[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.

                          ____________________