[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10740-S10741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FEDERAL JUDGES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me take the remaining couple of 
minutes of morning business to further amplify about the number of 
judges we need still to clear. We have on this calendar six judges, 
four of them appeals judges, two district court judges. There is 
pending in the Judiciary Committee 22 judges, 4 appeals judges, and 17 
district judges. In the last 40 years, Congress has never adjourned, 
ever, without confirming at least one Federal appellate court judge, 
and some are saying that will happen now. This would be most 
unfortunate.
  Many of us have sent a letter on September 16 making this point. This 
confirmation process on judges has virtually ground to a halt. That is 
unfair. It is unfair to the judges that have been appointed and are 
awaiting confirmation. It is unfair to the Federal court system, unfair 
to the American people. This is only about politics--only about 
politics.
  Now, the statistics are quite clear. In election years previously 
when we controlled the Senate, we did not do this. We pushed through a 
substantial number of judges. If you compare the numbers--I invite 
anybody to compare the numbers--what we see this year is a very few 
judges confirmed and many left on the calendar, with some proposing 
that that is it, we will not have time to do them, or refuse to do 
them, or will not do them. I think that is not fair to those awaiting 
confirmation or to the American people.
  We have confirmed fewer than 20 district court judges and not a 
single appellate judge during this session of Congress. The number of 
confirmations--in our letter, we point out--even in past Presidential 
election years far exceeded what we are experiencing today. For 
example, the Senate confirmed an average of almost 55 Federal judges, 
including 10 appellate judges annually in the years 1980, 1984, 1988, 
1992. In each of these years, the Senate Congress confirmed no fewer 
than seven appellate court judges. In our letter, we write, ``Have 
circumstances changed so dramatically that the Senate would now turn 
its back on our rich tradition of bipartisanship in appellate court 
confirmations?''

[[Page S10741]]

  I hope things have not changed that much. Circuit court dockets have 
grown by over 20 percent in the last 5 years, we are told by the 
judiciary. So the failure to do this is not just a political failure, 
but it is a failure that has profound impact on the Federal court 
system. To our knowledge, none of the nominees that are awaiting action 
on the floor have been opposed by any member of the Judiciary Committee 
for any ideological reasons. Some of us, who believe that the Senate 
ought to complete its work on this, simply say, let us have votes on 
these confirmations. The names are here, the nominations have been 
made, and the candidates are available.
  There was a need for these judges to be placed in the Federal 
judiciary, and this Senate has a responsibility to act. As I said 
previously, this is not a circumstance that existed in prior years. But 
this year it has been like pulling teeth to get any judgeships through 
this Senate, because some believe that since they control the Senate, 
there should be no judges appointed by an opposing party. It reminds me 
of the line-item veto legislation, which I supported for years in the 
House, and I supported it here. We passed it here, and the majority 
party said they wanted it, but they did not want this President to have 
it during his term. We passed it, but they prevented President Clinton 
from having it this year. They control the Senate, and they were able 
to do that.
  That didn't make much sense to me. Nor does this make any sense to 
me. Let's confirm judges. That's our job and our responsibility. It 
doesn't matter who is President; appointments come and confirmations 
ought to be made. This Senate ought to act.
  So if there are those who think we are going to adjourn and slap each 
other on the back and thank each other for a job well done and leave 
all these judgeships in the lurch, for political reasons, they need to 
think again, because a fair number of us will insist that we do our 
work before we adjourn.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________