[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11407-S11410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, OF NEW YORK, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Under the previous order, the 
clerk will report the Executive Order No. 324.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Charles J. Siragusa, of 
New York, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of New 
York.
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that we are soon going to vote on 
the nomination of Charles J. Siragusa to be a judge of the U.S. 
district court for the Western District of New York.
  The judge has the highest rating possible from the ABA. He was 
unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee. He was a prosecutor. I 
commend him and the others.
  This morning the majority leader has decided to call up the 
nomination of Charles Siragusa to the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of New York. I expect this rollcall vote to be much 
like the last seven in which a unanimous Senate approves a well-
qualified judicial nomination.
  As I stated, Judge Siragusa received the highest rating possible from 
the ABA. He was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee along 
with others who remain on the Senate calendar awaiting action. He is 
supported by Senators Moynihan and D'Amato.
  Judge Siragusa served as an assistant district attorney for the 
Monroe County district attorney's office in Rochester, NY, for 15 years 
from 1977 to 1992 and is currently a judge on the New York State 
Supreme Court. He has been the recipient of numerous legal awards, 
including the 1996 Recognition

[[Page S11408]]

Award from the Monroe County Magistrates Association. He has served as 
a volunteer member of the Families and Friends of Murdered Children and 
Victims of Violence advisory board since 1995.
  I congratulate Judge Siragusa, his wife and family on this day and 
look forward to his service on the U.S. district court.
  But I would also note, we had time set aside for debate on this. And 
we continue to have judges who are held up silently, and then we cannot 
vote on them.
  Margaret Morrow of California is an example of this. We have spent 
far more time on quorum calls this year than we have on any debate of 
Margaret Morrow, except that we find Senators who have press 
conferences saying that she should not be confirmed or could not be 
confirmed or will not be confirmed--but nobody wants to bring her 
nomination to a vote.
  She, like the judge we will soon confirm, is an extraordinarily well-
qualified nominee. She does have one difference. She is a woman. And I 
do not know why this woman, who has been the president of the 
California Bar Association, one of the most prestigious positions any 
lawyer has ever received, as well as the L.A. bar, why this woman is 
continuously blocked.
  Frankly, I could find no other reason than her gender. And I think it 
is shocking. I think it is a shame.
  While I am encouraged that the Senate is today proceeding with the 
confirmation of a judicial nominee, there remains no excuse for the 
Senate's delay with respect the more than 50 other judicial nominations 
sent by the President. The Senate should me moving more promptly to 
fill the vacancies plaguing the federal courts. Twenty-three 
confirmations in a year in which we have witnessed 115 vacancies is not 
fulfilling the Senate's constitutional responsibility.
  At the end of Senator Hatch's first year chairing the Committee, 
1995, the Senate adjourned having confirmed 58 judicial nominations and 
leaving only 49 vacancies. This year the Senate has confirmed less than 
half of the number confirmed in 1995 but will adjourn leaving almost 
twice as many judgeships vacant.
  At the snail's pace that the Senate is proceeding with judicial 
nominations this year, we are not even keeping up with attrition. When 
Congress adjourned last year, there were 64 vacancies on the Federal 
bench. In the last 10 months, another 50 vacancies have occurred. Thus, 
after the confirmation of 23 judges in 10 months, there has been a net 
increase of 28 vacancies, an increase of almost 50 percent in the 
number of current Federal judicial vacancies.
  Judicial vacancies have been increasing, not decreasing, over the 
course of this year and therein lies the vacancy crisis. The Chief 
Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called the rising number 
of vacancies ``the most immediate problem we face in the Federal 
judiciary.''
  I have commended Senator Hatch for scheduling 2 days of confirmation 
hearings for judicial nominees this week. Unfortunately, that brought 
to only eight the total number of confirmation hearings for judicial 
nominees held all year, not even one a month.
  The Judiciary Committee still has pending before it over 30 nominees 
in need of a hearing from among the 73 nominations sent to the Senate 
by the President during this Congress. From the first day of this 
session of Congress, this committee has never had pending before it 
fewer than 20 judicial nominees for hearings. The committee's backlog 
had doubled to more than 40.
  There is no excuse for the Judiciary 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, 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 had a hearing last year but 
has been passed over so far this year. Professor Fletcher, Judge Paez 
and Ms. McKeown are all nominees for judicial emergency vacancies on 
the Ninth Circuit, as well.
  The committee still has pending before it 10 nominees who were first 
nominated during the last Congress, including five who have been 
pending since 1995. Thus, while I am delighted that we are moving more 
promptly with respect to certain nominees, I remain concerned about all 
vacancies and all nominees.
  Since no regular executive business Meeting of the Judiciary 
Committee was held this week and none has yet been noticed for next 
week, which may be our last before adjournment, the committee may not 
have an opportunity to report any of the 13 fine judicial nominees who 
participated in hearings this week or the nominations of Clarence 
Sundram or Judge Sonia Sotomayor or, for that matter, the nomination of 
Bill Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division.
  I have urged those who have been stalling the consideration of these 
fine women and men to reconsider and to work with us to have the 
committee and the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility. 
Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must 
understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of 
justice. Courts cannot try cases, incarcerate the guilty or resolve 
civil disputes without judges. The mounting backlogs of civil and 
criminal cases in the dozens of emergency districts, in particular, are 
growing more critical by the day.
  A good example of the continuing stall is the long-pending nomination 
of Margaret Morrow. The extremist attacks on Margaret Morrow are 
puzzling--not only to those of us in the Senate who know her record but 
to those who know her best in California, including many Republicans. 
They cannot fathom why a few Senators have decided to target someone as 
well-qualified and as moderate as she is.
  Anthony Lewis asked the question in a column in The New York Times 
earlier this week: ``Why [are some] trying to frighten conservatives 
with talk of nonexistent liberal activist Clinton judges?'' Those who 
start a witch hunt, want to find a witch--even if they have to contort 
the facts and destroy a good person in the process. That seems to be 
what is going on with this nomination as opponents of this 
administration are seeking to construct a straw woman in the place of 
the real Margaret Morrow. She does not subscribe to an activist 
judicial philosophy and I am confident that as a district court judge 
would apply the law consistent with precedents established by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, the court of appeals and judicial precedent.
  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. 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

[[Page S11409]]

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.'' 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.
  This nomination has been pending since May 9, 1996. No one can blame 
President Clinton for the delay in filling this important judgeship. 
Within 4 months of Judge Gadbois' disability, the President had sent 
Margaret Morrow's name to the Senate. She had a confirmation hearing 
and was unanimously reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee 
in June 1996. This was one of a number of nominations caught in the 
election year shutdown and was not called up for Senate consideration 
during the rest of that year.
  She was renominated on January 7, 1997, the first day of this session 
of Congress. 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 4 
months and been passed over, again and again.
  Senator Hatch noted in a Senate floor statement on September 29 that 
he continues to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow and that he 
will vote for her. He said:

       I have found her to be qualified and I will support her. 
     Undoubtedly, there will be some who will not, but she 
     deserved to have her vote on the floor. I have been assured 
     by the majority leader that she will have her vote on the 
     floor. I intend to argue for and on her behalf.

  Yesterday Senators Ashcroft and Sessions held a press conference in 
which they noted their opposition to this nomination. I am glad that 
the secret holds that had prevented the consideration of this 
nomination are now over and urge the majority leader to proceed to call 
up this nomination for a debate and vote without further delay. This is 
the U.S. Senate, once the greatest deliberative body in the world and 
the conscience of the Nation. We should proceed to debate this 
nomination and vote.
  Every Senator is free to vote for or against a nominee. What I have 
not appreciated is the mysterious hold over nominations for months at a 
time. Now that the sources of the hold have come forward, the Senate 
should proceed to debate and vote.
  I do not oppose a recorded vote on Margaret Morrow any more than I 
opposed a recorded vote on Frank J. Siragusa, or Algenon Marbley, or 
Katherine Sweeney Hayden, or Janet C. Hall, or Christopher Droney, or 
Joseph F. Bataillon, or Frank M. Hull, or Henry Harold Kennedy, Jr., or 
Merrick B. Garland. In fact, on the last seven roll call votes on 
judicial nominees preceded that this morning, there has been a 
cumulative total of one negative vote by a single Senator on one of 
those seven nominees. Six judges were confirmed by unanimous roll call 
votes and one was confirmed 98 to one.
  Meanwhile, while the Senate fiddles, the people served by the 
District Court for the Central District of California continue to 
suffer the effects of this persistent vacancy, one of the dozens of 
judicial emergency vacancies being perpetuated around the country. This 
nomination has been held up so long that the vacancy has now extended 
to more than 18 months and is designated a judicial emergency vacancy 
by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
  This is a district court with over 300 cases that have been pending 
for longer than three years and in which the time for disposing of 
criminal felony cases and the number of cases filed increased over the 
last year. Judges in this district handle approximately 400 cases a 
year, including somewhere between 40 and 50 criminal felony cases. 
Still this judicial vacancy is being perpetuated by the refusal to vote 
on this well-qualified nominee.
  I fear that the nomination of Margaret Morrow has become a fund 
raising ploy for the extreme right wing. This past weekend we learned 
that a $1.4 million fund raising and lobbying effort is underway to try 
to perpetuate the judicial vacancy crisis and continue the partisan and 
ideological stall on Senate consideration of much-needed judges.
  I understand that big donors are solicited with promises of intimate 
dinners with leading conservative elected and public figures closely 
involved with the judicial confirmation process and that Senators 
appear on a videotape being used as an integral part of this opposition 
effort.
  Those pressing this effort complain about what they see as the 
failure of the U.S. Senate to block the appointment of judges to the 
Federal bench. The American people, litigants, prosecutors, and judges 
have just the opposite complaint--that the perpetuation of judicial 
vacancies is affecting the administration of justice and rendering our 
laws empty promises.
  It is sad that this effort is premised on the slanted portrayal of 
decisions, many of which were decided by judges appointed by Republican 
Presidents. I have spoken before about the dangers of characterizing 
isolated decisions to stir up anger against the judiciary. Short-term 
monetary or political gain is not worth the price.
  This fund raising campaign seems to extend back over the course of 
the year but has only become public with reports in the Los Angeles 
Times and New York Times over last weekend. Those who delight in taking 
credit for having killed, judicial nominees last year continue their 
misguided efforts to the detriment of effective law enforcement and 
civil justice. This extreme right-wing fund raising campaign to kill 
qualified judicial nominations is wrong.
  Targeting such a well-qualified nominee as Margaret Morrow is an 
example of just how wrong this scheme is. I believe all would agree 
that it is time for the full Senate to debate this nomination and vote 
on it. I understand that Senator Ashcroft welcomed such a debate at his 
press conference yesterday. I have looked forward to that debate for 
some time. I ask again, as I have done repeatedly over the last several 
months, why not now, why not today, why not this week?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote to 
confirm a most able candidate for U.S. District Judge for the Western 
District of New York. Charles Joseph Siragusa was western New York's 
most experienced prosecutor who became its most admired supreme court 
judge. We now have the opportunity to bring his considerable talents to 
the Federal bench.
  I had the honor of recommending Judge Siragusa to President Clinton 
on May 14, 1997. He enjoys the full support of my friend and colleague, 
Senator D'Amato, and the unanimous approval of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Might I note that my judicial screening panel interviewed more than 
20 applicants to fill the vacancy that resulted when Judge Michael A. 
Telesca took senior status. There were, as one might have expected, 
many splendid candidates. However, Judge Charles J. Siragusa stood out.
  Judge Siragusa has served with great distinction in the Seventh 
Judicial District. He was elected to the State supreme court in 1992, 
following 15 years as a prosecutor with the Monroe County district 
attorney's office. In that capacity he tried over 100 felonies and was 
involved in a number of significant criminal cases including the 
prosecution of Arthur J. Shawcross, a serial killer responsible for the 
deaths of 11 women. He received widespread recognition and praise for 
his work on that case.
  A native of Rochester, Judge Siragusa was graduated from LeMoyne 
College in DeWitt, NY, in 1969. He received his law degree from Albany 
Law School in 1976 and has been a member of the New York State Bar 
since 1977.
  Judge Charles J. Siragusa is a man of great intelligence and 
unwavering principle. I am confident that, upon confirmation, he will 
serve with honor and distinction.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I endorse 
the nomination of Charles Siragusa who has been nominated by President 
Clinton for the position of U.S. District Judge for the Western 
District of New York.
  Judge Siragusa comes before the Senate with an already distinguished

[[Page S11410]]

record having served on the New York supreme court since 1993. In that 
position, he has presided over both civil cases and criminal cases. He 
is currently assigned full time to the criminal division.
  Judge Siragusa is not only a seasoned jurist, but he is also an 
experienced trial lawyer. He has extensive litigation experience having 
first been an assistant district attorney and then later serving as a 
first assistant district attorney in the Monroe County district 
attorney office from 1977 to 1992. I am sure my colleagues will agree 
that he is well qualified for a position on the Federal bench for many 
reasons not the least of which because he is someone who has had the 
practical experience of having tried approximately 100 cases as lead 
trial counsel. I might add that 95 percent of those cases were jury 
trials and many of them involved homicides.
  Judge Siragusa also brings the experience of having been a teacher of 
sixth graders and junior high school from 1969 to 1973, in Rochester, 
NY. I am sure that job taught him great patience--a skill that might 
come in handy someday on the Federal bench.
  He is also active in his community. Judge Siragusa is a member of 
numerous organizations including the Jewish Community Center; the New 
York District Attorney Association; the Monroe County Bar; the 
Rochester Inn of Court; Jury Advisory Commission; and the Association 
Justices Supreme Court in New York.
  Judge Siragusa graduated cum laude from LeMoyne College in 1969 
having earned a bachelor of arts sociology, and his juris doctorate 
from Albany Law School in 1976.
  He has two published writings, in addition to his other than judicial 
opinions--one entitled ``Prosecution of a Serial Killer;'' and the 
other being, ``View from the Bench'' that appeared in Rochesterian 
Magazine.
  I would also like to add that Judge Siragusa's nomination might have 
been before the Senate sooner, but for the fact that when the Judiciary 
Committee first tried to schedule a hearing on his nomination my staff 
had a bit of trouble locating him. We later learned that he was in 
Aruba on his honeymoon. Congratulations, Judge Siragusa.
  I am confident that Judge Siragusa will be a worthy addition to the 
bench of the Federal District Court in the Western District of New 
York. I am very pleased that the Senate has scheduled a vote on his 
nomination, which I am happy to support. He is also supported by 
Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the matter of the pending nomination, I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Charles J. Siragusa, of New York, to be 
U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York? On this 
question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coats
     Harkin
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________