[Pages S2919-S2933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN STACY MILLER, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS; JAMES RANDAL HALL, TO BE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; JOHN A.
MENDEZ, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA; STANLEY THOMAS ANDERSON, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE; AND CATHARINA HAYNES, TO BE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT OF TEXAS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of Brian Stacy
Miller, of Arkansas, to be United States District Judge; James Randal
Hall, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge; John A. Mendez,
of California, to be United States District Judge; Stanley Thomas
Anderson, of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge; and
Catharina Haynes, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the
Fifth Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am honored to recommend Brian Miller
for confirmation as a Federal judge of the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
Without hesitation, the Judiciary Committee confirmed Judge Miller on
March 6. During the confirmation process, they learned what many
Arkansans already know--Judge Miller has presided and will continue to
preside with impartiality and integrity.
In my mind, Judge Miller has all the tools to be a great judge. I
have reviewed his work and have been impressed with his record. His
broad range of experience in civil and criminal matters, representing
both sides of the law, is extraordinary. He exemplifies the proper
credentials as well as

[[Page S2920]]

the temperament the people of Arkansas can be comfortable with.
I have heard validation from colleagues and acquaintances on the
Arkansas bar and throughout the legal community. When Judge Miller's
name began to circulate for this nomination, I only received praise
from his colleagues. In fact, it is one of the few occasions when I did
not hear a single person criticize his possible nomination.
While this body has seen more than its share of polarizing nominees,
Judge Miller is the rare exception. He brought integrity and
impartiality to the bench while serving on the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and earlier as a city judge for both Holly Grove and Helena,
AR. His work as the deputy prosecuting attorney for Philips County has
also been praised.
Before practicing law in private practice for 9 years, Judge Miller
earned his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School. He
graduated with honors from the University of Central Arkansas and
Phillips Community College of the University of Arkansas. Even before
serving on the bench, Mr. Miller was serving our Nation in the Navy and
the Navy Reserve from 1985 to 1992.
Judge Miller has big shoes to fill following the service of the late
George Howard, Jr. I am confident, however, these shoes will fit Judge
Miller quite well.
Madam President, I also want to add my appreciation for the Judiciary
Committee and Judiciary Committee staff on both sides because they
worked very quickly on this nomination. What I said in my statement is
absolutely true, and the more people are exposed to Brian Miller, the
more impressed they are with him as a person and as a judge. He really
does have a distinguished and exemplary record in Arkansas, but he also
is a fine man. I think Judge Miller will be a great judge.

I mentioned George Howard, who was an outstanding judge in the
Eastern District of Arkansas for a long time and really paved the way
in a lot of ways for a lot of lawyers in our State.
Judge Miller will be in that same vein. If possible, he could even be
better. He is a person who comes to this nomination with a lot of
credentials and a lot of support from the legal community in Arkansas.
As I said a minute ago, I don't think we have heard one person in our
whole State who has come out against his nomination. He is that good.
We are so pleased the President nominated him.
I also thank my colleague and friend on the House side, Congressman
John Boozman, who was instrumental in pushing this nomination, getting
it to the White House and pushing it through the White House, and
getting it over here to the Senate. It truly has been a team effort.
Judge Miller is from Senator Lincoln's hometown. She feels a special
connection to him, as she should; her family and his family have been
friends for a long time.
Certainly, I am very proud and honored to recommend him to my
colleagues to sit on the Federal bench for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum, with the time being equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, while the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas is on the floor, I think it appropriate to comment. I believe
the nominee of whom he has spoken is well qualified for the position.
Mr. Brian Stacy Miller graduated with honors from the University of
Central Arkansas in 1992. He has a law degree from Vanderbilt, has a
distinguished record in private practice, served as city attorney, was
director of some very important organizations, and received a unanimous
``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.
I will abbreviate my presentation at this time, but I believe the
Senator from Arkansas and his colleague have brought us a good nominee,
as is the Senator's custom.
I ask unanimous consent to have his resume printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Brian Stacy Miller

United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Birth: 1967, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Legal Residence: Arkansas.
Education: B.S., with honors, University of Central
Arkansas, 1992. J.D., Vanderbilt Law School, 1995.
Primary Employment: Associate Attorney, Martin, Tate,
Morrow & Marston, TN, 1995-2006. Solo Practitioner, Miller
Law Firm, AR, 1998-2006. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
Arkansas Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 2000-2006. Judge,
Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2007-present.
Other Legal Employment: City Attorney, Helena, AR, 1999-
2005. City Attorney, Edmondson, AR, 1999-2001. Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney, Phillips County, AR, 2000-2006. City
Attorney, Lake View, AR, 2000-2006.
Selected Activities: Director, Southern Bancorp, 2000-
present. Director, KIPP Delta College Preparatory School,
2001-2002. Director, Southern Good Faith Fund, 2002-2006.
Director, First Bank of the Delta, 2002-present. Arkansas Bar
Association, House of Delegates, 2006-present. Law School
Committee, 2007-present. Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on
Criminal Practice, 2007-present. Memphis Bar Association
Publications Committee, 2006. Director, Boys and Girls Club,
2007-present.
ABA Rating: Unanimous ``Well Qualified''.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor, and I await the arrival of the
distinguished chairman to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are not.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Chair. I will be brief because I know
Members of the Senate are anxious to make their weekend plans, but I
come to the floor to thank Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for
reporting out these judges today--in particular, for reporting out
Randy Hall of Augusta, GA.
We were very pleased to recommend Randy to the President of the
United States, very pleased the President decided to nominate him, and
particularly pleased the Judiciary Committee is giving this Senate a
chance to confirm a fine jurist to the bench in the Southern District
of Georgia.
Prior to this nomination, Randy Hall served in the Georgia State
Senate from District 22, which incorporates all of Augusta, GA, which
is the No. 1 location on the map today with the Masters starting its
first round. Randy is a distinguished attorney, with expertise in real
estate, banking, corporate matters, and commercial litigation. He has a
reputation for absolute integrity and character. He is a native of
Augusta, which is important to many because this is the heart of the
district.
He graduated from Augusta College in 1979 and from the University of
Georgia College of Law in 1982. He serves on the Augusta-Richmond
County Community Partnership for Children and Families and attends the
Trinity on the Hill United Methodist Church.
Randy Hall is an outstanding Georgian, outstanding American,
qualified jurist, and I commend him to the Members of the Senate for
his confirmation today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. While the distinguished Senator from Georgia is on the
floor, I compliment him for the selection of James Randal Hall for the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. I have
reviewed his academic record, which is excellent--a bachelor's degree
from Augusta College, a J.D. from the University of Georgia School of
Law. He has exceptional activities. In 2001, he received the
Outstanding Family and Children's Advocate Award, and in 2004 he
received the Outstanding Advocacy Award from the Community Mental
Health Center of East Central Georgia. He has a substantial majority
``well qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association, and I think
he has the potential to be an outstanding U.S. district judge for the
Southern District of Georgia. I am pleased to endorse him and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I ask unanimous consent to have a fuller statement of his resume
printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

[[Page S2921]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

James Randall Hall

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Birth:1958, Augusta, Georgia.
Legal Residence: Georgia.
Education: B.A., Augusta College, 1979. No degree, Walter
F. George School of Law/Mercer University, 1979-1980. J.D.,
University of Georgia School of Law, 1982.
Employment: Associate, Sanders, Mottola, Haugen & Goodson,
1982-1984. Partner, Avrett & Hall, 1984-1985. Corporate Vice
President & Legal Counsel, Bankers First Corporation, 1985-
1996. Partner, J. Randall Hall/Hall & Mullins, 1996-1999.
Augusta Office Managing Partner, Hunter, Maclean, Exley &
Dunn, 1999-2003. 22nd District State Senator, Georgia State
Senate, 2003-2004. Partner, Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall,
2004-Present.
Selected Activities: 2001 Outstanding Family and Children's
Advocate Award, Augusta Richmond County Community Partnership
for Children and Families. 2004 Outstanding Advocacy Award,
Community Mental Health Center of East Central Georgia. 2004
Legislative Advocacy Award, Superior Court Clerks Association
of Georgia. Member and Past President, Augusta Coalition for
Children & Youth/Augusta Partnership for Families, 1985-
Present. Director, Georgia Carolina Bancshares, Inc./First
Bank of Georgia, 1997-Present. Appointee, Governor's Task
Force on Redistricting, 2006. Appointee, Augusta-Richmond
Planning Commission, 1997-2002; Chairman, 2000-2002. Member,
Leadership Augusta, 1985-1986. Member, American Corporate
Counsel Association, 1993-1996. Member, Lions Club of
Augusta, 1986-2003; President; District Cabinet Secretary.
Member, Citizens Task Force on Cable Franchise Issues, 1994-
1995.
ABA Rating: Substantial majority well-qualified/minority
qualified.

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as many of
my other colleagues have, to support Judge Brian Miller, who has been
nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of our
State of Arkansas. As the senior Senator from Arkansas, I am very
pleased to support Mr. Miller for this very important post.
After reviewing his record and speaking with many of his friends and
colleagues in Arkansas, I can assure my colleagues in the Senate that
Brian Miller is not only a superb lawyer and a public servant, he is
also a trusted friend who is held in high regard by so many in our
great State.
Mr. Miller is a native of Helena, AR, which also happens to be my
hometown. After high school, Brian Miller continued his education,
graduating from the University of Central Arkansas in 1992. He
continued his education by earning a law degree from Vanderbilt
University, and one of the other great distinctions and certainly, I
guess, pieces of pride I have about Mr. Miller is that Brian also had
the distinction of serving as one of the first interns for my office in
the House of Representatives in the summer of 1993.
Brian began his professional career up the Mississippi River, in
Memphis, TN, at the firm of Martin Tate Morrow & Marston. In 1998,
Brian ran a successful campaign to be the city attorney for our
hometown of Helena. While he served as city attorney, his father also
served as mayor. He continued to work part time with his firm in
Memphis until January 2007, when he was selected by then-Governor Mike
Huckabee to be a State appellate judge.
Throughout his career, Judge Miller has been no stranger to the
courtroom. In addition to the positions mentioned above, he also was
appointed deputy prosecuting attorney for Phillips County. In fact,
between January 1999 and January 2006, Brian spent 3 days a week, every
week, in the courtroom, either in his capacity as a prosecutor or on
behalf of his clients. He has a reputation for being a tough but fair
litigator, who is a respected prosecutor and a tireless advocate. He
has received overwhelming support from the legal community all around
our great State of Arkansas for his nomination.
When evaluating lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, I always
carefully consider a nominee's skills, their experience, their
intellect and ability to understand and ably to apply established
precedent. Fundamentally, I am interested in knowing a nominee can
fulfill this responsibility under the Constitution to apply the law
fairly, without political favor or bias. I am absolutely satisfied
Brian has met that standard.
I would be remiss, however, if I didn't also recognize Judge George
Howard, Jr., who served on the bench for nearly 27 years. This is the
seat Judge Miller will be taking. Judge Howard was a true pioneer. His
many contributions to civil rights and to the legal community made a
lasting impact on Arkansas and our Nation. I was proud to introduce
legislation with Senator Pryor last year that honored Judge Howard's
legacy by naming the Federal building and the courthouse in Pine
Bluffs, AR, as the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and
Courthouse.'' Judge Miller certainly knows that, following Judge
Howard, he certainly does have big shoes to fill, but I am confident he
will serve Arkansas and this Nation with distinction for years to come.
In closing, I thank the majority leader and the Republican leader,
also Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter and the entire Senate Judiciary
Committee for working with Judge Miller, for working with my staff and
with me to move this nomination forward. We have a great opportunity in
Judge Miller. He is, as I said, a tremendous judicial nominee, but he
is also a great citizen. And not coming from the legal world, as many
of my colleagues do, this is an occasion where I actually happen to
know someone personally for one of these judicial nominations in whom I
have great confidence. I have a feeling of overwhelming pride that this
young man, who not only interned in my House office but grew up in the
same hometown I did, could come before the Senate and be nominated and
confirmed.
I thank all the staff, as I said, of the Judiciary Committee, and the
majority leader, Chairman Leahy, and Senator Specter. I have full faith
and confidence in Mr. Miller's ability. I do encourage Members of this
body to support this confirmation.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania.
I would like to ask, through the Chair, if it would be appropriate to
make a few remarks about the judicial nominee from Tennessee.
Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire how much time the Senator from Tennessee
would like? We are limited to no more than an hour.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Five minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Take whatever time you need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I rise to thank and congratulate
President Bush and to thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter for
bringing to the Senate floor the nomination of Tom Anderson to be a
U.S. district judge for the Western District of Tennessee.
I would offer three reasons why Judge Anderson's nomination to serve
as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Tennessee is an
especially worthy one and one that I hope today will receive approval
by the entire Senate.
First, Tom Anderson is already a judge. In 2003, the Federal district
judges of the Western District of Tennessee selected Tom Anderson
unanimously as a U.S. magistrate judge following a merit process that
included more than three dozen applicants.
I see the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has arrived. I would
say to Senator Leahy, I am in the midst of about a 3- or 4-minute talk
about the judicial nominee from Tennessee.
Mr. LEAHY. Go right ahead.
Mr. ALEXANDER. As I said before he came, I greatly appreciate the
fact that Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter held a hearing, which
included Tom Anderson, and that the Judiciary Committee sent his
nomination to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation.
As I was saying, the first reason to support him is that he is
already a judge. In 2003, the Federal district

[[Page S2922]]

judges of western Tennessee selected Tom Anderson unanimously as a U.S.
magistrate judge following a merit process that included more than
three dozen applicants.
Second, Tom Anderson has been first chair on more than 200 cases
tried in Federal court and has earned extraordinary respect from
lawyers and judges in Tennessee. For example, Senior District Judge Tom
Higgins drove more than 100 miles from Nashville to Tom Anderson's
investiture ceremony as a magistrate judge in Jackson in 2003 to
commend Anderson's practice as an attorney.
Judge Higgins' unsolicited appearance for Judge Anderson was
considered by all those in attendance as a great compliment to Tom
Anderson's professionalism. I know Judge Higgins very well, as do other
members of the bar in Tennessee. If he had thought Tom Anderson would
have been a bad judge and had been a less than professional lawyer,
Judge Higgins would have driven 200 miles from Nashville to make a
speech in the other direction. So it was an enormous compliment to Tom
Anderson that Judge Higgins would have driven to Jackson and made such
a speech.
So impressed was I with that speech of Judge Higgins that I am
submitting a transcript of Judge Higgins' remarks from that ceremony on
January 16, 2004. I ask unanimous consent that it be included in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Prior to serving on the bench, Tom Anderson spent
nearly 20 years in private practice. In addition to his extensive
litigation experience, he also served as an administrative law judge
for the Tennessee Claims Commission and as an assistant commissioner
for the Tennessee Department of Transportation.
Finally, although Judge Anderson has been nominated by a Republican
President, he has strong support also from Tennessee Democrats. A
number of west Tennessee Democrats wrote to the Judiciary Committee to
urge confirmation of Judge Anderson, including State Senator Roy
Herron; Charles Farmer, the former mayor of Jackson; James Strickland,
Jr., the former chairman of the Memphis/Shelby County Democratic Party;
Tommy Green, the chairman of the Tennessee Municipal League; and Mike
McWherter, a prominent local businessman and son of former Democratic
Governor Ned McWherter.
It is worth noting that Mike McWherter, who lives in Jackson, also
had formed an exploratory committee to challenge me in this year's race
in the Senate before deciding to spend more time with his family. So
Judge Anderson's nomination is one issue that would have united both
parties' candidates on the campaign trail if Mike McWherter had decided
to be a candidate for the Senate.
This deep reservoir of good will for Judge Anderson in Tennessee
reflects the fact that he is experienced, fairminded, and well
respected. He is also a husband and father of three who has been active
in the community, including having served as a board member of the
Methodist Hospital in Lexington and the Carl Perkins Child Abuse Center
in Jackson, as well as helping to establish the Beech River Branch of
the YMCA in Lexington and serving as its first chairman of the board.
Again, I congratulate the President, and I thank Chairman Leahy and
Senator Specter and the full Judiciary Committee for reporting this
nomination to the floor and setting it for a vote this afternoon.
I hope the entire Senate will agree with their judgment and confirm
him before Chief Judge James Todd, who has served with distinction in
this position, takes senior status.

Exhibit 1

Remarks of Senior Judge Thomas A. Higgins

excerpted from transcript of investiture of j. thomas anderson as u.s.
magistrate judge western district of tennessee

(January 16, 2004)

JUDGE TODD: Thank you, Judge Pham.
The court now recognizes a special guest. This is Judge
Thomas A. Higgins. He is a senior judge in the Middle
District of Tennessee in Nashville. He didn't wear his black
dress today, but I can assure you that Judge Higgins is, in
fact, a judge. He has helped us in West Tennessee with some
of our cases, and we consider him to be an honorary West
Tennesseean.
Judge Higgins.
JUDGE HIGGINS: May it please the court and ladies and
gentlemen, two years ago, as Judge Todd alluded to, I was
designated and assigned by the Chief Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to sit in the
Western District of Tennessee while this court was awaiting
the appointment and confirmation of a full complement of
judges to the court, and I tried cases in Memphis and here in
Jackson. In fact, I held court in the courtroom that is to be
assigned to Judge Anderson.
During the luncheon recesses during a lengthy trial, a jury
trial that I presided over here in Jackson, I would take a
tour of downtown Jackson, and I made an important discovery.
I learned that the gold standard for public speaking was
established here in Jackson in 1831. On the north side of the
Madison County Courthouse there's a marker that commemorates
the fact that Davy Crockett was defeated for reelection to
the Congress. He addressed the voters of Jackson and West
Tennessee and told them, and I quote, ``You can go to hell.
I'm going to Texas.'' Now, that's the gold-plated standard
for making public remarks.
And in that vein, I want to share with you what I wrote to
Judge Todd on July the 17th when I learned that Mr. Anderson
was being considered for the position of United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Tennessee. And I
quote, ``This is good news for you, the chief judge, and the
judges of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee and for the litigants and public at
large, I know Mr. Anderson well. He is an experienced and
superb lawyer and a perfect gentleman. As an advocate, he
represents his clients ably and with great zeal. As an
officer of the court, he is punctual in every respect. When
he says something is so, it is so. If he is not familiar
with the case, he will make that clear to the court and
not try to bluff his way through. In sum, he is the kind
of a lawyer that any judge is comfortable having around
him and in the courtroom.''
Now, what is the basis upon which those assertions were
made? The basis is this. For a period of over ten years, I
have watched Mr. Anderson's work as a lawyer in the courtroom
first-hand. He has tried more jury cases before me than any
other single judge.
Now, why is that, a West Tennessee lawyer? Well, he was
employed by a client that would send him to close and distant
places. I handle all the cases in the Columbia division of
the Middle District of Tennessee, and I go to Columbia every
other month to hold court on the trailer docket.
Mr. Anderson has selected as many as three juries on the
same day and tried three jury cases back-to-back with three
sets of clients out in the hall and three sets of witnesses.
We would select one jury. I would instruct the jury and tell
the jury when to come back, the following week, two or three
days. We would select the second jury, and I would instruct
that jury and then tell them to come back Monday or Tuesday
of the following week. And we'd select a third jury and then
on the selection of that third jury, we would start
immediately to the trial of that case.
Now, he's a real lawyer. And he's got enormous energy and
willingness to work, and I don't' believe that the court
could have selected a finer lawyer with more experience. And
I told Judge todd in this same letter that ``I am convinced
that his appointment as a magistrate judge will be received
with the highest praise by his colleagues in the Western
District of Tennessee.'' And I'm satisfied that that will
prove to be the case.
Now, following the rule that Davy Crockett established, I
only have this to day, Judge Todd. I congratulate the judges
of the Western district of Tennessee in selecting Mr.
Anderson. I congratulate Mr. Anderson upon his appointment.
And I believe the expectations of the court will be fully
fulfilled.
I have two other observations to make. One, there is a
section in Title 28, United States Code, that makes it a high
misdemeanor for any justice or judge of the United States to
engage in the practice of law. I suggest to you that you
ought not to touch that case topside or bottom. It's the only
offense under federal law that is characterized as a high
misdemeanor. And it's obvious that the Congress intended to
make it an impeachable offense for a justice or judge to
engage in the practice of law.
And the last observation is to enjoy today. Take in all
the applause. Soak it up and enjoy the day. There's a lot of
misery ahead of you. There are going to be a lot of restless
nights, and there won't be another day like this until your
portrait is presented. So make the best of the day.
Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TODD: Thank you, Judge Higgins.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to thank my good friend, the Senator
from Tennessee. As the Senator knows, he came to chat with me about
this nominee. I was not aware of him. But as soon as he did, I pulled
the file, looked at him, and I think we put him on for a hearing very
shortly thereafter.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I have respected his opinion and
his

[[Page S2923]]

views for years, whether he was in the Cabinet or here, and was happy
to in this case. I also wish to thank him for the kind words he said
about me, as well as those of Senator Isakson and Senator Lincoln and
Senator Pryor.
Mr. President, I have a longer statement to make, but I understand
the distinguished Republican leader wishes to speak.
I ask unanimous consent that I yield to the distinguished leader
without losing my right to the floor, if that is agreeable to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Post-Petraeus Wrap Up

Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, Americans were vividly reminded this
week that, as our Nation struggles to help Iraq on its way to becoming
a stable country that can defend itself and be an ally in the war on
terror, we are fortunate to have men like Ambassador Ryan Crocker and
Gen. David Petraeus representing us in Baghdad. Their commitment,
determination, and skill in seeing America's interests promoted and
preserved remind us that public service is a high calling, and that
good men and women are still answering that call in heroic ways.
Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus outlined to the Congress and
the country the complex challenges they confront every day in advancing
our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. Their patience and
professionalism in doing so was commendable. And it was an important
reminder to all of us that the men and women serving in Iraq are well
led.
We were reminded this week that less than a year after the
counterinsurgency plan went into full effect, the security situation in
Iraq has improved dramatically. Overall violence is down. Civilian
deaths are down. Sectarian killing is down. Attacks on American forces
are dramatically down. And, as a result of all this, General Petraeus
was recently able to recommend to the President that our forces be
drawn down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by July of
this year.
None of us should underestimate the complexity of managing this draw-
down. The logistical challenges involved in transporting soldiers and
equipment safely and in large numbers are immense, as are the
operational challenges involved in repositioning the remaining force in
a way that keeps pressure on al-Qaeida in Iraq while continuing to
protect the Iraqi people. But neither should we underestimate the
impact the surge has had in delivering security gains, allowing for a
responsible drawdown of thousands of U.S. servicemembers, and in
allowing for the transition of our mission in Iraq, a transition that
has already begun.
As part of this ongoing transition, the President announced earlier
today that he has accepted General Petraeus's recommendation to allow
for a 45-day period of evaluation and consolidation once the drawdown
of surge brigades is complete.
Encouragingly, the President also announced that Admiral Mullen and
Secretary Gates will now be able to reduce the tour lengths of soldiers
deploying to Iraq from 15-month to 12-month periods. This change in
policy will increase the amount of time our soldiers and marines are
able to spend at home between deployments, a welcome and richly
deserved acknowledgment of the service and sacrifice of the greatest
fighting force on Earth.
As U.S. soldiers and marines return home, they can be proud of the
work they have done these last months. In addition to a decrease in
violence, U.S. forces have paved the way for a corresponding increase
in the size and the scope of the Iraqi Security Forces.
This so-called ``surge'' of Iraqi Security Forces is three to four
times larger than our own: the Iraqi Army has ballooned by more than
100,000 over the last year alone, and its ranks continue to expand. And
local volunteer forces, the so-called ``Sons of Iraq,'' have swelled to
nearly 100,000, a key factor in improved security at the provincial
level. Their integration into the Iraq Security Forces is an important
next step.
Young Iraqis are signing up to join local police forces, to protect
the Iraqi border against incoming foreign fighters, and for special
operations that will allow the Iraqis to track and kill high value
terrorist targets on their own.
These are all encouraging signs. And we are also encouraged by the
political progress in Iraq. Though significant political benchmarks
remain unmet, progress on other significant benchmarks that seemed far
off just a few months ago is underway.
The Iraqi Government is also beginning to show a new and welcome
willingness to shoulder more of the financial burden for their own
security and development. Iraq has committed, for instance, to
gradually assume the salaries of the Sons of Iraq. And the Iraq C-130
planes that were used to shuttle forces and supplies to Basra over the
last 2 weeks were built, of course, right here in America.
Overall, Iraq now covers three-fourths of the cost of its security
forces. And we can now realistically expect the Iraqis at some point to
assume the full cost of their own security.
On the development side, the Iraqis are also on a path to self-
sufficiency. As of last month, Iraq had purchased more than $2 billion
of goods and services from the U.S. The most recent Iraqi
reconstruction budget vastly outspends the United States. And slowly
but surely, Iraq is approaching total financial control over large
reconstruction projects.
As the Iraqis take over more of their own needs, Congress can help
accelerate their path to independence by passing a supplemental
appropriations bill that has been on request now for more than a year.
Our friends on the other side are rightly concerned about military
readiness. I share their concern. But the best way to ensure the
military's readiness is not to scrap a plan that has been working in
Iraq. The best way to ensure readiness is for Congress to quickly
approve the Defense supplemental, without arbitrary withdrawal dates,
and without nonsecurity spending. We also need to pass the regular DOD
appropriations bill.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reminded us this week that
progress in Iraq is fragile and reversible, that much hard work lies
ahead. We are encouraged by the advances they detailed, but we are also
sobered by the continuing short- and long-term challenges to our
interests in the Persian Gulf. We can't lose sight of the need to meet
these challenges.
We need to help Iraq defend itself against Iranian-backed special
groups as part of a broader effort to check Iran's apparent desire to
dominate the gulf. And, in the best traditions of U.S. foreign policy,
we must continue to deal with the sad effects that decades of neglect
by Saddam Hussein have visited on the Iraqi people.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were clear about the
challenges we face. But they outlined a plan for continued progress
that is backed up by their achievements so far. They, and the Americans
they are fortunate to lead in Iraq, have brought us a good distance
from where we were just 1 year ago. And this week they charted a
realistic course moving forward. Now it is time for the Senate to
demonstrate the same commitment and professionalism as these two men,
by giving our forces in the field what they need.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Judge John A. Mendez to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.
Let me begin by explaining the urgency of filling this judgeship.
Simply stated, the Eastern District of California is in a crisis. In
2005 and 2006, the district had the highest number of case filings in
the Nation. In 2007, the district ranked second out of all 94 Federal
judicial districts in the number of new cases filed.
Regrettably, the bench in the Eastern District has been understaffed
throughout this period of heavy case filings. A temporary judgeship in
the district expired in 2004 because the Congress failed to extend it.
As a result, average caseloads in the Eastern District increased by 18
percent from 2004 through 2006, even as average caseloads nationwide
declined.
In this Congress, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1327, which
would recreate the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. The
bill has already

[[Page S2924]]

passed the Senate and is currently pending in the House. I am also a
cosponsor of S. 2774, which would create new judgeships to meet the
needs of California and other States throughout the Nation.
In addition to creating new judgeships, we clearly need to fill the
judgeships that already exist in the Eastern District. Judge John
Mendez is the nominee for a seat that was vacated in June 2007.
Judge Mendez is a native Californian and is currently a judge on the
Sacramento County Superior Court. He was born in Oakland and graduated
with distinction from Stanford University, with a degree in political
science. He went on to earn a law degree at Harvard Law School.
After law school he returned to California and worked in private
practice in San Francisco from 1980 to 1984. From February 1984 through
July 1986, Judge Mendez served as an assistant U.S. attorney in San
Jose. He was assigned to the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's
Office and became a specialist in criminal law and procedure.
In 1986, Judge Mendez moved to Sacramento and returned to private
practice. He focused on civil litigation and business litigation and
rose to become a partner at the law firm of Downey, Brand, Seymour &
Rowher.
Judge Mendez was appointed as U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 1992,
the final year of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. He served as U.S.
attorney for 1 year and was personally involved in major civil
litigation and a criminal appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Mendez was of counsel
to the law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco from 1993
to 1995. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Sacramento and joined the
firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn as a shareholder. His practice included
complex commercial and environmental litigation and white-collar
criminal defense work, as well as counseling clients on regulatory
compliance.
Gov. Gray Davis recognized his potential as a judge in 2001 and
appointed him to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Mendez was
elected to retain that position in 2002 and continues to serve as a
superior court judge today.
In addition to his service to the State of California, Judge Mendez
has served the legal profession through leadership positions in the
Hispanic National Bar Association and the Sacramento Chapter of the
Federal Bar Association.
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 pleased to report that Judge Mendez was
recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a
Federal district judge. By all accounts, he would make an excellent
addition to the Federal bench in Sacramento.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Mendez.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the
nomination of Judge Catharina Haynes to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She is a very well-qualified and capable
nominee to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which hears
appeals from the Federal District Courts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas.
Judge Haynes has extraordinary academic credentials. She graduated
first in her class with a degree in psychology from the Florida
Institute of Technology at age 19, and she then finished second in her
class at Emory University School of Law at age 22. While in law school,
she also served on the Emory Law Journal.
Since graduating from law school, Judge Haynes has compiled a
distinguished record in private practice and as a State court judge.
In 1998, Judge Haynes was elected to be a district court judge in
Dallas, TX. Four years later, she was reelected to that same position.
While she was running for reelection, the Dallas Morning News endorsed
her and said of her: ``(She) has energy, intelligence and a strong
commitment to the law.'' They further added, ``She runs a fair,
efficient court.''
While working as a trial court judge, Judge Haynes presided over 190
jury trials and approximately 100 bench trials. She was able to dispose
of over 7,000 cases related to a full range of civil topics including
complex commercial disputes, commercial litigation, insurance issues,
personal injury, intellectual property matters, and employment
disputes.
Having recently concluded her time as a Dallas District Court Judge,
Judge Haynes returned to private practice at the well-regarded national
law firm of Baker Botts, LLP, where she is a partner working in the
litigation department.
While in private practice Judge Haynes has handled a wide range of
complicated cases in before both State and Federal court. She has also
argued cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court to
which she is nominated.
Judge Haynes has been heavily involved with the local bar
associations and has volunteered extensively in the community.
Judge Haynes has received numerous awards and professional honors,
including the 2006 State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, 2006
Florida Tech Alumni Association Outstanding Achievement Award, 2004
Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, 2003 Dallas
Women Lawyers Association Outstanding Board Member Award, and 1996 and
2002 Dallas Bar Association Jo Anna Moreland Outstanding Committee
Chair Award.
Her commitment to public service will serve her well on the Fifth
Circuit and will reflect credit on the Federal judiciary.
Mr. President, I am pleased the nomination of Catharina Haynes to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is being confirmed
today by the Senate.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of
Catharina Haynes to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have carefully reviewed
Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing record. I asked Judge Haynes
several questions in writing after her confirmation hearing in
February. I voted against her nomination in the committee last week,
and I want to explain to my colleagues my reasons for voting against
her today.
Let me begin by saying that I do admire Judge Haynes's commitment to
public service. She was elected to the bench in 1999 as a judge, 191st
Judicial District Court, in Dallas County, TX. She was reelected to the
bench in 2002 and lost her reelection bid in 2006. She now serves as a
partner at Baker, Botts in Dallas, TX.
However, no one is entitled to a circuit court judgeship. In the vast
majority of cases, these courts are the final law of the land for the
States in their circuit when it comes to interpreting complex Federal
statutes and our Constitution. These judges have lifetime appointments
and are second only to Supreme Court Justices in terms of their power
and authority.
In reviewing her background, experience, confirmation hearing record,
and her written responses to additional questions I posed to her, I am
not convinced that Judge Haynes is qualified for this position.
I start with the starkest fact about Judge Haynes's record: By her
own admission, Judge Haynes has never written a single judicial
opinion. In response to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire asking
for her opinions as a judge, she stated that she had none. She wrote
that ``[a]s a state district judge in Texas, I wrote orders (a few with
explanations), jury charges and findings of fact/conclusions of law,
but I did not write `published opinions' or `unpublished opinions'.''
A nominee for circuit court judge should have experience in writing
substantive judicial opinions. Judge Haynes does not have this
requisite experience.
Judge Haynes, by her own admission, has very little experience with
criminal cases. According to her response to our committee
questionnaire, she stated that her percentage of practice in civil
proceedings was 100 percent, and the percentage of her practice in
criminal proceedings was 0 percent. She also responded that as a judge
in Dallas

[[Page S2925]]

County, TX, she heard civil cases, and her docket included almost
exclusively civil cases.
A nominee for circuit court judge should have broad experience in
both criminal and civil cases. Her lack of any meaningful criminal law
experience does not give me confidence that she has a sufficient
understanding of the criminal justice system and the rights of
defendants.
Judge Haynes, by her own admission, did not write opinions. Rather,
she wrote orders. Given that circuit court judges are often the final
say on the law of the land in a given circuit--due to the low rate of
granting certiorari by the Supreme Court--a circuit court judge has an
unusual amount of authority and decisionmaking power.
We do not have any meaningful track record on which to judge Judge
Haynes's views on substantive legal issues such as civil rights, civil
liberties, worker's rights, reproductive freedom, environmental
protection, consumers' rights, employees' rights, or separation of
powers.
Judge Haynes does not meet my test for Federal judicial nominees
since she does not have the requisite experience for a Federal
appellate judge.
Finally, I want to talk about diversity. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas, presides over the largest percentage of minority residents, 44
percent--which includes African-American and Latino citizens--of any of
the regional circuit courts of appeal in the country outside of
Washington, DC. Mississippi has the highest African-American
population--36 percent--of any State in the country. Louisiana has the
second largest African-American population--32 percent--of any State in
the country. It is disappointing that none of President Bush's
nominations to the Federal bench in this circuit were African
Americans. Only one of the Federal judges that now sits on the Fifth
Circuit is African American.
As Chairman Leahy stated at Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing, it
was the Fifth Circuit judges who took a lead role in tearing down Jim
Crow society in the South and in implementing the Supreme Court's
decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Indeed, the best known
of these judges were four judges called the ``Fifth Circuit Four'' or
simply ``The Four'' by opponents of civil rights, in a reference to the
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Burke Marshall, the Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division under President Kennedy, told The
Nation in a 2004 interview that ``those four [Fifth Circuit] judges, I
think, have made as much of an imprint on American society and American
law as any four judges below the Supreme Court have every done on any
court . . . If it hadn't been for judges like that on the Fifth
Circuit, I think Brown would have failed in the end.'' The Brown
decision and its progeny paved the way for equality in transportation,
employment, and so many other areas in the South. The Fifth Circuit
decisions on civil rights issues in the 1950s and 1960s affirmed by the
Supreme Court helped to lay the groundwork for Congress to enact
national legislation to prohibit discrimination throughout the United
States, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
Mr. President, I recall the history of the Fifth Circuit because I
want to impress upon my colleagues the importance of this circuit in
the history of the country and the importance of this circuit today. We
are still struggling today to guarantee civil rights to Americans today
regardless of race. Too many Americans are still disenfranchised and
unable to vote due to deceptive campaign practices targeted at scaring
away minority voters. Too many Americans still face employment
discrimination or unequal pay. Too many Americans are still treated
differently because of the color of their skin.
These judges serve for lifetime appointments and will decide some of
the most fundamental legal and constitutional questions for the Fifth
Circuit residents in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. I am not
convinced that Judge Haynes has either the experience or the proven
track record on protecting civil rights and equal rights under the law
for this position.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from
Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour 43 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 99 minutes 53 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. That is close enough; almost 100.
Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the consideration of another
nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Brian Stacy
Miller for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Miller currently
serves as a State appellate judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He
previously served as city judge in Holly Grove, AR, was a deputy
prosecuting attorney for Phillips County, AR, and worked for several
years in private practice.
With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more
representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed,
Judge Miller will be the 88th African-American currently serving on our
Federal bench and the 74th African-American serving as a district court
judge.
I thank Senators Pryor and Lincoln for their consideration of this
nominee, and I thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this
nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his
confirmation today.
Today the Senate also considers another nomination for a lifetime
appointment to the Federal bench--Stanley Thomas Anderson for the
Western District of Tennessee. Judge Anderson is currently a magistrate
judge for the Western District of Tennessee. He previously worked in
private practice as the founder and owner of Anderson Law Firm in
Jackson, TN.
He served as a claims commissioner for the State of Tennessee
Department of Treasury and as assistant commissioner for the Tennessee
Department of Transportation. I acknowledge the support of Senators
Corker and Alexander for this nomination. I congratulate the nominee
and his family on his confirmation today.
Another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench is
that of James Randal Hall for the Southern District of Georgia. Mr.
Hall is currently a partner at the Augusta, GA, law firm of Warlick,
Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.
He previously worked as corporate vice president and legal counsel
for Bankers First Corporation and worked in private practice for
several other Georgia law firms. Mr. Hall held the distinction of
serving the people of the 22nd District of Georgia as a State senator.
I acknowledge the support of Senators Chambliss and Isakson and thank
Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I
congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.
Then we turn to the consideration of yet another nomination for a
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--the nomination of John A.
Mendez for the Eastern District of California. Judge Mendez currently
serves as a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He
previously served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of
California and worked in private practice.
With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more
representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed,
Judge Mendez will be the 58th Hispanic judge currently serving on our
Federal bench and would become the only currently active Hispanic judge
in the Eastern District of California.
I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this
nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his
confirmation today.
Mr. President, the Senate makes significant progress today by
confirming yet another appointment to one of our important Federal
circuit courts as well as four lifetime appointments of Federal
district court nominations. The circuit court nomination we are
considering is that of Judge Catharina Haynes of Texas. Her
confirmation will fill the very last vacancy on the important court of
appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but it is also a vacancy that has been
listed as a judicial emergency.

[[Page S2926]]

I acknowledge the support of Senator Cornyn and his work with me to
schedule her nomination. Senator Cornyn had the time to sit down and
explain why she was important and brought her to my attention and
helped me report it from the Judiciary Committee last week. I imagine
Judge Haynes' first phone call if confirmed this afternoon, as I
expect, will be to Senator Cornyn to say thank you.
Despite the progress we continue to make and will make today, some of
the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests that judicial
confirmations is the most pressing and unsatisfied need facing our
country. Now with an economic recession facing Americans, many would
say already here, the massive job losses this year, and the home
mortgage foreclosures and credit, any partisan effort to create an
issue over judicial confirmations is greatly misplaced, and the
American people can see through that facade.
The recent job loss reports from the Department of Labor are
dramatic. In the first 3 months of this year the U.S. economy lost
232,000 jobs. March marked the greatest loss of jobs during 1 month in
at least 5 years. Instead of adding the 100,000 new jobs we would need
each month to prevent unemployment from rising further, we have
experienced 3 months in a row of significant job losses. This year
alone we are already half a million jobs behind where we need to be
just to stay even and not lose economic ground.
Yet last week when I convened the Judiciary Committee to make
progress on bills to help homeowners in bankruptcy and to improve the
False Claims Act to better target fraud, the priority of the
Republicans was none of these important legislative issues. Instead,
they engaged in a back and forth on judicial nominations. This
administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a small
handful of controversial nominees--many, incidentally, who are not
supported by their home State Senators--than they are about the jobs
and lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. With that massive loss
of jobs, the Nation's unemployment rate has risen dramatically to over
5.1 percent.
Let's take a look at where we are now. This is what has happened in
this Presidency. Unemployment has gone up more than 21 percent during
this Presidency. The price of gas has gone up more than 132 percent
during the Bush Presidency. The number of uninsured has gone up 11
percent during the Bush Presidency. The budget deficit has increased
$590 billion, going from a quarter of a trillion dollar surplus to a
$354 billion deficit. The trade deficit has gone up 87 percent. All
these things have gone up during the Bush Presidency. Meanwhile,
judicial vacancies have gone down 46 percent, from 9.9 percent to 5.3
percent. And a lot of that, a significant part of that, happened during
a time when Democrats were in charge.
Just think about that. Now it costs more than a billion dollars a day
to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive cost of
the disastrous war in Iraq. Think about that, if you hear in your State
you have a bridge that is somewhat dangerous but they can't afford to
fix it. Think about that in your State, when you are told that Federal
dollars to help law enforcement protect Americans from crime is no
longer there because we have to send the money to the Iraqi police
force, a police force that cannot account for thousands of the weapons
that we gave them until some of them end up shooting at Americans. But
somehow that money has to go to fix up Iraq, and we do not have it to
fix up America. It has to go to Iraq while we are paying almost $4 a
gallon for gasoline, and Iraq has a huge budget surplus from $100-a-
barrel oil. They ask us to pay for the reconstruction, and to pay for
it, we take the money from reconstructing America. That is a billion
dollars a day, $365 billion this year that could be better spent not on
Iraq but on priorities such as health care for all Americans, better
schools, fighting crime, treating diseases at home and abroad.
In contrast, one of the few numbers going down as the President winds
down his tenure is that of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies are
less than half of what they were during the last Democratic
administration, when the Republican majority in the Senate chose to
stall consideration of scores of nominees and maintained these
vacancies, when they pocket filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's
nominees. They succeeded in doubling the number of circuit court
vacancies during those years and those vacancies rose to a high of 32
with the resignations that accompanied the change of administration.
By contrast, Democrats have helped reduce circuit court vacancies
across the country to as low as 13 in 2007. That is going to be the
number of remaining circuit court vacancies today, after the
confirmation of Judge Haynes. So that is half of what they were at the
end of the last Democratic administration, when a Republican-led Senate
was in charge.
During the last Democratic administration, the Republican chairman of
the Judiciary Committee argued that the 103 vacancies that then existed
did not constitute a vacancy crisis. I guess he meant that when you had
a Democratic President, it was not a crisis. He also argued on numerous
occasions that 67 vacancies meant full employment on the Federal
courts, if you had a Democratic President. After today's confirmation,
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts will list 47 vacancies. That
is 20 below what Republicans used to deem full employment, below half.
We have cut in half the vacancy level they felt was appropriate for a
Democratic administration. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary
Committee during President Bush's first term, we acted faster and more
favorably on more of this President's judicial nominees than any 17
months and either of the Republican chairmen who succeeded me.
During those 17 months the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominations.
When I reassumed the chairmanship last year, the committee and the
Senate continued to make progress with the confirmation of 40 more
lifetime appointments of judges to our Federal courts. That is more
than were confirmed during any of the 3 preceding years under
Republican leadership and certainly more than were confirmed in 1996,
1997, 1999, and 2000. What is the difference? A Democratic-led Senate
did a lot better for a Republican President than a Republican-led
Senate did for a Democratic President.
During this Presidency, while I have served as Judiciary chairman,
the Senate will have proceeded after today to confirm 145 lifetime
appointments in only 3 years, compared to 158 during the more than 4
years of Republican control. When the Senate confirms Judge Haynes
today--here we are in April--we will have surpassed the total number of
circuit judges confirmed by Republicans during the entire 1996 session.
It was easy to do because a Republican majority refused to confirm even
one of President Clinton's circuit nominees, not one. Indeed, the first
confirmation of any judge that session didn't even take place until
July 10, and that was a district court. So we are also 3 months ahead
of the schedule followed by the Republican leadership during that
presidential election year.
Some will undoubtedly repeat the partisan Republican talking point
that the Senate must confirm 15 circuit judges for Congress to match a
mythical statistical average of selected years. God love those mythical
statistical averages. It is sort of like the man who puts one foot in
boiling water and one foot in a block of ice and says: On average, I am
pretty darn comfortable.

Well, it is true that during the last 2 years of this President's
father's term, with a Democratic-led Senate, we confirmed an
extraordinary number of circuit nominees: 20. It is true that during
the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, a Democratic-led Senate
confirmed 17 circuit court nominees. So what they are saying is, if we
are going to use an average, we are going to use an average only when
the Democrats are in charge.
Maybe it would be different if after we set those high records--
Democrats with a Republican President--that even a little bit of that
had been reciprocated. Well, it was not. Instead, the Republican-led
Senate, with a Democratic President, made sure that judicial vacancies
skyrocketed to historic levels. It actually got to the point that Chief
Justice Rehnquist, a conservative Republican, weighed in publicly to
criticize the Republican-led Senate.

[[Page S2927]]

Republicans do not talk about what they did. I do not believe they
can bear an accurate comparison of what we have accomplished and what
they did not.
So I wonder when the Republican leader and others who come to the
floor with accusations about slow-walking nominations will explain
their roles during the Clinton years--especially the over 60 they
pocket filibustered, something joined by every Republican member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
Why was it that during the 1996 session--the end of President
Clinton's first term--the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a
single circuit nomination?
Why was it that Bonnie Campbell, the former attorney general of Iowa,
who was supported by both Senator Harkin, a Democrat, and Senator
Grassley, a Republican, was never even allowed to be considered by the
Judiciary Committee, to say nothing about the full Senate, after her
hearing?
Why was it that Kent Markus, of Ohio, a law professor, a former high-
ranking Department of Justice official, who was supported by both his
home State senators--both Republicans, incidentally--was never
considered by the Judiciary Committee or this Senate?
Why was it that so many circuit vacancies were left without any
nominees considered during the last years of the last Democratic
administration when Republicans controlled the Senate?
I remember one. When I asked them about that one, they said: Well, we
can't have her. We are not sure of her qualifications. That nominee is
now the dean of the Harvard Law School--one of the most prestigious
legal positions in America.
So Republican Senators have many questions to answer before they
level accusations of any kind. To any objective observer, the answer is
clear. The Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit
nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in
hopes they would have a Republican Presidency. Vacancies rose to over
100. Circuit vacancies doubled. But as soon as a Republican President
was elected, they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of
the vacancies they prevented from being filled. Well, they have been
extraordinarily successful. Currently, more than 60 percent of active
judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican
Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this
President.
Another way to look at their success and compare the better treatment
shown to this President is to observe that the Senate has already
confirmed more than three-quarters of this President's circuit court
nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's circuit nominees
confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate.
Now, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have turned the other
cheek. I have worked hard to improve the treatment of nominees. To make
progress, I even chaired the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the
circuit nomination before us today during a congressional recess. I
said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than the
Republicans treated President Clinton's, and we have. We have not
pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's judicial nominees,
as was done to President Clinton's nominees. We have not opposed them
in secret or anonymously. In fact, during my chairmanship, the views of
home State senators, as reflected in the ``blue slips'' submitted to
the committee, were made public for the first time. No more secret
holds. We did not allow that. We have considered nominations openly and
on the Record. We have proceeded with consideration of nominees whom I
opposed, something that never happened under previous Republican
leadership. If the Republican chairman opposed them, they never even
got a consideration.
I am glad we have Judge Haynes here because if she is confirmed, then
the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. I was almost worried whether
she would get here.
Even though she was already on the Judiciary Committee's agenda, she
appeared at a political, partisan function at the White House, where
they were demanding that she be put on the agenda. Of course, she was
already there. It had been noticed for a couple days. Then, when we
were set to vote on her last week, Republicans almost filibustered her
nomination. They talked so much, we virtually ran out of time, and I
had to keep this committee in an extra 10 minutes; otherwise, she would
not have been confirmed. It was then that I realized what was
happening--just like in February, when they refused to show up and make
a quorum throughout the whole month of February. If they had shown up,
we would have passed out a number of judges. But they were planning to
give speeches saying we are not passing out judges, so they would not
show up to make sure that happened.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield without losing my right to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman.
I say to the Senator, I want to compliment you for the fairness in
which you have conducted the confirmation process. It is interesting,
on the most controversial nominee we had, the vote was delayed at the
request of the Republicans.
Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
Mr. CARDIN. We were prepared to vote. They wanted more time in order
to get enough support to get that nominee out of the committee.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, they asked me several times,
over a period of several weeks, to delay the vote.
Mr. CARDIN. I say to the Senator, I think you have been abundantly
fair in scheduling these hearings. You mentioned Judge Haynes's
confirmation. I happen to oppose that nomination, but I have made no
efforts at all to delay the consideration of that nomination, which has
been true, I think, of all the members on our side.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Maryland, who has been a tremendous help and a key member of our
committee.
As I said before, if Judge Haynes is confirmed today, the Fifth
Circuit will have no vacancies. We have proceeded despite the fact that
12 of the 16 active judges on this court have been appointed by
Republican Presidents. I did this notwithstanding the fact that
Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees. Judge Jorge Rangel,
of Texas, Enrique Moreno, of Texas, and Alston Johnson, of Louisiana
were all blocked. They were told they could not even have hearings
because it was a Democratic President. We have not done that. Every one
of these circuit court nominees has had a hearing and a vote. In fact,
I have held hearings on all six of the Fifth Circuit nominees of this
President during my chairmanship. With today's vote, the Senate will
have voted on all of them.
Just understand this: Republicans would not hold hearings on
President Clinton's nominees to that circuit. I have held hearings on
them, and we have voted on them all. And we will hear these crocodile
tears on the other side that: Oh, woe is me, we are not getting any
circuit judges. Well, most of the time I have ignored it because it has
been such balderdash that it is hard to think that anybody would
believe it. But just in case somebody has been fooled by it, I thought
we would put the numbers in the Record.
In fact, vacancies on the Fifth Circuit are at an alltime low--zero
after today. Contrast this with the situation during the Clinton years,
when the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared a circuit emergency
because Republicans were pocket filibustering all of President
Clinton's nominees. That circuit-wide emergency was due to multiple,
simultaneous vacancies caused by the fact that the Republican-led
Senate would not act on the nominees of a Democratic President.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right
to the floor, I be allowed to yield to the distinguished majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I so appreciate my friend yielding for me to
say a few words prior to these votes starting. Mr. President, if there
is inadequate time, I will use my leader time. I think we do have an
hour left on our side, so I think we have plenty of time. Is that
right?

[[Page S2928]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the judge situation with me is very touchy.
I have written a book. It will be coming out in a few weeks. In that
book, I have said--and as I have said a number of times on the floor--
the most important issue I ever worked on in all my political career is
when the Republicans tried to turn the Constitution upside down with
their so-called nuclear option. To think that they would throw away
basically having the Senate be the Senate. But they were willing to do
that until seven courageous Democrats and seven courageous Republicans
stepped in and said: Enough is enough.
The person who has gotten all the abuse on our side is not me, not
Senator Daschle; it has been the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
I want to do everything I can to process judges. I believe in
quality, not quantity. We are going to do the very best we can. We have
a majority. It is very thin. We are going to treat the minority very
fairly, as has been indicated in what my friend, the distinguished
chairman of the committee, has said.
I commend Chairman Leahy for his work, not these last few months
during this year, not last year, but for his entire career in the
Judiciary Committee, as the chairman and ranking member, which I have
been able to watch up close. He has done a remarkably good job under
very difficult circumstances. How he was treated when he was in the
minority is something the history books will recount as some of the low
days of the history of this institution.
Senator Leahy and I decided that it is not payback time. We were
going to do to the Republicans what they did not do to us: treat them
fairly. We have done that.
My friends have criticized the chairman for the pace of judicial
confirmations in this Congress. There is a Yiddish word for those
Republican complaints: ``chutzpah.'' What they have complained about is
absolutely without any foundation or basis--in fact, the gall to have
them do that.
Now, Mr. President, during the years President Clinton was sending
judicial nominations to the Republican-controlled Senate, more than 60
qualified nominees were denied floor votes. The chairman referred to
them as pocket vetoes. Many were even denied a committee hearing. In
1999, more than 6 months went by before Chairman Hatch agreed to
process any judicial nominations.
As I have said many times, we should not hold a grudge. We are not
doing that. We should not live in the past. But as a result of the
Republican tactics during the Clinton years, some of the vacancies
President Bush wants to fill are illegitimate vacancies--the seats are
only vacant because the Senate unreasonably withheld its consent to
President Clinton's nominations. Republican complaints about the
current process must be considered in that light.
For example, one Clinton nominee--and there were lots we could use as
examples and talk about here--One Clinton nominee, a distinguished
Missouri Supreme Court justice named Ronnie White, was defeated on a
party-line vote after Republicans accused him of being pro-criminal.
Pro-criminal. How do you like that? Another nominee, Elena Kagan, is
now the dean of the Harvard Law School. I don't know if Harvard is the
best law school in the country. I don't know if Yale is the best law
school in the country. I don't know if Stanford is the best law school
in the country. But Harvard is a really good law school, and she is the
dean of that law school. She was even denied a hearing because the
Republicans claimed the court to which she was nominated didn't have
enough work to do. How about that?

So without going on more, other than to say the Republican record as
to how it processed Clinton's nominees is dismal. Complaints about
Chairman Leahy should ring hollow, to say the least.
The fact is, 140 of President Bush's judicial nominations--90 percent
of them--have been confirmed in the years the Democrats have been in
control of the Senate. Last year the Senate confirmed 40 judges, more
than during any of the 3 previous years with the Republicans in charge.
After we confirm Catharina Haynes today, more than 75 percent of
President Bush's court of appeals nominations will have been confirmed.
In contrast, during the 8 years that President Clinton was President,
they confirmed 50 percent. So if we stop right now, we would be 25
percent ahead of them at the end of this year.
Well, we are not going to stop now; we are going to try to process
more of these nominations. Our treatment of President Bush's nominees
has been more than fair and fully in keeping with the Senate's
constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to Presidential
nominees.
The Republican leader, my friend--I know how much he cares about
these judges--talks about the fact that there has been some kind of an
agreement that we would confirm 15 of the President's court of appeals
nominees in this Congress. We are going to do our very best to process
nominations. But it would be a good idea--and we could process a few
more--if the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would show up at
the hearings that the chairman holds so he could have a quorum.
Chairman Leahy and I are not making any specific numerical commitment
on behalf of Democrats. I said in a floor statement last May 10 that we
should measure the quality of nominees, not the quantity of the
nominees. We should confirm mainstream, capable, experienced nominees
who are the product of bipartisan cooperation. But we should not
confirm nominees who are out of the mainstream and who are
unacceptable, for example, to the home State Senators.
The judicial confirmation process has been the subject of much
acrimony over the years. I talked about it a little bit earlier. To
think what the Republicans were going to do. It is hard for me to
comprehend that they were willing to do that, but they were. Senator
Leahy and I have worked hard to diffuse those tensions, and I think we
have done a pretty good job. We have done it because we believe there
are judges who need to be confirmed. We believe the confirmation of
five judges today is another step in that process.
I was so disappointed--and I expressed this privately to the
Republican leader today--we bring to the floor five nominees today, and
they spend all morning beating up on you. It is kind of a strange world
we live in here. Why did they have to do it today? What does that show?
We moved forward on these. We could have done two of them today, and
a lot of the Members would be happy. But if we didn't do them all
today--it is going to take a lot of time but we decided, let's do
these. It is a showing of good faith. I am the one who talked to the
chairman of the committee and said let's do them all. All they do is
come out and beat the daylights out of him all day.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. No. 1, I can't tell my dear friend from Nevada how much
what he has said has meant. He has told me similar things in private as
well as in public. He and I have been close friends for well over 20
years, and he knows of my huge respect and affection for him.
I chuckled as he put his finger on the issue, as he always does--the
man from Searchlight shines the light on what happens--and talked about
this kabuki show we saw this morning on the floor, criticizing me
especially for moving judges. It kind of reminds me of what happened in
February where we had markups to confirm judges and the Republicans
would not show up. We wondered, why wouldn't they show up for their own
judges? Why wouldn't they show up when they were given a chance to get
out these judges? And then I find out. They were all giving speeches
saying it is terrible we are not getting out judges. Well, if they had
shown up, of course, the speeches could not be given. It is kind of
damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I said when I became chairman the first time and again the second
time I would not do to them, or to President Bush, what they did to
President Clinton and to us, and I have not. I do not intend to. I told
the President that. But I would like to see a little bit of cooperation
from the White House in working with home State Senators and in working
with us not to get

[[Page S2929]]

idealogues that fit well in a fundraising letter, but instead to
nominate people who are good for the Federal court.
So I can't tell the distinguished leader enough how much I appreciate
his constant support throughout this whole thing.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said to the leader, I would still
rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees the
Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about
controversial nominees to score political points. I will give an
example. We have a State with a highly respected Republican Senator and
a highly respected Democratic Senator, and they worked together to make
recommendations that were completely out of any kind of partisan
politics. They sent a list of several people who had gone through the
screening committee, talked to everybody on the bar--Democrats,
Republicans, people with no political affiliations--and said: Look,
here is a list of the best people we could possibly find in our State.
White House, you go ahead and pick whomever you want out of this group.
We are happy with them.

They came and talked to me, and I said fine. I have huge respect for
both the Republican Senator and the Democratic Senator, and I am sure
we can move them through. Do my colleagues know what happened. The
White House rejected that and sent up a totally controversial person.
Again, the fundraising letters went out touting how we have to have
this person. Both of the Senators said they would not return a positive
blue slip; they wouldn't support this. It was not somebody they wanted
to have on their record as supporting.
The White House finally withdrew that name. It went back to those
Senators, and I am told by the Senators they have a nomination now that
both will support for the circuit court of appeals, and that person
will go charging through.
I recall another nomination this White House had made, strongly
opposed by the two Senators, one of the more senior Members of the
Senate, from their State. Those Senators said they did not want this
nomination to go through and it did not. I still hear how terrible it
was we did not confirm that nomination, even after the nominee pled
guilty to criminal fraud.
I can think of other examples of people whom my Republican colleagues
came and said: We really don't want to go with this person because of
their situation back home--without going into a further description.
Now, Judge Catharina Haynes--and I see my friend, the distinguished
Senator from Texas on the Senate floor, Senator Cornyn--Judge Catharina
Haynes is a former Texas State trial judge in the 191st District Court
for the State of Texas. She currently works as a partner at the law
firm of Baker Botts in Dallas--an excellent firm. The Fifth Circuit has
played an extraordinarily historic role in the protection of civil
rights in this country. As we moved from that terrible time in our
history of segregation into civil rights for all, some of those judges
were among the most courageous this Nation has known.
I wish I knew more about Judge Haynes's attitude about civil rights
than her record and testimony reveal. But I listened to what the
distinguished Senator from Texas said, and I vote in favor of
confirmation with the hope that she will treasure and follow the
example of earlier judges in that court who made such a passionate
commitment to the rights of all Americans.
So I congratulate her and her family on what I expect will be her
confirmation today.
We have five nominations. I had been told the leadership has been
talking about having rollcalls. We still have a fair amount of time on
both sides; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour 5 minutes remaining.
The minority has 100 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, because I have been asked by both
Republican and Democratic Senators, with the American Airlines snafu
and other things as we are trying to get flights out of here, I might
ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania how soon he would be
willing to start votes if I were to yield back all time.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, Mr. President, I am not quite sure about that. I
am quite sure that I waited here for 40 minutes for somebody to appear
to start this debate, and I am quite sure we have heard very extensive
discussion by the Democrats, but my practice is to be brief. I believe
I will speak no more than 15 minutes, perhaps 20 at the outside. I hate
to so understate it, but I don't think it takes a whole lot of time to
refute what the chairman and the majority leader have said. So I think
we are ready to start fairly soon. If we had some indication as to how
many rollcall votes we will have--if we have five, which will take us
several hours, I might be a little more disposed to be even briefer, if
I had some indication of that.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to talk to the Senators who have
proposed these nominations. I have been a little bit more lengthy than
normal, but that is after several hours that have been spent on the
floor of the Senate being critical of me--I did not respond to that
until now--just as a great deal of time was spent in the Senate
Judiciary Committee being critical of me which I did not respond to;
otherwise, we would not have Judge Haynes on the floor today because
the Republicans would have filibustered her nomination.
So I will not quite yet withhold the balance of time. I am prepared,
if people want, to begin these votes within the next 5 minutes and to
work with--I understand a couple of the proponents of a couple of these
judges are not going to require rollcall votes.
I want to be able to confirm that. If that is the case, I am prepared
to begin in the next 5 minutes or so. I withhold the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if his willingness to
begin in 5 minutes would leave me 5 or, perhaps, 3 minutes. The Senator
from Georgia wants 4 minutes, and I would only have 1 minute. My
question to the chairman would be, as a vocal, outspoken, voluminous
proponent of fairness, if he thinks 1 minute would be sufficient to
reply to the better part of an hour, which he has taken. Perhaps I can
answer that myself. I don't think it would be sufficient.
Mr. LEAHY. To answer that question, the Senator from Pennsylvania is
one of the most articulate, best trial attorneys in this place. He
could do in a minute what others would take an hour to do. I did try to
take far less time than was used to attack me this morning.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, we have heard the magnanimity of the chairman on
this one circuit nominee. So far this year, we have not confirmed any
Federal judges. We have heard the magnanimous comments by the chairman
about Catharina Haynes. We might not have had one. We didn't have a
hearing from September 25 to February 21. I don't think an argument of
being magnanimous pertains.
I don't blame the chairman for departing the Chamber. He might not
like to hear what I have to say in response; although, I sat through
his entire speech. I will not comment on his departure beyond what I
have already said.
In listening to the presentation by the Senator from Vermont, I would
have thought he was running for President. He had this big, flamboyant
chart about the Bush Presidency. The chart had statistics on the
unemployment rate going up, gas prices going up, the budget deficit
going up, the trade deficit going up, and the number of uninsured
people going up. For a moment, I thought I was listening to Senator
Hillary Clinton. And then, I thought I might be listening to Senator
Obama. Had either of those Senators been making that speech, I could
understand the purpose, but it is a little hard to understand the
purpose of the comments by the chairman.
When the chairman talks about Republicans not showing up for
committee meetings, he is in fantasyland, as are a good many of his
comments.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a detailed
rebuttal. It would take considerable time to answer specifically, but
this can be in

[[Page S2930]]

the Record to demonstrate proof and to establish the fantasy of the
chairman's assertions that Republicans didn't show up.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Assertion: Chairman Leahy has asserted the Republicans
boycotted markups in February when he was trying to move
nominations
Rebuttal: Republicans did not boycott Committee business
meetings or obstruct the Committee's ability to vote out
judicial nominations.
Between the first business meeting of 2008 (Jan. 31) and
the April 3 business meeting when Chairman Leahy made the
above assertions, the Committee had held only four business
meetings (Jan. 31, Feb. 14, Feb. 28, and March 6), and had
held two judicial nominations hearings (Feb. 12 and Feb. 21),
even though the Senate had been in session eight weeks.
Neither the Jan. 31 meeting nor the Feb. 14 meeting agendas
listed any judicial nominations.
A total of five executive nominations were listed on Jan.
31 and Feb. 14 meeting agendas.
Even though no judicial nominations were listed on the Feb.
14 meeting, PI Ranking Member Specter arrived at the meeting
early and, finding no other Committee Members present, left
to testify before the Senate Finance Committee. When he
returned, the meeting had been adjourned. According to
Committee records, Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer,
Durbin, Kyl, and Brownback were the only Members present
before adjournment.
The Feb. 28 meeting was the first to list judicial
nominations and only listed two district court nominees--
Brian Miller (AR) and James Hall (GA).
A total of four Republicans and five Democrats were present
at the Feb. 28 meeting before Senator Specter left at 10:17--
hardly a boycott. A fifth Republican, Senator Hatch, arrived
after the gavel. (According to Committee records, Specter
arrived at 9:59, Coburn 10:00, Feinstein 10:02, Leahy 10:03,
Durbin 10:04, Cardin 10:05, Kyl 10:08, Grassley 10:16, Kohl
10:17, Hatch 10:19 after the gavel)
The next meeting was held on March 6 and the Committee
voted out four district court nominees: Brian Miller (AR),
James Randal Hall (GA), John Mendez (CA), and Stanley
Anderson (TN). According to Committee records, Senators
Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn, Coburn, Leahy, Biden,
Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, and Cardin were
all present for the Committee vote on the nominations.
Kevin J. O'Connor, nominee to be Associate Attorney General
and Gregory Katsas, nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Division, who were listed on the Feb. 14
agenda, were also voted out on March 6.
Catharina Haynes was the only judicial nomination listed on
the April 3 meeting agenda and was the first circuit court
nomination listed on a Committee meeting since Nov. 1, 2007
(5 months ago).
It is unclear what ``boycott' Chairman Leahy is referring
to given that the February 28 meeting was the only one
between January 1, 2008 and February 28 that listed judicial
nominees and a quorum was not reached by 10:15 even though
four Republicans were present.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, when the majority leader came to the floor and
talked about turning the Constitution on its head with the
constitutional option, he glossed over the point pretty fast and missed
most of the salient points--that there was enormous provocation that
led some Republicans--and I say ``some'' Republicans--to consider
raising the constitutional option. What we have seen is a practice
going on now for two decades--20 years--since 1986, so it is 22 years
now--starting with the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, 1987
and 1988, when the Democrats had control, nominations were slowed down
to a crawl. And then the same thing occurred during the last 2 years of
the first President Bush. Then Republicans retaliated with gusto in
kind, exacerbating the problem.
The one thing I agree with the Senator from Vermont on is that the
Clinton nominees were not treated fairly.
That is true. They were not treated fairly, and I said so at the
time. I crossed party lines to support qualified Clinton nominees. But,
what is happening in this body is just ratcheting it up again and
again. And then, after President Clinton's term, we had the virtual
disintegration of institutional prerogatives around here due to
filibusters that were conducted by the Democrats on the Bush nominees
in 2004 and 2005.
The majority leader talks about the constitutional option. Well, the
constitutional option was not pursued by Republicans. There were
sufficient Republicans to have put the constitutional, or nuclear
option, into operation. There were sufficient Republicans to do that.
Under the plan, it would have taken 51, but the Republicans did not do
that, notwithstanding the Democrats' provocation.
The majority leader said, ``We have been fair to Republicans.'' That
comment sort of approaches this issue as if it is a private boxing
match between Republicans and Democrats and an issue of fairness
between Republicans and Democrats. Well, that is not the issue. The
issue is what is fair to the American people. We are not here to spar,
to argue or to fight; we are here to do the people's business. How fair
is it to the American people to have these nominations delayed where
there are judicial emergencies in the courts of the United States? This
is not Arlen Specter's idea. The Judicial Conference determines what is
a judicial emergency.
There is a judicial emergency in the Fifth Circuit, the court to
which Catharina Haynes is nominated and up for a vote today. How long
has she waited? It has been over 260 days. Now, I don't consider it
relevant as to whether it is fair to Republicans; I consider the
question whether it is fair to Americans--the people who live in the
Fifth Circuit who have had to wait for decisions to be made by an
understaffed court. It may be a statistic to those of us who hold lofty
positions--and it is a great privilege to be a Senator. It may be a
statistic to us, but if somebody has filed a lawsuit who has been
injured, say, in an automobile accident. Someone who has doctor bills
and loss of wages, and that person has to wait and wait for the case to
come up, finally to be tried, and then to be appealed and waits and
waits--that is where the issue is.
Take a look at the waiting periods: Robert Conrad in the Fourth
Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 260 days; Raymond Kethledge
in the Sixth Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 650 days;
Stephen Murphy also in the Sixth Circuit and a judicial emergency,
waiting over 650 days. Shalom Stone in the Third Circuit, a judicial
emergency, has been waiting over 250 days. Tom Farr in the District
Court of North Carolina has been waiting over 490 days. James Rogan has
been waiting over 450 days. The list goes on and on. Peter Keisler is a
very distinguished nominee who has an extraordinary record, and I ask
unanimous consent that his resume be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Peter Douglas Keisler

United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

Birth: October 13, 1960, Hempstead, New York.
Legal residence: Bethesda, Maryland.
Education: B.A., Yale University, 1981, Magna Cum Laude;
J.D., Yale Law School, 1985, Note Editor, Yale Law Journal.
Employment: Law Clerk, Judge Robert H. Bork, D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals, 1985-1986; Assistant Counsel, Office of the
Counsel to the President, 1986-1987; Associate Counsel,
Office of the Counsel to the President, 1987-1988; Law Clerk,
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court, 1988; Associate,
Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, 1989-1993, Partner, 1993-2002;
Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department
of Justice, Oct. 2002-March 2003; Principal Deputy Associate
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, June
2002-June 2003; Assistant Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice, Civil Division, July 2003-September
2007; Former Acting Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice, September 2007-November 2007.
Selected activities: Member, Advisory Committee on Civil
Rules; Director & Secretary, Federalist Society for Law and
Public Policy, 1983-2000; Member, Maryland Bar Association;
Member, District of Columbia Bar Association; Member,
Pennsylvania Bar Association; Member, American Bar
Association.
ABA rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Peter Keisler has waited for 650 days,
and soon, it will be the 2-year anniversary of his nomination. So the
real question is not fairness to Republicans; it is a question of
fairness to the American people. The American people have not been
treated fairly, and they have not been treated fairly by the Democrats,
and they weren't treated fairly by Republicans when President Clinton
sent nominees to this floor.
It is high time this stops. That is why I have introduced a
resolution that would establish a protocol. The protocol would be,
after a nominee is

[[Page S2931]]

nominated, there be a hearing and then there is a committee vote. Then,
the nominee comes before the full Senate and we start to follow the
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters.
The Constitution talks about the President's prerogatives to nominate
and the Senate's duty to consent or not to consent.
The majority leader made a big to-do about its being a matter of
quality, not a matter of quantity. Well, if the majority doesn't like
the quality, all they have to do is vote the nominee down. All I am
asking for is up-or-down votes. If they don't like the quality, say so.
Say so. I think that, on an examination of the record, there would be
no real issue about quality. These are quality people. But, if I am
wrong, and their judgment is to the contrary, I will abide by that.
Vote no. Don't consent. Follow the Constitution and don't consent.
We have real problems with going forward when the chairman talks
about judicial vacancies not being the most pressing problem in
comparison to unemployment, the economy, and Iraq. I agree there are
problems of greater immediacy. But, we have time to handle them all. We
might have to work on Mondays and Fridays. A lot of Americans work on
Saturdays. We could come in a little earlier, and we could use the
floor time a little more efficiently.
I do believe it is time we took stock in what we are doing in this
body. You can cite the statistics in many different directions, but I
think the real critical statistics are what has happened in the last 2
years during President Bush's Administration in comparison to President
Clinton's final two years. There is a decisive discrepancy there. A
Republican Senate confirmed 15 of President Clinton's circuit judges in
his final two years in comparison to 6 for President Bush before the
nominees are considered today. I hope it will go up to 7. President
Clinton had 57 district judges and President Bush had 34, and I expect
it will go up to 38 today. Over the 8-year terms of the two Presidents,
President Clinton had 65 circuit judges and President Bush had 57;
President Clinton had 305 district court judges, and President Bush had
237 judges.
So I hope we can move through the morass we find ourselves in. If we
don't, there is going to be an election this year, and there may be a
Democrat in the White House. I don't know what is going to happen. It
is a close matter. The American people will decide that.
At some point, there will be another Democrat in the White House, if
not on this election, and there will be retaliation because one insult
begets another. As one side exacerbates, so does the other. The 20-year
record is not a good record as to what we have here. I urge a truce.
On a personal level, no two Senators in this body have a closer
relationship than Senator Leahy and myself. It goes back a long time
when we had important jobs--when he was a prosecuting attorney and I
was the same. We have worked together very closely, but we have a
disagreement on this issue.
I believe the Republican caucus is right today in its position, and I
am prepared to lead the caucus on the issue. That is my job in my
capacity as ranking member. When the Republican caucus was wrong, I
said so, and I voted with the Democrats on the Clinton nominees.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request so we can move on?
Mr. SPECTER. Surely.

Vote on the Nomination of Catharina Haynes to be United States Circuit
Judge

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
call up the nomination of Catharina Haynes of Texas to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, that the nomination be confirmed
and sent to the President.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't understand the import of that
question.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is talking about ways to move forward. I am
asking by consent that we confirm by voice vote Calendar No. 515,
Catharina Haynes to be a Fifth Circuit Judge.
Mr. President, is the Senator going to object?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have something on
which to agree. I agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
nomination is confirmed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both sides
yield back their time and we begin with a vote on Brian Stacy Miller of
Arkansas, which will be a rollcall vote, and if rollcall votes are
required on the subsequent nominations, that they be 10-minute
rollcalls.
Mr. SPECTER. That they be voice votes?
Mr. LEAHY. No. I should advise, I will ask, if time is all yielded
back, for the yeas and nays on Brian Stacy Miller, but if the yeas and
nays are requested on the subsequent nominees, that they be 10-minute
rollcalls, although subsequent to the Brian Stacy Miller, the first
one.
Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if he
intends to ask for the yeas and nays on the other nominees?
Mr. LEAHY. Why don't we begin with this nomination, and the
distinguished ranking member, who is one of the closest friends I have
in this body, and I may discuss that during that rollcall vote.
Mr. SPECTER. I respect the chairman's right not to answer. The
Senator from Georgia has been waiting for a considerable period of
time. I agree with whatever Senator Leahy has had to say. I ask that
the Senator be given--how much time would the Senator like?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Up to 3 minutes, and I also ask that Senator Cornyn be
given up to 3 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. We just confirmed Senator Cornyn's nomination. Does he
want us to undo that?
Let me do this. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 minutes of 6, all
time be yielded back and the Senate go to a vote on the nomination of
Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered
on Brian Stacy Miller.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
James Randall Hall to be United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia. Randy Hall is supremely well qualified to fill
this position.
I am pleased the Senate will finally have an opportunity to vote on
Randy's confirmation today. If confirmed, Randy will fill the vacancy
created on August 2, 2006, when Judge Avant Edenfield took senior
status. The Southern District of Georgia is designated as a judicial
emergency, as just referred to by Senator Specter, by the nonpartisan
Judicial Conference of the United States. This means the court dockets
of the Southern District of Georgia are too busy and that litigants are
waiting too long for results.
To that end, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as well as the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Specter, for their efforts
and that of their staffs for shepherding Randy's nomination through the
Judiciary Committee.
Randy Hall is a native of Augusta, GA. He graduated from Augusta
College in 1979 and from the University of Georgia School of Law in
1982. His private practice has focused on commercial real estate,
banking, corporate matters, and commercial litigation. During his years
as a private attorney, he built an impressive legal resume. He served
as general counsel of Bankers First Corporation for over a decade,
managing the entire legal function of the billion dollar corporation,
including securities matters, State and Federal regulatory matters,
litigation, real estate acquisition and development, employment issues,
and general corporate projects.
Mr. Hall also has a history of public service. In 1997, he was
appointed to the Augusta-Richmond Planning Commission, a 12-member
board authorized

[[Page S2932]]

to regulate the subdivision of land, plan for the orderly growth and
development of Augusta-Richmond County, and zone all land into various
use classifications. He served on the commission until 2002, acting as
its chairman from 2000 to 2002. In 2003, Mr. Hall was elected to the
Georgia State Senate as a senator from the 22nd District in 2003 and
served there in 2003 and 2004.
Since 2004, Mr. Hall has been a partner with Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins
& Hall in Augusta, GA. Those who know Randy describe him as a man of
integrity and someone with good moral character. His colleagues also
say he is totally committed to the rule of law, and that he is fair and
honest in all of his dealings and undertakings.
I believe the Southern District of Georgia will be well served to
have Randy Hall on the bench. I urge all of my colleagues to support
his confirmation.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes be
yielded to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for moving this nomination
of Catharina Haynes to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am
pleased she has been unanimously confirmed today by a voice vote.
Judge Haynes is actually a former State district court judge. I am
proud to call her now Judge Haynes as a confirmed United States circuit
court judge.
I am proud to concur with the American Bar Association's unanimous
opinion that Ms. Haynes is well qualified for a seat on the Federal
appellate bench. Her record as both a State judge and a member of the
civil bar amply demonstrates the legal acumen, the commitment to
justice, and the dedication to public service required for those
nominated to serve on our Nation's appellate courts.
It is truly a pleasure to recommend confirmation of a Texas lawyer
with a career-long record of dedication to public service and equality
before the law. Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal
aid clinics, providing legal assistance to people who otherwise would
be unable to afford to have a will probated or resolve family law
issues. Ms. Haynes helped develop a brochure for pro se litigants,
opening the doors of justice in what can be a daunting and intimidating
system for disadvantaged litigants.
This pattern of helping the less fortunate navigate the legal system
bespeaks a commitment to the ideal of equal justice for all. This is
but one aspect of Ms. Haynes's service to her community.
Since 2005, Ms. Haynes has been a director of the Vickery Meadow
Learning Center, a nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among
the residents of a low-income Dallas neighborhood. Ms. Haynes teaches
pre-GED classes at the Learning Center. Ms. Haynes's direct involvement
her community demonstrates that her dedication to the rule of law is
matched by her passion for public service.
Ms. Haynes demonstrated this commitment to public service in 1998,
when she gave up a prestigious and lucrative partnership at the Baker
Botts law firm to take the bench as a State district court judge on the
191st District Court in Dallas.
As a former district court and appellate judge, I can attest that the
district judge's experience seeing actual litigants and the real-world
consequences of their legal disputes is invaluable for later service on
the appellate bench.
The fundamentals of judging--analyzing the arguments presented to the
court in light of the facts and the law--carry over from the trial
court to the appellate level. And Ms. Haynes's experience as a trial
court judge will undoubtedly remind her each day that the consequences
of a judge's decisions always have a human face.
As a State judge, Ms. Haynes gained deep experience in many areas of
substantive law including commercial litigation, personal injury,
employment, insurance bad faith litigation, and intellectual property.
State court judges interpret and apply Federal statutory and
constitutional law, which are, of course, the supreme law of the land,
binding on judges in every State. In presiding over nearly 300 trials,
Judge Haynes distinguished herself for her work ethic and commitment to
the rule of law.
Ms. Haynes's intellect and diligence have been evident throughout her
legal career, starting with her extraordinary academic record.
After graduating first in her class from Florida Institute of
Technology at the age of 19, Judge Haynes went on to graduate, with
distinction, second in her class at Emory University School of Law at
the age of 22. In her 21-year legal career, she has been involved in a
wide variety of complex civil cases in both State and Federal courts.
Ms. Haynes's professional excellence has been repeatedly recognized
and honored by her peers in the legal community. Her many awards
include the State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, the Dallas
Association of Young Lawyers Foundation Award of Excellence, and the
Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, which is
awarded annually to a Dallas-area attorney who has worked to advance
women in the legal profession, shown outstanding legal proficiency and
the highest level of ethics, and made a significant contribution to the
profession.
It is fitting that Ms. Haynes has received awards for her
contributions to the legal profession, given that she has dedicated
significant energy to promoting the professionalism and ethics that are
central to the rule of law. She has written and spoken extensively on
issues of civil trial litigation, professionalism, and ethics.
Among her many professional leadership positions, she has served on
the board of the Dallas Bar Association and the Professional Ethics
Committee of the State Bar of Texas. Her life's work speaks to a belief
in the high calling of a career in law and a steadfast and accomplished
pursuit of the profession's highest ideals.
I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee recently approved Ms.
Haynes' nomination and the Senate just confirmed her.
The Federal bench needs more men and women of her caliber, drawn from
among the best of the civil bar.
Mr. President, the People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy
group, sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee last week urging the
committee not to proceed with this nomination. To the credit of
Chairman Leahy and my Democratic colleagues, they rejected this
baseless and unfair attack.
The lack of any substantial reason to deny this nomination is clear
when we look at the pretense offered by People for the American Way for
opposing Ms. Haynes. The letter claims that Ms. Haynes has no ``record
of commitment to civil rights progress in this country.''
First of all, I do not know exactly what that means. I believe that
this group is deliberately creating a vague standard that they can
invoke to reject any nominee. I think that it is clear that there is
nothing in Ms. Haynes' background that they can reasonably complain
about with any specificity, so they fall back on vagueness.
I don't know what this group means by a ``record of commitment to
civil rights,'' so I can't respond to that other than by directing my
colleagues to Ms. Haynes actual record--a record that was discussed at
length in Ms. Haynes' hearing and that this letter ignores completely.
Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal aid clinics,
volunteering her time to protect the legal rights of those who can't
afford a lawyer.
Ms. Haynes helped write a brochure for pro se litigants, giving
disadvantaged litigants the tools they need to vindicate their rights
in courts of law.
Ms. Haynes serves as a director of the Vickery Meadow Learning
Center, a

[[Page S2933]]

nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among the disadvantaged.
Ms. Haynes teaches pre-GED classes at the center, aiding the less
fortunate along the path to literacy, education, and a fuller civic
life.
By any fair reading, Ms. Haynes has an exemplary record of commitment
to the high ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice before the
law--ideals that I believe are at the core of civil rights.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Texas.
I believe we are ready to vote.

Vote on the Nomination of Brian Stacy Miller to be United States
District Judge

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Brian Stacy
Miller, of Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from
Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have
voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Ex.]

YEAS--88

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--12

Brown
Bunning
Clinton
Dole
Feinstein
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lieberman
McCain
Menendez
Obama
The nomination was confirmed.

Vote On Nomination Of James Randal Hall

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of James Randal
Hall, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia?
The nomination was confirmed.

Vote On Nomination Of John A. Mendez

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of John A. Mendez,
of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of California?
The nomination was confirmed.

Vote On Nomination of Stanley Thomas Anderson

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Stanley Thomas
Anderson, of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the
Western District of Tennessee?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

____________________