[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5049-S5052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF RICHARD D. BENNETT, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES 
          DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall 
proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 107, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard D. Bennett, of 
Maryland, to be United States District Judge for the District of 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Richard D. Bennett, of Maryland, to be a 
United States District Judge for the District of Maryland? The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``Aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Ex.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
       
      Harkin
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President shall be immediately notified of 
the Senate's actions on these nominations.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of 
Dee Dodson Drell, who has been nominated to the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division.
  Mr. Drell began his legal career with the U.S. Army Judge Advocate 
General's Corp upon graduation from Tulane University School of Law in 
1971. He began his tour of duty as a defense counsel for courts 
martial, handling both misdemeanor and felony-level cases. He next 
moved to the position of prosecutor, during which time he was named 
Chief of Military Justice. He remained in that position until he 
completed his military service in 1975, after which he entered private 
practice.
  Mr. Drell then joined the law firm of Gravel, Roy & Burnes. His 
practice focused primarily on personal injury, criminal defense and 
general civil litigation. In 1981, Drell joined the law firm of Gold, 
Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, where he is currently a member and 
director. His primary areas of practice are insurance defense, 
contracts, employment law, health benefits and civil litigation.
  Mr. Dell has a strong commitment to pro bono work that extends beyond 
his regular law practice. It includes work with organizations that 
provide services to people suffering from AIDS and AIDS-related 
illnesses. He provides legal services as a volunteer counselor for 
Central Louisiana AIDS Support

[[Page S5050]]

Services and AIDSLaw of Louisiana, Inc. He has also served as a legal 
advisor to the board of Shepherd Ministries, an ecumenically-based 
religious organization that provides services to the disadvantaged.
  Throughout his career, Mr. Drell has won many accolades, such as 
recognition in Outstanding Young Men of America, 1976; designation as a 
Louisiana Bar Foundation Charter Fellow, 1998; and receipt of the 
Professionalism Award from the Crossroads-American Inn of Court, 2000.
  I am confident that Mr. Drell will serve on the bench with 
compassion, integrity and fairness.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I am also pleased today to speak in support of 
Richard D. Bennett, who has been nominated to the United States 
District Court for the District of Maryland.
  Mr. Bennett is a distinguished practitioner whose career includes two 
terms of service with the United States Attorney's Office for the 
District of Maryland. His outstanding legal skills have been widely 
recognized, including mention in the 2003-2204 edition of The Best 
Lawyers in America.
  Mr. Bennett began his legal career following his graduation from the 
University of Maryland School of Law in 1973. After graduation, he 
worked for the Baltimore law firm of Smith, Somerville & Case, where he 
specialized in insurance defense, as well as general civil and criminal 
litigation.
  Mr. Bennett left private practice in 1976 to serve his first term 
with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland as 
Assistant U.S. Attorney. While there, he persecuted white collar crime, 
drug offenses, environmental violations, and virtually every kind of 
criminal case brought by the office. He served in that position until 
the end of 1980.
  Next, Mr. Bennett and another former prosecutor formed a law 
partnership, Marr & Bennett, in early 1981. The practice specialized in 
federal and state litigation, with an emphasis on insurance and white 
collar criminal defense.
  Mr. Bennett then merged his practice with the firm of Weaver & Bendos 
in 1989. He continued to specialize in Federal and State litigation.
  In 1991, Mr. Bennett left Weaver, Bendos & Bennett to serve a second 
term with the U.S. Attorney's Office, this time as a U.S. Attorney, 
after being nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed by 
the Senate. He served in that capacity until 1993.
  Mr. Bennett has since returned to private practice as a partner with 
Miles & Stockbridge, one of Maryland's most prestigious law firms. His 
practice has increasingly focused on white collar criminal defense, 
government investigations, internal investigations, and grand jury 
practice. He served as Special Counsel to the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives from August 
1997 until June 1998.
  Mr. Bennett has the support of both Maryland Senators, along with a 
unanimous ``Well Qualified'' ABA rating. With his legal acumen and 
experience as both defense counsel and federal prosecutor, I am 
confident that Mr. Bennett will make a fine jurist on the Federal 
bench.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. With today's confirmation vote on the nominations of Dee 
Drell to the United States District Court for the Western District of 
Louisiana and Richard Bennett to the United States District Court of 
Maryland, Senate Democrats again demonstrate their bipartisanship 
toward consensus nominees.
  With these confirmations the Senate will have confirmed 18 judicial 
nominees of President Bush so far this year and 118 overall.
  During the entire four years of President Clinton's second term as 
President, Republicans never, not once, allowed the number of vacancies 
to dip below 50. The last time vacancies hit 49 was 7 years ago.
  So far this year we have confirmed more judicial nominees of 
President Bush than the Republican majority was willing to confirm in 
the entire 1996 session when President Clinton was in the White House. 
That entire year only 17 judges were confirmed all year and that 
included none to the circuit courts, not one. In contrast, already this 
session two highly controversial circuit court nominees have already 
been confirmed among the 18 judges the Senate has approved to date. 
Those confirmations, including one that had more negative votes than 
the required number of be filibustered but who was not filibustered, 
never get acknowledged in partisan Republican talking points.
  We are also ahead of the pace the Republican majority set in 1999 
when it was considered President Clinton's judicial nominees--almost 6 
months ahead. It was not until October that the Senate confirmed as 
many as 18 judicial nominees in 1999.
  In the prior 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee, we were 
able to confirm 100 judges and vastly reduce the judicial vacancies 
that Republicans had stored up by refusing to allow scores of judicial 
nominees of President Clinton to be considered. We were able to do so 
despite the White House's refusal to consult with Democrats on circuit 
court vacancies and many district court vacancies.
  There is no doubt that the judicial nominees of this President are 
conservatives, many of them quite to the right of the mainstream. Many 
of these nominees have been active in conservative political causes or 
groups. Democrats moved fairly and expeditiously on as many as we could 
consistent with our obligations to evaluate carefully and thoroughly 
these nominees to lifetime seats in the Federal courts. And we continue 
to do so.
  Unfortunately, many of this President's judicial nominees have proven 
to be quite controversial and we have had serious concerns about 
whether they would be fair judges if confirmed to lifetime positions. 
Those controversial judges take more time and raise more concerns.

  So, despite the fact that we are considering more controversial 
nominees from this President than with President Clinton, and despite 
the progress we have made in reducing judicial vacancies to the lowest 
level ever attained while President Clinton was in office and despite 
the pace of the lowest level ever attained while President Clinton was 
in office and despite the pace of confirmations, which exceeds that 
maintained by the Republican majority in 1999, Republicans still do 
nothing but criticize and castigate Senators if every judicial nominee 
is not confirmed by the Senate after a short debate.
  The question I have been asking and the American people should ask is 
why are the Senate Republicans picking fights rather than working with 
us to make additional progress. The best example of that is the 
Republican insistence on seeking to proceed on the most controversial 
among the President's nominees instead of the circuit court nominations 
that Democratic Senators have supported and will support to the Fifth 
Circuit, the nomination of Judge Edward Prado of Texas. Judge Prado's 
nomination was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee. To 
date, there has been no effort by the Republican leadership to allow 
the Senate to consider and vote on that nomination. I do not believe 
the cynical comments of some that Republicans will not allows us to 
turn to the Prado nomination because he is Hispanic and when the Senate 
confirms him it would demonstrate yet again that the outrageous charges 
of anti-Hispanic sentiment that Republicans have tried to make against 
Democrats were and are ridiculous.
  When Senator Hatch was chairman of the Committee and a Democratic 
President occupied the White House, Senator Hatch denied that even 100 
vacancies was a vacancies crisis, according to a column he wrote for 
the September 5, 1997 edition of USA Today. During the Clinton 
administration, Senator Hatch repeatedly said that 67 vacancies was the 
equivalent of ``full employment'' in the Federal judiciary. As of these 
confirmations, there are not 49 judicial vacancies.
  By Senator Hatch's standards we have reached well beyond ``full 
employment'' on the Federal bench.
  Vacancies have dropped to this level in large part because during 17 
months of Democratic control of the Senate, we confirmed 100 of 
President Bush's judicial nominees, even though Republicans averaged 
only 38 confirmations per year during their prior 6\1/2\ years of 
control of the Senate. We inherited 110 vacancies by the time the 
committee

[[Page S5051]]

was permitted to reorganize in the summer of 2001, and we confirmed 100 
judicial nominees.
  This historic number of confirmations in less than a year and a half, 
cut the number of vacancies to 60. There were 40 new retirements in 
this period. Chairman Hatch never acted as quickly on Clinton nominees.
  The Democratic leadership also moved to confirm 17 circuit court 
nominees, some of them quite controversial, in those 17 months, even 
though Chairman Hatch averaged only 7 circuit court confirmations per 
year during the Clinton administration. This year, two more circuit 
nominees of President Bush have been confirmed, although other 
controversial ones have not.

  These 19 confirmations of Bush circuit court nominees have reduced 
the number of circuit vacancies to 23. During the Clinton 
administration, Chairman Hatch and Senate Republicans blocked the 
confirmation of 22 circuit court nominees through anonymous holds, blue 
slips, and other procedures. Had those nominees been confirmed, and had 
Bush won the confirmation of 19 circuit nominees to vacancies that 
arose during his Presidency, the current number of circuit vacancies 
would be 1.
  Republicans caused what they call the circuit vacancy crisis. The 
number of circuit vacancies more than doubled from 16 in January 1995 
when Republicans took over the Senate to 33 in the summer of 2001, when 
the committee was permitted to reorganize under Democratic control. 
Still, the Senate has already confirmed 19 of his circuit court 
nominees in less than 2 years. By comparison, President Reagan had 19 
circuit nominees confirmed in his first 2 years in office as did 
President Clinton. The difference is that in both of those 
administrations, the Presidents were working with Senate majorities of 
the same political party.
  Lately I have heard Republicans complaining that not all of this 
President's circuit nominees have yet been confirmed, but he has had so 
many vacancies due to the massive obstruction of circuit seats by 
Republicans in the Clinton administration, doubling the number of 
circuit vacancies, as opposed to keeping the rate of vacancies steady 
or reducing them. Republicans now can be heard to complain that some 
circuit court nominees did not get a vote in 1992, but that situation 
does not compare to the long stall of Clinton's circuit court nominees, 
and her is why:
  Only 10 of the circuit nominees of President George H.W. Bush did not 
get a vote by the committee. Twenty-two of Clinton's circuit nominees 
did not get votes by the committee during Republican control. That is 
more than twice as many. Additionally, President George H.W. Bush won 
the confirmation of 67 percent of his circuit nominees between 1991 and 
1992, a Presidential election year, which was consistent with prior 
Presidential election year congresses for President Reagan. In 
contrast, President Clinton won confirmation of only 15 of 34 circuit 
nominees in 1999-2000, about 44 percent.
  Thus, because of the Republican success in blocking appellate judges, 
President Clinton's circuit court nominees were actually more likely 
than not to not be confirmed, an indignity not suffered by Bush's 
nominees. This was nothing compared to 1996, the first election year in 
modern history and recollection in which not a single circuit nominee 
was confirmed all year, with Republicans in charge. Plus, I would note 
that 6 of President Clinton's circuit nominees in 1999-2000 were 
actually re-nominees, like Judge Richard Paez who even Chairman Hatch 
admitted was ``filibustered'' in 2000 and who waited more than 1,500 
days to be confirmed.
  In fact, when you look at the actual percent of confirmations by 
session rather than the combined figure for two years, the percent of 
Clinton nominees blocked by Republicans is even more shocking. During 
1999, only 7 of 25 Clinton circuit nominees were confirmed, or 28 
percent, and 1999 was not a Presidential election year. In contrast, in 
1991, the first President Bush won the confirmation of 9 of 17 
nominees, or 53 percent. In 2000, Clinton won confirmation of 8 out of 
25 nominees, including those not acted on in 1999, or 32 percent. In 
contrast in 1992, Bush won the confirmation of 11 of 21 circuit 
nominees, including those not acted on in 1991, which again was more 
than 52 percent.
  Despite the wide-scale obstruction or filibustering of Clinton 
circuit vacancies--filibustering after all comes from the Dutch word 
for piracy or taking things that do not belong to you--Democrats worked 
hard to turn the other cheek and fill vacancies that were allowed to go 
unfilled due to Republican holds.
  For example, under Democratic leadership, the Senate held the first 
hearing for a nominee to the Fourth Circuit in 3 years and confirmed 
him and another most controversial nominee, even though seven of 
President Clinton's nominees to that circuit never received hearings 
from Republicans. We proceed with the first hearing for a nominee to 
the Fifth Circuit in 7 years and confirmed her, even though three of 
President Clinton's nominees to that circuit never received hearings. 
In fact, we held hearings for all three of President Bush's nominees to 
that circuit even though three of President Clinton's nominees, Enrique 
Moreno, Jorge Rangel, and Alston Johnson, were never allowed hearings 
by Republicans.
  We proceeded with the first hearing on a nominee to the Sixth Circuit 
in almost 5 years and confirmed her and another controversial nominee 
to that circuit even though three of President Clinton's nominees to 
that circuit never received a hearing. We proceeded with the first 
hearing on a nominee to the Tenth Circuit in 6 years and confirmed 
three, even though two of President Clinton's nominees to that circuit 
were never allowed hearings. With the confirmation of the controversial 
Tim Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit last week we have now filled a total 
of four vacancies on that court. The seat to which he was nominated had 
been vacant for more than 4 years despite President Clinton having 
nominated two qualified nominees, neither of whom was ever accorded a 
hearing.
  Had President Clinton's circuit court nominees been confirmed, the 
circuit courts would have been evenly balanced, with six circuits with 
a majority of Democratic appointees and six circuits with a majority of 
Republican appointees and one circuit with an even number of Democratic 
and Republican appointees.
  If President Bush succeeds in winning the confirmation of nominees to 
every circuit vacancy he inherited plus the ones that have arisen since 
then, only two circuits will have a majority of Democratic appointees 
and 11 will have a majority of Republican appointees. In many of those 
circuits, the Republican appointees will have at least a 2-1 majority 
on every panel on average. More than 67 percent of the appointments to 
those courts will be by Republicans.
  It is also important to remember when comparing what Republicans did 
to President Clinton's circuit nominees to what happened in 1992 that 
Chairman Biden moved through 66 of President Bush's judicial nominees 
in 1992, President George H.W. Bush's best year for confirmations, 
despite it being a Presidential election year. However, the Senate 
could not get through all of the nominees following the bipartisan 
judgeship bill of 1990 which increased the size of the Federal courts 
by more than 100 seats.
  In the 102nd Congress, Chairman Biden got through 124 of President 
George H.W. Bush's nominees, including his nominee to the Supreme 
Court, Clarence Thomas. In fact, the Republicans did not allow 
President Clinton to win the confirmation of a many judges in 1999 and 
2000 combined as Chairman Biden got through for President Bush in 1992 
alone.
  Finally, I would note that Chairman Biden moved through 20 circuit 
court nominees for President Bush in the 102nd Congress. As a 
consequence, the first President Bush was able to appoint 42 circuit 
judges in his one term as a President. Because of Republicans' blockade 
of any circuit court nominee to be confirmed in 1996, President Clinton 
was able to appoint only 30 circuit judges in his first term, more than 
25 percent fewer than his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, who 
had a Democratic Senate during his entire Presidency. In President 
Clinton's two full terms, Republican obstruction limited him to 65 
circuit court appointment in those 8 years.
  In contrast, President George W. Bush has already appointed 19 
circuit

[[Page S5052]]

judges and, as I have indicated, the 20th confirmation, that of Judge 
Prado is stalled only because Republicans have refused to proceed to 
his consideration.
  President Bush is poised to appoint at least one-quarter of Federal 
appellate courts in just one term, due to the large number of circuit 
court vacancies he inherited from President Clinton which were the 
result of widespread Republican obstruction.
  The solution to the current logjam over circuit court judges is not 
to move them through more quickly with less scrutiny. The solution is 
for this President to consult with Senators from both parties in 
finding mainstream, consensus nominees, rather than this parade of 
activists and extremists that we have witnessed over these past few 
months. This President wants a clean slate on judicial nominees, but he 
refuses to do any of the work necessary to clean that slate. Instead of 
being a uniter in his judicial choices, he has divided this Senate and 
the American people by deferring to the far right wing of his party in 
the only lifetimes appointments in our entire government.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has been ridiculed, and I am sad to 
say, rightly so, for becoming a rubberstamp, an assembly line for these 
important nominations to the second highest courts in our Federal 
Government. The solution is genuine consultation and accommodation 
rather than this race to pack the courts and tip the balance with 
nominees who have shown a lack of respect for individual rights.
  I am pleased to say, however, that not all of his nominees have been 
extremists. Particularly for the district court nominees when there has 
been bipartisan consultation, some of the judicial nominees have been 
conservative but within the mainstream.
  Since the Republican majority will not allow the Senate to consider 
Judge Prado, let me turn briefly to the nominees before the Senate. Mr. 
Drell has been a lawyer's lawyer, rather than a political or judicial 
activist as so many of President Bush's circuit nominees are. Dr. Drell 
has been a member and a leader of numerous State and Local bar 
associations. He served on the State Committee or Post-Conviction 
Representation for 5 years and assisted the State bar with attorney 
disciplinary matters. Dr. Drell has been active in the Family Mediation 
Council of Louisiana, where he served as a board member from 1986 to 
1992.
  He also served as board member of the Rapides Parish Indigent 
Defender Board from 1987 to 1994. He served on the Louisiana Task Force 
on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts.
  Mr. Drell has also devoted a considerable amount of time to helping 
individuals suffering with AIDS on a pro bono basis. He is directly 
involved as volunteer counsel for Central Louisiana AIDS Support 
Services and AIDSLaw of Louisiana, Inc. These two organizations provide 
services to persons with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. He has also 
devoted time to the Delta Region AIDS Education and Training Center. In 
1997, he received the Pro Bono Publico Award in 1997 from AIDSLaw of 
Louisiana.
  Mr. Drell ha a record of accomplishment and compassion as a lawyer of 
which we can all be proud. He has the full support of both of his home-
State Senators. His record has generated no controversy or criticism. 
If only, our circuit court nominees had records such as his. This 
nomination is a good example of the kind of candidate who engenders 
bipartisan support.
  I congratulate Mr. Drell, his family and the Senators from Louisiana 
on his nomination and confirmation.
  The other nominee confirmed today is Richard Bennett of Maryland. 
There is no doubt that Mr. Bennett is a conservative and a Republican, 
yet he has the support of his home-State Senators and the support of 
Senate Democrats.
  In 1991, Mr. Bennett was chosen by President George H.W. Bush to be 
the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland and the Senate 
confirmed him without dissent. He has also run for State office as a 
Republican. He has litigated more than 100 cases, civil and criminal, 
most of which were in the Federal court to which he is nominated.
  He has received an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, been selected 
to The Best Lawyers in America, and also received a meritorious service 
medal for his work in the military as a staff judge advocate.
  Mr. Bennett served as special counsel to the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee in 1997 and 1998 with Republican U.S. 
Representative Dan Burton, who was investigating campaign contributions 
during the 1996 election. He heads the Miles & Stockbrige Foundation, a 
charitable foundation.
  I congratulate Mr. Bennett and his family on his confirmation.

                          ____________________