[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11285-S11289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF WILLIAM LINDSAY OSTEEN, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
______
NOMINATION OF MARTIN KARL REIDINGER, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
______
NOMINATION OF JANIS LYNN SAMMARTINO, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations en bloc, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of William
Lindsay Osteen, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States District
Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Martin Karl Reidinger,
of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Western
District of North Carolina; and Janis Lynn Sammartino, of California,
to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of
California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator
from Vermont and the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North
Carolina is on the floor and wishes to speak. Obviously, I will yield
her more time if she wants, but I ask unanimous consent that she be
yielded 10 minutes out of the time reserved for the distinguished
senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S11286]]
The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to
confirm, for district judgeships, William Osteen, Jr. and Martin K.
Reidinger, two of North Carolina's most talented and capable legal
minds. Both of these men have impeccable credentials, a keen sense of
justice and a strong desire to serve. I am fully confident that Bill
and Martin would serve the people of my home State with great honor and
distinction as members of the Federal judiciary.
I am delighted to support Bill Osteen, to serve as a judge for the
Middle District. With deep roots in North Carolina, Bill received his
education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has
practiced law in the State for the past two decades. In 2004 and 2005,
Business North Carolina included him in its Legal Elite--the cream of
the crop, selected not by the editors of the magazine but by State bar
colleagues.
Bill has broad experience in both criminal and civil litigation. As
we all know, criminal cases make up a substantial and increasingly
large portion of a Federal district judge's docket, and Bill is well
equipped to handle this important aspect of the job. He estimates that
he has served as the counsel of record in more than 100 Federal
criminal cases. Bill also knows his way around a courtroom. In an age
when most cases are resolved through settlement or plea agreement, Bill
has taken over 30 cases to trial. On the strength of this experience, I
have no doubt that he will be able to make the transition to district
judge without missing a beat.
In addition to a distinguished professional life, Bill also has a
very full personal life. He is a dedicated family man to his wife
Elizabeth and their two children, Anne Bennett and Bill, and he is a
man of faith, actively involved in the First Presbyterian Church of
Greensboro. It is also notable that Bill has been nominated to succeed
his father to this seat. Bill's father, William Osteen, Sr., has served
the Middle District with great distinction and it is a rare and
remarkable feat that a son has the opportunity to serve in his father's
onetime place on the bench. And let me add that Bill's mother, Joanne,
has been a treasured friend since our Duke days together. I know the
Osteens are very proud of their son and I am honored to highlight
Bill's many qualifications here today.
Another outstanding North Carolinian for the Western District of
North Carolina, Martin Reidinger, has built quite an impressive record
of accomplishment over the years. A graduate of the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, he has practiced law for the past 23 years in
Asheville with Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger. There he gained vast
civil litigation experience, handling matters running the gamut from
employment law to land disputes. He frequently appears in Federal
courts and has litigated to a verdict or judgment nearly 200 cases over
the past two decades.
In addition to his vast professional experience, Martin makes it a
top priority to give back to his community. He has served as the
president and secretary-treasurer of the Buncombe County Bar
Association, and he currently sits on the board of directors for Pisgah
Legal Services, which provides free, civil legal services to low-income
people who are unable to afford an attorney. In fact, in 2004, Martin
accepted the North Carolina State bar's Outstanding Pro Bono Services
Award for his law firm's commitment to giving back to their community.
In addition to his extensive public service work, Martin is dedicated
to his family--his wife Patti and children Heather, Sara, Alex and Max.
Bill Osteen and Martin Reidinger are vastly qualified to serve on the
Federal bench. They have earned the admiration of their colleagues and
peers and support from Senators on both sides of the aisle.
It was my privilege to recommend these individuals to the president
for these posts, and I am proud to urge my colleagues to support their
confirmation today, so they can get to work for the people of North
Carolina.
I yield back any remaining time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I note
that when we confirm these three nominations today--and I fully
anticipate we will; I will support them and I know Senator Specter will
support them--the Senate will have confirmed 29 nominations for
lifetime appointments by the middle of September this year. That is 7
more than were confirmed in all of 2005 when the Senate had a
Republican majority which was considering nominations of this
Republican President. I mention that because consistently, for the
Republican President, President Bush, when the Democrats have been in
charge, we have moved his nominations faster than Republicans have.
You would not know this, certainly, with some of the rhetoric that
comes out of the White House; but, you know, sometimes facts get in the
way of rhetoric. It is a pesky thing.
Incidentally, there were 12 more confirmations that were achieved
during the entire 1996 session, when Republicans stalled consideration
of President Clinton's nominations by pocket-vetoing them. It is
actually a little-known fact that during the Bush Presidency, more
circuit judges, more district judges, and more total judges have been
confirmed in the time we have had Democrats in control and I have been
chairman, than during the 10 years that either of the two Republican
chairmen were working with Republican Senate majorities.
Taking into account today's confirmations, the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts lists 46 judicial vacancies. The President has sent
us only 24 nominations for these 46 remaining vacancies. Twenty-two of
these remaining vacancies--almost half--have no nominee. Of the 19
vacancies deemed by the Administrative Office to be judicial
emergencies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 8 of them,
more than a third. Of the 16 circuit court vacancies, 6, more than a
third, are without a nominee. If the President had worked with the
Senators from Michigan, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey,
and Virginia, we could be in position to make even more progress.
Of the 22 vacancies without any nominee, the President has violated
the timeline he set for himself at least 13 times--13 have been vacant
without so much as a nominee for more than 180 days. The number of
violations may in fact be much higher since the President said he would
nominate within 180 days of receiving notice that there would be a
vacancy or intended retirement rather than from the vacancy itself. We
conservatively estimate that he also violated his own rule 11 times in
connection with the nominations he has made. That would mean that with
respect to the 46 vacancies, the President is out of compliance with
his own rule more than half of the time.
William L. Osteen, Jr., is a partner at the two-person law firm of
Adams & Osteen in Greensboro, NC, where he has worked for his entire
legal career. His practice focuses primarily on Federal criminal
litigation and State civil litigation.
Martin K. Reidinger is a partner at the Asheville, NC, law firm of
Adams, Hendon, Carson, Crow & Saenger, where he has worked his entire
23 year legal career as a civil litigator. His legal practice
concentrates primarily in the areas of general business litigation,
land disputes, municipal matters, and employment law.
Janis L. Sammartino is the presiding judge in the Superior Court of
San Diego County in California. For 12 years, she served on the State
trial court bench as a municipal court judge in San Diego, and she
worked for 18 years as a deputy city attorney in the San Diego City
Attorney's Office.
I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations
today.
How much time is remaining for the Senator from Vermont?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
I see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina and the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. We
have worked harmoniously in a bipartisan way on the Judiciary
Committee.
[[Page S11287]]
An expression I like to use when we change chairmen: It is a seamless
transfer of the gavel in a bipartisan way. I join Chairman Leahy in
asking for the confirmation of the three judicial nominees who are
pending this morning.
I start with Janis Lynn Sammartino, who is up for the District Court
for the Southern District of California, because she was born in
Philadelphia, PA: magna cum laude from Occidental College in 1972, Phi
Beta Kappa at that university; law degree from Notre Dame; law clerk to
a superior court judge in California, Judge Douglas Seely; deputy city
attorney; judge on the Municipal Court of the City of San Diego; a
judge on the Superior Court for San Diego for the past 12 years--a very
distinguished resume. She has a majority ``qualified'' rating from the
American Bar Association, and some rated her as ``well qualified.'' She
comes to the floor with the unanimous recommendation of the Judiciary
Committee.
Similarly, I urge the confirmation of Martin Karl Reidinger for the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He has
an outstanding academic record: a bachelor's degree from the University
of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; a law degree with honors from the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Law; Order of the
Coif, which means top 10 percent academically; North Carolina Law
Review. He has had an extensive practice with the law firm of Adams
Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger--associate for 5 years and partner for the
last 18 years--distinguished qualifications. I think he is well suited
to become a Federal district court judge.
Third, I urge the confirmation of William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., for
the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. He has a
bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in
1983 and a law degree from the same university in 1987. He practiced
law for the last 20 years--first as an associate and later as a
partner--in Adams & Osteen, and has a distinguished curriculum vitae.
I ask unanimous consent that the resumes of these three distinguished
nominees be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Janis Lynn Sammartino--United States District Judge for the Southern
District of California
Birth: April 24, 1950, Philadelphia, PA.
Legal Residence: California.
Education: A.B., Magna Cum Laude, Occidental College, 1972;
Phi Beta Kappa; J.D., University of Notre Dame Law School,
1975.
Employment: Law Clerk, Judge Douglas Seely, Superior Court,
St. Joseph County, Indiana, 1975-1976; Deputy City Attorney,
San Diego City Attorney's Office, 1976-1994; Judge, Municipal
Court of the City of San Diego, 1994-1995; Judge, Superior
Court of San Diego County, 1995-Present.
Selected Activities: Master and President-elect, American
Inns of Court, Louis M. Welch Chapter; Member, Association of
Business Trial Lawyers of San Diego; Member, National
Association of Women Judges; Member, San Diego County Judges
Association; Member, California State Bar; Member, San Diego
County Bar Association; Member, University of Notre Dame Law
School Alumni Association.
ABA Rating: Majority ``qualified,'' minority ``well-
qualified.''
____
Martin Karl Reidinger--United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina
Birth: December 18, 1958, New Haven, Connecticut.
Legal Residence: North Carolina.
Education: B.A., University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
1981; J.D., with honors, University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill School of Law, 1984; Order of the Coif; North Carolina
Law Review, 1983-1984; Jefferson Pilot Foundation Scholar.
Employment: Associate, Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger,
P.A., 1984-1989; Partner, 1989-Present.
Selected Activities: Member, North Carolina Bar
Association, 1984-Present; Member, 28th Judicial District
Bar, 1984-Present; President, 2003-2004; Secretary-Treasurer,
1989-1992; Member, Local Bar Services Committee, 2003-
Present; Chair, 2005-Present; Member, Select Drafting
Committee of the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners; North
Carolina Bar Association Statewide Small Firm Pro Bono Award,
2004; Board Member, Pisgah Legal Services, 2005-Present;
Member, Arden Rotary Club; Paul Harris Fellow and Sustaining
Member, Paul Harris Foundation.
____
William Lindsay Osteen, Jr.--United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina
Birth: 1960, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Legal Residence: North Carolina.
Education: B.S., University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
1983; J.D., University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School
of Law, 1987.
Employment: Associate, Adams & Osteen, 1987-1991; Partner,
1991-Present.
Selected Activities: Member, North Carolina Bar
Association; Past Member, Criminal Justice Council; Chairman,
Criminal Justice Council, 2000-2001; Member, Greensboro Bar
Association; Director, 1995; Listed in Business North
Carolina magazine's ``Legal Elite'' in Criminal Law, 2004,
2005, 2006; Member, Criminal Justice Act Advisory Committee;
Criminal Justice Act Panel Attorney, Middle District of North
Carolina; Member, American Bar Association; Member, American
Board of Trial Advocates; Member, National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from North Carolina. I
am going to yield the floor to him and perhaps take a minute or two at
the conclusion of his comments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to stand before
my colleagues today to urge them to confirm two great lawyers in North
Carolina to be U.S. district court judges. I wish to take a moment to
commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for unanimously
reporting out Bill Osteen, Jr., and Martin Reidinger before we
adjourned for the August recess. I thank Judiciary Chairman Leahy and
Ranking Member Specter for their dedication to ensuring that judicial
nominees get hearings and votes on the Senate floor. I am grateful for
the care and passion with which the Judiciary Committee members
approach their responsibility of examining nominees for Federal
judgeships.
I have often said that there is no area of our daily lives that is
not somehow affected by judicial decisions. The decisions made by
judges today will have a lasting effect long after we are gone from
this institution. It is critical that these Federal judges serve to
administer justice according to the strict interpretation of law and
the Constitution. We have before us today the opportunity to confirm
two individuals who are committed to doing just that.
As I mentioned in my remarks before the Judiciary Committee when he
had his hearing, this is not the first time that somebody by the name
of Bill Osteen has been before the Senate for consideration. Fifteen
years ago, Bill Osteen's father was confirmed to be a U.S. district
court judge. Bill Osteen, Jr., was nominated by the President to be a
Federal judge because he is qualified to serve on the bench, and I am
confident he will continue to work towards a strong judicial system in
North Carolina.
Born and raised in Greensboro, he attended the University of North
Carolina in Chapel Hill for both undergraduate and graduate law school.
He has a diverse legal background and has litigated many cases spanning
all areas of the legal profession. Trying both civil and criminal
matters, Bill spent much of his time in the Federal courtroom. After
today, I hope he continues to spend his time in the Federal courtroom
but now for a different reason in a different seat.
While I am impressed by the professional qualifications he will bring
to the bench if confirmed, perhaps most importantly, Bill is a good
man. Bill is a family man. He is a good dad to his two children Ann-
Bennet and Bill. He is a good husband to his wife Elizabeth. I urge my
colleagues to support Bill's nomination and to confirm him to serve on
North Carolina's Federal bench.
Martin Reidinger of Asheville, NC, is also before the Senate today to
be confirmed as a U.S. district court judge.
Like Bill, Martin graduated from the University of North Carolina for
both his undergraduate and law degrees, graduating with honors from the
law school.
Martin's well-established Federal practice in western North Carolina
has existed for a number of years. Throughout his career, he has
handled all types of cases, represented a wide range of clients, and
has appeared in all levels of State and Federal court.
I had the pleasure of meeting Martin's family as well: his wife
Patti, and his four children: Heather, Sara, Alex, and Max.
Martin's family and friends are proud of him for all of his
accomplishments,
[[Page S11288]]
and Martin has continuously expressed how honored he is to be
considered for the Federal bench. These two nominees have tremendous
legal experience, an unwavering commitment to their families, and are
men with good moral character.
On too many occasions, we have let judicial nominations escalate into
contentious debates where people's good reputations are tarnished as a
result of partisan politics. We have seen it throughout history, and no
one party is to blame. Unfortunately, both sides share blame. But it is
great to see how this body can come together to work to make a
difference in the lives of Americans.
As policymakers, our debates certainly affect every American. We hear
from thousands of our constituents every week, and when we make
decisions, we think about how to best balance the competing policy
positions so we are able to make good laws.
But every day, judges see how these laws we are responsible for
making, apply in real life. They do not have the benefit of changing
the law based on who appears before them. We owe it to our constituents
to put fair-minded and qualified judges on the bench whom we are
confident will apply the laws this body passes in an impartial manner.
By confirming Bill Osteen, Jr., and Martin Reidinger to the Federal
bench in North Carolina, I believe we are fulfilling that obligation.
I urge my colleagues to support both of their nominations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an
additional 3 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2035
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the
confirmation of Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino to be a U.S. district judge
for the Southern District of California.
Judge Sammartino is nominated for a seat that has been designated a
``judicial emergency'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The seat has been vacant for 3 years, ever since Judge Judith Nelson
Keep passed away in September 2004.
Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee has acted quickly on this
nomination. It was submitted to the Senate on March 19 of this year.
Judge Sammartino completed the required questionnaire, and a hearing
was promptly scheduled for June 20. Now, fewer than 3 months later--
including the August recess--we are voting on the nomination today.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination to fill this
longstanding vacancy and permit the district court in the Southern
District of California to operate at full capacity.
Judge Sammartino is a graduate of Occidental College and of the law
school at the University of Notre Dame. After earning her law degree,
she served as a law clerk on the superior court in South Bend, IN.
For her entire legal career since then, she has devoted herself to
the service of her city, San Diego, and the State of California.
Judge Sammartino worked for 18 years as a deputy city attorney in San
Diego. In her first 2 years, as a deputy in the Criminal Division, she
tried more than 50 criminal cases in front of juries and an equal
number of bench trials. She then was promoted to the Municipal Law
Section of the Civil Division, where she developed substantial
expertise in land use law. She later served as the principal legal
advisor to the city of San Diego on redevelopment issues. In that
capacity, she played a major role in the planning and construction of
the Horton Plaza Retail Centre in downtown San Diego.
Judge Sammartino rose to the rank of senior chief deputy city
attorney and was responsible for supervising three advisory divisions
in the City Attorney's Office. She was a regular participant in legal
and strategy decisions for pending cases. Her public service career
then moved from the City Attorney's Office to the courthouse. She was
appointed to the municipal court in 1994, and to the superior court in
1995.
As a testament to her skills as both a judge and a leader, her fellow
judges elected her to be assistant presiding judge from 2004 to 2005
and then to be presiding judge as of January 2006. She now oversees the
second largest trial court in California, which is also the third
largest trial court in the Nation.
Judge Sammartino's judicial career has given her experience in a wide
range of areas from criminal cases to family law cases, environmental
cases, and complex civil cases.
In California we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting
Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of
lawyers known as the Parsky Commission, which includes Democrats and
Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President. I am
proud of this system, and proud to report that Judge Sammartino was
recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a
Federal district judge. I chaired the hearing on her nomination, and I
was impressed with her testimony. By all accounts, she would make an
excellent addition to the Federal bench in San Diego.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the time has come for the
scheduled votes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If all time is yielded back--
Mr. SPECTER. The time is yielded back.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate
advise and consent to the nomination of William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., of
North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle
District of North Carolina?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Dodd), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the
Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), and the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 327 Ex.]
YEAS--86
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NOT VOTING--14
Biden
Clinton
Craig
Dodd
Durbin
Hagel
Harkin
Inhofe
Lautenberg
Levin
McCain
Obama
Schumer
Whitehouse
The nomination was confirmed.
[[Page S11289]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
____________________