[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1016-S1018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Judge William K. Sessions III
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for almost two decades Judge William
Sessions has served as a Federal judge for the District of Vermont.
Last month Judge Sessions announced he would take senior status later
this year. I have worked with Senator Sanders, Representative Welch,
and the Vermont Bar Association to convene a merit commission to find
highly qualified candidates to serve on the Vermont District Court so I
can then recommend them to the President.
I know I speak on behalf of all Vermonters, no matter what their
background, when I thank Judge Sessions for his years of distinguished
public service and applaud him for agreeing to continue his judicial
service even after he takes senior status this summer. Because of his
continued dedication, Vermont will have one of the most highly
respected and extraordinarily capable jurists on the Federal bench. I
am proud to call Judge Sessions my friend, and I am honored to have
cast my vote to confirm his nomination 18 years ago.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
completion of my remarks a Rutland Herald article written by Brent
Curtis that recounts his many accomplishments.
There are only two authorized district judgeships in Vermont. We are
the second smallest State in the Union. So, when President Clinton
asked for my recommendation to fill a vacancy in my native State, I did
not take this task lightly. I knew the people of Vermont deserved a
judge with integrity, intelligence, and fairness, somebody whom anybody
could go before--plaintiff or defendant, rich or poor, no matter their
political background--and know they would have a fair hearing.
During my time in private practice as a litigant and then as State's
attorney in Vermont, I experienced firsthand the tradition of legal
excellence we have in Vermont. I know many Vermont lawyers who are
among the best this country has to offer, and Bill Sessions earned a
reputation as one of the finest trial lawyers in the State. He was
widely respected by prosecutors and defense lawyers, and by the
plaintiff and defense bars alike. He was praised by those who had been
his co-counsel, by State and Federal judges and prosecutors, and even
by those who had been his opposing counsel in court. It was a privilege
to submit his name to the White House for nomination to the U.S.
District Court. At the time, I told President Clinton this would be one
nomination he would never have to question his judgment in making
because he would have somebody who would always serve the country so
well. The Senate confirmed him unanimously on August 11, 1995.
Judge Sessions received his B.A. from Middlebury College in 1969.
Upon his graduation with honors from the George Washington University
Law School in 1972, Judge Sessions served his country in the U.S. Army
from 1972 to 1977 and in active service from 1972 to 1973. He also
served as a law clerk to another friend of mine, Judge Hilton Dier of
the Addison County District Court. Before his service on the Federal
bench, Judge Sessions contributed to his community as an adjunct
professor at Vermont Law School; in private practice; as the executive
director of the Addison County Youth Services Bureau; and as a public
defender in Addison County, VT.
During his years of service on the Federal bench, Judge Sessions has
worked tirelessly to ensure that all those who come before him are
treated fairly and with dignity. He is a judge who has taken seriously
his commitment to both justice and the American people. He served for
many years as a member of the Judicial Conference, composed of the
leaders of the Federal judiciary.
Judge Sessions also served for a decade on the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, eventually serving as its Chairman. Three Presidents, both
Democratic and Republican, nominated him to this Commission, and the
Senate confirmed him unanimously each time. As a commissioner, Judge
Sessions made deeply significant contributions to American sentencing
policy. He played an important role in the reduction of the sentencing
disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. He has done vital work
to improve the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This was especially
important following a number of Supreme Court cases that gave judges
more discretion in the sentences they impose. Even after his time on
the Sentencing Commission, Judge Sessions continued to work for better
sentencing policy, publishing an article in a journal of the University
of Virginia School of Law that explained how the three branches of
government could work together to improve sentencing in America.
Judge Sessions has not forgotten what it is to be a Vermonter. He
still finds time on weekends to be at farmers markets around Vermont.
He is a familiar face at the booth for Blue Ledge Farm, a small Vermont
dairy started by his daughter, Hannah, and son-in-law, Greg. I think of
a picture of him holding a grandchild in one hand and making change for
one of the customers with the other.
He is one of our country's most respected jurists. He is a lawyer's
lawyer and a judge's judge. Marcelle and I think of him and Abi, his
wife, as dear personal friends.
Our justice system has benefited a great deal from Judge Sessions'
years of service. I thank Judge Sessions for all he has done as a
Federal judge. I thank him for continuing to serve as a model jurist.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Rutland Herald, Feb. 16, 2014]
Sessions Reflects on Years On and Off the Bench
(By Brent Curtis)
U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III will shift to
senior status.
Long before he was making decisions in a courtroom, federal
Judge William Sessions III was working to keep people out of
them.
With only months remaining before he shifts to senior
status in June, Sessions, who turned 67 this month, can look
back over two
[[Page S1017]]
decades of rulings that carried both constitutional and
criminal ramifications.
But before he was tapped by President Bill Clinton to serve
as a federal judge in Vermont in 1995, and before he began a
career as a trial lawyer and civil rights practitioner in the
1970s, Sessions was a teacher and an advocate to troubled
youth and prison inmates.
After earning a bachelor's degree from Middlebury College
in 1969, Sessions went to Washington, D.C., to attend the
George Washington University Law School.
Before his legal studies began, he volunteered to be a
reading and math teacher to inmates in the Washington, D.C.,
prison system.
``It was a profound experience for me,'' Sessions said in
an interview. ``I was nervous and scared but I learned how to
relate with these guys and I learned and loved their stories,
and decided at that point I wanted to work with kids and
young people.''
He added, ``I had this unbelievably moving experience and
then the question was `How do I get involved in helping young
people so they don't end up in places like prison?' ''
His initial work toward that goal was to open a youth
center for delinquent and troubled kids in Middlebury. But
when a job as a public defender opened up in the mid 1970s,
Sessions said he seized the opportunity and spent the next
two decades blending his humanitarian and legal passions.
Focused on law
With that kind of background, the role of a judge--whose
job it is to remain impartial during often emotionally and
politically charged proceedings--might seem too restrictive.
But Sessions said that, like all judges, he has strived to
suppress his biases and focus on the law and the legal
questions that have come before him.
The one area where he said his humanitarianism shows in the
courtroom is in the courtesy he strives to show to everyone
who stands before him.
``I love treating people with respect,'' he said. ``In this
courtroom, I take a great deal of pride in seeing that a
little bit of Vermont takes place in the courtroom. . . .
Each defendant is treated respectfully. I think that's how
people treat each other in Vermont.''
He has also tried to look beyond a person's crime to
consider variables about their risk to commit future
offenses, their rehabilitative needs including mental health
and substance abuse and the message that a potential sentence
might send to the broader public.
``I would say that I look closely at the nature of the
crime and whether they're taking responsibility for it,'' he
said. ``In all the studies I've read, if someone is
accountable for their crime, they're much less likely to re-
offend.''
``On the other hand, I feel really strongly that human
characteristics, the need for rehabilitation and the need to
protect society by addressing those issues that a particular
defendant has are also important,'' the judge added.
Over the years, Sessions has heard countless criminal
cases, including the first death penalty case in the state in
more than half a century. In that case, involving convicted
murderer Donald Fell, Sessions ruled in 2002 that the Federal
Death Penalty Act of 1994 was unconstitutional. The 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed that ruling and an
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't taken up by the
justices. Because Fell's case remains under appeal, Sessions
said he is unable to discuss it.
Sessions also served for 11 years on the U.S. Sentencing
Commission which was established to address disparities in
criminal sentencing.
Politics surrounds the group, with congressmen split over
whether they wanted to create it in 1999 and insistence among
legislators that the commissions members be made up equally
of judges nominated by conservatives and liberals.
Judges united
But the agendas of the politicians who created the
commission didn't enter into the work of the judges who
Sessions said were routinely united in their opinions on
changes designed to make sentencing guidelines and outcomes
more uniform from state to state.
And in no arena were the judges more in agreement, he said,
than in their work on addressing the disparities in
sentencing for those guilty of possessing crack cocaine.
Prior to the commission's work on crack cocaine sentences,
a 100-to-1 disparity existed between sentencing for crack and
powder cocaine.
A defendant guilty of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine
faced a five-year minimum sentence while a person would have
to possess 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same
punishment.
``It stemmed from a fear in the 1980s that crack cocaine
was a devastating drug that was much more serious than powder
cocaine,'' Sessions said. ``So the penalties were
extraordinarily high. Five grams of cocaine is an
extraordinarily small amount.''
After it became clear that there wasn't much difference
between crack and powder in terms of ill effects, and after
it became clear that those being sentenced for crack cocaine
possession were disproportionately black people, Sessions
said it became obvious to all the judges on the commission
that their first task needed to be a change to the crack
sentencing guidelines.
``We went around the room and we were each asked what we
wanted to change first and the judges unanimously spoke of
changing the crack versus powder cocaine disparity,'' he
said. ``The reason really stems not only out of the criminal
justice system but on the impact on minority communities in
the country.''
In 2004, the commission changed the sentencing guidelines
for crack cocaine possession and in 2010 Congress passed
changes to the required amount someone must possess to
receive a minimum five or 10-year jail sentence.
The changes were made retroactively and had the effect, on
average, of reducing jail sentences for crack cocaine
possession by three years.
``That meant that 20,000 people in prison were resentenced
for crack cocaine and many were released immediately,''
Sessions said, calculating that about 25 cases in Vermont
were affected by the sentencing change.
National impact
Beyond the criminal cases, Sessions has decided a number of
cases with weighty constitutional import.
Thanks to being in a small state with just two federal
judges, Sessions said he has received a disproportionate
amount of cases with potential national ramifications over
the years.
One of the most far reaching cases he's decided was a 2007
case in which he ruled in favor of Vermont, New York and a
number of environmental groups in a case involving several
automobile manufacturers.
The case was based on regulations passed in California and
then adopted in Vermont and New York that sought to reduce
automobile emissions by establishing higher mileage
requirements for new cars.
``(The auto manufacturers) sued in each of the circuits and
our case came up first,'' Sessions said. ``It was a question
of whether it was a requirement that was justified
constitutionally.''
Car manufacturers argued that the changes would have a
severe impact on the industry and they argued that global
warming hadn't been established.
Over the course of a six-week trial, Sessions heard from
dozens of witnesses before issuing a 350-page decision that
upheld the state's regulations.
``I've been told it's in textbooks on environmental law,''
he said.
The shift to senior status will likely reduce Sessions'
workload, as a new federal judge will be appointed to the
district. But while he said he's looking forward to time with
his four grandchildren and hiking and biking with his wife,
the judge said he isn't thinking yet about slowing his work
on the bench.
``I'm not planning on slowing down at all,'' he said. ``At
this point, I'm a pretty young guy. I'm going to be 67 this
month, but I feel like 50.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the Moody
nomination.
Mr. LEAHY. Is there a time agreement on the nomination?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has now expired.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of James Maxwell Moody, Jr., of Arkansas, to
be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Ex.]
YEAS--95
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
[[Page S1018]]
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--4
Crapo
Risch
Roberts
Shelby
NOT VOTING--1
Nelson
The nomination was confirmed.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to express my strong
support for two highly qualified nominees to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California:
Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman, and James Donato.
I recommended these candidates to President Obama after my bipartisan
screening committee gave them both strong recommendations.
I am very pleased they will soon fill two longstanding vacancies in
the Northern District of California.
Judge Freeman earned her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1979,
and she served in the County Counsel's Office in San Mateo for 18
years.
She has spent the last 12 years on the San Mateo Superior Court,
including as presiding judge and assistant presiding judge. She has
presided over more than a thousand trials, and she has experience in
both civil and criminal cases.
I have received letters of support for Judge Freeman from Don
Horsley, president of the San Mateo Board of Supervisors and former
chair of the County's Domestic Violence Council, and from Stephen
Wagstaffe, San Mateo District Attorney.
These letters are strong endorsements for Judge Freeman, and I will
simply quote what Mr. Wagstaffe said: ``In 36 years as a prosecutor in
San Mateo County, I have not seen a better judge in all respects than
Judge Freeman.''
That is very high praise, and I am pleased Judge Freeman soon will be
confirmed and begin her service as a Federal judge in San Jose.
Let me now describe Jim Donato, who once confirmed will serve in San
Francisco.
Mr. Donato earned his law degree from Stanford Law School where he
was a Senior Editor of the Stanford Law Review. He clerked for Judge
Procter Hug on the Ninth Circuit.
He served for 3 years in the City Attorney's Office in San Francisco.
He has built a distinguished record over two decades as a private
practitioner handling complex civil cases such as antitrust cases, at
Cooley LLP and Shearman & Sterling LLP.
Complex civil experience is especially important in Northern
California because the Northern District's docket is 84 percent civil,
according to the most recent statistics.
Mr. Donato also is a leader in the San Francisco legal community
where he has devoted much of his time to the Bar Association of San
Francisco, including as its President in 2008.
I have great confidence Mr. Donato will be an outstanding federal
district judge.
Let me close by noting that each of these nominees will fill a
judicial vacancy that has been designated as a ``judicial emergency''
by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The Northern District's weighted caseload per judgeship is over 13
percent above the national average. Filings per active judge are up 17
percent since 2008. In fact, it now takes 27 percent longer for a civil
case to get to trial than it did in 2010.
The vacancy Judge Freeman would fill has existed for over 800 days.
The vacancy Mr. Donato would fill has existed for over 500 days.
It is long past time for these seats to be filled. Indeed, each of
these nominees should have been confirmed in 2013--but, unfortunately,
each had to be renominated in this session and voted out of the
Judiciary Committee for a second time. This wasted several months
during which each could have been serving as a Federal Judge.
Nevertheless, I am very pleased that, today, Judge Freeman and Jim
Donato will be confirmed and will be able to assume their duties
shortly.
I urge my colleagues to support both of these fine nominees.
____________________