[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S85-S86]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was unable to make my comments earlier 
involving the consideration and approval of the various judges. I would 
like to address the Senate for a few moments on this particular issue 
and, most importantly, to express the strong support for the three 
nominations that have just been confirmed by the Senate.
  Judge Silverman has served with distinction for the past three years 
on the federal district court in Arizona and will be an impressive 
member of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Richard Story, has 
served as a state court judge for many years, and will do an excellent 
job on the United States District Court in Northern Georgia.
  I am particularly pleased that at long last the Senate is allowed to 
consider the nomination of Judge Ann Aiken. She is an outstanding 
choice for the federal district court in Oregon. For the past decade, 
she has served with distinction as a state court judge--first on the 
district court and, for the past five years on the circuit court. She 
is widely respected in Oregon for her service to her community. She 
received the Woman of Achievement award in 1993 from the Oregon 
Commission for Women. The U.S. Department of Justice honored her in 
1994 for her leadership in helping victims of crime.
  But despite her impressive qualifications, her nomination has been 
stonewalled by Republicans in the Senate for more than two years.
  On the average, it is taking twice as long for Senate Republicans to 
confirm President Clinton's nominees as it took for Democrats to act on 
President Bush's nominations to the federal courts.
  For women, the problem is especially serious. Women nominated to 
federal judgeships are being subjected to greater delays by Senate 
Republicans than men.
  So far in this Republican Congress, women nominated to our federal 
courts are four times--four times--more likely than men to be held up 
by the Republican Senate for more than a year.
  Last year, the Senate confirmed 30 men, but only 6 women. So only 17 
percent of the nominees that the Republican leadership brought before 
the Senate were women--half as many as President Clinton nominated.

[[Page S86]]

  The country is paying a heavy price for this obstruction. Citizens 
can't get their day in court, because the Republican Senate is playing 
politics with the courts and preventing needed judicial positions from 
being filled.
  When even a Republican Chief Justice criticizes the Republican 
Congress, you know something's wrong.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist issued his annual year-end report on the 
State of the Judiciary last month, and he sharply criticized the 
Republican Senate for refusing to move more quickly to confirm judges.
  The Chief Justice is deeply concerned about the high number of 
judicial vacancies on the federal courts. There are too few judges to 
handle the workload.
  The Republican bottleneck in the Senate is jeopardizing the court 
system and undermining the quality of justice. Of the 77 judicial 
nominations pending last year, only 36 were confirmed--less than half. 
Eleven have been awaiting action for over 18 months.
  That's a scandal. Nominees deserve a vote. If our Republican 
colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't just sit on 
them--that's obstruction of justice.
  Free and full debate over judicial nominations is healthy. The 
Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the 
President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the 
Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements 
by voting on these nominees--yes or no. As Chief Justice Rehnquist said 
in his annual report, ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to 
confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time it should 
vote'' up or down.
  Some Republicans claim they are protecting the federal courts from 
``judicial activism.'' But this argument is a smokescreen. If President 
Clinton is actually nominating judicial activists, then why is it that 
these nominees are approved almost unanimously when the Senate is 
finally allowed to vote on them?
  Eric Clay's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was held 
up in the Senate for more than 15 months. He was finally confirmed--
unanimously--by voice vote.
  Joseph Battalion--President Clinton's nominee to the District Court 
of Nebraska--was held up for 17 months. Then he, too, finally passed 
the Senate on a voice vote.
  Other nominees were confirmed by overwhelming votes, but only after 
long delays. Katherine Sweeney Hayden was confirmed to the District 
Court in New Jersey by a vote of 97-0. Ronald L. Gilman's nomination to 
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Janet C. Hall's nomination to 
the District Court of Connecticut were each confirmed by a vote of 98-
1.
  The closest vote we have had on any of President Clinton's judicial 
nominees was 76 to 23 in favor of confirmation.
  Clearly, the Republicans' claim that Clinton judges are activist 
judges is a transparent smokescreen being used to slow down the 
confirmation process. The reason is obvious. The Republican majority in 
Congress is doing all it can to prevent a Democratic President from 
naming judges to the federal courts. The courts are suffering and so is 
the nation.
  In some areas of the country, people have to wait years to have their 
cases even heard in court. And then they have to wait years more for 
overburdened judges to find time to reach their decisions. Families, 
workers, small businesses, women and minorities have traditionally 
looked to the courts to resolve disputes. The lack of federal judges 
makes the swift resolution of their cases impossible.
  The number of cases filed in the federal appeals courts has grown by 
11 percent over the last six years. The average time between filing and 
disposition has also increased. Courts with long-standing vacancies are 
in even worse shape.
  In the District Court in Oregon, the court to which Ann Aiken has 
been nominated, the number of case filings has risen by nearly a third 
since 1990.
  Another nominee, Margaret Morrow has been nominated to the federal 
district court in Los Angeles, and I hope we will consider her 
nomination next week. Since 1994, the caseload in that court has grown 
by 15 percent. The time people have to wait for their civil cases to be 
resolved has increased by 11 percent. In that district, over 300 
pending civil cases are more than three years old.
  Real people are being hurt. Consider the case of Rudy Boerseker, a 
40-year-old mine worker in Illinois who was injured by poor maintenance 
of equipment. The facts of the case made clear that the accident 
resulted from the mining company's negligence. Yet Mr. Boerseker was 
finally forced to accept a settlement for less than half of what he 
would probably have received if the case had gone to trial.
  He agreed to an unfair settlement, because he could not afford to 
wait the three or four years it would take for the case to be decided.
  In the Southern District of Texas, 4,000 victims of a student loan 
scam are waiting for the outcome of a class action suit that has been 
pending for almost eight years.
  In South Carolina, there is still no decision in a suit filed more 
than six years ago against the state's apportionment laws. The outcome 
of this case will affect hundreds of thousands of citizens. It goes to 
the heart of whether the basic constitutional principle of ``one 
person, one vote'' is being fairly applied.
  In Southern Florida, Julio Vasquez--a U.S. citizen migrant worker--
broke his leg in 1989 in a boarding house provided by his employer. To 
this day, nearly nine years later, Mr. Vasquez has never received 
sufficient medical attention, and his injury affects his ability to 
work. He is still waiting for the judge's ruling in his case.
  In the District Court of Oregon, a five-million dollar judgment in 
favor a family business in a patent dispute with a Fortune 500 firm was 
tied up for more than a year because of the delays caused by two 
vacancies on the court.
  These examples are typical victims of the vacancy crisis in the 
federal courts.
  They are hard-working Americans injured on the job--citizens seeking 
to exercise their right to vote--students trying to get an education--
small businesses denied their rights by large corporations.
  It is time to end these delays and end these industries. It's a new 
year, and a new session, and I hope very much that our colleagues will 
turn over a new leaf and end these unreasonable, unacceptable, and 
unconscionable delays.

                          ____________________