[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5066-S5070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: No. 
73, Donald Middlebrooks; No. 74, Jeffrey Miller; No. 75, Robert Pratt. 
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en 
bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, statements 
relating to any of these nominations be printed in the Record, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we are now 
at the end of May. We have confirmed a grand total of two judges in 
this session. If we confirm these, it will make five, one a month, 
which is zero population growth in the Federal judiciary.
  I will not ask for a rollcall, but we have been told over and over 
again these were all being held up so we could have rollcalls on them. 
I suspect we will not have them because it will be embarrassing to see 
that three excellent, well-qualified judges, held up all this time, 
then would get voted on virtually unanimously.
  I will also note Margaret Morrow, the one woman who was on the panel 
on this, still is not before the Senate and still is being held for 
mysterious holds on the Republican side.
  I urge my good friend, the majority leader--and he is my good 
friend--I urge him to do this. I have been here 22 years with 
outstanding majority leaders, Republicans and Democrats, with Senator 
Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, and Senator 
Mitchell as majority leaders. And now I have the opportunity to serve 
with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as the majority leader.
  No majority leader has ever allowed the Senate before to do what is 
happening to the Federal judiciary now. I urge my friend from 
Mississippi not to allow this Senate to be the first Senate that acts 
toward the Federal judiciary or diminishes the integrity and the 
independence of our Federal judiciary, the integrity and independence 
recognized and commended and praised throughout the world, to let it be 
diminished here.
  I urge the distinguished majority leader to work with the 
distinguished Democratic leader, the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, and myself and others, to move these 
judges. We have 100 vacancies. We have 25 to 28 sitting before the 
committee that could go immediately, or nearly immediately. We have to 
do this and stop--stop--the belittling and diminishing of our Federal 
judiciary. It is part of what makes this a great democracy. We should 
not allow it to happen.

  I will not object to the request of the distinguished majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

                             The Judiciary

       Donald M. Middlebrooks, of Florida, to be United States 
     District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.
       Jeffrey T. Miller, of California, to be United States 
     District Judge for the Southern District of California.
       Robert W. Pratt, of Iowa, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.


             statement on the nomination of robert w. pratt

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has 
decided to take up the nomination of Robert W. Pratt to be a U.S. 
District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Mr. Pratt is a well-
qualified nominee.
  We first received Robert Pratt's nomination in August 1996. He was 
not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President renominated him 
on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy on the District 
Court for the Southern District of Iowa. He had a confirmation hearing 
on March 18 where he was supported by Senator Harkin and Senator 
Grassley and was reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee on 
April 17, more than 4 weeks ago.
  With this confirmation the Senate has confirmed five Federal judges 
in five months--one Federal judge a month. Even with the three judicial 
confirmation votes today, there are still almost 100 judicial vacancies 
in the Federal courts. Since this session began, vacancies on the 
Federal bench have increased from 87 to 103 and we have proceeded to 
confirm only five nominees. After these three confirmations, after more 
than doubling our confirmation output for the entire year in this one 
afternoon, we still face 98 current vacancies today and that number is 
continuing to grow. At this rate, we are falling farther and farther 
behind and more and more vacancies are continuing to mount over longer 
and longer times to the detriment of more Americans and the national 
cause of prompt justice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
recent articles on the crisis caused by the vacancies in the Federal 
courts.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From Time, May 26, 1997]

 Empty-Bench Syndrome--Congressional Republicans Are Determined To Put 
                  Clinton's Judicial Nominees on Hold

                           (By Viveca Novak)

       The wanted posters tacked to the walls of courthouses 
     around the country normally depict carjackers, kidnappers and 
     other scruffy lawbreakers on the lam. But these days the 
     flyers might just as well feature distinguished men and women 
     in long dark robes beneath the headline ``Help Wanted.'' As 
     of this week, 100 seats on the 844-person federal bench are 
     vacant. Case loads are creeping out of control, and sitting 
     judges are crying for help.
       The situation is urgent, says Procter Hug Jr., chief judge 
     of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers 
     California and eight other Western states. Hug says that with 
     a third of its 28 seats vacant, the court has had to cancel 
     hearings for about 600 cases this year. Criminal cases take 
     precedence by law, so at both the trial and appellate levels, 
     it is civil cases that have been crowded out. Civil rights 
     cases, shareholder lawsuits, product-

[[Page S5067]]

     liability actions, medical-malpractice claims and so forth 
     are being pushed to the back of the line, however urgent the 
     complaints. Chief Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the southern 
     district of Illinois went an entire year without hearing a 
     single civil case, so overwhelmed was he by the criminal load 
     in a jurisdiction down to two judges out of four. ``It's 
     litigants who end up paying the price for the delays,'' says 
     A. Leo Levin, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania 
     Law School.
       Things won't improve any time soon. Democratic Senators 
     have been slow in recommending names to the White House, 
     which in turn has dragged its feet in forwarding those 
     recommendations to the Senate for confirmation. At a private 
     meeting with federal judges last week, Clinton promised to 
     send close to two dozen new names to Capitol Hill by July 4. 
     But once they get there, they face new hurdles. Last year the 
     Senate confirmed only 17 federal district-court judges and 
     none for the appeals courts. This year looks even worse, with 
     only two confirmations thus far. The number of days from 
     nomination to confirmation is at a record high of 183, and 24 
     seats have been vacant more than 18 months, qualifying them 
     as judicial emergencies.
       This slowdown in judicial confirmations is not due to 
     congressional lethargy. Just the opposite. With Republicans 
     firmly in control of the Senate, many of the party's 
     theorists feel they have the power--and the rightful 
     mandate--to implement the ideals of a conservative 
     revolution that lost its focus in recent years. So they 
     have been not so quietly pursuing a historic change in the 
     ambiguous ``advise and consent'' role the Constitution 
     gives the Senate in the selection of federal judges. The 
     successful assault by Democrats on Ronald Reagan's 
     nomination of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court helped 
     open the way for what has become a more partisan and 
     ideological examination of all judicial nominees.
       Some Republicans have as much as declared war on Clinton's 
     choices, parsing every phrase they've written for evidence of 
     what they call judicial activism. That label has long been 
     applied to judges who come up with imaginative new legal 
     principles in their decisions rather than simply following 
     the letter of the law or the Constitution. Lately the term 
     has been tossed around like insults at a brawl. ``The 
     Republicans define `activist' according to their political 
     agenda,'' says a federal judge. ``It's O.K. to be an activist 
     if you're striking down affirmative action and gun-free 
     school laws. It's not if you're overturning abortions 
     restrictions and the line-item veto.''
       Meanwhile, nominees are left adrift. The federal bench's 
     poster child of the moment is Margaret Morrow. Nominated in 
     May 1996 with broad bipartisan support, Morrow was the first 
     woman president of the California Bar Association, has had a 
     distinguished career in private practice and could fill a 
     trophy case with her awards and citations. She cleared the 
     judiciary committee unanimously but got stuck in last year's 
     G.O.P. freeze-out on the Senate floor. Clinton sent her name 
     back up this year, but in the meantime, conservatives began 
     raising questions about some of her writings the committee 
     hadn't seen. After another hearing, she received a letter 
     from Republican Senator Charles Grassley asking her position 
     on every ballot initiative that's come up in California over 
     the past decade, in effect asking which levers she pulled in 
     the voting booth. Morrow's nomination still isn't scheduled 
     for a vote, and she isn't even the longest-suffering nominee. 
     That distinction belongs to William Fletcher, named by 
     Clinton to the Ninth Circuit in April 1995.
       Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     says he would like to clear the backlog. ``Playing politics 
     with judges is unfair, and I am sick of it,'' he said in 
     March. But those close to him say he's feeling pressure from 
     the right, and indeed his remarks have become more combative. 
     Last week he told a group of judges that he would refuse ``to 
     stand by to see judicial activists named to the federal 
     bench.''
       Republicans are also aiming rocket launchers at those lucky 
     enough to have already been issued their robes. Proposals 
     range from having three-judge panels, rather than a single 
     judge, hear challenges to ballot initiatives to radical 
     notions like amending the Constitution to eliminate lifetime 
     tenure. Lawmakers have taken to threatening impeachment 
     proceedings against judges whose rulings they dislike. House 
     majority whip Tom DeLay of Texas, a chief proponent of using 
     the impeachment process much more freely than it is now, says 
     he wants ``to make an example'' of someone this year. Some 
     candidates they're considering: Judge Thelton Henderson in 
     California, who struck down a voter-approved referendum 
     ending state affirmative-action programs (he has since been 
     reversed); Judge John Nixon in Tennessee, who has reversed 
     several death-penalty convictions; and Judge Fred Biery in 
     Texas, who has refused to seat a Republican sheriff and 
     county commissioner because of a pending lawsuit challenging 
     some absentee ballots. Not mentioned are judges like New 
     York's John Sprizzo, who freed two men who had blocked access 
     to an abortion clinic because they acted on religious 
     grounds.
       So far, the Republicans see no real downside to picking on 
     the third branch of government. ``Some of these rulings have 
     inflamed mainstream America,'' says Clint Bolick of the 
     conservative Institute for Justice. ``So when the GOP 
     elevates this issue, it is seen as a winner.
       It's ironic that these fusillades should be coming now, 
     when even activists like Bolick concede that Clinton's 
     nominees have been mostly moderate, and liberals are moaning 
     that the President hasn't done enough to counteract the 
     effect of 12 straight years of Republican court choices. But 
     what it adds up to is ``probably the most intense attack on 
     the judiciary as an institution ever,'' says Robert Katzmann, 
     a lawyer and political scientist who has written a book on 
     Congress and the courts. ``The framers of the Constitution 
     tried to create a system in which judges would feel insulated 
     from political retribution. That's being undermined.''

                     [From U.S. News, May 26, 1997]

    The GOP's Judicial Freeze--A Fight To See Who Rules Over the Law

                      (By Ted Gest and Lewis Lord)

       When Bill Clinton was first elected, liberals thought they 
     would finally get a chance to rectify what they saw as a 
     great injustice. For 12 years, Ronald Reagan and George Bush 
     had packed the judiciary with conservative judges. And their 
     rulings were shifting power toward police and corporations 
     and away from criminal suspects, environmentalists, and trade 
     unions. Clinton, it seemed, would be able to shift the 
     balance of power back.
       Well into Clinton's second term, the judiciary's 
     composition has barely changed, thanks to an aggressive 
     Republican strategy of thwarting Clinton's nomineees--and a 
     remarkable timidity on the president's part. During his first 
     term, when Democrats controlled the Senate for two years, 202 
     of his nominations were confirmed. But in the past 16 months, 
     with the GOP firmly in control, the Senate has approved the 
     nominations of only 18 district judges and one circuit court 
     of appeals judge. Roughly 100 judgeships--12 percent of the 
     judiciary--are vacant, including a record 24 ``judicial 
     emergencies,'' seats that have been open for at least 18 
     months. Judges are working nights and weekends on the stacks 
     of new cases that keep piling up. Countless civil disputes 
     involving businesses and families--whether a worker should 
     get a disability benefit, whether a loss is covered by 
     insurance, whether an alien should be deported--are being 
     held up for months.
       Congress has insisted on playing an unprecedented role. In 
     the past, the Senate paid close attention to a president's 
     Supreme Court nominees but usually gave him a free hand in 
     selecting other federal judges. Now, the Republican Senate is 
     demanding--and often getting--a voice in whom Clinton 
     appoints to the district courts, where judges and juries make 
     basic rulings involving federal law, and to the appeals 
     courts, which decide most constitutional and other big 
     issues. ``It's a scandalous and stunningly irresponsible 
     misuse of the Senate's authority,'' says law professor 
     Geoffrey Stone, the provost at the University of Chicago.


                          authority challenged

       The slowdown could become a constitutional showdown. ``In 
     all of American history there has never been a situation 
     where a newly elected president has faced this of challenge 
     to his judicial nominations,'' says Sheldon Goldman, author 
     of the upcoming book Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court 
     Selections From Roosevelt to Reagan. ``The gauntlet has been 
     thrown down to President Clinton. And now we will see if he 
     is going to fight or if he's going to back off.''
       Last week, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, 
     chastised the White House and the Senate for leaving so many 
     vacancies. ``Unless the executive and the legislative 
     branches change their ways,'' Rehnquist told the Federal 
     Judges Association, ``the future for judicial appointments is 
     bleak.'' He urged judges to meet with senators from their 
     areas. One judge who recently did is Procter Hug Jr. of Reno, 
     Nev., chief of the nation's busiest court--the nine-Western-
     state 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has lost nine 
     of its 28 judges to retirement. Hug asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, 
     chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for action, and 
     Hatch replied that he would hold one judicial nomination 
     hearing each month. ``Nationally, there are 25 circuit-judge 
     vacancies,'' said Hug. ``The have got to hold more than one a 
     month.''
       Republicans are resisting Clinton nominees aggressively in 
     part because they had to fight so long to get the judiciary 
     to their liking. The Reagan White House shrewdly decided not 
     to rely solely on GOP senators, who might have picked judges 
     mainly because of connections instead of ideology. 
     Instead, Reagan created the Federal Judicial Selection 
     Committee, which sought judges willing to reject 
     affirmative action, give police more authority, allow 
     restrictions on abortions, and permit voluntary school 
     prayer.
       The emphasis on ideology stirred a hostile Democratic 
     reaction. Democrats in 1987 successfully blocked the 
     nomination to the Supreme Court of Robert Bork, which 
     increased Republican determination to protect their gains. 
     And they have. Reagan's appointees and those of Bush are now 
     considered the most conservative since the judges whom 
     Franklin Roosevelt assailed 60 years ago for curbing his New 
     Deal, and they make up more than half the federal judiciary.


                            failure to fight

       Liberals had hoped that Clinton would pull the courts back 
     from the right and, by the year 2000, establish a majority of 
     left-leaning judges. But he hasn't. For one thing, he has 
     been slow to send up nominees, partly because the Senate has 
     been reluctant to move

[[Page S5068]]

     those already pending. Clinton has nominated candidates for 
     fewer than one third of the vacancies. More important, he has 
     shown an aversion to fighting for controversial nominees. One 
     prominent example involved an old friend, Georgetown 
     University law professor Peter Edelman. Clinton decided in 
     1995 not to nominate Edelman for a seat on the appeals court 
     in Washington, DC, after conservatives served notice they 
     would mount a Bork-like challenge, citing Edelman's writings 
     as ``too liberal.''
       In essence, Clinton rejects the liberal view that he should 
     counter the Reagan-Bush emphasis on conservative views. ``He 
     doesn't want to make a federal bench in his image,'' House 
     counsel, Abner Mikva. ``What he really wants is a high-
     quality bench that will do the right thing regardless of 
     ideology.'' Other insiders say that when the White House sets 
     legislative priorities, it is more interested in winning 
     votes from key senators on policy issues than in pressing 
     them to support judicial nominees.
       This has left liberal activists bitterly disappointed. ``He 
     has an enormous opportunity to reshape the federal bench,'' 
     says Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, an umbrella 
     organization of public-interest law groups, ``but rather than 
     hit the ground running, he has silently tolerated an 
     unprecedented number of attacks on the federal judiciary.''
       Liberals like Aron are doubly disappointed because those 
     nominations Clinton has pushed have not been particularly 
     liberal. His trial judges, according to one study, seem 
     closer in ideology to Gerald Ford's judges than they do to 
     those of Jimmy Carter, who are considered the most liberal of 
     current judges.
       To the extent Clinton has had a broad agenda for the 
     judiciary, the guiding principle has been not philosophy but 
     race and gender. ``Clinton's first term,'' says Goldman, who 
     teaches political science at the University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst, ``was the first ever in which most of 
     a president's appointments went to women or minorities.''


                            not mainstream?

       Republicans argue that they have no choice but to hold up 
     Clinton's nominees because many are ``judicial activists'' 
     far out of the mainstream. One would-be district judge tarred 
     as an activist is Margaret Morrow of Los Angeles, a former 
     state bar president who was first nominated to the bench more 
     than a year ago. In 1988, Morrow wrote an article suggesting 
     that California might be putting too many questions to a vote 
     in citizens' referendums. Senators now are demanding to know 
     her positions on many referendum issues.
       ``Judicial activists do not abide by the law,'' says Hatch, 
     who defines a judicial activist as ``someone who makes law as 
     a superlegislator and usurps power from two other co-equal 
     branches.'' Mikva, who was a longtime judge before working at 
     the White House, offers a different view: ``An activist judge 
     is a judge who makes a decision you don't like.''
       This month, Hatch did remind his GOP colleagues that 
     Clinton had won and thus was entitled to make nominations. 
     ``He deserves respect and support for his nominees as long as 
     they are qualified,'' the senator said. But he also has said 
     that judicial activists are not qualified.
       The Clinton administration insists that it has a grip on 
     the problem. ``We are doing as much bipartisan consultation 
     as we can . . . to see how Republican senators' views can be 
     absorbed into the system,'' says White House Counsel Charles 
     Ruff. That approach fails to placate Clint Bolick of the 
     Institute for Justice, a libertarian group. When Clinton was 
     re-elected, he said, ``the stakes doubled,'' and the prospect 
     of a Democrat appointing a majority of judges became a ``very 
     real concern, not an abstract concern.'' Bolick's goal is to 
     thwart any Clinton choice who doesn't meet his sharply 
     conservative standards. He expects that in the coming months 
     his fellow conservatives will go after even more Clinton 
     nominees.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to speak today in 
behalf of Robert Pratt, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of Iowa.
  I have known Bob and his wonderful family for almost 25 years. I met 
him when we were both fresh out of law school. We landed jobs at the 
Polk County Legal Aid Society. And it was this experience that made a 
permanent impression on me.
  Since that time, Bob has dedicated his life to using the law to 
improve people's lives, their communities and their future. He is 
currently in private practice in Des Moines and continues to devote his 
practice to the legal needs of lower income and economically 
disadvantaged Iowans.
  Bob Pratt is, quite simply, one of the best public interest lawyers 
in the country. And his respect for the rule of the law and his faith 
in our country's system of justice is truly inspiring.
  I believe that Bob possesses all of the qualifications necessary to 
assume the very serious responsibilities carried out by any Federal 
judge. He has the temperament, the intellectual rigor, the compassion, 
and the ability to be fair and impartial.
  I am also proud to say that Bob enjoys bipartisan support from the 
Iowa legal community. Robert Downer, former President of the Iowa State 
Bar Association, and a Republican, states: ``It has been my privilege 
to be acquainted with Mr. Pratt for some time, and I regard him very 
highly both personally and professionally. With the heavy caseload in 
the Southern District of Iowa it will be of great benefit to litigants 
in that court if he can be confirmed without delay.''
  Mr. President, I am proud to continue Iowa's fine tradition of 
judicial selection based upon merit. I believe Bob Pratt reflects very 
proudly on all of us who have chosen to be public servants. And I have 
no doubt that he will make an excellent U.S. District judge for the 
Southern District of Iowa.


                      statements on the nomination

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has 
decided to take up the nomination of Donald M. Middlebrooks to be a 
U.S. District Judge for the southern district of Florida. Mr. 
Middlebrooks is a well-qualified nominee.
  The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his judicial nomination 
to the full Senate more than 4 weeks ago. The southern district of 
Florida desperately needs him to manage is growing backlog of cases.
  We first received Donald Middlebrooks' nomination in September 1996. 
He was not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President 
renominated him on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy 
on the district court for the southern district of Florida, which 
vacancy has existed since October 1992. This is another of the judicial 
emergency vacancies that we did not fill last year. It has been vacant 
for more than 4\1/2\ years. He has the support of both Senator Graham 
and Senator Mack and was reported by the Judiciary Committee to the 
Senate on April 17.
  With this confirmation, the Senate has confirmed three Federal judges 
this year--the same amount of times we have gone on vacation in 1997. 
At this rate, we are falling farther and farther behind and more and 
more vacancies are continuing to mount over longer and longer times to 
the detriment of more Americans and the national cause of prompt 
justice. We must do better.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairman and other 
members of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to move the 
nominations process forward so that the Senate confirms the judges that 
the Federal courts need to ensure the prompt administration of justice.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join all those in America who are 
concerned about filling judicial vacancies in expressing gratitude to 
Senators Hatch and Leahy for bringing judicial nominations to the floor 
for our timely consideration.
  Florida, with some of the busiest districts in the Nation, has three 
Federal judicial vacancies. With our action today, one of those 
vacancies is no more, and the people of Florida's southern district 
will soon be served by an outstanding and experienced member of both 
the legal and larger south Florida community--Mr. Don Middlebrooks.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to fill all of the 
judicial vacancies in Florida. But today's action is a very positive 
step forward.
  Mr. President, the people served by the jurists we confirm have a 
right to expect judges who bring unquestioned competence, strong 
integrity, devotion to duty, and diversity of experience with them to 
the Federal bench.
  Throughout his career--as an undergraduate and law student at the 
University of Florida, a public servant, and a distinguished member of 
the south Florida legal community--Don Middlebrooks has met--and 
exceeded--this standard of excellence time and time again.
  Mr. Middlebrooks started his career in the public service at the 
University of Florida, where his fellow undergraduates elected him 
president of the student body.
  That excellence in student government was followed by distinction at 
the University of Florida Law School and, eventually, outstanding 
service in the Florida State government.
  In 1974, Don Middlebrooks was asked to serve the people of Florida as 
assistant general counsel to then-Governor

[[Page S5069]]

Reubin Askew. He served with such distinction that Governor Askew 
ultimately elevated him to the post of general counsel.
  Three years later, as Governor Askew's second and final term was 
coming to a close, Mr. Middlebrooks left Tallahassee and joined the 
south Florida offices of Steel, Hector, & Davis, one of our State's 
oldest and largest law firms.
  His 20 years of experience with highly complex legal issues makes him 
especially well-prepared for the cases that he will see as a Federal 
district court judge in south Florida.
  But the fact that Don Middlebrooks has spent the last two decades in 
the private sector does not mean that he has neglected his commitment 
to public service.
  In addition to handling numerous pro bono cases himself, Mr. 
Middlebrooks was chairman of Steel, Hector, & Davis' public service 
committee when the firm received the American Bar Association pro bono 
award and the Florida Supreme Court chief justice's law firm 
commendation.
  He has also been a civic leader. The list of his involvements is long 
and distinguished--chairman of the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice 
Commission, president of the Florida Bar Association, member of the 
Florida Ethics Commission.
  Perhaps Don Middlebrooks' most important civic contribution has been 
his tireless commitment to the welfare of Florida's youngest 
generation--its children.
  In addition to being the father of 11-year-old Amanda and 9-year-old 
Jack, Mr. Middlebrooks has served as chairman of the Palm Beach County 
Children's Services Council, chairman of the Florida Bar Commission for 
Children, and a member of the Florida Commission on Child Welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout his life, Don Middlebrooks has been 
respected by his peers, hailed for his outstanding service to the 
people of Florida, honored for his civic involvements, and praised for 
his skill and competence in the legal arena.
  I have no doubt that this pattern of distinction and outstanding 
service will continue once he is invested as a Federal judge in the 
southern district of Florida.


           statements on the nomination of jeffrey t. miller

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has 
decided to take up the nomination of Jeffrey T. Miller to be a U.S. 
district court judge for the southern district of California. Judge 
Miller is a well-qualified nominee.
  The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination to the 
Senate more than 4 weeks ago. The southern district of California 
desperately needs Judge Miller to help manage its growing backlog of 
cases.
  We first received Judge Jeffrey Miller's nomination in July 1996. He 
was not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President renominated 
him on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy on the 
district court for the southern district of California, which vacancy 
has existed since December 1994. This is one of the judicial emergency 
vacancies that we should have filled last year. This vacancy has 
persisted for 2\1/2\ years. He has the support of both Senators from 
California. He had a confirmation hearing on March 18 and his 
nomination was considered and reported to the Senate by the Judiciary 
Committee on April 17.
  With this confirmation, the Senate has confirmed four Federal judges 
this year--the same number as the number of amendments to the 
Constitution that have been considered and defeated by the House of 
Representatives and the Senate. At this rate, we are falling farther 
and farther behind and more and more vacancies are continuing to mount 
over longer and longer times to the detriment of more Americans and the 
national cause of prompt justice. We must do better.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader 
for calling up these judicial nominations for votes by the Senate, and 
in particular for calling up Judge Jeffrey Miller, who has been 
nominated to the U.S. district court for the southern district of 
California in San Diego.
  It was my distinct pleasure to recommend Judge Jeffrey Miller to the 
President. I feel strongly he is extremely well qualified for the 
position.
  Judge Miller has been serving for 10 years as a superior court judge 
in San Diego, having been appointed by a Republican Governor, George 
Deukmejian, in 1987.
  Judge Miller previously spent 19 years with the State attorney 
general's office.
  He earned both his undergraduate and law degree from the University 
of California at Los Angeles in the 1960's. He first devoted himself to 
public service by working in the Peace Corps for a year.
  During his experience in the Los Angeles attorney general's office 
from 1968 to 1974, he briefed approximately 60 cases on behalf of the 
people, urging affirmation of trial court convictions before the court 
of appeals in more than half of those cases.
  Of those cases, published opinions were issued in 13, all but 1 
affirming trial court convictions.
  From 1974 to 1987, Judge Miller supervised attorneys and carried his 
own caseload in the tort and condemnation section of the attorney 
general's office, which oversaw the San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, 
and Riverside areas. Here he represented the State in matters ranging 
from class action lawsuits to California Highway Patrol officers sued 
for false arrest.
  Judge Miller has argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both 
cases were argued successfully on behalf of the State.
  His lengthy and distinguished experience as a prosecutor prepared him 
well for his appointment in 1987 as a superior court judge.
  Since then, he has handled many sensitive high-profile criminal and 
civil cases including two murder cases where the juries rendered 
convictions with full sentences.
  This has prepared him extremely well for the criminal and civil 
caseload facing the southern district judges.
  Simply put, Judge Miller is one of the most respected and trusted 
judicial figures in the San Diego area. He is both fair minded and 
thoughtful, yet remains tough and decisive.
  His bipartisan support and solid judicial background make him a 
strong nominee for confirmation. Among those who have endorsed Judge 
Miller's nomination are those who know the judge's work best:
  Presiding Judge James R. Milliken of the superior court described 
Judge Miller as ``a superb judge'' and ``a fine, insightful person. He 
understands legal issues and problems and does an absolutely wonderful 
job in the courtroom.''
  Judge Anthony Joseph, a colleague on the San Diego Superior Court, 
wrote: ``His positive outlook and pragmatic approach are essential in 
this era.''
  Judge Daniel Kremer of the U.S. court of appeals noted that Judge 
Miller ``is particularly well known for his ability to handle complex 
cases efficiently and fairly.''
  Retired Justice Charles Froehlich, Jr., of the court of appeals said: 
``He is a person of very high ethical standards. He would indeed be a 
credit to the local district court bench.''
  Judge Judith Haller of the court of appeals wrote: ``Judge Miller 
would be an outstanding selection and one which would be extremely well 
received by members of our legal community. He is one of those rare 
individuals who receives unanimous praise from all who have worked with 
him professionally or who know him personally.''
  Judge Miller is an active member of the California Judges 
Association.
  He has been elected to the executive committee and served on that 
committee as supervising judge of the north county branch of the San 
Diego Superior Court. He has also chaired the joint jury committee and 
the rules committee.
  Let me conclude by saying how important it is to fill the vacancies 
on the southern district bench. Presiding Judge Judith Keep has 
provided some startling information about workload in the southern 
district, which I would like to submit for the Record.
  There are currently two vacancies on the southern district bench. The 
six judges now serving in the southern district faced a caseload of 
5,674 cases in 1996. Five years earlier, the total filings in this 
district were 2,914. That represents a 95-percent increase in the 
workload from 1991 to 1996 for the southern district judges.

[[Page S5070]]

  In addition, the vacancy Judge Miller would fill has been vacant 
since December 28, 1994--more than 26 months. Judge Gordon Thompson 
took senior status on December 28, 1994.
  This vacancy has only made the workload on the southern district more 
intense.
  So I urge my colleagues to address the workload problem by confirming 
this eminently qualified candidate, Judge Jeffrey Miller.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________