[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4418-S4428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           JUDICIAL VACANCIES

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor many times about 
the judicial vacancies in our Federal courts. It concerns me. In fact, 
I believe other than the subject of antipersonnel landmines, I have 
probably spoken on this subject more than any other. I am concerned 
that some in the Republican Party are engaging in a court-bashing 
situation that does not reflect the proud heritage of either the 
Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

  I have spoken about the crisis that has been created by the almost 
100 vacancies that are being perpetuated in the Federal courts around 
the country. We have recently seen a constitutional amendment proposed 
to remove the life tenure that has been the bedrock of judicial 
independence from the political branches since the ratification of our 
Constitution. It is just one of, I think, over 100 constitutional 
amendments proposed this year alone. It ignores the fact that our 
independent judiciary is the envy of the rest of the world. We have 
heard calls for impeachment when a judge rendered a decision with which 
a Republican House Member disagreed. I have read the Constitution. It 
speaks of very specific grounds for impeachment. Among those grounds is 
not that a Republican House Member disagrees with a judge. We would 
probably have a very difficult time if every judge could be impeached 
because any Member of the House or Senate disagreed with him.
  We have heard demands that the Congress act as a supercourt of 
appeals and legislatively review and approve or disapprove cases on a 
case-by-case basis. That is for the same Congress that has not yet even 
taken up a budget bill, even though the law requires us to do it by 
April 15.
  We are seeing exemplary nominees unnecessarily delayed for months, 
and vacancies persist into judicial emergencies. We are seeing 
outstanding nominees nitpicked, probed, and delayed to the point where 
one wonders why any man or woman would subject themselves to such a 
process or even allow themselves to be nominated for a Federal 
judgeship.
  Instead of reforming the confirmation process to make it more 
respectful of the privacy of the nominee, something that we all claim 
we want to do, the Republican majority in the Senate is moving 
decidedly in the other direction. They are approaching the imposition 
of political litmus tests, which some have openly advocated under the 
guise of opposing judicial activism, even though some of these same 
Members were the ones who said that nobody should impose a litmus test 
on judges.
  Even conservatives like Bruce Fein, in his recent opinion column in 
the New York Times, reject this effort. Actually, so do the American 
people. We have not had a time when any President or any Senate should 
be asked to impose litmus tests on an independent judiciary.
  I recommend my colleagues read the excellent commentary by Nat 
Hentoff on this new political correctness that appeared in the April 
19, 1997, edition of the Washington Post. I have spoken in broad 
generalities, although each are backed up by dozens of cases. But let 
me be specific on one. The nomination of Margaret Morrow to be a 
Federal judge for the Central District of California is an example of 
the very shabby treatment accorded judicial nominees. The vacancy in 
this Federal court has existed for more than 15 months, and the people 
in central California--Republican, Democrat, Independent--are being 
denied a most needed, and in this case a most qualified, judge.
  Ms. Morrow's nomination is stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee 
again. I am appalled by the treatment that Margaret Morrow has received 
before the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Morrow first came before the 
Judiciary Committee for a hearing and she was favorably and unanimously 
reported by the committee in June of 1996, almost exactly a year ago--a 
year ago less a couple of weeks. Then her nomination just got caught in 
last year's confirmation shutdown and she was not allowed to go 
through. So she has to start the process all over again this year.
  Let me tell you about Margaret Morrow. She is an exceptionally well 
qualified nominee.
  She was the first woman president of the California Bar Association, 
no small feat for anybody, man or woman. She is the past president of 
the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She is currently a partner at 
the well-known firm of Arnold & Porter, and she has practiced law for 
23 years. She is supported by the Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, 
who, incidentally, is Republican, and Robert Bonner the former head of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration under a Republican administration. 
Representative James Rogan from the House joined us during her second 
confirmation hearing and, of course, she is backed and endorsed by both 
Senators from California.
  Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women 
involved in the practice and to making lawyers more responsive and 
responsible as a profession. The Senate ought to be ashamed for holding 
up this outstanding nominee, and I question whether the Senate would 
give this kind of treatment to a man. It sure as heck has been doing it 
to a woman.
  Despite her qualifications, she is being made an example, I am not 
quite sure of what, but this woman who has dared to come forward to be 
a Federal judge is being made an example before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  At her second hearing before the committee on March 18, even though 
she already has gone through a committee hearing and even though the 
committee last year unanimously voted to confirm her with every single 
Republican and every single Democrat supporting her, even though she 
had gone through it once before, she was made to sit and wait until all 
the other nominees were questioned, as though she were being punished. 
``We have these men who want to be heard, and even though you had to do 
this before, you, woman nominee, sit in the back and the corner.'' She 
was then subjected to round after round of repetitive questioning.
  Then came a series of written questions from several members, and 
they were all Republican members of the committee. Then came the ``when 
did you start beating your husband'' type questions to Ms. Morrow, 
based on her previous questions. I objected when Ms. Morrow was asked 
about her private views on all voter initiatives on the ballots in 
California for the last decade. Basically, she was being asked how did 
she vote in a secret ballot in the privacy of a voting booth on 160 
initiatives on the ballot in California over the last 10 years.

[[Page S4419]]

  I defy any Member of the Senate, if they were given a list of 160 
items in their local elections, State elections, that have been on the 
ballot over the last 10 years, to be able to honestly say how they 
voted on every single one of those. But even before they got to the 
question of could they say how they voted, I would stand up and say, 
``What has the Senate stooped to when we ask people how they voted in a 
secret ballot?"
  Mr. President, we fought--successfully fought--a Revolutionary War, 
among other reasons, to maintain the sanctity of the ballot box. We 
fought a Civil War, among other reasons, to maintain the sanctity of 
the ballot box. We stood up to fascism, Nazism, World Wars because we 
were protecting our democracy and way of life. Some of the most 
remarkable and respected Republicans and Democrats of this country's 
history, and some of the most responsible and respected Republicans and 
Democrats in my lifetime, and some of the most responsible and 
respected Republicans and Democrats of my 22 years in the Senate have 
stood and fought to maintain the privacy of the ballot box. I, Mr. 
President, am not going to be a Senator on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee that allows that sanctity to be destroyed.
  When I challenged the question, it was revised so as to demand only 
her private views on 10 voter initiatives on issues ranging from 
carjacking to drive-by shootings to medical use of marijuana and the 
retention election of Rose Bird as chief justice of the California 
Supreme Court.
  Ms. Morrow previously stated she did not take public positions on 
these voter initiatives, so asking for her private views necessarily 
asked how she voted on them. We are, thus, quizzing nominees on how 
they voted in their home State ballot initiatives. Why we need this 
information, even if we were allowed to follow someone into the ballot 
box and see how they voted--something none of us would allow anybody to 
do to us--even if we are allowed, to say while we would not do it to 
any of us, we would do it to this woman.
  Why do we need this information to determine if she is qualified? In 
fact, she explained to the committee that she is not anti-initiative, 
and in response to written questions, she discussed an article she 
wrote in 1988 and explained:

       My goal was not to eliminate the need for initiatives. 
     Rather, I was proposing ways to strengthen the initiative 
     process by making it more efficient and less costly, so it 
     could better serve the purpose for which it was originally 
     intended. At the same time, I was suggesting measures to 
     increase the Legislature's willingness to address issues of 
     concern to ordinary citizens regardless of the views of 
     special interests or campaign contributors. I don't believe 
     these goals are inconsistent.
       The initiative process was a reform championed by 
     California Governor Hiram Johnson in 1911 to ensure that 
     the electorate had a means of circumventing the 
     Legislature when it could or would not pass legislation 
     desired by the people because of the influence of special 
     interests. As envisioned by Governor Johnson and others, 
     the initiative was designed to complement the legislative 
     process, not to substitute for it. This is my 
     understanding of the role of the initiative process, and 
     this is what I had in mind when I wrote the 1988 article. 
     The reasons that led Governor Johnson to create the 
     initiative process in 1911 are still valid today, and it 
     remains an important aspect of our democratic form of 
     Government.

  I ask, Mr. President, does that response sound like somebody who is 
antidemocratic? Yet, she has been forced to answer questions about how 
she views the initiative process in written questions and, again, in 
revised follow-up written questions over the period of the last month.
  Again, I remind everybody, this is a woman who was voted out 
unanimously last year by the committee. No objective evaluation of the 
record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-initiative. No fair 
reading of her 1988 article even suggests that. I might add, 
parenthetically, and what should be the only really important question, 
there is nothing in her record that suggests she would not follow the 
precedents of the court of appeals for her district or the U.S. Supreme 
Court. There is nothing to suggest that she does not believe in stare 
decisis or that she would not follow it.
  Recently, I received a letter from a distinguished California 
attorney, and a lifelong Republican, who wrote to protest the unfair 
treatment being accorded Margaret Morrow. He wrote that he was 
``ashamed of [his] party affiliation when [he sees] the people's 
elected representatives who are Republicans engaging in or condoning 
the kind of childish, punitive conduct to which Ms. Morrow is being 
subjected.'' He asks us to stop permitting the harassment of this 
nominee. I join with this distinguished Republican, and I ask the same 
thing: Stop harassing this nominee. I don't care if the harassment is 
because she is a woman, I don't care if the harassment is based on some 
philosophical difference, the fact of the matter is, she is one of the 
most qualified people I have seen before the committee in 22 years, 
Republican or Democrat, and she ought to be voted on and confirmed with 
pride--with pride--by the U.S. Senate.
  We have heard nothing but praise for Ms. Morrow from those who know 
her and those who worked with her and litigated against her. In fact, 
the legal community in and around Los Angeles is, frankly, shocked that 
Margaret Morrow is being put through this ordeal and has yet to be 
confirmed. The Los Angeles Times has already published one editorial 
against the manner in which the Senate is proceeding with the Morrow 
nomination. I ask, to what undefined standard is she being held? What 
is this new standard --it is kind of hidden--which has never shown up 
before? It has not shown up for any male nominee that I know of.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by a 
number of distinguished women in support of her nomination be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles,
                                    Los Angeles, CA, May 13, 1997.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We write to you to protest the 
     treatment which one of President Clinton's nominees for the 
     Federal District Court is receiving. We refer to Margaret 
     Morrow, who has been nominated for the United States District 
     court in the Central District of California. As of today we 
     have been waiting a full year for her confirmation.
       Margaret Morrow has qualifications which set her apart as 
     one uniquely qualified to be a federal judge. She is a magna 
     cum laude graduate of Bryn Mawr College and a cum laude 
     graduate of Harvard Law School. She has a 23-year career in 
     private practice with an emphasis in complicated commercial 
     and corporate litigation with extensive experience in federal 
     courts. She has received a long list of awards and 
     recognition as a top lawyer in her field, her community and 
     her state.
       Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges 
     and community leaders of both parties. Many have written to 
     you. Because of her outstanding qualifications and broad 
     support, it is difficult to understand why she has not moved 
     expeditiously through the confirmation process.
       Margaret Morrow is a leader and role model among women 
     lawyers in California. She was the second woman President of 
     25,000 member Los Angeles Bar Association and the first woman 
     President of the largest mandatory bar association in the 
     country, the 150,000 member State Bar of California.
       Margaret Morrow is exactly the kind of person who should be 
     appointed to such a position and held up as an example to 
     young women across our country. Instead she is subjected to 
     multiple hearings and seemingly endless rounds of questions, 
     apparently without good reason.
       We urge you to send a message that exceptionally well 
     qualified women who are community leaders should apply to the 
     U.S. Senate for federal judgeships. We urge you to move her 
     nomination to the Senate floor and to act quickly to confirm 
     it.
     Nancy Hoffmeier Zamora, Esq.,
       President, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.
     Judith Lichtman, Esq.,
       President, Women's Legal Defense Fund.
     Karen Nobumoto, Esq.,
       President, John M. Langston Bar Association.
     Steven Nissen, Esq.,
       Executive Director & General Counsel, Public Counsel *.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     * Title and organization for identification purposes only.

     Sheldon H. Sloan, Esq.,
       President, Los Angeles County Bar Association.
     Abby Leibman, Esq.,
       Executive Director, California Women's Law Center *.

[[Page S4420]]

     Juliet Gee, Esq.,
       President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.
  (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that is from the Women's Lawyer Association 
of Los Angeles.
  Last week, at a Judiciary Committee executive business session, I 
asked her name be added to the agenda and that the committee report her 
nomination to the Senate for confirmation. All questions have been 
answered. The Republican Senator who propounded the questions on 
initiatives said he would not filibuster her nomination and agreed not 
to hold her up any longer. I thank him publicly and appreciate his 
forthrightness.
  But even though we looked around that room and said, ``Does anybody 
have any objection to her,'' and I had gotten absolute confirmation 
from every single Democratic Senator that they were ready to vote 
positively for her and would vote for her on the floor immediately, her 
nomination was not called up. My requests that she be called up for a 
vote before the committee was rejected, and she remains in limbo almost 
2 months after her second confirmation hearing and one full year after 
she was first nominated.
  There is now what amounts to a secret hold on this nomination in the 
Judiciary Committee. Some Senator is holding her up. Some Senator 
doesn't have the courage to come on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
say why this woman is objectionable to him. Some Senator will hold her 
up secretly because he doesn't want to vote on her publicly, even 
though I guarantee you, if we had a rollcall vote on her, it would be 
overwhelmingly positive. We should proceed with the nomination of 
Margaret Morrow without further delay.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will my friend yield for about 2 minutes?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I am happy to yield to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am appreciative of the Senator taking to the floor 
today to discuss this entire issue. We all learned growing up that 
justice delayed is justice denied.
  We have these openings. Look, I was told very clearly by the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, ``Senator, you have to come in with 
nominations that will pass by Republicans and Democrats. You need to 
bring forward nominees who are supported by Republicans and 
Democrats.''
  Mr. President, I have done just that. I think Senator Leahy has 
outlined this magnificently--I have never seen a nominee with such 
bipartisan support as this woman. This is what is so extraordinary 
about the kind of treatment she is receiving: a secret hold that has 
been placed on her.
  Mr. President, this is not the way to run the U.S. Senate. Let's 
allow this woman's name to be placed on the floor and then those who 
have any objection can express their objections and vote no. But I am 
so confident that the vast majority of our colleagues will vote for 
Margaret Morrow.
  I say that not only because of her extraordinary bipartisan support, 
but because of her incredible qualifications. I say to my friend from 
Vermont how much I appreciate his leadership on this. Sometimes we 
forget these nominees have private lives. This is a woman who is a law 
partner in a law firm making preparations for a new career. She is a 
45-year-old wife and mother. She has a very loving family. They are 
very proud of her. They are completely mystified about these questions 
that keep coming. I have talked to several members of the Judiciary 
Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, and when I speak with them, 
I say to you, Mr. President, one on one, I am very confident that 
Margaret Morrow will get a vote and a fair vote.
  I want to quote from one letter that is so important.
  H. Walter Croskey, associate justice in the Court of Appeals for the 
State of California, Second Appellate District, describes himself, Mr. 
President, as a conservative Republican. He has written to Senator 
Hatch, and he wrote to Senator Hatch about an article he read that 
suggested that ``concerns have been raised in the [Judiciary] Committee 
about judicial activism and noted that there were questions as to 
whether Margaret would be a judge who would follow the Constitution and 
the laws as they are written.'' He says, ``Such concerns are not shared 
by anyone who knows Margaret.'' And he goes on to say, ``Her well known 
and often expressed reverence for our system of government and justice 
and her great intellectual integrity provides full assurance that she 
would be the kind of judge who would follow and apply the laws as 
written * * *.''
  He goes on.
  Mr. President, we have Republican after Republican from my State. 
This particular judge was appointed by George Deukmejian, Republican 
Governor of the State of California.
  Mayor Richard Riordan, Sheriff Sherman Block, a Republican-elected 
sheriff, supports her nomination.
  So it is so difficult, frankly, for this Senator to understand why we 
would play with the life of a woman like this and not give her her fair 
chance.
  I understand that women's organizations have written to Senator Leahy 
and Senator Hatch. They have been very patient. But when you see a 
panel of people, as Senator Leahy has described, three men and one 
woman, and the three men get reported out of the committee--and I 
venture to say, I know they are all extremely qualified--I would put 
Margaret's qualifications right up against any of those.
  So I am very pleased that my colleague, the ranking member on the 
Judiciary Committee, has raised this issue. I am hopeful, I say to my 
friend and the Presiding Officer today, that because Senator Grassley 
has lifted his objection to bringing the nomination to the floor and 
others on the committee have done the same, that they will prevail upon 
that secret hold, they will find who that particular Senator is who has 
put a hold here. If we start putting holds on each other's nominations 
and on each other's bills and on each other's amendments, I say to my 
friend, we are only going to deteriorate in this U.S. Senate. The 
people expect more.
  To reiterate Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge that 
Margaret M. Morrow be voted out of the Judiciary Committee and 
confirmed to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California.
  Margaret Morrow is an outstanding candidate for the Federal bench, 
who enjoys broad bipartisan support. She has over a dozen support 
letters from prominent, widely respected Republicans, including judges, 
elected officials, and others. It has been my 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. 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 in committee. 
She has had two hearings, and has had several rounds of questions with 
no end in sight. No Member has come forward to explain why she should 
not be confirmed.


                       Margaret Morrow's History

  Margaret Morrow was first nominated by the administration on May 9, 
1996. She received the first of her nomination hearings before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was reported out of 
committee just 2 days later without any opposition from the committee.
  For several months, Margaret Morrow's nomination sat on the Executive 
Calendar waiting to be moved, and finally died on the floor of the 
Senate when we adjourned at the end of the session.
  Margaret was then renominated on January 7 of this year because of 
her impeccable credentials. Her nomination languished for over 2 more 
months until further action on March 18, when she had yet another 
hearing.
  Twice, now, the Judiciary Committee has reviewed stacks of 
information she provided to the committee, a full FBI background 
investigation, and her testimony before the committee. Yet, Margaret 
still sits in committee, facing repeated rounds of questions with no 
end in sight.


                           Judicial Vacancies

  Margaret Morrow's confirmation should not be held hostage for 
political reasons, Mr. President. According to the U.S. Constitution, 
the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and 
consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and 
prevent numbers of highly

[[Page S4421]]

qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on 
the Senate floor.
  Today, we have 26 nominations from the President to consider. Every 
one of these nominations should be voted out of committee and placed on 
the calendar for consideration on the Senate floor.


                   Margaret Morrow's Life is on Hold

  The vacancy Ms. Morrow would be filling has been vacant since January 
24, 1996. In 2 short months, this vacancy will become a judicial 
emergency. That will make three judicial emergencies in the ninth 
circuit courts, and four judicial emergencies in the California 
district courts. Two of those judicial emergencies will be in the 
Central District of California. 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.
  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 person nominated, Mr. President, was 
under a Republican administration and a Democratic-controlled Senate. 
Included in those 66 judges were 11 circuit court 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 4-month period between June and 
September, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported 32 
nominees, including 7 appeals court nominees.
  Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself. In 
June of last year, he said ``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 
provide resolution for nominees out of fairness to these individuals 
and their families.

  Before I speak 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 put her 
life and her professional practice on hold while she waits for the 
Senate to approve her nomination. The Senate's delay has affected her 
ability to assume certain responsibilities at her law practice. Her 
whole family--particularly her husband and young son--have waited 
patiently for her confirmation to proceed. 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 prompt Senate 
consideration.
  Mr. President, I am unaware of any substantive reason why Ms. 
Morrow's nomination has not been before the full Senate long before 
today. If another Member of this body has a reason for opposing her 
confirmation, I want the opportunity to discuss those objections, as 
does Ms. Morrow, and to move on to Senate consideration.


                              Three Points

  There are three aspects of Margaret Morrow's qualifications, in 
particular, I want to emphasize:
  First, Ms. Morrow's long history and background in the legal 
profession. Her credentials are impeccable.
  Second, Ms. Morrow has the confidence of a broad spectrum of 
supporters.
  Third, Ms. Morrow's qualifications and the broad support she enjoys 
would make her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal 
bench.


 ms. morrow's long history and background in the legal profession, her 
                       credentials are impeccable

  Ms. Morrow graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and 
received her law degree from Harvard University, graduating cum laude. 
Ms. Morrow has enjoyed 23 years in private practice in commercial and 
civil litigation, and is now a partner at the prestigious law firm of 
Arnold & Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles 
Superior Court and they have a son, Patrick Morrow Boland.
  From 1988 to 1989, Ms. Morrow served as president of the 25,000-
member Los Angeles County Bar Association, the second largest voluntary 
bar association in the country, and created an innovative program in 
California called Pro Bono Council which calls on members of the 
association to do pro bono work for the poor. From 1993, she served a 
1-year term as president of the largest mandatory bar association in 
the country, the 150,000-member State Bar of California. Ms. Morrow was 
the first woman to ever hold this office in that organization.
  Ms. Morrow has been recognized several times during her tenure in the 
legal profession. A few of these include a listing in 1994 as one of 
the top twenty lawyers in Los Angeles by California Law Business, a 
weekly publication of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. In 1995 and again 
in 1996, Ms. Morrow was included in the Los Angeles Business Journal's 
``Law Who's Who,'' a list of 100 outstanding Los Angeles business 
lawyers.
  Just this February, Ms. Morrow received the Shattuck-Price Award, the 
highest honor given by the Los Angeles County Bar Association for 
individuals with outstanding dedication to the high principles of the 
legal profession, the administration of justice and the progress of the 
county bar. Others who have received such distinction include Warren 
Christopher and Shirley Hufstedler, former U.S. circuit court judge and 
U.S. Secretary of Education.


    Ms. Morrow has the confidence of a broad spectrum of supporters

  I'm not the only one who believes Ms. Morrow has an excellent legal 
mind and is a credit to the legal profession. Ms. Morrow enjoys the 
broad support of accomplished persons. Many of California's prominent 
and conservative Republican lawmakers and elected officials support her 
confirmation:

  H. Walter Croskey, associate justice in the Court of Appeals for the 
State of California, Second Appellate District, and self-described 
conservative Republican writes to Senator Hatch about an article he 
read that:

       . . . suggested that concerns have been raised in the 
     [Judiciary] Committee about judicial activism and noted that 
     there were questions as to whether Margaret would be a judge 
     who would follow the Constitution and the laws as they are 
     written. Such concerns are not shared by anyone who knows 
     Margaret. Her well known and often expressed reverence for 
     our system of government and justice and her great 
     intellectual integrity provides full assurance that she would 
     be the kind of judge who would follow and apply the laws as 
     written with her only agenda to make that system work better 
     and more efficiently. . . . The reservations expressed about 
     her are simply without foundation and should not deter the 
     Judiciary Committee from taking prompt and favorable action 
     on what we here in California regard as a truly inspired 
     choice.

  The district attorney of Orange County, Mike Capizzi, 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 
     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.

  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.''
  Representative James Rogan, former Republican assembly leader in the 
California Legislature, now Member of Congress, who gave a supporting 
introduction for Margaret Morrow at her second hearing, wrote to 
Senator Trent Lott urging his support of Ms. Morrow's nomination 
because he believes she would be ``conscientious in applying the law.''
  Republican Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block also supports Ms. 
Morrow's nomination, stating she is an extremely hard worker with 
impeccable character and integrity.
  Republican Robert Bonner, appointed by President Reagan as U.S. 
attorney for the Central District, later appointed to the U.S. District 
Court in

[[Page S4422]]

the Central District, and former head of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration under President Bush has also lent his support, stating 
she is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind * * * 
nominated based upon merit, not political affiliation.''
  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.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these and additional 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              State of California,


                                              Court of Appeal,

                                  Los Angeles, CA, April 17, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re Nomination of Margaret Mary Morrow.

       Dear Senator Hatch: I am pleased to write in support of the 
     nomination of Margaret Morrow to the United States District 
     Court for the Central District of California. I have known 
     Margaret for over 15 years, both professionally and socially. 
     During that period, I have worked with her on many local and 
     state bar activities and committees; I have had repeated 
     opportunities to discuss legal issues with her; and she has 
     appeared before me in both the trial and appellate courts on 
     a number of occasions. Finally, I am very familiar with her 
     reputation in the legal community, both in Southern 
     California and statewide. Based on all of that, I believe 
     that she is the most outstanding candidate for appointment to 
     the federal trial court who has been put forward in my 
     memory.
       Yesterday, I read an article in our local legal newspaper 
     about Margaret's second hearing before the Judiciary 
     Committee on March 18, 1997. That article suggested that 
     concerns have been raised in the Committee about judicial 
     activism and noted that there were questions as to whether 
     Margaret would be a judge who would follow the Constitution 
     and the laws as they are written. Such concerns are not 
     shared by anyone who knows Margaret. Her well known and often 
     expressed reverence for our system of government and justice 
     and her great intellectual integrity provides full assurance 
     that she would be the kind of judge who would follow and 
     apply the laws as written with her only agenda to make that 
     system work better and more efficiently. She will be a judge 
     of whom all Americans, Republican or Democrat, can be very 
     proud.
       Every now and then we have the opportunity to bring into 
     government service a truly outstanding person, a person whose 
     knowledge, intelligence, integrity and industry are such as 
     to command universal respect and admiration. We have that 
     opportunity with Margaret's nomination. As the second woman 
     to head the Los Angeles County Bar Association, (the second 
     largest voluntary bar association, after the ABA, in the 
     nation), the first woman to be elected president of the 
     California State Bar Association, an attorney who has won 
     every award and accolade which can be bestowed by the 
     California legal community and a practicing lawyer with 
     superlative skills and reputation, she can truly be 
     characterized as an exceptional choice for appointment to the 
     District Court. Indeed, as I mentioned, I can recall none 
     better in my professional experience. The reservations 
     expressed about her are simply without foundation and should 
     not deter the Judiciary Committee from taking prompt and 
     favorable action on what we here in California regard as a 
     truly inspired choice.
       As a lifelong conservative Republican, I would be very 
     disappointed to see members of the Committee, whose views I 
     share and admire on so many issues, fail to embrace this 
     exceptionally well qualified nominee. Margaret's nomination 
     should be promptly approved and sent to the Senate floor with 
     a favorable recommendation.
       My best to you and your staff. Keep up the good work.
           Yours truly,
                                                H. Walter Croskey.

       P.S. As a matter of information and convenience, I am 
     enclosing a copy of my resume. My appointment to California's 
     general trial court and subsequent elevation to the Court of 
     Appeal were made by Republican Governor George Deukmejian.
                                                                    ____



                              Office of the District Attorney,

                               Orange County, CA, August 15, 1996.
     Hon. Trent Lott
     Office of the Majority Leader,
     U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to urge you not to lose the 
     opportunity to add someone of Margaret Morrow's stature to 
     the district court bench in Los Angeles.
       As the district attorney of one of the nation's most 
     populous counties, I know how important it is that the very 
     best nominees possible be confirmed for judicial office. And 
     knowing Margaret as I do, both on the basis of our 
     professional relationship and association, and by virtue of 
     her outstanding reputation within California's legal 
     community, I have absolutely no hesitation in commending her 
     nomination to you as being among the very best ever likely to 
     come before you.
       Margaret's impressive credentials, from cum laude graduate 
     of Harvard Law School to President of the State Bar of 
     California, speak for themselves, of course. Of particular 
     interest to crime victims, law enforcement and public 
     prosecutors are her initiatives and achievements in the 
     fields of juvenile justice and domestic violence, where her 
     efforts have helped focus national attention.
       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.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael R. Capizzi,
     District Attorney.
                                                                    ____



                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, June 17, 1996.
     Re Margaret M. Morrow.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch.
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: I write to strongly support the 
     nomination of Margaret M. Morrow for a judgeship on the 
     United States District Court for the Central District of 
     California.
       Ms. Morrow has been a particularly active and contributing 
     member of the Los Angeles Legal community for most of the 
     twenty-two years she has practiced in our city. She has 
     worked tirelessly to improve the quality, efficiency and 
     accessibility of the courts proposing and advocating such 
     measures as the consolidation of our two-tier trial court in 
     California, working on efforts to improve our jury system, 
     and promoting greater use of alternative dispute resolution 
     by both the courts and the public.
       She has also worked actively to improve life in our 
     community, addressing such problems as domestic violence, 
     child abuse, and juvenile delinquency with specific programs 
     designed to increase public awareness and improve both 
     private sector and governmental responses to these problems.
       As the first woman President of the State Bar of California 
     in its 67-year history, Ms. Morrow commissioned a 
     comprehensive review of the attorney discipline systems in 
     California. The study was designed to investigate criticisms 
     from legal consumers that the system unfairly favored 
     lawyers, and criticisms from lawyers that attorneys in 
     certain practice areas were being targeted for selective 
     prosecution. Finally, the study was to evaluate the structure 
     and efficiency of the discipline operation, which at that 
     time cost between $15 and $20 million each year.
       The final report found that the system operated fairly for 
     both clients and lawyers. Nonetheless, it recommended 
     important changes to increase responsiveness--streamlined 
     reorganization of the prosecutorial office, stiffer penalties 
     for serious violations, greater public access to information 
     concerning pending complaints, and reduced staffing and 
     better personnel utilization by the State Bar Court. These 
     improvements significantly strengthened what is generally 
     considered to be the best lawyer discipline system in the 
     country. To complement this effort, Ms. Morrow spearheaded 
     the creation of a lawyer-client mediation program to provide 
     a remedy for client complaints outside the scope of the 
     discipline system.
       In her earlier tenure as President of the Los Angeles 
     County Bar Association, Ms. Morrow was responsible for the 
     Association's promulgation of a Pro Bono Policy which 
     established an annual goal for pro bono legal service by its 
     members, and ultimately generated an additional 150,000 hours 
     of pro bono time. Her efforts in this regard were designed to 
     ensure that low-income people could access the courts to 
     resolve problems and secure needed services, and thus feel 
     less need to take matters into their own hands. During this 
     period also, Ms. Morrow served as a member of the six-person 
     Commission to Draft an Ethics Code for Los Angeles City 
     Government. It was this body that proposed our city's current 
     ethics law, and helped to increase public trust in our 
     government.
       As a lawyer, Ms. Morrow has had extensive federal and state 
     litigation experience at both the trial and appellate levels. 
     She is recognized within the profession as someone who can 
     analyze complex legal problems thoroughly and litigate 
     successfully. Ms. Morrow is perhaps best described as a 
     ``lawyer's lawyer''--someone to whom other practitioners turn 
     for advice and assistance at both the trial and appellate 
     level. Because of her frequent appearances in court, she is 
     also well respected by the state and federal judiciary, who 
     value her intelligence and integrity as well as the quality 
     of her written and oral advocacy.
       I believe Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the 
     federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law, and 
     applying it in

[[Page S4423]]

     a rational and objective fashion. The residents of our 
     community would be extraordinarily well served by her 
     appointment as a Central District Judge.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard J. Riordan,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                         Assembly Majority Leader,


                                       California Legislature,

                                  Sacramento, CA, August 30, 1996.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to urge your support of 
     Margaret Marrow's nomination for a United States District 
     Court judgeship in Los Angeles.
       Margaret is a former president of the Los Angeles County 
     Bar Association and the State Bar of California. In 1994, we 
     worked together to secure passage of the trial court 
     consolidation measure, and I found her to be tough, 
     thoughtful and fair. She currently is a civil litigation 
     partner with the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn, Kully and 
     Morrow.
       A judicial evaluation conducted by the American Bar 
     Association's Judiciary Committee last year gave Margaret its 
     highest rating, ``very well qualified.'' I have every 
     confidence that, as a judge, Margaret would be conscientious 
     in applying the law.
       Please give the matter of her nomination every due 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James E. Rogan,
     Assembly Majority Leader.
                                                                    ____

                                            County of Los Angeles,


                            Sheriff's Department Headquarters,

                                 Monterey Park, CA, June 12, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: I would like to take this opportunity 
     to endorse Margaret Morrow, who has been nominated by 
     President Clinton to a United States District Court Judge 
     position in Los Angeles.
       Ms. Morrow is currently a partner in the law firm of Quinn, 
     Kully & Morrow. She has established herself as a highly 
     skilled attorney and has served as past president for the 
     State Bar of California, the Los Angeles Bar Association and 
     the Barristers' Section of the Los Angeles County Bar 
     Association. As a Barristers' Committee Chair, she worked 
     closely with the juvenile delinquency and dependency court 
     system, helping administrators at a local detention facility 
     improve the educational program and she published a handbook 
     to help lawyers and the public to better understand the two 
     systems.
       She also established the Domestic Violence Counseling 
     Program and held training sessions for lawyers. She involved 
     law enforcement officials in planning and teaching the 
     sessions to ensure focus on the law enforcement perspective 
     on this type of case. Ms. Morrow's extensive professional 
     activities indicates her willingness to be a positive aspect 
     in the jurisprudence field.
       Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of 
     impeccable character and integrity. Her list of credits, both 
     professionally and within the community is extensive.
       I would like to recommend that you favorably consider her 
     appointment. I have no doubt that she would be a 
     distinguished addition to the United States District Court.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sherman Block,
     Sheriff.
                                                                    ____

                                              State of California,


                                              Court of Appeal,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, June 11, 1996.
     Re Judicial Candidacy of Margaret M. Morrow.

     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I write to endorse President Clinton's 
     nomination of Margaret Morrow for the United States District 
     Court in Los Angeles. I also recommend that you give priority 
     to her confirmation.
       I am a lifelong Republican, some would call me a 
     conservative one. I was born in Utah, am an active member of 
     the LDS Church, and have sent my children to Provo, Utah, for 
     their post-high school education. The Los Angeles Chapter of 
     the J. Reuben Clark Law Society recently named me as 
     ``Outstanding Lawyer 1996.'' As a California Deputy Attorney 
     General in 1981-1984, I successfully prosecuted Angelo Buono 
     for the 1977-78 ``Hillside Strangler'' serial murders in Los 
     Angeles. Since then, Governor George Deukmejian has appointed 
     me to successive judicial positions (municipal and superior 
     courts, and California Court of Appeal). In 1993 Governor 
     Pete Wilson appointed me to my present position as Presiding 
     Justice of my division of the California Court of Appeal. I 
     provide you this background information to give some 
     perspective to my recommendation.
       I have known Margaret Morrow for over ten years. I am 
     convinced that she will be a most dedicated and competent 
     United States District Court judge. She presently enjoys the 
     greatest respect from a very broad spectrum of the California 
     judiciary and bar. Her service as President of the California 
     Bar Association was widely applauded, and her professional 
     work as an attorney is considered of the highest caliber. She 
     is representative of the mainstream of California legal and 
     judicial culture.
       I have also known her husband, Los Angeles superior court 
     judge Paul Boland, for many years as a colleague and friend. 
     He and Margaret are among the most decent people I know. They 
     are energetic, yet kind and considerate to everyone with whom 
     they come in contact. I also believe they embrace high moral 
     principles and values. This is the one nomination recommended 
     by our California senators that you should readily promote. I 
     am confident that prompt and full consideration of Margaret 
     Morrow's nomination will convince you that any President or 
     Senate would do well to select her as a federal judge. Please 
     feel free to call on me should you desire further 
     information.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Roger W. Boren,
     Presiding Justice.
                                                                    ____



                                        U.S. Court of Appeals,

                                       Pasadena, CA, June 4, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Hatch: At the risk of being an ``officious 
     intermeddler,'' I thought I should formally let you know that 
     I have known Margaret M. Morrow, one of the President's 
     nominees for the Central District of California, for twenty 
     years or so and believe that she will be an outstanding 
     United States District Judge.
       Apart from serving the bar in ways too numerous to mention, 
     she is among the ablest advocates in the country. As former 
     Chief Judge Wallace and I remarked after hearing her argue a 
     difficult matter before our panel a few years ago, hers was 
     one of the finest, most thoroughly professional, arguments we 
     had heard.
       Ms. Morrow is an intelligent, extremely competent lawyer 
     who has specialized in complex litigation and has the kind of 
     experience and judgment necessary to manage the complicated 
     case load of the federal trial court. I have no doubt that my 
     view of her potential for bringing distinction to the court 
     is shared by my colleagues on the Central District and the 
     Ninth Circuit, as well as by the bar in Los Angeles.
       If there is anything further I can add to your Committee's 
     consideration of Ms. Morrow's nomination, I would be happy to 
     talk to any member of your staff.
           With best regards,
     Pamela Rymer.
                                                                    ____



                                        U.S. Court of Appeals,

                                       Boise, ID, August 13, 1996.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Re Margaret Morrow, Judicial Candidate--District Court, 
         Central District of California.
       Dear Senator Lott: Although I am aware of the difficult 
     dynamics of Senate confirmation of judicial nominees during 
     an election year, nevertheless I would hope you would act 
     favorably on the candidacy of Margaret Morrow who is 
     currently on the floor waiting for a vote. She is without a 
     question a superior candidate with bipartisan support whose 
     confirmation would be received favorably by everyone in my 
     old district. We need her in the Circuit to attend to the 
     heavy case load generated in large measure by important 
     legislation enacted by Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,


                                             Stephen S. Trott,

     Circuit Judge.
                                                                    ____

                                                     June 7, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I understand that President Clinton has 
     nominated Margaret M. Morrow to serve on the United States 
     District Court for the Central District of California.
       I have known Ms. Morrow as a lawyer of great distinction in 
     the Los Angeles Bar. In fact, it is more unusual to find a 
     lawyer who is held in such high esteem by his or her peers as 
     to have been, as has been Margaret, elected President of both 
     the Los Angeles County Bar Association (the largest voluntary 
     bar in the United States) and the State Bar of California.
       As a former Judge, and President-Elect of the Los Angeles 
     County Bar Association, I have been in a position to observe 
     Ms. Morrow's ability and demeanor over an extended period of 
     time. As former Chairman of Senators (now Governor) Wilson's 
     and Seymour's Committee on Selection of Federal Judges, U.S. 
     Attorneys, and Marshals for the Central District of 
     California, I certainly believe I have gained an appreciation 
     for what kind of a combination of character, work ethic, 
     demeanor and intelligence is required to fulfill the 
     demanding position of a United States District Court Judge.
       As an individual who has had the privilege of helping 
     select so many District Court Judges, I can say without fear 
     of contradiction that to a man and women, I believe the 
     entire Court of this District would welcome her with open 
     arms. She will be a great credit to the bench, and deserve 
     your serious consideration and acceptance.
       I recommend Margaret Morrow without reservation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sheldon H. Sloan.

  Mrs. BOXER. Ms. Morrow's qualifications and the broad support she 
enjoys

[[Page S4424]]

would make her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal 
bench.
  Finally, her qualifications and the broad support she enjoys makes 
her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal bench. Mr. 
President, the Judiciary Committee has already reviewed Ms. Morrow's 
background, which is outstanding. To echo the recent words of 
Republican Judge Pamela Rymer, appointed in 1989 to the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals by President Bush, I too am looking forward to the day 
Margaret Morrow sits on the bench of the U.S. Federal District Court in 
the Central District of California. I am in agreement with Judge Rymer 
that Ms. Morrow will bring distinction to the district court.
  In sum, Mr. President, I continue to strongly support Ms. Morrow's 
renomination by President Clinton.
  I am fully confident that the Members of the Senate when fully 
informed 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.
  Again, my deep thanks to my friend for yielding.
  Mr. LEAHY. I might say to my friend from California, we talk about 
the secret hold. I mean, if there is a Senator who has some objection 
to her, let him vote against her.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right.
  Mr. LEAHY. Let us bring the nomination up.
  The irony is, you know and I know, with her qualifications, anybody 
would be embarrassed to vote against her because there would be no way 
they could explain back home how a woman, one of the most qualified 
nominees to come before the Senate for a Federal court nominated by any 
President, Republican or Democrat, is held up.
  I say to my friend from California, who has worked so hard and so 
diligently, one-on-one with Members to get this moving, it is, 
unfortunately, part of a picture. I have this chart which shows now we 
have 99 vacancies. We will have more. The number of judges who have 
been confirmed in the 105th Congress--when we first put this chart 
together, we wanted to show the vacancies on this side.
  I see my friend from Maryland, too. I will show him, too.
  We wanted to show the vacancies confirmed on the other side. We could 
not see the number that have been confirmed, so we put in this 
magnifying glass. I feel like Sherlock Holmes with my little magnifying 
glass going down.
  There are 99 vacancies, and down here, two being confirmed. We have 
had more vacancies this year than we have had judicial confirmations in 
the U.S. Senate. Maybe we can shave a day off each one of these 
recesses and confirm some judges during that time. We have not had time 
to do much else. We ought to at least confirm those.
  In fact--and I will share one of these with my friend from Maryland. 
The distinguished senior Senator from Maryland is on the floor. I 
thought he might be interested in noting where we stand on this.
  You might want to take a look at that, I say to my good friend from 
Maryland. We came at the beginning of the year with actually 78 
vacancies. And then, as often happens, people realize that they have 
grown older or they're taking senior status, whatever, they start 
retiring. We go from 78 to 89, to 92, to 94, to 96, to 99.
  We go in January, zero confirmed; in February, zero confirmed; in 
March, two confirmed; and those are the same two listed here. We have 
not gone above two. So while this list goes up, that stays even. People 
are used to talking about zero population growth. This is zero 
population growth in the judiciary.
  I understand that Speaker Gingrich and others felt there was some 
political gain to shutting down the Federal Government about a year and 
a half ago. The American people did not think there was, but for some 
reason they did. It appears to me what they are trying to do is shut 
down the Federal courts. This is an unprecedented, unprecedented 
situation.
  In the 102d Congress we had a Republican President and a Democratic-
controlled Senate. We confirmed 124 judges.
  In the 103d Congress we confirmed 129.
  Even in the last Congress 75.
  Now we confirmed 2 with 99 vacancies.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist says:

       The number of judicial vacancies can have a profound impact 
     on a court's ability to manage its caseload effectively.

  He says:

       It's hoped that the administration and Congress will 
     continue to recognize that filling judicial vacancies is 
     crucial to the fair and effective administration of justice.

  That is what it comes to.
  The American taxpayers, Republicans and Democrats alike, pay taxes to 
have their courts run. The courts do not run if the vacancies are 
there. You do not have criminal cases handled the way they should. 
People are forced to plea bargain because they cannot get through. You 
do not have civil cases that you may want to hear if you are a 
litigant; you have a case you want heard, you cannot have it heard. 
This is wrong.

  I was in another State the other day, Monday, and somebody was 
telling me how they have to go out and hire private judges to hear 
their cases. Now, these are people who are already paying the taxes. 
They are already paying for courts that are sitting there. But there 
are no judges to hear the cases. The vacancies cannot be filled so they 
go out and hire private judges.
  I mean, this is sort of like saying I will pay my taxes to have a 
police officer and a police department, and I paid for it. The money is 
there. We pay the money for the police department and the police 
officers, but some person in the community says, ``Well, we're not 
going to hire any police officers. We're not going to have anybody 
there. So even though you paid your taxes for that, if you want your 
property protected, you have got to go out and hire a private police 
officer.'' Well, we are doing the same thing with the judges.
  Mr. President, I think this is an outrageous situation. Let us see 
what we have here.
  In 1980, we did nine appeals courts--these were Presidential election 
years during the second Senate session, Presidential election years, 
and we did 9 appeals court judges and 55 district court judges. All the 
way down through here you can see many times with Republican Presidents 
and a Democratic Congress we cooperated.
  Nothing has happened here.
  Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course I will.
  Mr. SARBANES. I think the chart the Senator has just put up is a very 
dramatic chart in demonstrating what has happened here. As I understand 
it, this chart shows the number of judges confirmed during a second 
Senate session in Presidential election years. We all know that what 
happens in a Presidential election year is that there is a slowdown 
because the party that does not have the White House thinks it may get 
the White House and then it will be able to effect the appointment of 
judges.
  I ask the Senator from Vermont, as I understand his chart, this shows 
that in 1996, last year, with a Democratic President and a Republican-
controlled Senate, there was this incredible slowdown in the number of 
judges confirmed, which has continued into 1997.
  But in 1996, no court of appeals judges were confirmed and only 17 
district judges. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is not only correct, but I would ask him to 
contrast that with the last year of the Bush administration with a 
Democratic-controlled Senate and the difference in the cooperation of 
the Democrats with a Republican President than they show the 
Republicans with a Democratic President.
  Mr. SARBANES. The able Senator from Vermont is very perceptive 
because he anticipated the next point I want to go to, which is to 
contrast what happened last year with what happened in the last year of 
the Bush Presidency, 1992, an election year.
  The Senate majority was then in Democratic hands, and yet we 
confirmed 11 judges for the court of appeals nominated--nominated--by

[[Page S4425]]

President Bush and 55 judges for the district court nominated by 
President Bush, for a total of 66 judges.
  Last year, a comparable situation, except it was reversed. We had a 
Democratic President making the nominations; the Republicans controlled 
the Senate; 17 judges, a total of 17 judges. No court of appeals 
judges, 17 district judges compared with 66 judges in the last year of 
President Bush's term.
  In fact, the last year of President Reagan's term, again with a 
Democratic Senate, we confirmed 7 court of appeals judges and 35 
district court judges.
  Mr. LEAHY. We actually did better with district court judges with the 
Democrats in charge than President Reagan did at the end of his first 
term with the Republicans in charge.
  Mr. SARBANES. In 1984. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mr. President, this is an extraordinary slowdown in the confirmation 
of judges. Then, of course, what happens is none--only two have been 
confirmed this year thus far.

  So in the last virtually year and a half, 19 judges.
  I just submit to you this game ought to stop. We ought not to be 
playing with the Federal courts in this way. If people have a 
legitimate objection to a particular nominee, they ought to voice that 
objection and vote against them and try to persuade their colleagues to 
vote against them. But this is crippling the courts. The Chief Justice 
of the United States has been driven to the unusual posture of 
registering his complaint about it.
  I am frank to say to you, I think that Members of this body, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, have a responsibility to ensure that 
the Federal court system can work in a reasonable fashion. It is not 
going to work in a reasonable fashion if you slow up the confirmation 
of judges to this extent.
  It has not been done before. I mean, this breaks with all previous 
patterns and previous precedents. I just submit that we are not going 
to maintain public confidence in the judicial system, and we ought not 
to politicize the judicial process the way it is being done.
  So I want to commend strongly the senior Senator from Vermont, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for bringing this issue once 
again to our attention. It is beginning to cripple the Federal courts. 
There is no question about it.
  As my colleague from California pointed out, it is terribly unfair to 
some very able and dedicated people who have been nominated and then 
their life simply placed on hold in terms of their normal activities. 
It is a marked departure from any sense of comity that has heretofore 
prevailed in this body and a marked departure from the respect that has 
traditionally been shown to the Federal court system.
  I very much hope that we can begin to address this situation, begin 
to hold hearings, report the people out, confirm them when they come 
before the Senate. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his forceful 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland and my 
friend and colleague from California for their statements.
  I ask the Chair how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has approximately 9 
minutes and 50 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in 
decrying the stranglehold that has been placed on Federal judicial 
nominations by the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, of which 
I am a member.
  The numbers bear repeating, because they are simply appalling. Last 
year, the Republican Senate confirmed an abysmally low number of 
judges--only 17. And none of these was for the courts of appeals.
  Compare this to when the roles were reversed in 1992, the year a 
Republican President was running for reelection and the Democrats 
controlled the Senate. That year, the Democratic Senate confirmed 66 
Federal judges, including 11 court of appeals judges.
  It was thought that, after the election was over, the Senate would 
return to the normal course of fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated 
role in the judicial nomination process.
  Unfortunately, however, that has not proven to be the case. It is now 
mid-way through May, and the Senate has confirmed just two Federal 
judges. The Judiciary Committee has only held two nominations hearings.
  California has been especially hard-hit by this slowdown on Federal 
judges. More than one-fourth of the judges whose nominations are 
languishing in the Senate are from California--7 out of 26.
  Five of these seven judges were nominated in the last Congress. Let 
me tell you a little bit about each of them, to put some faces on the 
nominees whose lives have been disrupted by the Senate's extended 
failure to act on their nominations:

  Richard Paez is already a respected Federal judge on the district 
court in Los Angeles. He was nominated by the President to the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals on January 25, 1996. The Judiciary Committee 
gave him a hearing on July 31, 1996. However, the committee has never 
taken any further action on his nomination.
  Tomorrow, Christina Snyder will have been before the Committee for 1 
full year, as she was first nominated by the President to Federal 
district court in Los Angeles on May 15, 1996. Ms. Snyder is a graduate 
of one of the top law schools in the country, Stanford Law School, for 
which she has since gone on to serve on the board of visitors. She is a 
member of the prestigious American Law Institute, and her nomination 
has received bipartisan support, including endorsements from the 
Republican mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, and the Republican 
Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Sherman Block. I am not aware of one 
whit of substantive opposition to her nomination.
  And yet, Ms. Snyder has been unable to get even a hearing before the 
Judiciary Committee. Already this year, the committee has held hearings 
on the nominations of four men who were nominated after Ms. Snyder, 
including one who was only nominated for the first time this year, in 
1997. I am optimistic that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will 
agree to place Ms. Snyder on the agenda for the committee's next 
nomination hearing, and again urge him to do so.
  Margaret Morrow actually was favorably reported by the committee last 
year, unanimously, but her nomination died on the floor. She was 
nominated over a year ago, on May 9, 1996. Morrow is a graduate of 
Harvard Law School, was the first woman president of the State Bar of 
California, and has received numerous awards for her work as a lawyer 
and her commitment to public service.
  The committee held a second hearing on her nomination this year. But 
while the three men who were heard along with her have all been 
favorably reported out of the committee, she has not even been brought 
up for a vote. Her nomination has been slowed while members of the 
committee from the other side of the aisle pose round after round of 
follow-up questions to her, including asking for her view on some of 
the most controversial issues that have been considered by Californians 
on the ballot over the last 10 years. This level of scrutiny previously 
has been reserved for Supreme Court nominees, who shape constitutional 
interpretation, rather than merely following precedent a district court 
judge does. In my time on the committee, I have never seen this level 
of scrutiny applied to a male district court nominee.

  Jeffrey Miller is a superior court judge in San Diego, who was 
appointed to that post by Republican Governor Deukmejian. An 
accomplished jurist and a veteran of the State attorney general's 
office, he has been complimented by numerous fellow judges. First 
nominated last July, his nomination is now on the floor of the Senate. 
I hope that the majority leader will call up his nomination for action 
by the Senate.
  William Fletcher's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
has been languishing for more than 2 years, having first been made on 
April 25, 1995. Fletcher is a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law 
at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has won the 
Distinguished Teacher Award. He is a magna cum laude graduate of 
Harvard; he earned his law degree from Yale Law School; he is a Navy 
veteran, a Rhodes Scholar, and a former clerk on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. He was favorably reported by the committee almost a year

[[Page S4426]]

ago, on May 16, 1996. However, the committee has taken no action on his 
nomination this year.
  This outstanding group of holdover nominees from the last Congress 
has been joined this year by two more nominees, Anthony Ishii and Lynn 
Lasry, who have been nominated to the Federal district courts for the 
Eastern District and Southern District of California, respectively.
  Mr. President, the time has come to act on these nominations. I'm not 
asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold hearings on those nominees who 
haven't had them, and vote on all of them, up or down, yes or no.
  California needs these judges. The chief judge of the ninth circuit, 
Procter Hug, Jr., has said,

       our federal courts here in the 9th Circuit, and 
     particularly our court of appeals, are facing a vacancy 
     crisis of serious proportions. We simply do not have enough 
     active district and appellate judges to hear and decide cases 
     in a prompt and timely manner.

  While filings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have increased by 
over 60 percent since 1985, the court currently has 8 vacancies, more 
than any other circuit in the Nation.
  In the last 5 years, case filings in the Eastern District of 
California have skyrocketed by 49.7 percent.
  In the Southern District of California, case filings have increased 
by 94.7 percent since 1991--a pace that more than triples the national 
rate of increase of 27.5 percent.
  In an editorial last month, the Los Angeles Times put it well:

       [The Margaret Morrow] case is only one of many in a 
     deplorable situation that has gone on far too long. Justice 
     is not served by an empty bench. Nor is society. Whichever 
     party holds the Congress and the White House, gamesmanship 
     over judicial appointments produces no winners. It only 
     leaves a void . . .
       [The Senate's] record of delay, attempts to kill funding 
     for some appellate seats and its harassment of Morrow and 
     other qualified nominees reveals a deeply troubling 
     partisanship.

  Last we looked, the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power 
to nominate and directs the Senate to ``advise and consent,'' not 
stonewall. The 26 nominations now pending would be a good place to 
start.
  I urge my colleagues, let's end the gridlock on judges. Let's not 
hold the third branch of government hostage to partisan politics.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Federal courts today suffer from far 
too many unfilled judgeships. There are at least 99 vacancies for 
judges in the appeals courts and district courts. Twenty-four of these 
vacancies--in the appellate courts and in the trial courts--are 
judicial emergencies according to the definition of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States. That is, the positions have been 
vacant for at least 18 months.
  As a result, caseloads are backlogged throughout the country, and the 
victims of this situation are the American people. Justice delayed is 
justice denied. Thousands of Americans with legitimate grievances 
cannot get their day in court, because there are few Federal judges to 
hear their cases. Citizens must wait excessive lengths of time to 
resolve disputes, answer constitutional questions, and obtain justice.
  We need strong courts to combat crime, to put criminals behind bars 
and make sure they serve their time. We need strong courts to protect 
families, jobs, and businesses. Where else can Americans go when they 
are treated unfairly on the job or when their small businesses are run 
over by larger corporations?
  Just this week, I received a letter from a lawyer in San Diego who is 
concerned that the Federal court serving the city has had two vacancies 
unfilled for over 2 years.
  He writes,

       Our federal court in San Diego is at the breaking point. 
     For more than two years, the Court has valiantly struggled 
     with a burgeoning case load and managed barely to keep its 
     head above water by dedicated and innovative work on the part 
     of our senior and active judges and our magistrate judges. 
     But the system has been stretched as far as it can go. It 
     desperately needs its two judges.

  In fact, President Clinton has submitted two qualified nominees to 
fill these vacancies, but the Senate has yet to take action on them. 
Jeffrey Miller was nominated last July. In March, he finally had a 
hearing and was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in 
April. But his nomination has been languishing ever since, waiting for 
the Senate to act. The Republican leadership won't let the nomination 
come up for a vote.
  The problems in San Diego are being repeated in communities 
throughout the United States, and a major cause is the intentional 
stall by Congress in processing new judges.
  So far this year, the Republican-controlled Senate has approved only 
two judicial nominees. Three more have been approved by the Judiciary 
Committee, but the Republican leadership has made no effort to put them 
before the Senate for confirmation.
  Last year, in the Republican-controlled Senate, only 17 district 
court judges were approved, and no appeals court judges were approved--
none--zero.
  Since 1980, the Senate confirmed an average of 51 judges per year. 
When measured against this standard of performance, today's Republican 
Senate gets a failing grade.
  Republicans shut down the Federal Government in 1995 and were rightly 
criticized for that unwise action. They say they will never do it 
again, and are even trying to pass a law that would put the Government 
on automatic pilot if a budget agreement is not reached. But at the 
same time, behind the scenes, there is a Republican scheme to shut down 
our Nation's courts.
  The issue is far more than a numbers game. What we are witnessing 
today is a direct assault on the President's constitutional power to 
nominate and appoint judges.
  Our Republican friends claim they want to move ahead on nominees. 
They say the current stall on judicial nominations is not an effort to 
force President Clinton to apply Republican litmus tests to nominees. 
We hear that the unwise plans proposed by Senator Gramm of Texas and 
Senator Gorton of Washington were defeated in the Republican caucus 2 
weeks ago.
  But the facts speak for themselves. Republicans have shut down the 
courts and the American people are suffering the consequences.
  Republicans say they want to make sure that no activist judges are 
appointed to the courts. They've also begun to attack sitting judges. 
Judge Martha Daughtry of Tennessee is a case in point. She was 
nominated by President Clinton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
and confirmed by the Senate in 1993 with broad bipartisan support.
  Later, a prominent State judge in her circuit was convicted of 
Federal civil rights offenses involving sexual assaults on court 
employees, job applicants, and female attorneys. A three-judge panel of 
the sixth circuit affirmed the conviction. But the en banc court, 
dominated by Reagan and Bush appointees overturned it. They ruled that 
the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the power to protect women 
from sexual assaults by State officials.
  Judge Daughtry dissented. She said that the right of citizens to be 
free from physical harm by public officials who abuse their authority 
has been recognized ``since the sealing of the Magna Carta.''
  But Presidential candidate Bob Dole attacked Judge Daughtry and 
placed her in his ``Hall of Shame.'' He cited her as an example of the 
liberal activist judges that President Clinton appointed to the bench.
  Judge Daughtry had the last laugh. Two months ago, the Justices of 
the U.S. Supreme Court not only reversed the sixth circuit decision, 
they reversed it unanimously, and cited Judge Daughtry's dissent in 
their opinion.
  Another case in point is Margaret Morrow, whose nomination is pending 
in the Judiciary Committee. There should be no doubt about her 
competence and judicial temperament. Her nomination received the 
American Bar Association's highest rating. She has numerous 
endorsements from her peers in California--both Democrats and 
Republicans. She is a corporate lawyer, hardly an activist by anyone's 
definition. She was the first woman president of the State Bar of 
California. She is a past president of the Los Angeles County Bar 
Association. She has received numerous awards from the Los Angeles Bar 
Association, the California Judicial Council, and other legal 
associations. In 1994, she was listed as one of the top 20 lawyers in 
Los Angeles in

[[Page S4427]]

California Law Business. The Los Angeles Business Journal named her one 
of the top 100 business lawyers in Los Angeles in 1995 and 1996.
  Probably the greatest test of her temperament for the job is the 
manner in which she has responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
Despite the fact that she was held over for a second hearing in the 
committee and the many questions addressed to her, she has responded 
thoroughly, professionally, efficiently, and appropriately to each one. 
That is exactly what we want in a Federal judge.
  An extremely well-qualified woman is being held up arbitrarily. There 
is no justification whatsoever for this unfair delay.
  I hope that our Republican friends will reconsider their stall on 
judicial nominations. The rule of law in America depends on a healthy 
judiciary.
  And if the Republican majority in the Senate does not move ahead to 
respond to the crisis in the courts, I hope that President Clinton will 
consider the only alternative he has left. In their wisdom, the 
Founding Fathers gave the President a useful additional power, the 
power of recess appointments. If the log jam doesn't break soon--very 
soon, the President should start using that power. The Memorial Day 
recess offers the next opportunity to make recess appointments, and the 
President should not hesitate to use it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from the 
National Women's Law Center be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  National Women's Law Center,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our grave 
     concerns regarding the process being followed with respect to 
     the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the district court in 
     the Central District of California. Her original nomination 
     was made one year ago. Yet, her nomination has not been moved 
     through the process.
       Ample information has been presented regarding her 
     qualifications. She is a magna cum laude graduate of Bryn 
     Mawr College and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. 
     She has a 23-year career in private practice with an emphasis 
     in complicated commercial and corporate litigation with 
     extensive experience in federal courts. She has received a 
     long list of awards and recognition as a top lawyer in her 
     field, her community and her state. She is a leader and path 
     blazer among women lawyers, as the second woman President of 
     25,000 member Los Angeles Bar Association and the first woman 
     President of the largest mandatory bar association in the 
     country, the 150,000 member State Bar of California. She has 
     consistently been a voice within the legal community for 
     women and for the disadvantaged. She has received broad 
     support from attorneys, judges and community leaders.
       You questioned four nominees on March 18, 1997. The other 
     three, all men, have moved forward toward a Senate vote. 
     Margaret Morrow has not.
       No explanation has been provided which in any way justifies 
     this extraordinary and harmful delay. Superb women lawyers 
     should not be given the message that we fear is being sent by 
     the handling of Margaret Morrow's nomination--that no woman 
     need apply unless she is prepared to be singled out for 
     particularly harsh treatment.
       We urge you to send her nomination to the Senate floor 
     immediately.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Duff Campbell,
       Co-President.
     Marcia D. Greenberger,
       Co-President.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that over the past 2 weeks I have 
twice corrected a misstatement with respect to the three nominations 
pending on the Senate executive calendar. Twice, Republicans have said 
that some unknown Democrat had a hold on these judicial nominations. 
This is not so. Every single Democrat in the Senate is ready to vote, 
and vote today, on all the judicial nominees, the three judicial 
nominees is all it is, that have been voted out of committee so far. 
Every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is prepared to vote at 
the next Judiciary Committee meeting on all the nominees that are 
pending there. There is no, no Democrat with a hold on any judicial 
nominee--I want that very, very clear--neither in the committee nor in 
the Senate. If we have to have rollcall votes, we are glad to do that. 
But we should have these people come up.
  We received Jeffrey Miller's nomination in July 1996, last Congress. 
The President renominated him on the first day of this Congress for the 
same vacancy, a vacancy that has existed since December 1994. We are in 
1997 now. This is one of the judicial emergency vacancies we should 
have filled. He has the support of both Senators. He finally had a 
confirmation hearing 2\1/2\ years, almost, after the vacancy occurred. 
His nomination was considered. It has been reported to the Senate. We 
should vote on it.
  We first received Donald Middlebrooks' nomination in September of 
1996, last year. He was not accorded a hearing last Congress. This is 
for a vacancy that has been there since 1992, 5 years ago. That is a 
judicial emergency vacancy, and he has the support of both Senators 
from his State, one a Democrat, senior Senator, Senator Graham, one a 
Republican, Senator Mack. This was reported by the Judiciary Committee 
to the Senate April 17.
  Now, here is a vacancy that has existed for 5 years. We have a judge 
who has gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported to the 
Senate, supported by the two Senators from his State, one a Democrat, 
one a Republican. For God's sake, if we cannot vote on it, what in 
Heaven's name can we vote on? This should be about as noncontroversial 
as voting to commend the Fourth of July.
  We first received Robert Pratt's nomination in August of 1996. We did 
not get a hearing last Congress. The President renominated him on the 
first day of this Congress for the same vacancy in the district court 
for the southern district of Iowa. He had a confirmation hearing on 
March 18. He was supported by the two Senators from Iowa, Senator 
Harkin and Senator Grassley, and was reported to the Senate by the 
Judiciary Committee on April 17.
  Well, why can we not go forward with him? You look at what we have, a 
distinguished woman who is being shunted aside by somebody who does not 
have the guts to come forth on the Senate floor and say why that 
Senator is holding her up. We have distinguished other judges that have 
gone through the confirmation process, supported by the two Senators, a 
Republican and a Democrat from their State, they cannot come forward.
  I take our advise-and-consent function very seriously, especially 
when it comes to confirmation of Federal judges who have a lifetime 
appointment. Our system of government with coordinate branches and 
separation of powers, that is our responsibility. I voted to confirm 
some judges who ended up rendering decisions which I strongly 
disagreed. I voted for some judges to move from one Federal court to 
another, even though they had also had decisions with which I 
disagreed. I voted against some who turned out to be better than I 
predicted. But we voted on them.

  If a judge decides a case incorrectly, well, then you have appeal. I 
remember when I used to prosecute cases, I remember somebody saying, as 
the juror went out to defense counsel, ``Well, let justice be done,'' 
and they said, ``Well, if that happens, we will appeal.'' If you lose a 
case, appeal it. If you think you have bad law, have a legislative 
change. In fact, the reason the founders included the protection of 
lifetime appointments for Federal judges was to insulate them from 
politics and political influence.
  Merrick Garland had an 18-month wait for confirmation--a judge 
virtually everybody in the country that ruled on this, from the right 
to the left, on the judicial selection, said he was one of the most 
qualified persons ever to be up for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. Mr. President, 23 Members of this body, all on 
the other side of the aisle, voted against Merrick Garland for that 
judgeship. Not one of them spoke against the nominee. Not one of them 
spoke against his impeccable credentials. In fact, some who voted 
against him praised his qualifications. They say they voted against 
filling an unneeded seat on the court of appeals, in the face of a 
letter from Chief Judge Silberman, who said they did need the seat, and 
a statement from Senator Hatch, who said it was needed.
  In his concluding remarks, Senator Hatch said, ``Playing politics 
with judges is unfair, and I am sick of it.'' I agree with the 
distinguished chairman

[[Page S4428]]

of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let the Senate quit playing partisan 
politics with judicial nominations. Let us do our constitutionally 
mandated job and proceed to confirm the judges we need for the Federal 
system.

                               Exhibit 1

       In 1987 I heard from Tom Jipping, a student at the 
     University of Buffalo Law School. The faculty had imposed a 
     speech code that was more contemptuous of the First Amendment 
     than even most of the politically correct gag rules 
     proliferating on campuses around the country.
       ``Remarks,'' said the code, ``directed at another's race, 
     sex, religion, national origin, sexual preference'' et al. 
     would be severely punished. There was no further definition 
     of ``remarks.'' Also prohibited were ``other remarks''--not 
     defined--``based on prejudice and group stereotype.'' Any 
     prejudice?
       Unique to this law school code--unanimously passed by the 
     administration and faculty--was a provision that the 
     administration would provide the rap sheets of any guilty 
     student to the character and fitness committees of any bar 
     association to which the pariah might apply.
       Tom Jipping, though vilified by a prominent faculty member 
     and other speech police, fought the code, sending news of it 
     to the outside world. (I wrote about it in The Post, and 
     William Bennett spoke about it.) Eventually, after Jipping 
     was graduated, this embarrassment to the law school faded 
     away.
       Jipping is now in Washington, where he directs the Judicial 
     Selection Monitoring Project, an offspring of the Free 
     Congress Foundation.
       In his official role, Jipping sent a letter to all 100 
     senators, demanding they act to purge those ``activist'' 
     federal judges who do not agree with Jipping's 
     interpretations of the Constitution. On Feb. 4 a follow-up 
     letter went to Sen Partick Leahy (D-Vt.).
       In the letter, Jipping reminded Leahy that the senator had 
     previously received ``a letter from the largest coalition in 
     history to oppose judicial activism. . . . Please find 
     enclosed an opportunity to express your position on this 
     critical issue.''
       He then quoted a resounding call for purges by Orrin Hatch, 
     chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Those nominees 
     who are or would be judicial activists should not be 
     nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, and I 
     will do my best to see to it that they are not.''
       Jipping went on to warn Sen. Leahy that if he did not sign 
     the ``Hatch Pledge''--which Sen. Hatch will not sign because 
     he doesn't sign pledges--the forces of judicial correctness 
     will be unleashed. They will let Leahy's perfidy be known 
     ``to the more than 260 national and state organizations and 
     dozens of talk show hosts in our growing coalition.'' The 
     talk show hosts can surely be depended on the assess Leahy's 
     character and fitness.
       Leahy must have enjoyed writing his answer to Jipping: ``I 
     do not take pledges demanded by special interest groups on 
     either the right or the left. Nor do I appreciate your thinly 
     veiled threat that you will employ talk show hosts and 
     national organizations to pressure me into making such a 
     pledge.
       ``These tactics to force others to adopt your narrow view 
     of political correctness are wrong, and reminiscent of a dark 
     period from our history.''
       The ever-vigilant Judicial Selection Monitoring Project 
     should alert the dozens of talk show hosts that a relentless 
     judicial activist, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, insists 
     that ``the idea of an independent judiciary, with authority 
     to finally interpret a written constitution . . . is one of 
     the crown jewels of our system of government.'' Then there 
     was a Founder, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in the 
     Federalist Papers that ``the complete independence of the 
     courts of justice is peculiarly essential'' because the duty 
     of the courts ``must be to declare void all acts contrary to 
     the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Without this, all the 
     reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount 
     to nothing.''
       Copies of the Federalist Papers might well be distributed 
     to members of the Senate, particularly those hunting 
     ``judicial activists'' and demanding their impeachment.
       When Gerald Ford (R-Mich.) was in the House, he anticipated 
     the current jihad with a rousing speech calling for the 
     impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas. Ford, not a noted 
     constitutional scholar, said that ``an impeachable offense is 
     whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers 
     it to be at a given moment in history.''
       That was spoken like the stunningly overbroad University of 
     Buffalo Law School speech code. Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay 
     (R-Tex.), a leader of the judge-baiters, recently quoted 
     Ford's definition of impeachment approvingly in a letter to 
     the New York Times.
       It is a wonder that the Constitution, however battered from 
     time to time, survives the U.S. Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Amtrak. I 
realize we have gone now from judges and we are going into other types 
of debate, but I want to introduce the Amtrak reauthorization and 
reform bill.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
738 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________