[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15608-15613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Morrison C. 
England, Jr., of California, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Morrison C. England, Jr., of California, 
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
California?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions 
to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate now return to 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   nomination of richard everett dorr

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Richard Everett Dorr to the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Missouri. He is a man who has dedicated large portions of 
his career to public service, one of the qualities I most admire in a 
nominee to the bench.
  Mr. Dorr attended the University of Illinois at Champaign on a 
football scholarship. He graduated with a B.S. in Marketing in 1965. In 
1968, he graduated with a J.D. from the University of Missouri at 
Columbia. During the next five years as a Judge Advocate, the nominee 
regularly appeared as either a prosecutor or defense counsel in 
criminal cases before Courts-Martial and Administrative Boards. During 
this period, Mr. Dorr also served as a legal advisor to Administrative 
Boards and as a Military Judge. He was also appointed to the Human 
Relations Council, an Air Force program designed to educate service 
members on appropriate behavior regarding racial diversity.
  Upon returning to private life, Mr. Dorr was an associate at the firm 
of Mann, Walter, Burkart, Weathers & Walter for 5 years. In this 
position he practiced general civil law, including real estate, 
business, domestic relations and general litigation cases. In 1978, he 
started his own firm, Harrison, Tucker and Dorr and continued his 
general civil practice. In 1996, Mr. Dorr became the Managing Partner 
of the Springfield office of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, a major 
law firm based out of Kansas City, Missouri. In this new position, he 
has concentrated on business and commercial litigation.
  Mr. Dorr was very active in the establishment of the Southwest 
Missouri Legal Aid Corporation. He served on its first Board of 
Directors from 1976 to 1982 and was the Corporation's President from 
1978 to 1982. This organization provides legal aid to the poor who 
normally could not afford for their cases to be heard in a court of 
law.
  Unfortunately, this is Mr. Dorr's second nomination to the federal 
court. He was nominated by the first President Bush, but he did not 
receive a hearing.

[[Page 15609]]

  Throughout his life Mr. Dorr has given back to his community, first 
in the Air Force, where he championed the cause of human rights, and 
then by forming an organization that helped those who could not afford 
access to the courts. Clearly, Mr. Dorr has the character and 
temperament to be a fair and balanced federal court judge. I urge my 
colleagues to confirm this most deserving attorney.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have the distinct honor of being on the 
floor again to support the nomination of another fine candidate to the 
Federal bench in Missouri. The President has nominated Dick Dorr of 
Springfield, MO, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Missouri. Mr. Dorr embodies well the principles laid out by 
the President for nominees to the Federal bench. Above all, Mr. Dorr 
respects the role of a judge in our Federal system--to interpret the 
law. In addition, Mr. Dorr is a respected trial attorney who will bring 
years of experience in the court room to this position. He is an 
excellent candidate and I urge the Members of this body to give him 
your favorable consideration.
  Mr. Dorr will bring to this position a reputation as an outstanding 
trial attorney with the respected Missouri law firm. His experience 
extends to both criminal and civil law. Attorneys in Springfield who 
worked with Mr. Dorr and who have litigated against him share my belief 
that he has the experience to preside over trials in a fair and 
efficient manner. Mr. Dorr has also served his country in the U.S. Air 
Force as a reservist and as a judge advocate general.
  Mr. Dorr has given a tremendous amount of this time to ensure that 
the citizens of Springfield have legal representation available to them 
despite their financial means. He has worked for the Missouri Bar's 
Volunteer Lawyer Pogram. He was instrumental in starting the Legal Aid 
Society of Southwest Missouri and served on its board. He has received 
the Equal Access to Justice Award from the Springfield Bar for his 
work, and he was recognized for outstanding service to the community by 
the Greene County Community Justice Association.
  I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for scheduled a 
hearing for this nominee, and I thank the Members for the unanimous 
vote in support of this nominee.
  I believe the Senate will find this candidate is well qualified for 
the position, possessing the experience, the intellect and the personal 
qualities necessary to preside over trials and rule in an informed and 
impartial manner. He will be a tremendous asset to the bench, and I 
urge the Members of the body to support the nomination.


                       nomination of david godbey

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of David 
Godbey to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas.
  I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Godbey's distinguished legal 
career, and I have concluded, as did President Bush, that he is a fine 
jurist who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in Texas.
  Mr. Godbey has a terrific record as a civil litigator and as a highly 
effective state court judge.
  Following graduation from Harvard Law School, where he graduated 
magna cum laude, Judge Godbey clerked for Judge Goldberg of the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals for a year, then accepted a job with Hughes & 
Luce, a Dallas firm, in 1983.
  For the next 11 years, he handled civil and commercial litigation in 
Federal trial and appellate courts in Texas and elsewhere. He accepted 
criminal appointments and represented clients in commercial arbitration 
cases. He specialized in technology litigation, appeals, public-law 
litigation, and oil and gas matters.
  In 1994 Mr. Godbey was elected to a judgeship on the 160th Judicial 
District Court in Texas. Judge Godbey has handled over 6,500 cases on 
the bench, including approximately 230 jury trials, and his reversal 
rate is well below 1 percent.
  It is clear that Judge Godbey is well prepared for the Federal 
district court bench. I know he will make a great judge in the Northern 
District of Texas.


                       nomination of henry hudson

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Henry E. 
Hudson's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia.
  Judge Hudson's many accomplishments as a prosecutor, State court 
judge, and Federal law enforcement officer convince me that he will 
excel on the federal bench in Virginia.
  Upon graduation from American University in 1974, Mr. Hudson worked 
as Assistant Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington, VA, prosecuting felony 
and misdemeanor cases. From 1978-1979 he served as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he handed federal 
criminal case; and from 1980 to 1986 he served as Commonwealth's 
Attorney for Arlington County.
  Mr. Hudson then served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, gaining substantial supervisory and prosecutorial experience. 
He headed an office of 70 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and 25 Special 
Assistants and prosecuted major civil and criminal cases, including 
``Operation Ill Wind,'' a federal investigation resulting in the 
conviction of 54 individuals and 10 corporations for illegally 
exchanging confidential defense contract bidding information.
  Mr. Hudson served as Director of the U.S. Marshals Service from 1992 
to 1993, and since 1998 Mr. Hudson has served as Circuit Court Judge 
for the Fairfax County Circuit Court.
  Judge Hudson received an ABA rating of Substantial Majority Well 
Qualified and Minority Qualified. My support for Judge Hudson's 
nomination to the Federal bench is unqualified. He will make an 
excellent federal judge.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination 
of Judge Henry Hudson, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on 
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  Senator Allen and I had the honor of recommending Judge Hudson to 
President Bush for this position, and we have worked closely with 
Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, and with our leadership to get Judge 
Hudson's nomination to a confirmation vote.
  It is important to note that the Virginia Bar Association ``highly 
recommends'' Judge Hudson for this Federal judgeship.
  In addition, Judge Hudson's nomination enjoys bipartisan support in 
Virginia. Congressman Jim Moran and State Senate Minority Leader Dick 
Saslaw, both Democrats, have penned letters of support for Judge 
Hudson.
  Judge Hudson enjoys such widespread support based on his extensive 
experience with the law, and his reputation for having an appropriate 
judicial temperament. For these reasons, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously reported out his nomination.
  Judge Hudson's legal career began with his service as a Deputy 
Sheriff in Arlington County, Virginia, in 1969 and 1970. He then went 
to law school, graduating from American University in 1974.
  Subsequent to his graduation from law school, Mr. Hudson entered 
legal practice as a prosecutor. First, he served as an Assistant 
Commonwealth's attorney for 5 years and then as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
  In 1986, Mr. Hudson was confirmed by the Senate and began his service 
as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
where he served until 1991.
  After leaving the U.S. Attorney's office, Judge Hudson once again 
received Senate confirmation and served as the Director of the United 
States Marshals Service from 1992 to 1993.
  After completing his work at the Marshals Service, Mr. Hudson entered 
private practice until he was sworn in as a Judge on the Fairfax 
County, Virginia, Circuit Court. Judge Hudson has served as a Judge on 
this important court since 1998.
  During his time on the Fairfax County Circuit Court bench, Judge 
Hudson has been known as a fair, objective judge who conducts 
proceedings with dignity and with the appropriate judicial temperament. 
I am confident that

[[Page 15610]]

he will continue his service on the Eastern District of Virginia bench 
consistent with this reputation.
  I urge my colleagues to support Judge Hudson's nomination.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, the Senate confirmed Judge Henry 
Hudson to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. I am very pleased to see this fine man take his place on the 
Federal bench, and I know that he will serve our Nation with 
distinction.
  Judge Hudson is very deserving of this high honor, and I commend 
President Bush for nominating such a well-qualified and honorable man. 
Throughout Judge Hudson's distinguished career, he has held several 
positions of public trust, and he has always performed his duties with 
the utmost integrity. Judge Hudson has also demonstrated a profound 
respect for the rule of law, and he will no doubt be an asset to the 
Eastern District of Virginia.
  Judge Hudson has an illustrious legal background. Upon graduation 
from the American University School of Law, he worked as an Assistant 
Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia. There, he learned 
the basics of trial work, and after 5 years, he became an Assistant 
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As a Federal 
prosecutor, Judge Hudson handled many important and oftentimes complex 
criminal cases, including drug conspiracies, racketeering, and 
political corruption cases. After his service as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, Judge Hudson served as the Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington 
County, Virginia. As Commonwealth Attorney, he was responsible for 
prosecuting crimes such as homicides and violent sexual assaults.
  Judge Hudson's vast knowledge of the law and his skills as a trial 
attorney did not go unnoticed. In 1986, he was nominated and confirmed 
as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As the U.S. 
Attorney, Judge Hudson not only gained additional experience as a 
Federal prosecutor, but also demonstrated an ability to supervise 
others. He was responsible for an office staffed by 70 Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys and 25 Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. During his tenure, 
he supervised ``Operation Ill Wind,'' a Federal investigation of 
unlawful defense contract bidding that resulted in the conviction of 54 
people.
  Judge Hudson was again honored in 1992 when he was selected as 
Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest law 
enforcement organization. This appointment serves as a testament to the 
widespread admiration and respect enjoyed by Judge Hudson.
  In 1998, Henry Hudson became Circuit Court Judge for the Fairfax 
County Circuit Court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In this role, he 
has performed admirably, demonstrating an outstanding legal mind and a 
good judicial temperament. He has served the people of Fairfax County 
well and will no doubt serve the Eastern District of Virginia with 
equal competence and integrity.
  Judge Henry Hudson will make an outstanding Federal judge. A 
substantial majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee 
on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Hudson as Well Qualified. Not only 
does he have considerable legal expertise, but he is a fine man. I am 
proud to see my friend, Henry Hudson, confirmed as a Federal District 
Court Judge.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to express to my Senate colleagues 
my support for the confirmation of Henry E. Hudson to serve as a judge 
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. I have known Henry Hudson for about 20 years. He has had a 
long and distinguished career in public service, beginning as a 
firefighter and a deputy sheriff. He was elected in 1979 by the 
citizens of Arlington County, VA to serve as their Commonwealth's 
Attorney, and was reelected by a large margin four years later.
  In 1986, President Reagan selected Henry Hudson to serve as the 
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is 
credited with elevating the stature and visibility of that office with 
such prosecutions as Operation Illwind, which restored integrity to the 
field of defense procurement.
  In 1992, Judge Hudson was appointed by President Bush to serve as 
Director of the United States Marshals Service. The Department of 
Justice recognized his exceptional leadership of that agency and 
awarded him the John Marshall Award for outstanding legal achievement.
  During my term as Governor of Virginia, I appointed Henry Hudson to 
serve as Chairman of the Criminal Justice Services Board and a member 
of the Governor's Commission to Abolish Parole and Reform Sentencing. 
Later, I selected him to be a member of the Virginia Criminal 
Sentencing Commission. From his superb performance in all those roles, 
which helped us reduce crime in Virginia as well as better protect 
victims, I can personally attest to his calm, knowledgeable, and fair 
leadership as well as his dedication, work ethic and integrity.
  Henry Hudson is currently serving as a Circuit Court Judge in Fairfax 
County, VA, where he has enjoyed a reputation for being a fair, but 
firm, jurist. His nomination to the Federal court is widely supported 
by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as bar associations and 
civic groups.
  It is vital at this point in our Nation's history that we have the 
highest caliber men and women on the Federal bench.
  Indeed, our Federal personnel are charged with the responsibility in 
these difficult times with enforcing our laws while still respecting 
civil liberties.
  Perhaps in no district court is that more important than in the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which 
has been short-handed for some time--handles some of the nation's most 
important and high-profile cases, including the John Walker Lindh case 
and the Moussaoui trial.
  I am very pleased that the United States Senate will today confirm 
Judge Henry Hudson for this very important judicial position. He 
possesses a strong legal acumen, the requisite judicial temperament, 
and proper judicial philosophy of interpreting the law and Constitution 
and not rewriting it from the bench. This will enable him to serve with 
distinction on the federal bench, and this is why the President wisely 
nominated him.
  Thus, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for the Confirmation 
of Henry Hudson as judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of Virginia.


                      nomination of timothy savage

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination 
of Timothy J. Savage to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania.
  My review of Mr. Savage's career as a litigator and public servant 
has convinced me that he will make a fine Federal judge.
  Following graduation from Temple University School of Law, Mr. Savage 
joined the Philadelphia firm of MacCoy, Evans & Lewis as a civil 
litigator. In 1974 he and a partner started the firm of Savage and 
Ciccone, where he turned to criminal defense work. Since 1976 Mr. 
Savage has worked as a sole practitioner in Philadelphia, moving in the 
last two decades to civil litigation and white collar crime 
specialties.
  Mr. Savage knows his way around the Eastern District, serving as a 
mediator in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and as judge pro tem 
in the Court of Commons Pleas in Philadelphia County.
  Since 1977 he has served in a quasi-judicial role on the Pennsylvania 
Liquor Control Board, making evidentiary rulings, overseeing 
interrogation of witnesses, and authoring findings of fact and 
recommendations for Board decisions.
  Outside his law practice, Mr. Savage has served as counsel for a 
local civic association and for the local Boys and Girls Clubs for the 
last 20 years. He has also provided pro bono services to community 
groups, his church, senior citizens and served on the Philadelphia

[[Page 15611]]

Bar Association's Volunteers for Indigent Persons panel.
  I am confident Mr. Savage will serve well on the Federal bench in the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


                       nomination of amy st. eve

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of 
Amy J. St. Eve to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois.
  Ms. St. Eve's academic record is truly outstanding. She received her 
undergraduate degree in History, with Honors and Academic Distinction 
in All Subjects, from Cornell University.
  She then graduated from Cornell's College of Law, where she was an 
Articles Editor on the Law Review, a member of the Order of the Coif, 
and recipient of numerous prizes for finishing her first and second 
years at the top of her class.
  After graduation, she joined the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell. 
For four years, she worked as a litigator representing corporations in 
civil and criminal matters. In 1994, Ms. St. Eve joined the Office of 
the Independent Counsel, investigating the events surrounding the 
Whitewater Development Corporation. She drafted the indictment and 
second-chaired the trial that led to the conviction of Jim McDougal, 
Susan McDougal and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker.
  In 1996, she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern 
District of Illinois. In this position, her responsibilities included 
health care fraud, bank fraud, narcotics, trafficking, public 
corruption and gang violence cases. Additionally, she served as the 
Criminal Health Care Fraud Coordinator. For her work in this position, 
she twice received the Award for Integrity from the U.S. Health and 
Human Services Office of the Inspector General. She was also one of the 
senior prosecutors in ``Operation Safe Road.'' This operation was 
charged with ridding the Melrose Park Illinois Secretary of State 
facility of corruption.
  Currently, Ms. St. Eve is a Senior Counsel in the Litigation 
Department of Abbott Laboratories.
  Ms. St. Eve is one of the best and brightest of her generation. She 
and others like her are prime examples of a new generation of women who 
are becoming the top legal minds in the legal community. Her nomination 
is a fine example of the diverse judiciary that President Bush is 
creating. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for her confirmation.


                      nomination of david cercone

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to rise in support of 
David S. Cercone, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for 
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
  Judge Cercone graduated from Duquesne University School of Law. Judge 
Cercone then clerked for Hon. Paul R. Zavarella on the Allegheny County 
Court of Common from 1978 to 1979. Judge Cercone has also been a sole 
legal practitioner in Pennsylvania. From 1979 to 1981, Judge Cercone 
served as the Assistant District Attorney for Allegheny County Court of 
Common Pleas and specialized in the prosecution of narcotics and 
violent crime cases.
  From 1982 to 1985, Judge Cercone served as the Pennsylvania district 
justice magistrate. In 1986 to the present, Judge Cercone was the 
youngest person ever elected, at 32, to the Court of Common Pleas for 
Allegheny County Pennsylvania. In 1993, Judge Cercone was appointed 
administrative judge for the criminal division by the Supreme Court of 
Pennsylvania. Judge Cercone implemented an accelerated plea docket to 
prevent jail overcrowding and to reduce case backlogs. He also 
established the first ``drug court'' in western Pennsylvania for the 
rehabilitation of drug offenders.
  In his capacity as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny 
County, Judge Cercone has ruled on many issues including medical 
malpractice, auto accidents, criminal homicide, murder, arson, 
insurance fraud, drugs, vehicular homicide, defamation, intoxication of 
minors and criminal conspiracy of an escape of six inmates from the 
Western State Correctional Institute. Judge Cercone has also prepared 
annual reports for the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal 
Division from 1994 to 1998.
  Judge Cercone has been rated ``unanimous qualified'' by the American 
Bar Association. I am confident Judge Cercone will serve on the bench 
with integrity, intelligence, and fairness.


                     nomination of morrison england

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of 
Morrison C. England to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District 
of California.
  I have enjoyed reviewing Judge England's distinguished legal career, 
and I have concluded that he will make an excellent Federal judge in 
California.
  Judge Morrison C. England is a native of St. Louis and a graduate of 
McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. He has had 
more than a decade of private practice experience as a litigator and 
transactional attorney and has served for the past six years as a 
California state judge in Sacramento presiding over criminal and civil 
cases. In 1996 Governor Pete Wilson appointed him as Sacramento 
Municipal Court Judge and elevated him to Superior Court Judge on the 
Sacramento Superior Court a year later. He currently serves in a 
General Trial Court, presiding over both civil and criminal cases. 
Previous to his judicial service, Judge England acted as Referee and 
Judge Pro Tem in the Sacramento County Juvenile Court from 1991-96. 
Clearly he has the experience a Federal judge needs.
  Judge England also serves this country as a member of the U.S. Army 
Reserve, JAG Corps, holding the rank of Major. Judge England's 
nomination has been praised by his colleagues and Sacramento attorneys 
alike. He has home state support and my support as well. He will make 
an excellent Federal judge in California.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks a little more than one year 
after the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee following 
the change in majority last year. The Democratic-led Judiciary 
Committee has had an impressive year of fairly and promptly considering 
President Bush's nominees. In addition to the dozens of high-ranking 
Justice Department officials for whom we held hearings and our work in 
connection with almost 200 Executive Branch nominees the Committee 
reported, we have had a noteworthy record year with respect to judicial 
nominees.
  With the lifting of a Republican hold on nominations we have been 
able to move forward this week to confirm 15 more judicial nominees--4 
circuit court nominees and 11 district court nominees. The Democratic-
led Senate has now confirmed 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees. 
This interim total of 72 judges far outdistances any Republican total 
for any of the preceding six years. Moreover, this is more judges than 
were confirmed under Republican control during all of 1999, 2000 and 
the first six months of 2001 combined. Thus, in less than 13 months we 
have done more than the Republicans did in 30 months! And we did so 
while reforming the process to ensure bipartisan cooperation and 
greater fairness.
  The Senate has now confirmed 13 of President Bush's circuit court 
nominees--which is almost twice as the average during the prior six and 
one-half years of Republican control when they averaged seven circuit 
court confirmations per year. This is more circuit court nominees than 
were confirmed in two years combined, during all of 1996 and 1997, of 
the prior years of Republican control.
  In this, our first year, we held 23 hearings for 84 of the 
President's nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals and District 
Courts. That is more hearings for more of this President' s district 
and circuit court nominees than were ever held in any of the six and 
one-half years that preceded the change in majority last summer. It is 
more hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20 
of the last 22 years.
  In particular, we held more hearings for more of President Bush's 
circuit court nominees, 18, than in any of the six and one-half years 
in which the Republicans controlled the Committee before the change in 
majority last summer. For that matter, we held twice as

[[Page 15612]]

many hearings for courts of appeals nominees than were held in the 
first year of the Reagan Administration when the Senate was controlled 
by Republicans and five times more than in the first year of the 
Clinton Administration when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. 
That total of 18 hearings for circuit court nominees is also twice what 
the Republican majority averaged when it was in control of the process. 
Those are the facts.
  Under Democratic leadership, the Judiciary Committee voted on more 
judicial nominees, 79, than in any of the six and one-half years of 
Republican control that preceded the change in majority. We voted on 
twice as many circuit court nominees, 15, than the Republican majority 
averaged in the years they were in control. In fact, this last year we 
voted on more nominees than were voted on in 1999 and 2000 combined and 
on more circuit court nominees than the Republicans allowed votes on 
during 1996 and 1997 combined.
  We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's 
nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's 
nominees had been treated. By many measures the Committee has achieved 
twice as much this last year as Republicans averaged during their years 
in control, and, by some measures, has done so in less than half the 
time.
  I commend and thank the Majority Leader and Assistant Majority Leader 
for their patience and determination in achieving movement on judicial 
nominees on the Senate floor. The Administration's obstructionism 
stalled Senate floor actions on nominations for more than two months, 
while the Administration failed to fulfill its responsibility to work 
with the Senate in the naming of members of bipartisan boards and 
commissions. But just last Friday we resumed voting on judicial 
nominations and confirmed 15 judicial nominees in the last week once 
Senator McCain's hold was lifted.
  Four of these nominees were confirmed to the Federal Courts of 
Appeals, including the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost 
five years, the first nominee to the Ninth Circuit in two years, and 
the first nominee to the Third Circuit in almost two and a half years 
and the third nominee that we have confirmed to the Eighth Circuit.
  With these confirmations, we have addressed long-standing vacancies 
on circuit courts caused by Republican obstruction on President 
Clinton's nominees. We held the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit 
nominee in seven years, the first hearings for Sixth Circuit nominees 
in almost five years, the first hearing for a Tenth Circuit nominee in 
six years, and the first hearings for Fourth Circuit nominees in three 
years.
  We have also now confirmed 59 of the President's district court 
nominees, twice as many as the Republican average for the past six and 
one-half years. Contrast the 59 Federal trial court judges confirmed by 
the Democratic Senate in just a little more than a year with the 
Republican average, during their past six and one-half years of 
control, of confirming only 31 Federal trial court judges a year. The 
Senate has confirmed more Federal trial court judges than were 
confirmed in 19 of the past 21 years and almost twice as many as the 
Republican average from their six and one-half years of control.
  With this week's confirmations, the Democratic-led Senate has 
confirmed the 10th Federal judge for Pennsylvania. In addition, we 
confirmed our fifth judge to the District Courts in Texas, and our 
fifth judge to the Federal courts in the Eleventh Circuit. Our 
treatment of these nominees as well as a number of others, including 
the nominees confirmed today for the District Courts in Missouri, 
stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of nominees by the Republican 
majority.
  We have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees. For 
example, we have ended the practice of anonymous holds that plagued the 
period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold 
any nominee from his home state, his own circuit or any part of the 
country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We 
have returned to the Democratic tradition of holding regular hearings, 
every few weeks, rather than going for period of as long as six months 
without a single hearing.
  It would certainly have been easier and less work to retaliate for 
the unfair treatment of the last President's judicial nominees. We did 
not. We have been, and will continue to be, more fair than the 
Republican majority was to President Clinton's judicial nominees. More 
than 50 of Clinton's nominees never got a vote, many languished for 
months and years before their nominations were returned without a 
hearing or other action by the Senate. Others waited years--not just a 
year, but up to more than four years. Some never were accorded a 
hearing, some were finally confirmed after years of delay.
  Those who now seek to pretend that the Democratic majority in the 
Senate caused a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts are ignoring the 
facts. Under Republicans, court vacancies rose from 63 in January 1995 
to 110 in July 2001, when the Committee reorganized. During Republican 
control before the reorganization of the Committee, vacancies on the 
Courts of Appeals more than doubled, increasing from 16 to 33. That is 
what we inherited. But in one year of Democratic control, and despite 
45 additional vacancies caused largely by the retirements of many past 
Republican appointees, we have reduced the number of district and 
circuit court vacancies.
  Vacancies continue to exist on the Court of Appeals, in particular, 
because a Republican Senate majority was not willing to hold hearings 
or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's circuit 
nominees in 1999 and 2000, and was not willing to confirm a single 
circuit judge during the entire 1996 session. Republicans caused the 
circuit vacancy crisis, and it has taken a tremendous effort to 
evaluate and have hearings for 18 circuit court nominees in our first 
year.
  In the meantime, Republicans have been unfairly critical that not 
every nominee has yet had a hearing or been confirmed. Rather than 
commend our efforts to do twice as much as they, their criticism is 
that we have yet to conclude consideration of everyone simultaneously. 
In less than 13 months we have already confirmed 13 of President Bush's 
nominees to the Courts of Appeals, and one more is awaiting a vote by 
the full Senate. They confirmed 46 circuit court nominees in 76 months. 
Without the benefit of presidential consultation of the Senate before 
nomination--as Republicans did in recent past years, without having had 
the luxury of taking two, three and sometimes four years before voting 
on a nominee, we have already achieved a confirmation rate of over 40 
percent in our first year. With some cooperation in the fall from the 
Administration and from the Republican minority, we can improve on that 
confirmation rate before the end of the year. It already tops the 
Republican's record in 1997 and far exceeds the Republicans' record in 
1999 when their own confirmation rate for circuit court nominees was 28 
percent.
  It constantly amazes me that our Republican critics run away from 
their record on judicial nominees, without admitting any error or 
wrongdoing or regrets of course, and seek to hold us to a much higher 
standard than they achieved. For example, they seek to compare what we 
have been able to do in less than 13 months with what other Congresses 
did over two years. They seek to make comparisons without recognizing 
that in the current situation we have a Republican President nominating 
an extreme group of nominees without consulting with Senators, as 
opposed to other situations in which Presidents and Senate majorities 
of the same party consulted and worked closely together.
  A good example of this double standard is the Republican critics' use 
of ``confirmation rates for Court of Appeals nominees.'' Remember that 
in 1996 the Republican majority's confirmation percentage for Court of 
Appeals nominees was zero--not a single confirmation of a single Court 
of Appeals judge all year. In 1999, President Clinton sent the Senate 
25 nominations to the Courts of Appeals. Of those six were 
renominations of people on whom the Senate had failed to take action

[[Page 15613]]

dating back to 1996, 1997 and 1998. Of the 25 nominations to the Courts 
of Appeals by President Clinton, the Republican majority in the Senate 
would allow only seven to be confirmed by the end of the year, for a 
confirmation rate of 28 percent. We have already achieved a 
confirmation rate of 40 percent in our first year.
  No judicial nominees should be rubber-stamped by the Senate, not even 
a President's first few choices. All nominees for these lifetime 
positions merit careful review by the Senate. When a President is using 
ideological criterion to select nominees, it is fair for the Senate to 
consider it, as well. Federalist Society credentials are not a 
substitute for fairness, moderation or judicial temperament. When a 
President is intent on packing the courts and stacking the deck on 
outcomes, consideration of balance and how ideological and activist 
nominees will affect a court are valid considerations.
  What the President and his advisors acknowledge they are doing is 
nominating ideologically conservative judicial nominees to stack the 
5th, 6th, and D.C. Circuits with judicial activists of their choice. I 
have tried to work with the White House on judicial nominations. I have 
gone out of my way to encourage them to work in a bipartisan way with 
the Senate, like past Presidents, but in all too many instances they 
have chosen to bypass bipartisanship. I have encouraged them to include 
the ABA in the process earlier, like past Presidents, but they have 
refused to do so even though their decision adds to the length of time 
nominations must be pending before the Senate before they can be 
considered.
  This past January, I again called on the President to stop playing 
politics with judicial nominations and act in a bipartisan manner. In 
June, I sent a detailed letter to the President on these issues. My 
efforts to help the White House improve the judicial nominations 
process have been rejected. I would like to improve the process and 
speed up the filling of judicial vacancies with qualified, fair-minded 
judges.
  Advice and consent does not mean giving the President carte blanche 
to pack the courts. The ingenious system of checks and balances in our 
Constitution does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to 
one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, 
to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the 
mainstream, and whose decisions would further divide our nation.
  We have worked hard to balance these competing concerns over the past 
year: how to address the vacancy crisis we inherited while also not 
being a rubberstamp and abdicating our responsibilities to provide a 
democratic check on the President's choices for lifetime appointment to 
the federal courts. These are the only lifetime appointments in our 
system of government, and they matter a great deal to our future.
  We have moved quickly, but responsibly, to fill judicial vacancies 
with qualified nominees we hope will not be activists. In our first 
year we confirmed 72 judges and reported 79 judicial nominees. 
Partisans ignore these facts. The facts are that we are reporting 
President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior 
presidents, including those who worked closely with a Senate majority 
of the same political party. We have accomplished all this during a 
period of tremendous tumult and crisis.
  The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial 
nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate, and 
held that hearing on the day after the Committee was assigned new 
members. We held unprecedented hearings during the August recess last 
year and proceeded with a hearing two days after the 9-11 attacks and 
shortly after the anthrax attack. Today, we held our 23rd hearing for 
judicial nominees. We are doing our best to address the vacancy crisis 
we inherited.
  The Democratic majority in the Senate has worked hard since the 
change in majority last summer. We have a record of achievement and of 
fairness to be proud of at the recess of this session. I thank the 
members who have worked cooperatively with me to make progress in so 
many areas over the last year.

                          ____________________