[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6532-6535]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 6533]]

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, 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

[[Page 6534]]

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.
  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

[[Page 6535]]

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.

                          ____________________