court room to this position. He is an
excellent candidate and I urge the Members of this body to give him
your favorable consideration.
Mr. Dorr will bring to this position a reputation as an outstanding
trial attorney with the respected Missouri law firm. His experience
extends to both criminal and civil law. Attorneys in Springfield who
worked with Mr. Dorr and who have litigated against him share my belief
that he has the experience to preside over trials in a fair and
efficient manner. Mr. Dorr has also served his country in the U.S. Air
Force as a reservist and as a judge advocate general.
Mr. Dorr has given a tremendous amount of this time to ensure that
the citizens of Springfield have legal representation available to them
despite their financial means. He has worked for the Missouri Bar's
Volunteer Lawyer Pogram. He was instrumental in starting the Legal Aid
Society of Southwest Missouri and served on its board. He has received
the Equal Access to Justice Award from the Springfield Bar for his
work, and he was recognized for outstanding service to the community by
the Greene County Community Justice Association.
I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for scheduled a
hearing for this nominee, and I thank the Members for the unanimous
vote in support of this nominee.
I believe the Senate will find this candidate is well qualified for
the position, possessing the experience, the intellect and the personal
qualities necessary to preside over trials and rule in an informed and
impartial manner. He will be a tremendous asset to the bench, and I
urge the Members of the body to support the nomination.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to express to my Senate colleagues
my support for the confirmation of Henry E. Hudson to serve as a judge
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. I have known Henry Hudson for about 20 years. He has had a
long and distinguished career in public service, beginning as a
firefighter and a deputy sheriff. He was elected in 1979 by the
citizens of Arlington County, VA to serve as their Commonwealth's
Attorney, and was reelected by a large margin four years later.
In 1986, President Reagan selected Henry Hudson to serve as the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is
credited with elevating the stature and visibility of that office with
such prosecutions as Operation Illwind, which restored integrity to the
field of defense procurement.
In 1992, Judge Hudson was appointed by President Bush to serve as
Director of the United States Marshals Service. The Department of
Justice recognized his exceptional leadership of that agency and
awarded him the John Marshall Award for outstanding legal achievement.
During my term as Governor of Virginia, I appointed Henry Hudson to
serve as Chairman of the Criminal Justice Services Board and and a
member of the Governor's Commission to Abolish Parole and Reform
Sentencing. Later, I selected him to be a member of the Virginia
Criminal Sentencing Commission. From his superb performance in all
those roles, which helped us reduce crime in Virginia as well as better
protect victims, I can personally attest to his calm, knowledgeable,
and fair leadership as well as his dedication, work ethic and
integrity.
Henry Hudson is currently serving as a Circuit Court Judge in Fairfax
County, VA, where he has enjoyed a reputation for being a fair, but
firm, jurist. His nomination to the Federal court is widely supported
by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as bar associations and
civic groups.
It is vital at this point in our Nation's history that we have the
highest caliber men and women on the Federal bench.
Indeed, our Federal personnel are charged with the responsibility in
these difficult times with enforcing our laws while still respecting
civil liberties.

[[Page S7813]]

Perhaps in no district court is that more important than in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which
has been short-handed for some time--handles some of the nation's most
important and high-profile cases, including the John Walker Lyndh case
and the Moussaoui trial.
I am very pleased that the United States Senate will today confirm
Judge Henry Hudson for this very important judicial position. He
possesses a strong legal acumen, the requisite judicial temperament,
and proper judicial philosophy of interpreting the law and Constitution
and not rewritng it from the bench. This will enable him to serve with
distinction on the federal bench, and this is why the President wisely
nominated him.
Thus, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for the Confirmation
of Henry Hudson as judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks a little more than one year
after the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee following
the change in majority last year. The Democratic-led Judiciary
Committee has had an impressive year of fairly and promptly considering
President Bush's nominees. In addition to the dozens of high-ranking
Justice Department officials for whom we held hearings and our work in
connection with almost 200 Executive Branch nominees the Committee
reported, we have had a noteworthy record year with respect to judicial
nominees.
With the lifting of a Republican hold on nominations we have been
able to move forward this week to confirm 15 more judicial nominees--4
circuit court nominees and 11 district court nominees. The Democratic-
led Senate has now confirmed 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees.
This interim total of 72 judges far outdistances any Republican total
for any of the preceding six years. Moreover, this is more judges than
were confirmed under Republican control during all of 1999, 2000 and
the first six months of 2001 combined. Thus, in less than 13 months we
have done more than the Republicans did in 30 months! And we did so
while reforming the process to ensure bipartisan cooperation and
greater fairness.
The Senate has now confirmed 13 of President Bush's circuit court
nominees--which is almost twice as the average during the prior six and
one-half years of Republican control when they averaged seven circuit
court confirmations per year. This is more circuit court nominees than
were confirmed in two years combined, during all of 1996 and 1997, of
the prior years of Republican control.
In this, our first year, we held 23 hearings for 84 of the
President's nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals and District
Courts. That is more hearings for more of this President' s district
and circuit court nominees than were ever held in any of the six and
one-half years that preceded the change in majority last summer. It is
more hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20
of the last 22 years.
In particular, we held more hearings for more of President Bush's
circuit court nominees, 18, than in any of the six and one-half years
in which the Republicans controlled the Committee before the change in
majority last summer. For that matter, we held twice as many hearings
for courts of appeals nominees than were held in the first year of the
Reagan Administration when the Senate was controlled by Republicans and
five times more than in the first year of the Clinton Administration
when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. That total of 18 hearings
for circuit court nominees is also twice what the Republican majority
averaged when it was in control of the process. Those are the facts.
Under Democratic leadership, the Judiciary Committee voted on more
judicial nominees, 79, than in any of the six and one-half years of
Republican control that preceded the change in majority. We voted on
twice as many circuit court nominees, 15, than the Republican majority
averaged in the years they were in control. In fact, this last year we
voted on more nominees than were voted on in 1999 and 2000 combined and
on more circuit court nominees than the Republicans allowed votes on
during 1996 and 1997 combined.
We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's
nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's
nominees had been treated. By many measures the Committee has achieved
twice as much this last year as Republicans averaged during their years
in control, and, by some measures, has done so in less than half the
time.
I commend and thank the Majority Leader and Assistant Majority Leader
for their patience and determination in achieving movement on judicial
nominees on the Senate floor. The Administration's obstructionism
stalled Senate floor actions on nominations for more than two months,
while the Administration failed to fulfill its responsibility to work
with the Senate in the naming of members of bipartisan boards and
commissions. But just last Friday we resumed voting on judicial
nominations and confirmed 15 judicial nominees in the last week once
Senator McCain's hold was lifted.
Four of these nominees were confirmed to the Federal Courts of
Appeals, including the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost
five years, the first nominee to the Ninth Circuit in two years, and
the first nominee to the Third Circuit in almost two and a half years
and the third nominee that we have confirmed to the Eighth Circuit.
With these confirmations, we have addressed long-standing vacancies
on circuit courts caused by Republican obstruction on President
Clinton's nominees. We held the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit
nominee in seven years, the first hearings for Sixth Circuit nominees
in almost five years, the first hearing for a Tenth Circuit nominee in
six years, and the first hearings for Fourth Circuit nominees in three
years.
We have also now confirmed 59 of the President's district court
nominees, twice as many as the Republican average for the past six and
one-half years. Contrast the 59 Federal trial court judges confirmed by
the Democratic Senate in just a little more than a year with the
Republican average, during their past six and one-half years of
control, of confirming only 31 Federal trial court judges a year. The
Senate has confirmed more Federal trial court judges than were
confirmed in 19 of the past 21 years and almost twice as many as the
Republican average from their six and one-half years of control.
With this week's confirmations, the Democratic-led Senate has
confirmed the 10th Federal judge for Pennsylvania. In addition, we
confirmed our fifth judge to the District Courts in Texas, and our
fifth judge to the Federal courts in the Eleventh Circuit. Our
treatment of these nominees as well as a number of others, including
the nominees confirmed today for the District Courts in Missouri,
stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of nominees by the Republican
majority.
We have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees. For
example, we have ended the practice of anonymous holds that plagued the
period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold
any nominee from his home state, his own circuit or any part of the
country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We
have returned to the Democratic tradition of holding regular hearings,
every few weeks, rather than going for period of as long as six months
without a single hearing.
It would certainly have been easier and less work to retaliate for
the unfair treatment of the last President's judicial nominees. We did
not. We have been, and will continue to be, more fair than the
Republican majority was to President Clinton's judicial nominees. More
than 50 of Clinton's nominees never got a vote, many languished for
months and years before their nominations were returned without a
hearing or other action by the Senate. Others waited years--not just a
year, but up to more than four years. Some never were accorded a
hearing, some were finally confirmed after years of delay.
Those who now seek to pretend that the Democratic majority in the
Senate caused a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts are ignoring the
facts. Under Republicans, court vacancies rose from 63 in January 1995
to 110 in July 2001, when the Committee reorganized. During Republican
control before the reorganization of the Committee, vacancies

[[Page S7814]]

on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled, increasing from 16 to 33.
That is what we inherited. But in one year of Democratic control, and
despite 45 additional vacancies caused largely by the retirements of
many past Republican appointees, we have reduced the number of district
and circuit court vacancies.
Vacancies continue to exist on the Court of Appeals, in particular,
because a Republican Senate majority was not willing to hold hearings
or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's circuit
nominees in 1999 and 2000, and was not willing to confirm a single
circuit judge during the entire 1996 session. Republicans caused the
circuit vacancy crisis, and it has taken a tremendous effort to
evaluate and have hearings for 18 circuit court nominees in our first
year.
In the meantime, Republicans have been unfairly critical that not
every nominee has yet had a hearing or been confirmed. Rather than
commend our efforts to do twice as much as they, their criticism is
that we have yet to conclude consideration of everyone simultaneously.
In less than 13 months we have already confirmed 13 of President Bush's
nominees to the Courts of Appeals, and one more is awaiting a vote by
the full Senate. They confirmed 46 circuit court nominees in 76 months.
Without the benefit of presidential consultation of the Senate before
nomination--as Republicans did in recent past years, without having had
the luxury of taking two, three and sometimes four years before voting
on a nominee, we have already achieved a confirmation rate of over 40
percent in our first year. With some cooperation in the fall from the
Administration and from the Republican minority, we can improve on that
confirmation rate before the end of the year. It already tops the
Republican's record in 1997 and far exceeds the Republicans' record in
1999 when their own confirmation rate for circuit court nominees was 28
percent.
It constantly amazes me that our Republican critics run away from
their record on judicial nominees, without admitting any error or
wrongdoing or regrets of course, and seek to hold us to a much higher
standard than they achieved. For example, they seek to compare what we
have been able to do in less than 13 months with what other Congresses
did over two years. They seek to make comparisons without recognizing
that in the current situation we have a Republican President nominating
an extreme group of nominees without consulting with Senators, as
opposed to other situations in which Presidents and Senate majorities
of the same party consulted and worked closely together.
A good example of this double standard is the Republican critics' use
of ``confirmation rates for Court of Appeals nominees.'' Remember that
in 1996 the Republican majority's confirmation percentage for Court of
Appeals nominees was zero--not a single confirmation of a single Court
of Appeals judge all year. In 1999, President Clinton sent the Senate
25 nominations to the Courts of Appeals. Of those six were
renominations of people on whom the Senate had failed to take action
dating back to 1996, 1997 and 1998. Of the 25 nominations to the Courts
of Appeals by President Clinton, the Republican majority in the Senate
would allow only seven to be confirmed by the end of the year, for a
confirmation rate of 28 percent. We have already achieved a
confirmation rate of 40 percent in our first year.
No judicial nominees should be rubber-stamped by the Senate, not even
a President's first few choices. All nominees for these lifetime
positions merit careful review by the Senate. When a President is using
ideological criterion to select nominees, it is fair for the Senate to
consider it, as well. Federalist Society credentials are not a
substitute for fairness, moderation or judicial temperament. When a
President is intent on packing the courts and stacking the deck on
outcomes, consideration of balance and how ideological and activist
nominees will affect a court are valid considerations.
What the President and his advisors acknowledge they are doing is
nominating ideologically conservative judicial nominees to stack the
5th, 6th, and D.C. Circuits with judicial activists of their choice. I
have tried to work with the White House on judicial nominations. I have
gone out of my way to encourage them to work in a bipartisan way with
the Senate, like past Presidents, but in all too many instances they
have chosen to bypass bipartisanship. I have encouraged them to include
the ABA in the process earlier, like past Presidents, but they have
refused to do so even though their decision adds to the length of time
nominations must be pending before the Senate before they can be
considered.
This past January, I again called on the President to stop playing
politics with judicial nominations and act in a bipartisan manner. In
June, I sent a detailed letter to the President on these issues. My
efforts to help the White House improve the judicial nominations
process have been rejected. I would like to improve the process and
speed up the filling of judicial vacancies with qualified, fair-minded
judges.
Advice and consent does not mean giving the President carte blanche
to pack the courts. The ingenious system of checks and balances in our
Constitution does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to
one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines,
to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the
mainstream, and whose decisions would further divide our nation.
We have worked hard to balance these competing concerns over the past
year: how to address the vacancy crisis we inherited while also not
being a rubberstamp and abdicating our responsibilities to provide a
democratic check on the President's choices for lifetime appointment to
the federal courts. These are the only lifetime appointments in our
system of government, and they matter a great deal to our future.
We have moved quickly, but responsibly, to fill judicial vacancies
with qualified nominees we hope will not be activists. In our first
year we confirmed 72 judges and reported 79 judicial nominees.
Partisans ignore these facts. The facts are that we are reporting
President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior
presidents, including those who worked closely with a Senate majority
of the same political party. We have accomplished all this during a
period of tremendous tumult and crisis.
The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial
nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate, and
held that hearing on the day after the Committee was assigned new
members. We held unprecedented hearings during the August recess last
year and proceeded with a hearing two days after the 9-11 attacks and
shortly after the anthrax attack. Today, we held our 23rd hearing for
judicial nominees. We are doing our best to address the vacancy crisis
we inherited.
The Democratic majority in the Senate has worked hard since the
change in majority last summer. We have a record of achievement and of
fairness to be proud of at the recess of this session. I thank the
members who have worked cooperatively with me to make progress in so
many areas over the last year.

____________________