[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9163-S9165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Christopher F. Droney,
of Connecticut, to be United States District Judge for the District of
Connecticut.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senate is not in order.
Mr. President, I understand that we have a minute on each side.
Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Chair to call the Senate to order before my time
begins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not intend to start until the Senate
is in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will confirm three judges this
afternoon.
I ask my colleagues to look at the chart, which indicates the
shameful lack of progress of this Senate in considering judicial
nominations. We still have approximately 100 judicial vacancies. When
we adjourned last year there were 64 vacancies and when we began this
Congress there were about 74 vacancies. We are confirming judges far
slower than the vacancies are occurring through death, attrition,
retirements, and so forth. Even with the three judges we are confirming
today, there has been a net increase in vacancies of over 30 in the
last year. In fact, vacancies on the federal courts around the country
have increased by more than 50 percent over the last year.
I ask, as I have many, many times, that the majority leader, whose
caucus has held back these judges, allow them to go forward. We see
what happens when we have a vote on them. It is unanimous. You keep
hearing that there are concerns about these judges, and then no Senator
votes against them.
Let us bring them forward. I ask that one of the first we proceed to
consider be Margaret Morrow, who seems to be held up only because she
is a woman--only because she is a woman. There is no reason to hold up
that judicial nomination. Let it be voted. If people do not want her,
vote against her. If they want her, vote for her. But let's have a vote
on this.
We are not helping the independence--in fact, we are diminishing the
independence--of the Federal judiciary.
Mr. President, I am encouraged that the Senate is taking up three of
the six judicial nominations from the Executive Calendar.
I am delighted to see the Senate confirm Joseph F. Bataillon to be a
U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska. He served as deputy
public defender for Douglas County, NE before entering private practice
as a trial attorney in Omaha. He is supported by Senator Kerrey and
Senator Hagel. The ABA found him to be qualified for this judicial
appointment. Mr. Bataillon's nomination was first received by the
Senate in March 1996 over 17 months ago. Unfortunately, this was one of
the nominations caught up in the election year slowdown last year. I
congratulate Mr. Bataillon and his family and look forward to his
service on the district court.
I am also delighted that the Senate majority leader has decided to
take up the nomination of Christopher F. Droney to be a U.S. District
Judge for the District of Connecticut. The nominee has served as U.S.
Attorney in Connecticut since 1993. The ABA has unanimously found him
to be qualified for this judicial appointment. With the strong support
of Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman, this nomination has moved
through the Committee and now to confirmation. I congratulate Mr.
Droney and his family and look forward to his service on the district
court.
Likewise, I am delighted to see the Senate moving forward to consider
Janet C. Hall to be a U.S. District Judge for the same district. Since
1980, this nominee has practiced law in Hartford and prior to that she
had served as a special assistant U.S. attorney and trial attorney for
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. The ABA
unanimously found her to be well qualified, its highest rating. This
nomination also has the strong support of Senator Dodd and Senator
Lieberman. I congratulate Ms. Hall and her family and look forward to
her service on the district court.
In spite of the progress we have made over the last week in
confirming six judicial nominations, we still have some 40 nominees
among the 65 nominations sent to the Senate by the President who are
pending before the Judiciary Committee and 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 renominated by the President. 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 over 2 years ago
persist. The committee has 12 nominees who have been pending for more
than a year, including seven who have been pending since 1995.
So, while I am encouraged that the Senate is today proceeding with
the longstanding nomination of Joseph Bataillon and those of Chris
Droney and Janet Hall, there is no excuse for the committee'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 favorably reported last year. Judge Paez
and Ms. Aiken had hearings last year but have been passed over so far
this year.
[[Page S9164]]
Thus, even with the increased activity of the last week in which the
Senate has confirmed six nominees and raised by 67 percent the number
of judges confirmed all year, we continue to lag well behind the pace
established by the 104th Congress. By this time 2 years ago, the Senate
had confirmed 36 Federal judges. With today's actions, the Senate will
have confirmed only 15 judges. We still face almost 100 vacancies and
have 50 nominees yet to consider.
For purposes of perspective, let us also recall that by August 1992,
during the last year of the President Bush's term, a Democratic
majority in the Senate had confirmed 53 of the 65 nominees sent to us
by a Republican President. That, too, is a far cry from this year's 15
out of 65.
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 dozens of emergency districts, in particular,
are growing taller by the day.
I have spoken often about the crisis being created by the vacancies
that are being perpetuated on the Federal courts around the country. At
the rate that we are going, we are not keeping up with attrition. When
we adjourned last Congress there were 64 vacancies on the Federal
bench. After the confirmation of 15 judges in 9 months, there has been
a net increase of 33 vacancies. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
has called the rising number of vacancies ``the most immediate problem
we face in the federal judiciary.''
The Courts Subcommittee heard on Thursday afternoon from second and
eighth circuit judges about the adverse impact of vacancies on the
ability of the Federal courts to do justice. The effect is seen in
extended delay in the hearing and determination of cases and the
frustration that litigants are forced to endure. The crushing caseload
will force Federal courts to rely more and more on senior judges,
visiting judges and court staff.
Judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals testified, for
example, that over 80 percent of its appellate court panels over the
next 12 months cannot be filled by members of that Court but will have
to be filled by visiting judges. This is wrong.
We ought to proceed without delay to consider the nomination of Judge
Sonia Sotomayor to the second circuit and move promptly to fill
vacancies that are plaguing the second and ninth's circuits. We need to
fill the 5-year-old vacancy in the Northern District of New York and
move on nominations for judicial emergency districts.
In choosing to proceed on these three nominees, the Republican
leadership has chosen for the third time in a week to skip over the
nomination of Margaret Morrow. I, again, urge the Senate to consider
the long-pending nomination of Margaret Morrow to be a district court
judge for the Central District of California.
Ms. Morrow was first nominated on May 9, 1996--not this year but May
of 1996. 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 3 months and has been passed over,
time and again without explanation or justification.
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
wringer--including at one point being asked her private views, how she
voted, on 160 California initiatives over the last 10 years.
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.''
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. 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 consider and
confirm Margaret Morrow, along with Anthony Ishii and Katherine Hayden
Sweeney to be district court judges.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hear these cries of hysteria all the time
on judges. Let's be honest about it.
So far this year we processed out of committee 24 nominees. Fifteen
have been confirmed. Three will be left after this, and six are pending
in the committee. We will have another hearing within a week on another
five or six, and another hearing after that. So we are moving ahead
quite well.
Let's understand something. There are more sitting judges today than
there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush
administrations, as of right now. As of August 10, we had 742 active
Federal judges.
Let's just be honest about it. In the 101st Congress and the 102d
Congress by contrast, when a Democrat controlled Congress was
processing President Bush's nominees, there were only 711 and 716
active judges. The fact of matter is that we have not had a White House
processing these people very fast. And there are some who have
problems.
Mr. President, we received 13 new nominees just before the August
recess, and a few more just a short while ago. They have not even been
processed yet.
We are doing our best. All I can say is that there is room here to
realize that we are doing a fairly good job. We can do a better job.
But the White House has not been doing its job in a full effect. And,
frankly, we still have something like 53 total pending out of the 98
vacancies.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I consider my role in making recommendations
to the President on judicial nominees to be one of the most important
parts of my job as a Senator. It is imperative that we fill these
lifetime positions
[[Page S9165]]
with the most able and talented individuals available. That is why I am
very pleased that President Clinton chose to nominate Mr. Droney to
serve on the Federal bench.
Chris Droney is a man of strong character, and I believe that his
skills and intellect will enable him to serve the country with honor
and integrity as a Federal judge. Since 1993, Mr. Droney has served as
the U.S. attorney for Connecticut. During his tenure, he has been well-
received by the judiciary and law enforcement agencies and has played a
key role in the State's crackdown on street gangs. The Justice
Department's last evaluation of his office concluded that Mr. Droney
is, and I quote, ``strongly committed to the Department's law
enforcement priorities and has demonstrated significant leadership in
the law enforcement community, as witnessed by the remarkable
cooperation among the law enforcement agencies through the District.''
We are proud that the Justice Department has recognized what we in
Connecticut already know: Chris Droney is an outstanding lawyer and
public servant.
Prior to becoming U.S. attorney, Mr. Droney was in private practice
in Hartford specializing in civil litigation. He also served as mayor
of West Hartford from 1985 to 1989, where he did an excellent job.
He has been very active in a number of charitable organizations, and
his community service has earned him several honors and awards. In
particular, he was named Citizen of the Year by the Connecticut
division of the Boy Scouts of America, and he received the
Distinguished Law Enforcement Award from the Hartford Police Union.
Christopher Droney is an honest, forthright, and intelligent
individual, who is highly qualified to serve on the Federal bench. I am
confident that he will serve Connecticut well as a district judge for
many years to come, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support
his nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Christopher Droney, of Connecticut, to be
U.S. District Judge for District of Connecticut. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Ex.]
YEAS--100
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________