[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11047-S11052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of John M. Rogers

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last night, the Senate voted to confirm 
the nomination of John Rogers who is nominated to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. By confirming this nomination, we are 
trying to move forward in providing help to the Sixth Circuit. Earlier 
this year, we held a hearing for Judge Julia Gibbons to a seat on the 
Sixth Circuit, who was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2002 by a 
vote of 95 to 0. With last night's vote, the Democratic-led Senate 
confirmed the 15th judge to our Federal Courts of Appeal and our 98th 
judicial nominee since the change in Senate majority in July 2001. I 
have placed a separate statement in the Record on the occasion of 
confirming that many of this President's judicial nominees in just 16 
months.
  Republicans often say that almost half of the seats on the Sixth 
Circuit are vacant but what they fail to acknowledge is that most of 
those vacancies arose during the Clinton Administration and before the 
change in majority last summer. None, zero, not one of the Clinton 
nominees to those current vacancies on the Sixth Circuit received a 
hearing by the Judiciary Committee under Republican leadership. With 
the confirmation of Professor Rogers, we have reduced the number of 
vacancies on that court to six, but four of those remaining lack home-
State consent due to the President's failure to address the legitimate 
concerns of Senators in that circuit whose nominees were blocked by 
Republicans during the period of Republican control of the Senate.
  The Sixth Circuit vacancies are a prime and unfortunate legacy of the 
past partisan obstructionist practices under Republican leadership. 
Vacancies on the Sixth Circuit were perpetuated during the last several 
years of the Clinton administration when the Republican majority 
refused to hold hearings on the nominations of Judge Helene White, 
Kathleen McCree Lewis and Professor Kent Markus to vacancies in the 
Sixth Circuit.
  One of those seats has been vacant since 1995, the first term of 
President Clinton. Judge Helene White of the Michigan Court of Appeals 
was nominated in January 1997 and did not receive a hearing on her 
nomination during the more than 1,500 days before her nomination was 
withdrawn by President Bush in March of last year. Judge White's 
nomination may have set an unfortunate record.
  Her nomination was pending without a hearing for more over 4 years--
51 months. She was first nominated in January 1997 and renominated and 
renominated through March of last year when President Bush chose to 
withdraw her nomination. Under Republican control, the committee 
averaged hearings on only about eight Courts of Appeals nominees a year 
and, in 2000, held only five hearings on Courts of Appeals nominees all 
year.
  In contrast, Professor Rogers was the fifteenth Court of Appeals 
nominee of President Bush to receive a hearing by the committee in less 
than a year since the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
In 16 months we held hearings on 20 circuit court nominations. 
Professor Rogers was being treated much better than Kathleen McCree 
Lewis, a distinguished African American lawyer from a prestigious 
Michigan law firm. She never had a hearing on her 1999 nomination to 
the Sixth Circuit during the years it was pending before it was 
withdrawn by President Bush in March 2001.
  Professor Kent Markus, another outstanding nominee to a vacancy on 
the Sixth Circuit that arose in 1999, never received a hearing on his 
nomination before his nomination was returned to President Clinton 
without action in December 2000. While Professor Markus' nomination was 
pending, his confirmation was supported by individuals of every 
political stripe, including 14 past presidents of the Ohio State Bar 
Association and more than 80 Ohio law school deans and professors.
  Others who supported Professor Markus include prominent Ohio 
Republicans, including Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, 
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Stratton, Congresswoman Deborah 
Pryce, and Congressman David Hobson, the National District Attorneys 
Association, and virtually every major newspaper in the state.
  In his testimony to the Senate in May, Professor Markus summarized 
his experience as a federal judicial nominee, demonstrating how the 
``history regarding the current vacancy backlog is being obscured by 
some.'' Here are some of things he said:

       On February 9, 2000, I was the President's first judicial 
     nominee in that calendar year. And then the waiting began. . 
     . .
       At the time my nomination was pending, despite lower 
     vacancy rates than the 6th Circuit, in calendar year 2000, 
     the Senate confirmed circuit nominees to the 3rd, 9th and 
     Federal Circuits. . . . No 6th circuit nominee had been 
     afforded a hearing in the prior two years. Of the nominees 
     awaiting a Judiciary Committee hearing, there was no circuit 
     with more nominees than the 6th Circuit.
       With high vacancies already impacting the 6th Circuit's 
     performance, and more vacancies on the way, why, then, did my 
     nomination expire without even a hearing? To their credit, 
     Senator DeWine and his staff and Senator Hatch's staff and 
     others close to him were straight with me.
       Over and over again they told me two things: (1) There will 
     be no more confirmations to the 6th Circuit during the 
     Clinton Administration[.] (2) This has nothing to do with 
     you; don't take it personally it doesn't matter who the 
     nominee is, what credentials they may have or what support 
     they may have--see item number 1. . . . The fact was, a 
     decision had been made to hold the vacancies and see who 
     won the presidential election. With a Bush win, all those 
     seats could go to Bush rather than Clinton nominees.

  As Professor Markus identified, some on the other side of the aisle 
held these seats open for years for another President to fill, instead 
of proceeding fairly on the consensus nominees pending before the 
Senate. Some were unwilling to move forward, knowing that retirements 
and attrition would create four additional seats that would arise 
naturally for the next President. That is why there are now so many 
vacancies on the Sixth Circuit.
  Had Republicans not blocked President Clinton's nominees to this 
court, if the three Democratic nominees had been confirmed and 
President Bush appointed the judges to the other vacancies on the Sixth 
Circuit, that court would be almost evenly balanced between judges 
appointed by Republicans and Democrats. That is what Republican 
obstruction was designed to avoid, balance. The same is true of a 
number of other circuits, with Republicans benefitting from their 
obstructionist practices of the preceding six and a half years. This 
combined with President Bush's refusal to consult with Democratic 
Senators about these matters is particularly troubling.
  Long before some of the recent voices of concern were raised about 
the vacancies on that court, Democratic Senators in 1997, 1998, 1999, 
and 2000 implored the Republican majority to give the Sixth Circuit 
nominees hearings. Those requests, made not just for the sake of the 
nominees but for the sake of the public's business before the court, 
were ignored. Numerous articles and editorials urged the Republican 
leadership to act on those nominations.
  Fourteen former presidents of the Michigan State Bar pleaded for 
hearings on those nominations. The former Chief Judge of the Sixth 
Circuit, Judge Gilbert Merritt, wrote to the Judiciary Committee 
Chairman years ago to ask that the nominees get hearings and that the 
vacancies be filled. The Chief Judge noted that, with four vacancies--
the four vacancies that arose in the Clinton administration the Sixth 
Circuit ``is hurting badly and will not be able to keep up with its 
work load due to the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has acted 
on none of the nominations to our Court.'' He predicted: ``By the time 
the next President is inaugurated, there will be six vacancies on the 
Court of Appeals. Almost half of the Court will be vacant and will 
remain so for most of 2001 due to the exigencies of the nomination 
process. Although the President has nominated candidates, the Senate 
has refused to take a vote on any of them.''
  However, no Sixth Circuit hearings were held in the last three full 
years of the Clinton administration--almost his

[[Page S11048]]

entire second presidential term--despite these pleas. Not one. Since 
the shift in majority last summer, the situation has been exacerbated 
further as two additional vacancies have arisen.
  The committee's April 25th hearing on the nomination of Judge Gibbons 
to the Sixth Circuit was the first hearing on a Sixth Circuit 
nomination in almost 5 years, even though three outstanding, fair-
minded individuals were nominated to the Sixth Circuit by President 
Clinton and pending before the Committee for anywhere from one year to 
over four years. Judge Gibbons was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 
2002, by a vote of 95 to 0. We did not stop there, but proceeded to 
hold a hearing on a second Sixth Circuit nominee, Professor Rogers, 
just a few short months later in June.
  Just as we held the first hearing on a Sixth Circuit nominee in many 
years, the hearing we held on the nomination of Judge Edith Clement to 
the Fifth Circuit last year was the first on a Fifth Circuit nominee in 
seven years and she was the first new appellate judge confirmed to that 
Court in six years.
  When we held a hearing on the nomination of Judge Harris Hartz to the 
Tenth Circuit last year, it was the first hearing on a Tenth Circuit 
nominee in six years and he was the first new appellate judge confirmed 
to that Court in 6 years. When we held the hearing on the nomination of 
Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit last year, it was the first 
hearing on a Fourth Circuit nominee in three years and he was the first 
appellate judge confirmed to that court in three years.
  A number of vacancies continue to exist on many Courts of Appeals, in 
large measure because the recent Republican majority was not willing to 
hold hearings or vote on half--56 percent--of President Clinton's 
Courts of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000 and was not willing to 
confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during the entire 1996 
session.
  From the time the Republicans took over the Senate in 1995 until the 
reorganization of the committee last July, circuit vacancies increased 
from 16 to 33, more than doubling. Democrats have broken with that 
recent history of inaction. In the last 16 months, we have held 26 
judicial nominations hearing, including 20 hearings for circuit court 
nominees.
  Professor Roger's nomination was also the fourth judicial nomination 
from Kentucky to be considered by the committee in its first year, and 
the eighth nomination from Kentucky overall. There are no judicial 
vacancies left in the State.
  Professor Rogers of the University of Kentucky College of Law has 
experience as an appellate litigator and a teacher, and is a prolific 
author on a number of difficult legal topics. It is important to note 
that aspects of his record raise concerns. As a professor, he has been 
a strong proponent of judicial activism. No Clinton judicial nominee 
with such published views would ever have been confirmed during the 
period of Republican control. In his writings, Professor Rogers has 
called on lower court judges to reverse higher court precedents, if the 
lower court judge thinks the higher court will ultimate reverse its own 
precedent. Such an activist approach is inappropriate in the lower 
federal courts. The Supreme Court itself has noted that lower courts 
should follow Supreme Court precedent and not anticipate future 
decisions in which the Supreme Court may exercise its prerogative to 
overrule itself.
  Prognostications about how the Supreme Court will rule often turns 
out to be wrong. For example, some predicted that the Supreme Court 
would overturn Miranda, but the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, declined to do so. Similarly, people like Professor 
Rogers have called on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but 
thus far the Supreme Court has rejected calls to reverse itself in this 
important decision regarding the rights of women and has resisted calls 
to return this country to the awful period of dangerous back alley 
abortions.
  Professor Rogers also suggested in his academic writings that lower 
court judges should consider the political views of Justices in making 
the determination of when lower courts should overrule Supreme Court 
precedent. In his answers to the committee, Professor Rogers 
acknowledged that he had taken that position but he now says that lower 
courts should not look to the views of Justices expressed in speeches 
or settings other than their opinions. Also, in his answers to the 
committee, Professor Rogers said he would give great weight to Supreme 
Court dicta, or arguments that are not part of the holding of the case. 
I would like to take this opportunity to urge him to take seriously the 
obligation of a judge to follow precedent and the holdings of the 
Supreme Court, rather than to look to dicta for views that may support 
his own personal views. I would also urge him resist acting on his 
academic notion that a judge should diverge from precedent when he 
anticipates that the Supreme Court may eventually do so.
  Professor Rogers has assured us that he would follow precedent and 
not overrule higher courts, despite his clear advocacy of that position 
in his writings as a scholar. He has sworn under oath that he would not 
follow the approach that he long advocated. As with President Bush's 
Eighth Circuit nominee Lavenski Smith, who was confirmed earlier this 
summer, I am hopeful that Professor Rogers will be a person of his 
word: that he will follow the law and not seek out opportunities to 
overturn precedent or decide cases in accord with his private beliefs 
rather than his obligations as a judge.
  I would also note that during his tenure at the Justice Department, 
Professor Rogers appeared to support an expansive view of the power of 
the executive branch vis-a-vis Congress. I am hopeful, however, that 
Professor Rogers will recognize the important difference between being 
a zealous advocate for such positions and being a fair and impartial 
judge sworn to follow precedents and the law.
  When he was asked to describe any work he had handled which was not 
popular but was nevertheless important, he said that the case which 
came to mind was one in which he defended the CIA against a lawsuit 
seeking damages for the CIA's illegal opening of the private mail of 
tens of thousands of U.S. citizens during this 1970s or 1980s. Those 
were dark days of overreaching by the intelligence community against 
the rights of ordinary law-abiding American citizens. Although times 
have changed forever since the tragic events of September 11, I think 
it is important that the American people have access to judges who will 
uphold the Constitution against government excesses while also giving 
acts of Congress the presumption of constitutionality to which our laws 
are entitled by precedent.
  Professor Rogers has repeatedly assured the committee, however, that 
he would follow precedent and not seek to overturn decisions affecting 
the privacy of women or any other decision of the Supreme Court. 
Senator McConnell has also personally assured me that Professor Rogers 
will not be an activist but is sincerely committed to following 
precedent if he is confirmed. I sincerely hope that his decisions on 
the Sixth Circuit do not prove us wrong.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am particularly pleased today to speak 
in support of the confirmation of John M. Rogers to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As we know, there is a judicial vacancy 
crisis in the Sixth Circuit and the addition of Mr. Rogers to the bench 
represents a positive step in alleviating that regrettable situation.
  John M. Rogers is currently the Thomas P. Lewis Professor at the 
University of Kentucky College of Law, where he has taught since 1978. 
He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Stanford University and an Order of 
the Coif graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, where he 
served on the Michigan Law Review. He is an expert in international, 
administrative, and constitutional law and a respected teacher and 
scholar.
  Prior to teaching, Professor Rogers was an appellate attorney in the 
Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. This work, 
and a later stint at DOJ, led to his being awarded a Special 
Commendation for Outstanding Service to the Civil Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Rogers has twice been a Fulbright Senior 
Lecturer in the People's Republic of China, and is a member of the 
Council on Foreign Relations. He has also

[[Page S11049]]

served this country for 28 years as a reserve officer in the U.S. Army 
Reserve and the Kentucky Army National Guard.
  All of these accomplishments and contributions explain why the 
American Bar Association has rated Professor Rogers unanimously 
qualified. I agree with that judgment, I applaud President Bush for 
making this nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to confirm 
Professor Rogers to the Sixth Circuit. I am confident he will serve 
with distinction as a Federal judge.


              nominations of u.s. district court nominees

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of the fine group of 
district court nominees who are being confirmed tonight. I have 
reviewed their individual records and I find all of them to be 
excellent choices for the Federal bench. Permit me a moment to 
highlight the merits of each nominee.
  U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley R. Chesler, our nominee to the District 
Court for the District of New Jersey, received his undergraduate degree 
from Harpur College. He then went on to do graduate work at Brooklyn 
College where he accumulated 30 graduate credits in education. While 
working as teacher during the day, he graduated magna cum laude and 
first in his class from St. John's University School of Law, receiving 
no less then 12 American Jurisprudence Awards and consistently making 
the dean's list.
  Upon graduation, Magistrate Judge Chesler joined the Bronx District 
Attorney's Office and specialized in prosecuting public corruption, 
organized crime, narcotics and fraud cases. In 1980 he became a Special 
Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice's Newark Organized Crime 
Strike Force, before becoming an Assistant United States Attorney. 
During his career at the Department of Justice, he was awarded the 
Special Commendation Award and the Special Achievement Award. The 
nominee was then appointed by the New Jersey District Court judges to 
the office of Magistrate Judge in 1987. Magistrate Judge Chesler has 
also been recognized by his colleagues in receiving an ABA rating of 
Unanimously Well Qualified.
  Rosemary Collyer, our nominee to the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia, is a graduate of the University of Denver School 
of Law. She began her career at the Denver firm of Sherman & Howard as 
an associate in the labor and employment law group. Four years later 
she was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate to be 
the Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 
which reviews decisions of specialized administrative law judges who 
adjudicate cases dealing with mine safety, health and discrimination 
claims under Federal law.
  In 1984 Ms. Collyer was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed 
by the Senate to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations 
Board. In this capacity, she served as the nationwide prosecutor of 
labor law violations, overseeing election processes, representing the 
NLRB before State and Federal courts, and overseeing agency personnel 
and budget matters. Since 1989, Ms. Collyer has been a partner at 
Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. Her specialization has been in 
labor law and employment law.
  A July 22, 2002 Legal Times article reported that Ms. Collyer is 
``well-regarded by her fellow labor lawyers.'' One colleague asserted, 
``She cares about getting it right. She is definitely capable of 
navigating complex cases.'' Another stated that during her time of 
government service, ``she was an oasis of perceived neutrality. She 
pandered to no one.'' These are traits that will undoubtedly serve Ms. 
Collyer well upon her confirmation to the Federal bench.
  Mark E. Fuller, nominated to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the 
Middle District of Alabama, is an excellent choice for the federal 
bench. After graduating from the University of Alabama School of Law in 
1985, Mr. Fuller joined the firm of Cassady, Fuller & Marsh, a small 
litigation firm specializing in all aspects of state and federal 
practice in rural southeast Alabama. He became a partner in 1986 and 
remained with the firm until 1996, handling insurance and corporate 
defense work, and domestic relations, real estate, and corporate law 
matters.

  From 1987 to 1992 and from 1995 to 1996, Mr. Fuller worked as a part-
time Assistant District Attorney. In 1996 Mr. Fuller accepted the 
position of Chief Assistant District Attorney for Alabama's Twelfth 
Judicial Circuit, serving there until 1997, when he was appointed 
District Attorney in the same office. While working in the District 
Attorney's office, Mr. Fuller has represented the people of Pike and 
Coffee counties in criminal cases, including capital murder trials and 
juvenile and district court matters. In 1998 Mr. Fuller was elected to 
a full six-year term as District Attorney. He oversees the operations 
of the office and continues to handle criminal jury trials.
  Daniel Hovland, nominated to the District Court for the District of 
North Dakota, promises to be an excellent federal judge. Upon 
graduation from the University of North Dakota School of Law, he served 
as a law clerk to the Honorable Ralph J. Erickstad on the North Dakota 
Supreme Court. He then accepted a position with the Office of the 
Attorney General for North Dakota, working as an Assistant Attorney 
General and acting as Director of the Consumer Fraud Division from 1980 
to 1983.
  From there he moved into private practice, working with Fleck Mather 
& Strutz from 1983 to 1994 and Smith Bakke Hovland & Oppegard from 1994 
to the present. As a trial lawyer, Mr. Hovland handles personal injury, 
wrongful death, medical malpractice, employment/labor, and product 
liability cases. While in private practice, Mr. Hovland has gained 
experience particularly helpful for the federal bench. Since 1994 he 
has served as an Administrative Law Judge for North Dakota's Office of 
Administrative Hearings, he currently serves on the North Dakota Parole 
Board, and he has experience with mediation and arbitration.
  Kent A. Jordan, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Delaware, comes fully recommended by Senators Biden and 
Carper, and I urge my colleagues to support him as well.
  Mr. Jordan possesses the experience needed for handling the court's 
heavy caseload of intellectual property, government corruption, and 
corporate matters. Following graduation from Georgetown University Law 
Center in 1984, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James L. 
Latchum, judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 
He then worked in private practice with a Wilmington, Delaware, firm, 
focusing on corporate and commercial litigation. From 1987 to 1992, Mr. 
Jordan worked in public service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Delaware, advancing to become lead attorney on many civil 
and criminal issues.
  Mr. Jordan currently works as a Vice President and General Counsel 
for the Corporation Service Company, which provides registered agent, 
public records filing and retrieval, corporate and intellectual 
property information management, and litigation information management 
services.
  James E. Kinkeade, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas, is a graduate of Baylor University School 
of Law. Judge Kinkeade began work as a law clerk and then associate for 
Brewer & Price in Irving, Texas. One year later he became a partner at 
Power & Kinkeade Law Firm. He represented a large number of closely 
held businesses and acted as local counsel for several national 
corporations. In addition, he had an active domestic relations and 
criminal practice. Judge Kinkeade served as an Associate Municipal 
Judge for the City of Irving from 1976-1980.
  Judge Kinkeade stopped practicing law in January of 1981 to become a 
judge for the County Criminal Court in Dallas, Texas. In fall of 1981, 
he became a judge for the 194th District Court of Texas. Since 1988, 
Judge Kinkeade has served on the State of Texas, 5th District Court of 
Appeals. In addition, Judge Kinkeade has served as an adjunct professor 
for over 10 years at the Texas Wesleyan School of Law. He received the 
Outstanding Adjunct Professor award four times while teaching 
Professional Responsibility.
  Judge Robert Gary Klausner, who has been nominated to the District 
Court for the Central District of California, graduated from Loyola Law 
School (Los Angeles) in 1967. Though awarded

[[Page S11050]]

a merit scholarship by Loyola he supported himself as a gas station 
attendant. Upon graduation, he commenced his service as an active duty 
officer in the U.S. Army, rising to the rank of Captain and receiving 
the Bronze Star.

  After leaving the Army, Judge Klausner worked as a Deputy District 
Attorney for Los Angeles County. In 1974, he became Court Commissioner 
to the Pasadena Municipal Court for 6 years. In 1980, he became a Judge 
to that Court. Judge Klausner then left the Pasadena Municipal Court to 
become a Judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court. He has been with the 
Los Angeles Superior Court for the last 17 years. This nominee's life 
has been dedicated to the people of California and I cannot urge the 
Senate enough to confirm this well-qualified and well-deserving 
nominee.
  Our nominee to the District of New Jersey, Judge Robert Byron Kugler, 
graduated from Rutgers, Camden Law School and then clerked for the 
Honorable John F. Gerry of the United States District Court in Camden, 
New Jersey. In 1979, he was appointed Assistant Camden County 
Prosecutor and then one year later he was appointed Deputy Attorney 
General for the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. In 
these positions, he prosecuted criminal cases brought by county and/or 
State law enforcement agencies. As a prosecutor, Judge Kugler tried 
over 30 cases to jury verdict and over 100 cases to verdict in bench 
trials.
  In 1982 Judge Kugler entered private practice and focused on matters 
of civil and criminal litigation. While in private practice, he tried 
as sole counsel to verdict over 50 cases. Before becoming a Magistrate 
Judge, Judge Kugler qualified for appointment by the New Jersey Supreme 
Court as a Certified Trial Attorney and Certified Civil Trial Attorney. 
Since 1992, Judge Kugler has been a United States Magistrate Judge in 
the District Court for the District of New Jersey. In January of 2002, 
the Camden County Bar Association presented its most prestigious award, 
the Peter J. Devine Award, to Judge Kugler and his wife for their 
service to the community and bar.
  Ronald B. Leighton, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court 
in the Western District of Washington, is a highly experienced and 
respected federal trial attorney. Upon graduation from UC--Hastings 
College of Law, Mr. Leighton clerked for the Honorable Frank Richardson 
of the California Supreme Court. He then joined the Tacoma, WA, firm of 
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, becoming a 
partner in 1978. He has remained with the same firm to the present day, 
working as a trial attorney with emphasis on complex litigation in 
Federal court.
  Mr. Leighton's excellence as a litigator has not gone unrecognized. 
Among other honors, he is a member of the American College of Trial 
Attorneys, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the International 
Association of Defense Counsel, and the International Society of 
Barristers. He has represented clients on both sides of the docket.
  Mr. Leighton was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the same 
position in the spring of 1992, but the Democrat-controlled Judiciary 
Committee did not grant him a hearing. I am pleased that we can finally 
vote Mr. Leighton to the federal court, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in my support.
  Nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 
Judge Jose Luis Linares immigrated to the United States from Cuba when 
he was 12 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Jersey 
City State University in 1975, where he was a member of the National 
Honor Society. He then graduated from Temple Law School in 1978. During 
his studies at Temple, he was on the Dean's List for 2 years and was 
the recipient of the that law school's Barristers' Society Award for 
Excellence in Trial Advocacy.
  Judge Linares started his career with the New York Department of 
Investigation, where he supervised white-collar crime and corruption 
investigations in the City of New York. Later, as an attorney at 
Horowitz, Bross, Sinnins & Imperial, P.A., he was responsible for the 
preparation and trial of both civil and criminal cases. In 1982, Judge 
Linares started his own law firm, litigating both civil and criminal 
cases with a focus on complex medical malpractice and product liability 
cases. After 18 years as a partner in his own firm, in its many 
incarnations, he was appointed as a Judge to the New Jersey Superior 
Court in Essex County. He currently oversees complex medical 
malpractice cases in the Civil Division of the court. His fellow 
attorney's are quite impressed with his record as well. He has received 
the highest rating by the ABA, unanimously Well Qualified. I am proud 
to say that I will vote for this nominee and I recommend him without 
reservation to the Senate.
  Nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Texas, Judge Alia Moses Ludlum, graduated from the University of Texas 
School of Law in 1986. She continued her law school job as a law clerk 
in the Travis County Attorney's Office, where she eventually was 
promoted to Assistant County Attorney. She held a variety of positions 
in the office, first as Intake Attorney, then as Trial Attorney, and 
ultimately as Chief of the office's Appellate Division. Her primary 
responsibility as an Assistant County Attorney was the prosecution of 
criminal cases at the trial and appellate levels. She also handled all 
civil expunction suits and some mental health commitment cases, and 
represented battered spouses in protective order proceedings.

  After 4 years at the County Attorney's Office, Judge Ludlum was hired 
to work as the sole resident AUSA in the Del Rio Division of the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. She was eventually 
elevated to the position of Senior Litigation Attorney, then promoted 
to Chief of the Del Rio Division. As an AUSA, Judge Ludlum prosecuted 
an average of 125 felony criminal case per year. In 1997, Judge Ludlum 
became a part-time magistrate judge for the Western District of Texas, 
Del Rio Division. She assumed that position on a full-time basis in 
2000.
  William J. Martini, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court 
for the District of New Jersey, has solid prosecutorial and private 
practice experience, as well as congressional service all of which will 
serve him well on the federal bench.
  A graduate of Rutgers School of Law, Mr. Martini served as a law 
clerk for the Superior Court of New Jersey, before working as an 
assistant prosecutor in the Hudson County (New Jersey) Prosecutor's 
Office. He then took a position as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the 
U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, NJ, where he tried a dozen criminal 
jury trials to completion. Beginning in 1977, Mr. Martini worked as a 
sole practitioner, initially representing criminal defendants and later 
branching out into civil litigation, including plaintiff's personal 
injury suits and commercial contract matters. Following a term serving 
the people of New Jersey in the House of Representatives, he joined 
Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein and Gross as partner, focusing on 
governmental affairs/regulatory law and general litigation.
  Magistrate Judge Thomas Wade Phillips, nominated to the District 
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, received his undergraduate 
degree from Berea College in 1965. After college, he attended 
Vanderbilt University School of Law on a full academic scholarship. In 
law school he was an assistant articles editor for the law review and 
was the recipient of the Dean's Award for Best Senior Dissertation. 
After graduation, he was commissioned into the United States Army, 
Judge Advocate General Corps, where he received a Appellate Advocacy 
Award, Government Appellate Division, in 1973. During that same year, 
he retired from the military and earned an LL.M. in Labor Law from 
George Washington University Law School.
  Entering private practice, he was an associate at two firms, before 
becoming a partner at the firm of Baker, Worthington, Cossley, 
Stansberry & Woolf. During this period, he was elected to and served 
for nearly fifteen years as the county attorney for Scott County. From 
1977 to 1986 he was a partner at two different firms. In 1986, 
Magistrate Judge Phillips became a Senior Partner in the firm of 
Phillips and Williams. He held this position until 1991 when he was 
appointed United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of 
Tennessee. On October 17, 2000, he was appointed Chief

[[Page S11051]]

United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee. 
He continues to serve in this capacity. The ABA has given him their 
highest rating of Unanimously Well Qualified.
  Upon graduation from Drake University Law School, Judge Linda Reade, 
nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, 
became an associate with a Des Moines area law firm where she worked on 
litigation involving federal and state civil law. In 1981, she moved to 
the Des Moines firm of Rosenberg and Margulies, where she worked for 
three years litigating federal and state, and civil and criminal law.
  From 1984 to 1986, Judge Reade worked on both federal and state, and 
civil and criminal cases as a partner in that firm. In 1986, she became 
an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. 
In 1990, she was promoted to Chief of the General Criminal Division in 
the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Iowa. 
Since 1993, Judge Reade has served as a general jurisdiction State 
District Court Judge in Des Moines, Iowa, where she has maintained a 
low reversal rate. She has also lectured on civil procedure and trial 
practice (1995-2000) and taught trial practice for two semesters at 
Drake University Law School (1988 and 1990). Judge Reade is well 
prepared to serve as a district court judge.
  William E. Smith, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Rhode Island, joined Edwards & Angell, LLP, right 
after law school, and he is a member of the firm's labor, employment, 
and litigation departments. His practice has included representing 
management in union contract negotiations, union organizing drives, 
arbitration proceedings, employment discrimination matters, sexual 
harassment, wage and hour law, OSHA, OFCCP compliance and 
investigations, and other Department of Labor investigations.
  While at his firm, in 1993, Mr. Smith successfully competed to become 
City Solicitor of Warwick, Rhode Island (under Mayor Lincoln Chafee). 
As such, he led a team of lawyers who took over all of the city's legal 
work for a fixed fee. He was also retained that year to be legal 
counsel to the Rhode Island Secretary of State, performing labor, 
employment and other matters. In 1994, he was hired by the Rhode Island 
Department of Administration as outside labor-litigation counsel for a 
number of arbitration cases. He also worked for the Rhode Island courts 
during an organizing drive of clerical employees and a restructuring of 
the court system and as a judge on the municipal court for 4\1/2\ 
years. Mr. Smith has since returned to private practice with Edwards & 
Angell.
  Jeffery Steven White, who has been nominated to the Northern District 
of California, is a prime example of the high quality attorneys that 
President Bush has nominated to the Federal bench. He received his 
undergraduate degree from Queens College of the City University of New 
York in 1977. He then graduated magna cum laude from the State 
University of New York, Buffalo's School of Law in 1980. During his 
studies at SUNY Buffalo, he was a Research Editor of the Law Review and 
graduated first in his class.
  Upon graduation, Mr. White became a Trial Attorney for the U.S. 
Department of Justice, Criminal Division--Management/Labor Section. In 
1971 he joined the U.S. Attorney Office for the District of Maryland as 
an Assistant U.S. Attorney. During his tenure at this position, he was 
designated as an outstanding Assistant United States Attorney in 1974 
and 1976. He then returned to the Department of Justice in 1977 to work 
as a Senior Grade Trial Attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the 
Criminal Division. In 1978, Mr. White began a 24 year association with 
the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutciffe. He quickly rose to 
become Chairman of the firm's Litigation Department, a position that he 
held from 1985 to 2000.
  Freda L. Wolfson, who has been nominated to the District Court for 
the District of New Jersey, is a great choice for the federal court. 
Upon graduation from Rutgers University School of Law, Judge Wolfson 
was a litigation associate at Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & 
Boylan. Her practice mostly involved commercial litigation and 
employment litigation. She also represented a habeas corpus petitioner 
in federal court and represented several criminal defendants as pro 
bono counsel.
  From 1981-1986, she was a litigation associate at Clapp & Eisenberg 
where she focused on commercial litigation, employment litigation, and 
defense of ski areas. In addition, she frequently appeared before the 
New Jersey Casino Control Commission. In 1986, Judge Wolfson was 
appointed a United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Jersey. 
Since 1990, she has presided over 32 civil trials, 18 jury trials, and 
14 bench trials. She has served on the Third Circuit's Task Force for 
Indigent Litigants in Civil Cases since 1998.
  I am proud to support all of these nominees. They have excellent 
educational backgrounds, they have terrific legal experience, and they 
have the temperament to excel on the bench. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in my unqualified support.


                  nomination of judge thomas phillips

  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is 
taking up the nomination of judge Thomas Phillips, who is the 
President's nominee to fill a vacancy on the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
  Judge Phillips was born and raised in Scott County, TN, the home 
county of our former colleague, Senator Howard Baker. His academic 
record is superb. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Berea College in 
Kentucky, he went on to attend Vanderbilt Law School, my own alma 
mater, on a full academic scholarship. While at Vanderbilt, he was an 
editor of the Law Review and received the Dean's Award for Best Senior 
Dissertation.
  Upon finishing law school, Judge Phillips joined the Army Judge 
Advocate General's Corps, which awarded him its Outstanding Appellate 
Advocacy Award and the Army Commendation Medal in 1973. While serving 
in the Army, Judge Phillips also received a master of laws degree from 
George Washington University Law School here in Washington.
  In 1973, Judge Phillips returned to Tennessee and entered the private 
practice of law. Public service called him back, however, and in 1976, 
Judge Phillips was elected as County Attorney for Scott County. Between 
1976 and 1991, Judge Phillips continued to serve as Scott County 
Attorney, being re-elected four times, while continuing to engage in 
private law practice with his own firm in his home town, Oneida. During 
this period, he tried hundreds of cases.
  In 1991, Judge Phillips was appointed by the judges of the Eastern 
District of Tennessee to serve as a Magistrate Judge in Knoxville, the 
position he continues to hold. During the time he has served as 
Magistrate Judge, he has earned the respect of all who have appeared 
before him for his demeanor, courtesy, and intellect. During the 
rigorous screening process that Senator Frist and I undertook to review 
the records of interested candidates for this judgeship, we heard 
uniformly and highly favorable comments about Judge Phillips.
  I think the record before the committee demonstrates his outstanding 
qualifications. I cite just one example. In over 11 years on the bench, 
out of thousands of decisions and recommendations, Judge Phillips has 
been reversed on just two occasions, and on only one occasion has a 
District Judge rejected his recommendations.
  Judge Phillips has excelled not only in his professional career, but 
in his commitment to his community as well. He has promoted legal 
education by serving as a member of the Inns of Court and by teaching 
at the University of Tennessee Law School. He is an Elder of the 
Huntsville Presbyterian Church, a member of the American Legion, and a 
leader of the American, Tennessee, Scott County, and Knoxville Bar 
Associations. In private practice, Judge Phillips provided extensive 
pro bono services and served on the boards of Scott County Hospital and 
Opportunities for the Handicapped.
  I would be remiss if I failed to note the importance of moving 
forward with this nomination. Traditionally, two district judges sit in 
Knoxville, Tennessee's third largest city. Late last year and early 
this year, Judge Jordan and Judge Jarvis respectively assumed senior 
status, leaving the district court in Knoxville with no active judges. 
I

[[Page S11052]]

want to express my thanks and appreciation to both senior judges for 
the service they rendered for many years on the Federal bench in 
Knoxville.
  I am confident that there is no one better qualified to fill the 
large hold left by Judge Jordan and Judge Jarvis than Judge Phillips. I 
am pleased to endorse Judge Phillips and urge my colleagues to support 
his nomination.

                          ____________________