[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11697-S11699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    STATUS OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we come down to the final hours, there 
are so many pending matters that are important to my home State of 
California, and it would take far too long to go into all of them in 
detail. But I thought for purposes of the Record I would let my 
constituents know and my colleagues know where we stand on a number of 
these issues that are so important. I discuss them not in any order of 
priority but just as I put them forward.
  First of all, I am distressed that we still have not confirmed a 
judge who is highly qualified to sit on the Federal bench in the 
Central District Court of California, Margaret Morrow. Republicans in 
this Congress said, ``Look, when you send us a nominee, make sure that 
he or she has bipartisan support.'' Senator Feinstein and I and the 
Senators on this side of the aisle have done that with our nominations, 
and yet, as my friend from Illinois knows, because he sits on that 
Judiciary Committee and expressed his great disappointment with the 
lack of action on these judges, we have not gotten our nominees 
confirmed. I think it is a great disservice to the people of this 
country who seek justice, who demand justice, who want swift justice. 
If you do not have the people on the bench to fulfill the 
responsibilities that we place upon the courts, we are not going to 
have justice in this Nation.
  This particular nominee, Margaret Morrow, in the last month I asked 
her could she line up some Republican support, and everyone from the 
sheriff of Los Angeles to people in the private sector who are 
registered Republicans wrote magnificent letters about Margaret Morrow, 
thereby proving that she does have bipartisan, strong support.
  It was an honor to recommend such a fine candidate to the President. 
Her name was submitted to me by my judicial advisory committee for the 
Central District of California. I did not personally know Ms. Morrow 
before I recommended her to the administration, but my committee 
enthusiastically found her to be a superior judicial candidate.
  However, despite her strong bipartisan support and strong 
credentials, her nomination remains indefinitely stalled, with no 
Member coming forward to explain why she cannot be confirmed.
  Margaret Morrow was nominated by the administration on May 10. She 
received her nominations hearing at the

[[Page S11698]]

Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25 and was reported out of committee 
just 2 days later without any opposition from the committee.
  Three months later, Margaret Morrow's nomination sits on the 
Executive Calendar along with six others, waiting to be moved. These 
confirmations should not be held hostage for political reasons, Mr. 
President. Failure of this body to fill these vacancies are felt 
through backed up caseloads in our Nation's Federal courts. We have a 
bipartisan interest in ensuring that justice is administered fairly, 
and in a timely fashion. This means that criminals are brought to 
justice and civil disputes are resolved within a reasonable period of 
time.
  The vacancy Ms. Morrow would be filling has been vacant since January 
24 of this year. If we don't confirm her this session, it will be 
vacant for at least a full year. I don't think I need to remind this 
body that the Central District of California in Los Angeles is one of 
the busiest courts in the Nation.
  Before I talk about Ms. Morrow's credentials or historical precedent 
for judicial confirmations, I wanted to make the point that there is 
also a personal side to the judicial confirmation process. For nominees 
who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives 
hang in the balance.
  Margaret Morrow--a 45-year-old mother and law partner--has had to put 
her life on hold while she waits for the Senate to approve her 
nomination. Our delay has affected her ability to take on certain 
responsibilities at her law practice. Her whole family--particularly 
her husband and young son--have waited patiently for her confirmation 
to go through the Senate. Many of us here in the Senate have no idea 
what kind of strain and stress awaiting confirmation means for these 
nominees. We owe to her to at least give her a rollcall vote before the 
end of the session if she cannot be approved through unanimous consent.
  Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself. In 
June of this year, he suggested giving each nominee a rollcall vote, 
stating, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote 
them down or vote them up because [the nominees] probably have plans to 
make and there are families involved.'' Even then-Majority Leader Dole 
recognized the necessity to give resolution to nominees out of fairness 
to these individuals and their families.
  In July, it was my understanding that under an agreement between 
Majority Leader Lott and the minority leader there would be an attempt 
to work through the list of 23 Federal court judges on the Executive 
Calendar at that time. I commend the majority leader for working with 
his caucus to make this happen for the 17 district court nominees that 
were confirmed during that period. However, two district court 
nominees, including Margaret Morrow, were not included in this group. 
And none of the circuit court nominees were moved--including another 
Californian, William Fletcher, for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. President, I am unaware of any substantive reason why Ms. 
Morrow's nomination has not gone through. If another Member of this 
body has a reason for opposing her confirmation, I want the opportunity 
to discuss their objections, and her nomination brought to a vote 
before the full Senate.


               MARGARET MORROW'S STRONG LEGAL CREDENTIALS

  I want to take this time to fully explain why Ms. Morrow will be an 
excellent addition to the Federal bench. Let me review the highlights 
of Ms. Morrow's respected professional background.
  For over 21 years, Ms. Morrow has distinguished herself as a private 
practice attorney. She is currently a partner at the Los Angeles firm 
of Quinn, Kully, and Morrow, where she has been since 1987. Prior to 
1987, she was an attorney with Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn, and 
Rossi. During her years in private practice, she has gained extensive 
experience in appellate litigation in both the Federal and State courts 
involving complex civil and commercial cases.
  Ms. Morrow graduated with honors from Bryn Mawr College and Harvard 
Law School. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles 
Superior Court. They have one son, Patrick Morrow Boland who is 9 years 
old.
  In addition to her practice, Ms. Morrow served as the president of 
the State Bar of California from 1993 to 1994. This is a particularly 
noteworthy accomplishment because she was the first woman to be elected 
president in their 67-year history.
  From 1988 to 1989, she served as president of the Los Angeles County 
Bar Association where she created and served on the Pro Bono Council, 
calling on each association member to devote at least 35 hours a year 
toward pro bono representation for the poor. This policy was the first 
of its kind in California and generated more than 150,000 additional 
hours of pro bono representation.
  Ms. Morrow has also been active in the Ninth Circuit Judicial 
Conference, and on committees of the California Judicial Council. She 
has served on the Board of Directors of the Association of Business 
Trial Lawyers and taught numerous seminars on complex business 
litigation for the association. California Law Business listed her as 1 
of the top 20 lawyers in 1994 and Los Angeles Business Journal named 
her as 1 of the 100 outstanding L.A. business attorneys in February 
1995.
  From 1989 to 1990, Ms. Morrow served on the highly respected 
Commission to Draft an Ethics Code for the Los Angeles City Government.
  And Ms. Morrow has taught classes and seminars for numerous 
organizations, including the State Bar of California, the Federal Bar 
Association, and the California Judges Association.


                 BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR MARGARET MORROW

  I further want to stress that there is wide bipartisan support for 
Ms. Morrow's nomination to the Central District of California. Many of 
California's prominent and conservative Republican lawmakers and 
elected officials support her confirmation.
  Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan writes in strong support of Ms. 
Morrow's nomination. He adds that Morrow, ``would be an excellent 
addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law, 
and applying it in a rational and objective fashion.''
  James Rogan, Republican Assembly majority leader to the California 
Legislature, wrote to Senator Lott urging his support of Ms. Morrow's 
nomination. He writes that Ms. Morrow is, ``tough, thoughtful, and 
fair'' adding that he has every confidence that she would be, 
``conscientious in applying the law.''
  The District Attorney of Orange County, Mike Capizzi, California 
writes to Senator Lott, ``I have absolutely no hesitation in commending 
her nomination to you as being among the very best ever likely to come 
before you. . . Of particular interest to crime victims, law 
enforcement and public prosecutors are her initiatives and achievement 
in the fields of juvenile justice and domestic violence, where her 
efforts have helped focus and national attention.''
  He ends his letter by stating:

       ``The record of scholarship, citizenship, and dedication to 
     improving the legal system that Margaret will bring with her 
     to the federal bench reveals great promise for a truly 
     exceptional jurist of whom we will all be proud. I sincerely, 
     wholeheartedly and enthusiastically entreat you to confirm 
     Margaret's nomination for appointment to the district court, 
     without delay. We need her.''
  In a letter to Chairman Hatch, Chief Judge Roger Boren of the 
California State Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, says Ms. 
Morrow enjoys the greatest respect from a broad spectrum of the 
California bar and judiciary.
  Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block also writes favorably of 
Margaret Morrow's nomination. In his letter, Sheriff Block says 
Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable 
character and integrity.
  Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus of ARCO, and a prominent Republican in 
the State of California wrote of Ms. Morrow:

       I am convinced she is the type of person who would serve us 
     well on the federal bench. I believe she will bring no 
     personal or political agenda to her work as a judicial 
     officer. Rather, her commitment will be to ensuring fairness 
     and openness in the judicial process and to deciding cases on 
     the facts and the law as they present themselves.


                   HISTORY OF JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS

  Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee has already carefully reviewed 
Ms. Morrow's 

[[Page S11699]]

background and qualifications for this position.
  They have reviewed stacks of information she provided to the 
committee, a full FBI background investigation, and her testimony 
before the committee. No objections were raised by committee members, 
and she was reported out of Committee only two days after her 
nominations hearing.
  To provide some historical context, in 1992, every one of the 66 
nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee were approved by 
the full Senate. Every single nominee, Mr. President--and that was when 
we had a Republican administration and a Democratically controlled 
Senate. Included in those 66 judges were 11 court of appeals nominees. 
In 1992, the Democratic Senate confirmed the highest number of judges 
of any year of President Bush's term. And the confirmations did not 
slow as the election approached. During the four-month period between 
June and September, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported 
32 nominees, including 7 appeals court nominees.
  In contrast, the Senate Judiciary Committee held only six hearings 
between January and September of this year. The Senate has so far 
confirmed a total of only 17 district court nominees, with little 
indication or commitment from the Republican leadership that we will 
move any more.
  Mr. President, this Senate has failed to confirm a single appeals 
court judge this year. Not one, Mr. President. No Congress in at least 
40 years has failed to confirm a single court of appeals judge. Is this 
the kind of precedent this Senate wants to establish?
  In fact, even if all of the nominees pending before the Judiciary 
Committee are confirmed, the total number of judges confirmed this year 
will be one of the lowest election year total in over 20 years. In 
1988, the Senate confirmed 42 judges, including 7 court of appeals 
nominees. In 1984, the Senate confirmed 43 judges including 10 court of 
appeals nominees. In 1980, 64 judges were confirmed, including 9 court 
of appeals nominees. In 1976, 32 judges were confirmed, including 5 
court of appeals nominees.
  Since every candidate has bipartisan support, the Senate should at 
the very least, grant a vote on Ms. Morrow's nomination if unanimous 
consent is not possible.
  In sum, Mr. President, I am fully confident that the Members of the 
Senate will agree with me that Margaret Morrow's qualifications are 
outstanding and she is deserving of expeditious Senate confirmation. 
Her exceptional experience as an attorney, her professional service, 
and her deep commitment to justice qualify her to serve our Nation and 
the people of California with great distinction. And as evidenced by 
the letters I have read from, she has strong bipartisan support from 
some of the most prominent and conservative Republicans in my State.
  I urge the distinguished Majority Leader to work with the Minority 
Leader to move for her immediate confirmation through unanimous consent 
or to schedule a rollcall vote.
  So I just want to make one more plea to the majority leader. This is 
a nominee who was on the original list of 23 judges. There are only two 
left, one from California, one from Hawaii, and I do not think it does 
this Republican Congress any good at all as they go home to campaign 
when the people realize that they have approved the fewest judgeships 
in recent memory. We should not be playing politics with the courts.
  We also had an excellent candidate in Richard Paez for the circuit 
court, and again action stalled on a nominee who actually got approved 
by this Congress for a district court judgeship. Why on Earth would we 
not move him up, boost him up?
  Mr. President, I see that the majority leader is in the Chamber, and 
I will wrap up my comments in 1 minute. I appreciate him yielding to 
me.
  I am pleased that we see no action on the Ward Valley land transfer, 
which would put a low-level nuclear dump in my State. We have fought 
that and we have stopped that from coming up.
  I am very excited that it looks as if the Cruise Ship Revitalization 
Act will become the law of the land, thereby bringing hundreds of 
millions of dollars and revenues to California.
  I am disappointed that we still do not have the Presidio legislation 
enacted. We are still working on that. I compliment my colleague, 
Senator Feinstein, for working so hard to put together a negotiated 
settlement on part of the Headwaters Forest. She worked very long and 
hard on that.
  I will have further to say on an issue very dear to the hearts of the 
people of my State, and frankly most of the schoolchildren in this 
country, and that is dolphin protection. Because I think we were able 
to ward off a real frontal attack on safety of dolphins, and I will 
speak more about that later.
  So, thank you very much, Mr. President. I am pleased the 
administration got more money for education and the environment. These 
things are very, very important to this country.
  I yield whatever time I have remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from California for allowing us this 
opportunity to do some unanimous consent requests. I know the Senator 
from Kentucky is here for that purpose.

                          ____________________