[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8504-S8505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8504]]
  PENDING NOMINATION OF MARGARET MORROW TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we adjourn until September, I once again 
note my dissatisfaction with the lack of progress we have made in 
confirming the many fine women and men whom President Clinton has 
nominated to the federal judiciary.
  This year the Senate has confirmed only 9 federal judges before the 
August recess during a period of 108 vacancies. Thus, when the Senate 
returns in September it will remain on the snail-like pace that the 
Republican leadership has maintained throughout the year of confirming 
one judge per month. Meanwhile, vacancies have continued to mount and 
the delays in filling vacancies continue to grow.
  It is discouraging to once again have to call attention to the fact 
that some 40 nominees are pending before the Judiciary Committee--
nominees who have yet to be accorded even a hearing during this 
Congress. Many of these nominations have been pending since the very 
first day of this session, having been re-nominated by the President 
after having been held up during last year's partisan stall. Thus, the 
Committee has not yet worked through the backlog of nominees left 
pending from last year. Several of those pending before the Committee 
had hearings or were reported favorably last Congress but have been 
passed over so far this year, while the vacancies for which they were 
nominated as long as 27 months ago persist.
  Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must 
understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of 
justice. We can pass all the crime bills we want, but you cannot lock 
up criminals if you do not have judges. The mounting backlogs of civil 
and criminal cases in the emergency districts, in particular, are 
growing taller by the day.
  I was delighted when the Senate moved promptly on the nomination of 
Alan Gold before the July recess, but his is the only nomination that 
has been confirmed promptly all year. There is no excuse for the 
Senate's delay in considering the nominations of such outstanding 
individuals as Professor William A. Fletcher, Judge James A. Beaty, 
Jr., Judge Richard A. Paez, Ms. M. Margaret McKeown, Ms. Ann L. Aiken, 
and Ms. Susan Oki Mollway, to name just a few of the outstanding 
nominees who have all been pending all year without so much as a 
hearing. Professor Fletcher and Ms. Mollway had both been reported last 
year. Judge Paez and Ms. Aiken had hearings last year but have been 
passed over so far this year.
  We continue to fall farther and farther behind the pace established 
by the 104th Congress. By this time two years ago, Senator Hatch had 
held seven confirmation hearings involving 31 judicial nominees, and 
the Senate had proceeded to confirm 26 federal judges. The record this 
year does not compare: Four hearings instead of seven; nine judges 
confirmed instead of 26.
  I recently received a copy of a letter dated July 14, 1997, sent to 
President Clinton and the Republican Leader of the Senate by seven 
presidents of national legal associations. These presidents note the 
``looming crisis in the Nation brought on by the extraordinary number 
of vacant federal judicial positions" and the ``injustice of this 
situation for all of society.'' They point to ``[d]angerously crowded 
dockets, suspended civil case dockets, burgeoning criminal caseloads, 
overburdened judges, and chronically undermanned courts'' as 
circumstances that ``undermine our democracy and respect for the 
supremacy of law.'' I agree with these distinguished leaders that we 
must without further delay ``devote the time and resources necessary to 
expedite the selection and confirmation process for federal judicial 
nominees.'' The President is doing his part, having sent us 14 
nominations in the last two days. The Senate should start doing its 
part.
  I want to turn briefly to the long pending nomination of Ms. Margaret 
Morrow to be a District Court Judge for the Central District of 
California. Mr. Morrow was first nominated on May 9, 1996--not this 
year but May of 1966. She had a confirmation hearing and was 
unanimously reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee in June 
1996. Her nomination was, thus, first pending before the Senate more 
than a year ago. This was one of a number of nominations caught in the 
election year shutdown.
  She was renominated on the first day of this session. She had her 
second confirmation hearing in March. She was then held off the 
Judiciary agenda while she underwent rounds of written questions. When 
she was finally considered on June 12, she was again favorably reported 
with the support of Chairman Hatch. She has been left pending on the 
Senate Executive Calendar for more than six weeks and has been passed 
over, again, as the Senate is about to adjourn for a month-long recess.
  This is an outstanding nominee to the District Court. She is 
exceptionally well qualified to be a Federal judge. I have heard no one 
contend to the contrary. She has been put through the proverbial 
ringer--including at one point being asked her private views, how she 
voted, on 160 California initiatives over the last 10 years.
  She has told the Committee:

       I support citizen initiatives, and believe they are an 
     important aspect of our democratic form of government. The 
     1988 article was not meant to be critical of citizen 
     initiatives, but of the lack of procedures designed to 
     eliminate confusion and make clear and relevant information 
     about initiatives available to voters. I was trying to 
     suggest ways in which the initiative process could be 
     strengthened, by communicating more information to the 
     electorate about the substance of initiative measures and by 
     eliminating drafting errors that form the basis for a legal 
     challenge. I believe it important for citizens to obtain as 
     much information as possible respecting any matter on which 
     they cast a vote.
       I believe the citizen initiative process is clearly 
     constitutional. I also recognize and support the doctrine 
     established in case law that initiative measures are 
     presumptively constitutional, and strongly agree with [the] 
     statement that initiative measures that are constitutional 
     and properly drafted should not be overturned or enjoined by 
     the courts.
       In passing on the legality of initiative measures, judges 
     should apply the law, not substitute their personal opinion 
     of matters of public policy for the opinion of the 
     electorate.
       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 that 
     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 do not believe 
     these goals are inconsistent.
       . . . . 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.

  Does this sound like someone who is anti-democratic? No objective 
evaluation of the record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-
initiative. No fair reading of her statements suggests a basis for any 
such assertion.
  She has been forced to respond to questions about particular judicial 
decisions. I find this especially ironic is light of the Judiciary 
Committee's questionnaire in which we ask whether anyone involved in 
the process of selecting the nominee discussed with her ``any specific 
case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be 
interpreted as asking how you would rule on such case, issue, or 
question.'' We try to ensure that the Administration imposes no litmus 
tests and does not ask about specific cases--and then some on the 
Judiciary Committee turn around and do exactly that.
  The Committee insisted that she do a homework project on Robert 
Bork's writings and on the jurisprudence of original intent. Is that 
what is required to be confirmed to the District Court in this 
Congress?
  With respect to the issue of ``judicial activism,'' we have the 
nominee's views. She told the Committee: ``The specific role of a trial 
judge is to apply the law as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the 
Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. His or her role is not to `make 
law.' '' She also noted: ``Given the restrictions of the case and 
controversy requirement, and the limited nature of legal remedies 
available, the courts are ill equipped to resolve the broad problems 
facing our society, and should not undertake to do so. That is the job 
of the legislative and executive branches in our constitutional 
structure.''

[[Page S8505]]

  I am appalled at the treatment that Margaret Morrow has received 
before the Senate and have spoken about her on the Senate floor on many 
occasions. It is long past time for the Senate to take up this 
nomination, debate it and vote on it. In my view, the Senate should 
certainly have done so before adjourning for a month-long recess.
  Margaret Morrow was the first woman President of the California Bar 
Association and also a past president of the Los Angeles County Bar 
Association. She is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee who is 
currently a partner at Arnold & Porter and has practiced for 23 years. 
She is supported by Los Angeles' Republican Mayor Richard Riordan and 
by Robert Bonner, the former head of DEA under a Republican 
Administration. Representative James Rogan attended her second 
confirmation hearing to endorse her.
  Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women 
involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive 
and responsible. Her good works should not be punished but commended. 
Her public service ought not be grounds for delay. She does not deserve 
this treatment. This type of treatment will drive good people away from 
government service.
  The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the 
President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los 
Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National 
Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys 
from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the 
nomination of Margaret Morrow. They write that: ``Margaret Morrow is 
widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both 
parties'' and she ``is exactly the kind of person who should be 
appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women 
across the country.'' I could not agree more.
  Mr. President, the Senate should move expeditiously to confirm 
Margaret Morrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that the two letters to which I have referred 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 14, 1997.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.

     Hon Trent Lott,
     The Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

       Dear Mr. President and Mr. Majority Leader: Among the 
     constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the President 
     and the Senate, none is more essential to the foundation upon 
     which our democracy rests than the appointment of justices 
     and judges to serve at all levels of the federal bench. 
     Notwithstanding the intensely political nature of the 
     process, historically this critical duty has been carried out 
     with bipartisan cooperation to ensure a highly qualified and 
     effective federal judiciary.
       There is a looming crisis in the Nation brought on by the 
     extraordinary number of vacant federal judicial positions and 
     the resulting problems that are associated with delayed 
     judicial appointments. There are 102 pending judicial 
     vacancies, or 11 percent of the number of authorized judicial 
     positions. A record 24 of these Article III positions have 
     been vacant for more than 18 months. Those courts hardest hit 
     are among the Nation's busiest, for example, the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals has 9 of its 28 positions vacant. At 
     the district court level, six States have unusually high 
     vacancy rates: 10 in California, 8 in Pennsylvania, 6 in New 
     York, 5 in Illinois, and 4 each in Texas and Louisiana.
       The injustice of this situation for all of society cannot 
     be overstated. Dangerously crowded dockets, suspended civil 
     case dockets, burgeoning criminal caseloads, overburdened 
     judges, and chronically undermanned courts undermine our 
     democracy and respect for the supremacy of law.
       We, the undersigned representatives of national legal 
     organizations, call upon the President and the Senate to 
     devote the time and resources necessary to expedite the 
     selection and confirmation process for federal judicial 
     nominees. We respectfully urge all participants in the 
     process to move quickly to resolve the issues that have 
     resulted in these numerous and longstanding vacancies in 
     order to preserve the integrity of our justice system.

     N. Lee Cooper,
       President, American Bar Association.
     U. Lawrence Boze,
       President, National Bar Association.
     Hugo Chavaino,
       President, Hispanic National Bar Association.
     Paul Chan,
       President, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
     Howard Twiggs,
       President, Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
     Sally Lee Foley,
       President, National Association of Women Lawyers.
     Juliet Gee,
       President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.
                                         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 judgships. 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.
     Sheldon H. Sloan, Esq.,
       President, Los Angeles County Bar Association.
     Abby Leibman, Esq.,
       Executive Director, California Women's Law Center.
     Juliet Gee, Esq.,
       President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.

                          ____________________