[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 49 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3788-S3791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
MICHAEL RYAN BARRETT TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael Ryan Barrett, of
Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Ohio.
[[Page S3789]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assume the opponents of these nominations
would want to be recognized, or the Republican majority supporting him.
I understand there are three Republicans to speak on the judges and one
Democrat is allowed to speak.
No one is here, so I will speak.
I will support this nominee, Michael Barrett. He has the support of
his home State Senators. I have also heard from both Democrats and
Republicans in Ohio. That makes it worth supporting. In fact, the
nomination of such consensus nominees is an indication of what should
be done in States, and would lead to the confirmation of more judges.
In January 2001, we were following a shutdown of judges going through.
As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, the Republicans were
determined to block virtually all of President Clinton's judges for a
long period of time. I became chairman and for 17 months moved a record
number of judges for President Bush, 100. Actually, since 2001, while
the Republican majority has not moved President Bush's judicial
nominees anywhere near as fast as I did, we have still moved 238. That
includes two Supreme Court Justices, and 43 circuit court judges.
However, we do have some that create problems.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the recent withdrawals of several
nominees, all too often this White House seems more interested in
rewarding cronies and picking political fights than in selecting
lifetime appointments after thorough vetting. Sadly, the Republican
Senate has proceeded to rubber stamp these important nominations and
failed in its role as a constitutional check on the President.
The controversial nominations of Judge Terrence Boyle and Brett
Kavanaugh are contemporary cases in point. With the extreme right-wing
and special interest groups agitating for a fight over judicial
nominations, the Republican leader of the Senate is answering their
demands by seeking to force Senate debate on these controversial
nominees. Rather than focus on proposals to end the subsidies to big
oil and rein in gas prices, rather than devote our time to immigration
reform legislation, rather than completing a budget, the Republican
leader came to the floor last week to signal a fight over controversial
judicial nominations is in the offing. Such a controversial maneuver
serves only to divide and distract us from America's real problems.
During this President's administration, gas prices have more than
doubled and undocumented immigrants have doubled, but judicial
vacancies have been cut in half from the time when Republicans in the
Senate were stalling President Clinton's judicial nominations. Despite
the real problems that confront Americans with respect to security,
health insurance, rising health costs, rising energy costs, and
spiraling deficits and debt, some would rather pick an election year
fight over judicial nominations.
In fact, I mentioned Judge Boyle. I contrast his nomination to the
nomination of Michael Barrett. Michael Barrett, as I said, will go
through easily. I will support him. I will vote for him, as I told the
distinguished Senator, the former Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, now
senior Member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. DeWine.
But you take somebody like Judge Boyle. Here is somebody who has
violated every judicial ethic you can think of. He ruled on multiple
cases involving corporations in which he held investments. In at least
one instance--this is chutzpah beyond all understanding--he was
presiding over a case involving General Electric, and while doing that,
he bought stock in General Electric; then, 2 months later, he ruled in
favor of General Electric.
Now, in the first year of law school you might get an example like
this because it is so clear-cut and easy to understand. This is
amazing--amazing--not withstanding all the other conflicts of interest
he had in other cases. Whether or not it turns out that Judge Boyle
broke Federal law or canons of judicial ethics, these types of
conflicts of interest have no place on the Federal bench.
This is not the first judicial nominee to engage in these kinds of
apparent ethical lapses. Less than two months ago, the President
withdrew the nomination of Judge James Payne to the Court of Appeals
for the 10th Circuit after information became public about that
nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had
conflicts of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the
administration's screening process or by the ABA, but by journalists.
During the last few months, President Bush also withdrew the
nominations of Judge Henry Saad to the Court of Appeals for the 6th
Circuit and Judge Daniel P. Ryan to the Eastern District of Michigan.
And we saw the arrest of another Bush administration official and
former judicial nominee to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit,
Claude Allen, who had earlier withdrawn as a nominee and more recently
resigned his position as a top domestic policy adviser to the
President. When we are considering lifetime appointments of judicial
officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, it
is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all too often this White
House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.
They add to the long list of nominations by this President that have
been withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head the
Department of Homeland Security and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
It was, as I recall, reporting in a national magazine that doomed the
Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party
that doomed the Miers nomination.
Over the weekend we heard that this administration's former FDA
director is under investigation and its political director testified,
again before a federal grand jury. Of course, Mr. Libby remains under
indictment, and Messrs. Safavian, Scanlon, Abramoff and a number of
House Republicans are caught up in another criminal probe.
In light of this long list of failures of the White House to fulfill
its commitments to the American people to be above reproach and its
lackluster vetting process, it is more important than ever that the
Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee afford nominees the kind of
careful scrutiny that will yield enough information to decide on a
nominee's fitness for an important appointment. In Judge Boyle's case,
not only were his answers to the committee's questions evasive, but he
failed to produce even the unpublished opinions he issued from the
bench.
I am also concerned that the Senate Judiciary Committee is being
required to consider the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United
States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit without a complete record.
The Democratic members of the committee have twice asked for another
hearing in connection with his nomination. Mr. Kavanaugh failed to
provide meaningful and substantive responses to many of the questions
posed to him at his first hearing and he delayed for seven months
before providing evasive and incomplete answers to written questions.
In addition, a new hearing is warranted because several troubling
issues have come to light since his initial nomination. As Associate
White House Counsel and staff secretary, Mr. Kavanaugh has served in
the inner circle of the White House at a time when many controversial
policies and decisions were being considered. Senators have not had a
chance to question him about his role in connection with those matters.
For example, what was Mr. Kavanaugh's role in connection with the
warrantless spying on Americans? What was his involvement in the
policies affecting detainee treatment and interrogation? What was his
involvement in connection with military tribunals, torture, and
rendition of prisoners to other countries? Given the scandals now
plaguing the White House, it is important to know whether Mr. Kavanaugh
has had a role in connection with the actions of Jack Abramoff, Michael
Scanlon, David Safavian, the matters being investigated in connection
with the Plame matter, and many other matters.
The wall of secrecy that the administration has maintained is no
environment in which carefully to consider an administration insider
for a lifetime appointment to an important Federal judicial position.
I see the distinguished Senator from Ohio is in the Chamber. I urge
people,
[[Page S3790]]
do not just do a rubberstamp just because it is a member of your party
who nominated these people. I think of the concern I heard from
Republicans in this body when I objected to a judicial nominee to the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Claude Allen. Nobody said a
word when he got arrested for fraud. But I bet you they breathed a sigh
of relief that I blocked it before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in just a few minutes we will be voting on
the nomination of Michael Barrett to serve as a Federal district court
judge for the Southern District of Ohio. Mr. Barrett is an outstanding
attorney, a man who has shown his dedication to public and community
service throughout his life. I am confident he will be an excellent
addition to the bench.
Michael Barrett's legal career--spanning almost 30 years--has been
distinguished, not only by his accomplishments as a litigator but also
by his truly extraordinary record of public and civic leadership.
A brief summary of his background offers ample evidence of his
qualifications. He is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati where
he earned both his bachelor of arts degree as well as his law degree.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Barrett served the State of Ohio
as an administrative hearing officer for over a year, handling issues
as a new attorney that usually are reserved for lawyers with far more
experience. He then moved to the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office,
where he served first as an assistant prosecutor, and then as chief
assistant prosecuting attorney of the Felony Trial Division.
During this time, Mr. Barrett also served as chief of the Special
County Arson Task Force, supervising the investigation and prosecution
of arson cases. After 6 years in the Hamilton County prosecutor's
office, Michael Barrett moved into private practice with the firm of
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, where he remained for 10 years as an associate
and then as a partner. He was listed several times in the Best Lawyers
in America for his domestic relations practice. He then joined the
Cincinnati law firm of Barrett & Weber, where he continues to practice
today in the area of general litigation.
Mr. Barrett has had an extremely wide-ranging career as a litigator.
He has argued in both State and Federal courts, and his court
appearances are almost evenly split between civil and criminal cases.
In addition to his background as a prosecutor, he has developed a very
successful defense practice. He is a member of the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and I think it is particularly noteworthy
that he has argued capital murder cases as both a prosecutor and as a
defense attorney. Truly, his litigation experience spans the whole
width of legal practice.
Mr. Barrett's expertise, however, extends well beyond litigation. For
example, he was appointed and served as a special master/trustee in a
class action lawsuit in which he analyzed over 900 claims, responses,
and the allocation of settlement funds under that lawsuit.
He also was chosen to be the receiver in a securities case, and in
that role he worked with counsel to conduct the collection and
liquidation of investor assets, which is an important and certainly
often very complicated financial and legal task.
He also has an impressive amount of experience with the important and
expanding area of alternative dispute resolution. He was a board member
of the Cincinnati Center for the Resolution of Disputes and was awarded
the Outstanding Service Award as a mediator for the Southern District
of Ohio. This unusually diverse legal background gives Michael Barrett
a broad view of the legal system and a wide understanding that will
help him be a very successful Federal district court judge.
Mr. Barrett is also an extremely accomplished community leader who
has given so much back to his community. He has served the public in a
wide variety of roles--far more than I could certainly mention this
afternoon. He served on the Supreme Court of Ohio Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for 15 years. He was on the
board of trustees of the University of Cincinnati, and the board of
trustees of the Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati. He was also
cochair of the Police and Justice Committee of Community Action Now, a
project formed by and for Cincinnati community leaders and charged with
the task of achieving greater equity, opportunity, and inclusion for
all Cincinnati residents. He also has been involved with a wide range
of charitable and social service organizations, including Children's
Services of Hamilton County, Talbert House, and Boys and Girls Hope of
Cincinnati.
Michael Barrett is clearly a successful and accomplished attorney and
an experienced community leader. Both are important qualifications for
this position. With his background and his experience, it is certainly
not surprising that a substantial majority of the ABA panel who
reviewed his qualifications found him to be ``well qualified,'' which
is the highest possible rating; the remaining members of the panel gave
him the next highest rating of ``qualified.'' This very high rating
merely confirms his excellent credentials for the position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Members of the legal profession in Ohio who know Mr.
Barrett's abilities also support his nomination. I have spoken with
attorneys and judges who have worked both with and against Mr. Barrett
professionally, and they describe him as a calm and even-tempered man,
who is always willing to listen and always does an excellent job, no
matter what the legal assignment.
Even more important, however, is simply that Mike Barrett is a good
person. I have known him for many years, and he consistently has shown
himself to be warm, open-minded, and gracious. He is an intellectually
gifted lawyer with a strong sense of the law and a firm understanding
of the court's role in the legal process and in our community. As a
person and as an attorney, he has all the ability, the experience, and,
yes, the compassion necessary to help him be an excellent judge for the
people of the South District of Ohio.
Michael Barrett is an outstanding nominee. I am proud to support his
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words in
support of the nomination of Michael R. Barrett.
As the distinguished Senator from Ohio has probably already commented
on--I just got in from Pennsylvania, so I did not get a chance to hear
all of his speech--and as the Presiding Officer knows, because the
distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of the Judiciary Committee,
Michael R. Barrett was passed unanimously by the committee.
He comes to this position with an excellent background. He received
his bachelor's degree from the University of Cincinnati. He received
his law degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1977. So he has had
29 years of expedience in practice.
He was the assistant prosecuting attorney in the felony trial
division in Hamilton County. It is always a good experience to be a
prosecuting attorney, something that Senator DeWine did, Senator Leahy
did, something that I have done. He was an associate partner at
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, a shareholder attorney at Barrett & Weber, and
has the qualifications to do an excellent job on the U.S. District
Court.
I am pleased to endorse him and urge my fellow Senators to confirm
him for this important lifetime position.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor and note we are just 2 or 3
minutes away from the vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S3791]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote to confirm Michael R. Barrett, whom the President has nominated to
serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Mr. Barrett has a distinguished and impressive record as a
prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a community leader, and he has deep
roots in southwest Ohio.
Mr. Barrett is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati, where he
obtained his bachelor of arts in 1974, and his law degree in 1977.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Barrett served as an
administrative hearing officer for the State of Ohio and then joined
the Hamilton County prosecutor's office as an assistant prosecuting
attorney. When he joined the prosecutor's office, Mr. Barrett was
assigned to the Felony Trial Division, where he participated in
investigations, grand jury proceedings, and felony trials. In 1983, Mr.
Barrett was promoted to be a chief assistant of the Felony Trial
Division.
In 1984, Mr. Barrett joined Graydon, Head & Ritchey, where he worked
on both criminal and civil matters, initially as an associate before
being promoted to partner. In 1995, he joined his current firm, Barrett
& Weber, where he has continued to practice in the same areas of law.
Mr. Barrett's law practice includes criminal defense work covering
the spectrum of the Criminal Code. In addition, Mr. Barrett maintains
an active civil litigation practice including recent securities law
matters in which he has represented individual plaintiffs as well as
the attorney general's office for the State of Ohio. His practice has
earned him several listings in ``Best Lawyers in America'' and ``Ohio
Super Lawyers.'' In addition, Mr. Barrett has received the Outstanding
Service Award as a Mediator from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. In sum, Mr. Barrett has the broad courtroom
experience that will serve him well as a federal judge.
Mr. Barrett has also served on the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which evidences the high
esteem in which members of the Ohio bar hold him and is testimony of
his excellent character.
As a result of Mr. Barrett's fine academic and professional
achievements, I am not surprised that the American Bar Association
found Mr. Barrett qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge.
Mr. Barrett's legal credentials are not the only reasons I support
his nomination. In an age where I believe too many people do not take
the time to become active members of their communities, Mr. Barrett has
been a community leader. Some of Mr. Barrett's community activities
include his current service on the board of trustees of Talbert House,
a Cincinnati-area social service organization; his current service as a
director of Boys Hope/Girls Hope of Cincinnati, an organization
designed to provide an array of services for at-risk children; and his
past service as a trustee of Children's Services of Hamilton County.
When I was Governor of Ohio, I was pleased to appoint Mr. Barrett to
the board of trustees of the University of Cincinnati. He served 9
years on the board of trustees, including a period as chairman.
Involvement in one's community is important. We need judges who not
only have exceptional legal skills but who also recognize how the law
impacts individuals and communities. I believe Mr. Barrett has this
understanding because he is out in his community every day.
In reviewing Mr. Barrett's academic and professional record, it is
clear that he is well qualified to serve as a Federal district court
judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and
I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
Mr. DeWINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Michael Ryan Barrett, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Ohio? On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kohl), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and
the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) are absent due to death in
family.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the
Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in
the chamber desiring to Vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Ex.]
YEAS--90
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--10
Biden
Burr
Graham
Harkin
Kerry
Kohl
Lincoln
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________