[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5908-S5910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for some time now, and on more than one 
occasion, there has been an effort to clear a number of judicial 
nominees that have been pending on the calendar awaiting action. As a 
matter of fact, there are now 17 such judicial nominations that are on 
the Executive Calendar. Some of them date back as far as December 1995. 
The latest group that was reported from the Judiciary Committee to the 
Senate came on May 9.
  Now, on each occasion when there has been sort of an agreement worked 
out that one, two, three, or four judges could be cleared and moved, 
there have been objections to those. I know the majority leader would 
very much like to be able to move as many as possible of these judicial 
nominations. He said so publicly. He has been working on it today. I 
know he will continue to work to find what problems might exist and see 
if more could be approved. He will continue to do that. On his behalf, 
as the majority whip, I will do all I can do.
  I feel like while it might be ideal under some conditions to some 
people to get them all done at once, under Senate prerogatives every 
Senator can raise concerns about a nominee for a variety of reasons--
their qualifications for the job and other considerations. But I think 
if we cannot get them all done, we need to start moving down the road. 
You get as many as you can, and you come back and work some others.
  I know there are a number of judges that Members of the minority 
party support and would like to get approved. Some of these that were 
recommended

[[Page S5909]]

by Democrats are also supported by Republicans. We should continue our 
effort to show that we can move these nominations. We are getting to 
that point in the year where it will get more and more difficult.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en 
bloc on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 511, Joseph Greenaway 
of New Jersey; Calendar No. 514, Gary Fenner of Missouri; Calendar No. 
591, Walker Miller of Colorado; and Calendar No. 575, Charles Clevert, 
Jr., of Wisconsin.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en 
bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that 
any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate 
place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senator's actions; and the Senate then return to legislative session.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I ask the acting leader 
about another nominee that was considered before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, reported out favorably, I believe the date was April 25, and 
has been on the calendar for some time now, and who is strongly 
supported by the people of Montana and for whom I have heard no 
objection, no substantive objection whatever. His name is Don Molloy. 
Might I ask if Don Molloy might be added to that list and included in 
the acting leader's request?
  I say that in part, Mr. President, because there have been no judges 
confirmed in this session of Congress--none. I might say that many 
judges were referred by a Democratic-controlled Senate in years when 
there were Republican Presidents. I might say, for example, in 1992, 
this Senate confirmed 66 district and circuit court judges. I might 
add, none has been brought up or passed by this body in this session of 
this Congress. In 1988, the Senate confirmed 42 district circuit judges 
for President Reagan. I could go on down the list. I will not take the 
Senate's time.

  As the Senator from Mississippi said, there are now 17 judges on the 
calendar, far short of the 66 and 42 that were passed in previous 
years. This is already June. I do not know how many more days this 
Senate will be in session this year. I ask, basically, why not all the 
17 that are on the calendar? There is no reason why they should not be 
added.
  Specifically, I inquire about Don Molloy, who has been nominated by 
the President and has been reported out favorably by the Judiciary 
Committee, has been on the calendar, for, gosh, over a month, why his 
name cannot also be added to that list.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield under his reservation for me to 
respond to his questions, we have tried on other occasions, at least 
two that I am personally familiar with, to move a grouping of these 
judicial nominations. I think on one occasion it was not even this same 
four. There may have been a different one that was considered on this. 
It was objected to by Members of the minority party. So we have been 
trying to move some of these judges that we could get approved through 
the process. Some of them were objected to on the Senator's side, as 
you have done--or as you are apparently prepared to do today--and 
others have objected to other judges. We cannot get them all cleared 
right now. We would like to get the ones we can get cleared done, and 
come back again later, as we work through this list.

  Now, in regard to your specific nomination, we were not able to get 
that cleared today. There have been some reservations or objections 
raised. We are continuing to explore that. I do not personally know 
what the reasons are, or how many objections there are. But I plead 
with the Senator from Montana, once again. These four have been 
cleared. Hopefully, we can get an agreement on more--perhaps even 
within the next few days. But if we do not break this down and start 
getting some approved, the whole thing stays dammed up.
  So any one Senator might have a judge on the list of 17, and his one 
judge may not be qualified, or may have some sort of a judicial problem 
based on his experience, or there may be some personal problem. As a 
general rule, if any Senator says a judge or a judicial nominee is 
personally repugnant to that Senator, that carries great weight around 
here.
  So is the Senator saying today that until we can get all 17, we will 
get none of them? Any one Senator can walk in here and say, ``I object 
to that group unless my judge is on there.'' I am trying, on behalf of 
the majority leader, to say, let us get started. These four have been 
cleared. Let us do these four, and maybe there will be another four. 
But you cannot say to the Republicans, ``Well, there have not been any 
done this session,'' if they are being objected to by Democrats. Let us 
get started. I have told the Senator that I am willing to work and see 
what the problems are, and maybe they are problems that can be worked 
out. I cannot make a commitment on how that would be done, or when it 
will be done. But I am prepared to get into it as much as I can, within 
my role as it is, and see what the problems are.
  Please consider moving these. These are judges that have been 
approved, that we can clear and move today off the calendar--
nominations recommended by Senator Bradley of New Jersey, Senator Kohl, 
and I am not even quite sure who made the recommendation on the judge 
from Missouri or the one from Colorado. I presume they have broad 
bipartisan support in those respective States, even though those States 
do not have a Democratic Senator. Let us do these and see what else we 
can do.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with some bemusement, I listen to my good 
friend from Mississippi. When a vacancy occurred in Montana for a 
Federal district court judge, I saw this as an opportunity to find the 
best person in the State of Montana for this position. This is one 
power, one thing that a U.S. Senator can do--that is, to recommend to 
the President of the United States who the President might, in turn, 
nominate to a Federal district court judgeship.
  I took this very, very seriously. I sat down and surveyed the State 
of Montana to determine who I regarded as the best, the brightest, the 
most thoughtful persons--Republicans and Democrats, just good 
thoughtful people--and put together a nominee commission. I called each 
of them up personally--six, seven, or eight of the best Montana minds 
and the most thoughtful persons in the State of Montana, Republicans 
and Democrats--and asked if they would serve. They all said they would 
love to. I said to each of them, ``I would like you to nominate or 
recommend to me the best people in our State.'' I said precisely, ``I 
am not carrying water for any Republicans, any Democrats, liberals or 
conservatives; it makes no difference. I want the best.'' My 
commission, my group, then nominated three different people whom they 
regarded as the best people in Montana to serve in this position as a 
Federal district court judge. I then sat down with each of the three, 
interviewed each of the three for hours. I then called my group again 
and asked their opinions. I talked to all the Federal judges in 
Montana, all the State district court judges in Montana, and I asked 
their views.

  I can tell you that Don Molloy is the top choice in the State of 
Montana for this position--by Republicans and by Democrats. There is 
just no denying that.
  I say, in addition, to my good friend from Mississippi, that they 
need to have this position filled. That is because there is going to be 
a backlog in our State in the Federal district courts. Why? Basically, 
because of the unfortunate problems with the alleged Unabomber in 
Montana, and the Freemen are causing all kinds of problems in our 
State, which is putting an additional pressure on the law enforcement 
personnel in our State. Many of those actions will be in Federal 
district court.
  So I ask my good friend from Mississippi why Don Molloy's name cannot 
be added to the list of four. I am personally not pleading for all 17 
on the calendar. But I make a very reasonable suggestion to add one 
more to the list of four--that is, Don Molloy.
  I have heard no substantive objection. I have heard no objection to 
him. He passed the committee. I believe that these nominees, to avoid 
this deadlock, probably should be brought up on the floor one by one 
and let Senators speak in favor or against the

[[Page S5910]]

nominees. Let them stand up and say what they think. Let them vote the 
way they want to vote. I might say to my very good friend from 
Mississippi that my colleague, Senator Burns, a Republican from the 
State of Montana, supports this nominee. He supports this nominee. If 
you have bipartisan support for our nominee, Don Molloy, I see no 
reason why he should not be added to that list of four.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there has been objection to this point to 
this particular nominee. I do not know him. I do not know his record. I 
am not on the Judiciary Committee. I can only say that we have not been 
able to get any other than these four approved to this point. Maybe 
there is some problem there. I do not know. Maybe there is not.
  I can sympathize with the Senator, because I remember one time that 
my State of Mississippi agreed to go along with a nominee from 
Louisiana, who was particularly well qualified to be a member of the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--basically, a Mississippi position. 
Because there was such a uniquely qualified nominee, a former 
Congressman and Governor that we withheld with the insistence that it 
be a nominee from our State. So that nomination went forward, and then 
it languished, and it laid there, and it seemed to be objected to. 
Finally, the term ended, or that session of the Congress, whatever that 
was--maybe the 98th session. At any rate, there was never 
an explanation of what the problem was. There was an objection by the 
Democrats to this fine man, who clearly had judicial temperament, was 
highly rejected, ethical, a former Congressman and Governor and, yet, 
it just stayed there and never was considered.

  So I understand how the Senator feels about this. But it is a unique 
thing to the Senate to make the recommendations to Presidents for the 
Federal district judges, as well as appellate courts, even though 
appellate courts are treated a little differently than Federal district 
judges. It is also a unique Senate prerogative to have an objection to 
a judge. Obviously, it can come from some other State, some member of 
the Judiciary Committee--who knows? Sometimes it is very difficult to 
find out exactly what the problem is. But they have a way, in many 
instances, of working themselves out.
  Again, the majority leader has said to the minority leader that he 
would like to move as many of these as possible.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I can help the Senator move one more right now. That is 
my suggestion. That is helping the leader. He can move one more.
  Mr. LOTT. We do not have that one cleared and the other 12. But we do 
have four cleared. When those are done, we will try some others. I make 
one last plea to the Senator. I believe that if he would let these four 
go, it would help break down the dike, and we would see others move.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my very good 
friend. We simply have heard no good reason why Don Molloy should not 
be on the calendar.
  It is with great reluctance that I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
for allowing us to have this exchange in an effort to try to clear some 
judicial nominations.

                          ____________________