[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S12543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF ANN AIKEN TO BE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, DISTRICT OF 
                                 OREGON

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I rise to oppose a nomination. I 
want to tell you, I have a hold on a nomination. It is not a secret 
hold. Those that are interested in the nomination know I have the hold 
on it. I would not do that in secret. The purpose is not for secrecy. 
The purpose is to get an action that will show on the record, that will 
be reflected by this body for years to come. That is what we were sent 
here for.
  Judge Ann Aiken has been nominated by the President of the United 
States to be a District Court Judge for the District of Oregon. I have 
asked for a rollcall vote because I want to be on record as opposing 
this nominee. I don't question Judge Aiken's experience or academic 
qualifications to sit on the Federal bench. I do have serious concerns 
about her judicial philosophy as she has applied it in State court in 
Oregon. One particularly tragic case perhaps best illustrates concern. 
It is the case of State versus Ronny Lee Dye, a 26-year-old man who was 
convicted of first-degree rape of a 5-year-old girl. Instead of 
sentencing this convicted rapist to State prison, Judge Aiken sentenced 
him to only 90 days in jail and 5 years' probation, plus a $2,000 fine. 
According to local papers, Judge Aiken did not want to sentence Dye to 
state prison because the prison did not have a sex offender 
rehabilitation program.
  How do you think the parents of that girl felt? Moreover, she 
believed that the probation following the jail term provided a stricter 
supervision than the parole that would have followed the prison 
sentence.
  Less than a year after the conviction for rape, Dye violated his 
parole by driving under the influence of alcohol and having contact 
with minor children without permission of his probation officer. I 
believe that Judge Aiken's handling of this case and others illustrates 
an inclination toward an unjustified leniency for convicted criminals.
  I do not pretend to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy 
how the nominee or any other will rule while on the Federal bench in 
exercising our solemn constitutional duty to advise and consent on the 
President's nominations for Federal courts, what this body stands for, 
we have only the past action, statements and writings to guide our 
deliberations. Moreover, since Federal judges have life tenure--life 
tenure--and salary protection while in office we have but one 
opportunity to voice our concerns in disapproval of a judge's record.
  I, for one, cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the Federal court who 
I believe is inclined to substitute his or her personal policy 
preferences for those of the U.S. Congress and the various State 
legislatures. I have strong concerns about this judge. If confirmed, 
would she be inclined to this type of judicial activism? For this 
reason, I will cast my vote against the confirmation of Judge Aiken and 
insist on a rollcall vote so that it will be recorded.
  That may result in a delay in that court, but I think it is an 
important delay. I don't think I'm the only one opposing this, and I 
will insist on the rollcall vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Enzi, from Wyoming, for that statement. I wish more Senators would 
spend more time doing their homework on Federal judges. I think it is 
obvious in this case he has done a lot of homework on the judge. We 
should all do more, and he is certainly entitled to express that 
sentiment on the floor and he is entitled to a rollcall vote. I will 
certainly support him in that effort.

                          ____________________