[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.
____________________