[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9165-S9166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF JANET C. HALL OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Janet C. Hall,
of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support this judge. I would like to make
a comment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator
should be allowed to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Campaign Finance Reform
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I noted several of my colleagues, a number
of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, signed a letter this
morning concerning campaign finance reform and a number of them came
and spoke about the urgency of the issue. Obviously, we welcome that
activity. But I want to point out, and point out in the strongest
possible terms, that this issue has to be brought up in a bipartisan
fashion. It is not 51 votes that are necessary in order to pass any
legislation through this body on an issue of this importance, it is
going to be 60 votes.
I have been working with the majority leader in a most cooperative
fashion on this issue. I believe that we can reach an agreement which
would be satisfactory to all parties. I do not believe it will be
helpful, in any way, to divide up on party lines on this issue.
I again thank the majority leader but I also thank my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle. I am confident we can move forward on this
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, A question has been raised about
statistics. I would point out that during President Bush's last year,
with the Democrats in the control of the Senate, by August we had
confirmed 53 of the 65 nominees sent to us by the Republican President,
notwithstanding the ``Thurmond rule'' which calls for a slowdown in
confirmations during a Presidential year--53 out of 65.
In this the first year of President Clinton's second term, the
Republican-controlled Senate confirmed only 9 out of 61 judicial
nominees sent by the President to the Senate by August. So the relevant
statistical comparison is 53 out of 65 when Democrats were helping
Republicans, but when Republicans are in control and there is a
Democratic President, only 9 out of 61.
I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished senior Senator
from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. President, while I am pleased that we are voting today on three
judicial nominees and I am supporting them, I am concerned about those
whom we are not voting upon--in particular two fine nominees from
California.
I am also concerned about what appears to me to be a plan to force
the splitting of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
crippling its ability to do its work.
Ten of the twenty-eight judgeships on that court are now vacant--36
percent of the bench.
I will ask unanimous consent that a table showing the status of each
vacancy within the ninth circuit be place in the Record following my
remarks.
I believe that proponents of the ninth circuit split wish to keep
these seats vacant as long as possible, so that the vacant judgeships
can then be transferred to the new twelfth circuit, and filled by
judges who they hope will be more in line with their own political
philosophy.
Unfortunately, this plan is substantially impairing the ability of
the ninth circuit to do its job, and impeding justice for the millions
of Americans who live within the ninth circuit --creating what the
Honorable Proctor Hug, chief justice of the ninth circuit, has called a
vacancy crisis.
The time has come for the Senate to end this death by attrition, and
act upon these nominations, so that the ninth circuit can get on with
its work.
These votes we are taking today will clear out all the judicial
nominees who remain on the executive calendar, except for three, two of
whom, as I have mentioned, are from California
These two nominees, Margaret Morrow and Anthony Ishii, have had their
nominations pending longer, both in the Senate and on the floor of the
Senate, than have two of the three nominees upon whom we are voting
today.
Margaret Morrow was first nominated almost a year and a half ago, on
[[Page S9166]]
March 18, 1996. She was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee
on June 27, 1996, but the Senate failed to take further action upon her
nomination before we adjourned.
She was nominated again in the beginning of this year, and favorably
reported by the committee again on June 12, 1997.
Anthony Ishii was nominated on February 12, 1997, and has been on the
floor since July 10.
In contrast, Christopher Droney and Janet Hall were nominated on June
5, 1997, and have only been on the floor since July 31.
So while I am happy that we are acting upon their nominations, I hope
that we will soon act upon the older nominations of Margaret Morrow and
Anthony Ishii.
Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote
them up or down.
I urge the distinguished majority leader to do this, I thank the
chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a table regarding the ninth
circuit vacancies be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Nomination
Court and vacancy created by-- Reason date Nominee date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINTH CIRCUIT
CCA:
Breezer, Robert R................ Senior................ 7/31/96 ........................ ...........
Canby, William C. Jr............. Senior................ 5/23/96 ........................ ...........
Farris, Jerome................... Senior................ 3/4/95 McKeown, M. Margaret.... 1/7/97
Hall, Cynthia Holcomb............ Senior................ 8/31/97 ........................ ...........
Leavy, Edward.................... Senior................ 5/19/97 Graber, Susan........... 7/30/97
Noonan, John T................... Senior................ 1/1/97 ........................ ...........
Norris, William A................ Senior................ 7/7/94 Fletcher, William A..... 1/7/97
Poole, Cecil F................... Senior................ 1/15/96 Paez, Richard A......... 1/7/97
Wallace, J. Clifford............. Senior................ 4/8/96 Ware, James S........... 6/27/97
Wiggins, Charles E............... Senior................ 12/31/96 ........................ ...........
CA-N:
Aguilar, Robert P................ Senior................ 6/24/96 ........................ ...........
Jensen, D. Lowell................ Senior................ 6/27/97 Breyer, Charles R....... 7/24/97
Lynch, Eugene F.................. Senior................ 3/14/97 Jenkins, Martin J....... 7/24/97
CA-E:
Coyle, Robert E.................. Senior................ 5/13/96 Ishii, Anthony W........ 2/12/97
Garcia, Edward J................. Senior................ 11/24/96 Damrell, Frank C........ 2/24/97
CA-C:
Gadbois, Richard A. Jr........... Disabled.............. 1/24/96 Morrow, Margaret M...... 1/7/97
Hupp, Harry L.................... Senior................ 1/1/97 ........................ ...........
Rafeedie, Edward................. Senior................ 1/6/96 Snyder, Christina A..... 1/7/97
Takasugi, Robert M............... Senior................ 9/30/96 Moreno, Carlos R........ 7/31/97
CA-S: Rhoades, John S. Sr.......... Senior................ 11/4/95 Lasry, Lynne R.......... 2/12/97
HI: Fong, Harold M................. Deceased.............. 4/20/95 Mollway, Susan Oki...... 1/7/97
OR:
Frye, Helen...................... Senior................ 12/10/95 ........................ ...........
Redden, James.................... Senior................ 3/13/95 Aiken, Ann L............ 1/7/97
WA-E: McDonald, Alan A............. Senior................ 12/13/96 ........................ ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Ms. Hall is one of the premier litigators in
the State of Connecticut, and I know that her impressive work
experience, both in Government service and in private practice, along
with her intelligence and character, will enable her to become an
excellent Federal judge.
After working in the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department
from 1975 to 1979, Ms. Hall joined the Hartford law firm of Robinson &
Cole, where she has been a partner since 1982. Since returning to
private practice, she has handled numerous matters before both Federal
and State appellate courts, and her work has focused primarily on
complex commercial litigation.
Ms. Hall is respected throughout Connecticut's legal community for
her intelligence and sense of fairness, but she is best known for her
dedicated work ethic. More than one associate at her firm described her
as the hardest working, most prepared lawyer that they had ever known.
Not only does Ms. Hall push herself, but she also expects a lot from
those around her. Her former secretary said that the only time that she
was bored during 14 years of working with Ms. Hall was when she was on
maternity leave with her third child. However, while Ms. Hall can be
tough on others, she always demanded even more from herself.
Part of me is actually relieved that I'm no longer an attorney in
Connecticut, because I anticipate that trying a case before Ms. Hall
would not be an easy day's work.
Janet Hall is unquestionably an excellent attorney, but she is also a
person of great character and integrity. While Ms. Hall always worked
hard to fulfill her responsibilities at her firm, she always managed to
keep her career in perspective, and her family was always her top
priority.
After successfully arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, she
was discussing the case with a group of associates. When asked to
describe what was the most important thing to remember about arguing
the case before the highest Court in the land, she said, ``The most
important thing was to bring my family.''
In closing, Janet Hall is an honest, forthright, and intelligent
individual, who is highly qualified to serve on the Federal bench, and
all of my colleagues should be proud to vote in support of her
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Janet C. Hall, of Connecticut, to be
United States district judge for the District of Connecticut? On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
Hutchinson] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Ex.]
YEAS--98
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
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
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
NAYS--1
Faircloth
NOT VOTING--1
Hutchinson
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
nomination was confirmed.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________