[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3391-S3392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE CRISIS IN OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have noted on the floor of the Senate a 
number of times, the crisis in our Federal judiciary that Chief Justice 
Rehnquist has spoken of. The Chief Justice and others have spoken about 
the nearly 100 vacancies in our Federal judiciary at the district court 
level, at the court of appeals level, and at the Federal court of 
appeals level. So far in this Congress--we have been in session now for 
4 months--we have confirmed only two Federal judges. It is a form of 
zero population growth, as far as the Federal judiciary is concerned. 
We seem to have this idea that if we do not get Federal judges we can, 
somehow--I am not sure what we think we are going to do.
  I will tell you one of the things we have not done. In a number of 
jurisdictions we are reaching a crisis situation where, instead of 
being able to have criminal cases tried, instead of prosecutors being 
able to seek tough penalties, they have to plea bargain because they 
know they must keep up with speedy trial mandates, yet there

[[Page S3392]]

are not enough judges to have a speedy trial, so they end up having to 
plea bargain. We do know that in many, many jurisdictions it is clearly 
impossible to have a civil case heard. If you are a business person 
with a just claim against somebody and you want to bring a suit, bring 
the suit, but they can just wait you out. If you are a litigant who has 
been damaged by somebody, you want to bring a suit, they can just wait 
you out because the judges are not there to try the cases.
  I think it is irresponsible for the leadership in this body to 
continue to block Federal judges. This is something that I have never 
seen in 22 years here. During times when the Democrats were in control 
of the Senate when there was a Republican President, we have never done 
it to them. During times when Republicans have been in control of the 
Senate, they have not done this. But this time it is being done. It 
shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the Senate. It shows a 
lack of responsibility on the part of individual Senators that they 
allow this to continue. It also shows a demeaning of the Senate. It 
violates the traditions of the Senate.
  There are some who do not care for traditions in this body. Sometimes 
it is in things that the public does not see, like confining the 
reporters of debates to something that looks like a subterranean, 
medieval torture chamber because we want to expand the perks and 
privileges of some of the officers of the Senate.
  I would hate to think that the Senate is willing to toss aside 
decades, generations of tradition for momentary perks and privileges. I 
hope Senators will start thinking that none of us owns the seat in the 
U.S. Senate. None of us owns a piece of the U.S. Senate. We are merely 
1 of 100 who serve here and we serve here for all Americans, not just 
for our partisan interests, not just for our political party's 
interests, not just for our own personal aggrandizement. We serve here 
for the whole country. We are not serving the country well on the 
question of judges.
  This is something where judges, both Republican and Democrat 
appointed, are united in saying it is not responsible the way we have 
maintained this. Mr. President, I will continue to speak out on this, 
but I hope we will wake up to the fact that the country needs to have 
these Federal judges. We should be ready to move forward. We have about 
25 in the pipeline. Let us start having hearings and start going 
forward on them. Let us stop playing political games. We have a woman, 
one of the most qualified members of the California bar, who has found 
her appointment blocked. Contrary to the normal tradition of hearing 
nominees for the circuit court first, she was made to wait behind 
everybody else here recently. As did not escape notice, she was also 
the only woman nominee and was treated like a second-class citizen on 
the hearing schedule. She has now been asked by a Member of the Senate, 
basically, to tell how she voted on over 100 items in California.

  Are we stooping so low as a body that we are asking people how they 
voted? If they are up for confirmation, how they cast a secret ballot? 
Would you, Mr. President, want to have somebody go back for the last 20 
years and ask how you voted every time you went to the voting booth in 
Kansas? I certainly would not want anybody to be able to ask that. I am 
very proud of all the votes I cast, but it is my business. It is not 
anybody else's business. One of the great hallmarks of this democracy 
is the secret ballot, and we should not start asking people that, when 
actually it appears the real reason is just to keep the stall in.
  We have followed, in the past, the so-called Thurmond rule of 
stalling a President's appointments to the judiciary in about the last 
few months of their term in office. I have never seen the stall start 
in the first few hours of a President's 4-year term.

                          ____________________