[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S292-S297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  NOMINATIONS OF CARLOS R. MORENO, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND CHRISTINE O. 
  C. MILLER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED 
                     STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session to consider two nominations which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of Carlos R. 
Moreno, of California, to be United States District Judge for the 
Central District of California and Christine O. C. Miller, of the 
District of Columbia, to be a judge of the United States Court of 
Federal Claims.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to support the nominations 
of Carlos Moreno to the Federal district bench in the Central District 
of California and Christine O. Miller to the Court of Federal Claims.
  I plan to discuss in greater detail why I intend to support these 
judges' nominations, but first I would like to address some of the 
concerns that have been expressed with respect to the Senate's role in 
the confirmation of Federal judges.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most 
important duties I hold or fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. 
Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the 
President with advice concerning his nominees and to consent to their 
ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at 
which the Senate has moved on judicial nominees, I would note that this 
body has undertaken its constitutional obligation in a wholly 
appropriate fashion.
  Indeed, the first matter to come before the Senate this session was 
confirmation of three of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Senator 
Lott is to be commended for giving these nominees early attention. As 
well, the Judiciary Committee has announced judicial confirmation 
hearings for February 4 and February 25.
  In 1997, the first session of the 105th Congress, the Senate 
confirmed 36 judges. This is only slightly behind the historical 
average of 41 judges confirmed during the first sessions in each of the 
last five Congresses. And I would note the Judiciary Committee itself 
processed 47 nominees, including the two judges we are considering 
today.
  Currently, there are 88 judicial vacancies in the judiciary, 85 if 
the three nominees confirmed last week are included. In May 1992, 
however, when a Republican occupied the White House and the Democrats 
controlled the Senate, there were 117 vacancies on the Federal bench.
  In fact, there are more sitting Federal judges today than there were 
through virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. As of 
today, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 
senior judges who must, by law, hear cases, albeit with a reduced load. 
Ordinarily, when a judge decides to leave the bench, he or she does not 
completely retire, but instead takes senior status. A judge who takes 
senior status, as opposed to a judge who completely retires, must hear 
a certain number of cases each year. Thus, when a judge leaves the 
bench, he or she does not stop working altogether, he or she merely 
takes a somewhat reduced caseload.
  Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has 
actually stopped hearing cases. The others have all taken senior status 
and are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available 
to hear cases is 1,188, a record number of Federal judges.
  The Republican Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President 
Clinton's judicial nominees, and if the President continues to send us 
qualified nominees, I am sure that trend will continue. Let me say, 
however, that I will not vote to confirm judges who refuse to abide by 
the rule of law. In my view, that is the absolute minimal qualification 
an individual must have to serve as one of our lifetime-appointed 
Federal judges.
  Last year, I sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that 
kept it a fair and principled one, and exercised what I felt was the 
appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial nominees. 
It is in this spirit of fairness that I will vote to confirm Judge 
Miller and Judge Moreno.

[[Page S293]]

  Judge Moreno is currently a Los Angeles superior court judge. He was 
appointed to that position in 1993 by Governor Wilson. Prior to his 
current appointment, Judge Moreno served as a municipal court judge, 
worked as an associate in the L.A. firm of Kelley, Drye & Warren, and 
served as deputy city attorney in Los Angeles.
  Judge Miller currently serves on the Court of Federal Claims. She was 
appointed to that position in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Judge 
Miller, before her judicial appointment, worked at the law firms of 
Shack & Kimball, and then Hogan & Hartson. She also had the honor, 
after graduating from the Utah College of Law, of clerking for the 
Honorable David Lewis, a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
  I think both these individuals will serve the Federal bench well and, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to support them. I also would like to 
submit for the Record an editorial written by our leader, Senator Trent 
Lott, which appeared on February 2 in the Washington Post, also a 
letter I wrote to the ABA discussing the Senate's work in confirming 
nominees. I ask unanimous consent that both those documents be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 2, 1998]

                      Rehnquist's Rush to Judgment

                            (By Trent Lott)

       Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1997 year-end report has drawn 
     considerable press attention to the Senate's role in the 
     confirmation and appointment of federal judges. Good. It's 
     about time proper attention was given to these unique 
     government officials, who are appointed for life, paid 
     salaries that can run to nearly $145,000 and are provided 
     facilities and staff costing American taxpayers many millions 
     of dollars annually.
       And if the cost of these judgeships and the judiciary 
     bureaucracy isn't enough to cause concern, consider the fact 
     that many such lifetime-appointed judges actually attempt to 
     make law from the bench. This is especially troubling when 
     federal judges seek to impose taxes on the public or turn 
     criminals loose on society.
       The chief justice contends that federal judges are 
     underpaid and overworked and that the ``quality of justice'' 
     administered by the federal judiciary is in peril. He also 
     attempts to make an argument for more judges based on 
     statistics regarding, for example, the total caseload of all 
     district and circuit courts and the number of judicial 
     vacancies.
       Interestingly, Rehnquist chooses to omit statistics that 
     hurt his case. In his report, he notes that the ``Senate 
     confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 36 in 1997, well under 
     the 101 judges it confirmed during 1994.''
       True, the 17 judges confirmed in 1996 were certainly low as 
     compared with most other years. But in 1989, the Democrat-
     controlled Senate confirmed 15 of President George Bush's 
     nominees. Moreover, the chief justice's reference to 1994 and 
     the confirmation of 101 judges that year is inappropriate, 
     because the Democrats controlled the Senate and the 
     presidency that year. Historically, the number and pace of 
     confirmations lessen when one party holds the White House and 
     the other the Senate. The large number of vacancies on the 
     bench in 1994 allowed Clinton to nominate many more judges 
     than in an average year, which accounts for the large number 
     of confirmations.
       The chief justice also neglected to point out that Congress 
     has authorized an additional 250 judgeships since 1978 (now 
     totaling 849). Further, rather than retiring, many judges 
     take ``senior'' status, in which they continue to be paid, 
     have staff and decide cases. There are approximately 274 
     district and 82 circuit judges on ``senior'' 
     status, contributing to the reduction of the workload of 
     ``active'' judges.
       Almost every year, Congress receives a request from the 
     judiciary to add new judgeships to meet caseload increases. 
     The Committee on Long Range Planning of the Judicial 
     Conference projects that we will need 1,370 federal judges by 
     the year 2000, 2,350 judges by 2010 and 4,110 by 2020. 
     Clearly, the problems of caseload will have to be addressed 
     over the coming years. But merely creating new judgeships 
     will not provide solutions to such issues.
       The chief justice also focused on the number of vacancies--
     83--in the district and circuit courts. This number pales in 
     comparison with the 125 vacancies that occurred in 1993 
     during President Clinton's first year, when the Democrats 
     controlled the Senate. The chief also failed to mention that 
     President Clinton has not submitted nominees to the Senate 
     for 41 of these vacancies.
       Of the 13 nominees for circuit court judgeships, five were 
     went to the Senate less than 30 days from adjournment. Of the 
     28 district court nominees, three were sent to the Senate 
     within 30 days of adjournment, another three within 45 days 
     and one within 60 days of adjournment. Even the most partial 
     observers of the confirmation process recognize that more 
     than 60 days is required for investigation of a nominee's 
     education, experience and potential judicial temperament.
       As noted by the chief justice, the judiciary characterizes 
     26 of the current 83 vacancies that have existed for more 
     than 18 months as ``judicial emergencies.'' There appears to 
     be no basis for this characterization other than the length 
     of time the position has been vacant and the notion that 
     every authorized position urgently needs to be filled. In 
     fact, one vacant position in the 4th Circuit, authorized in 
     1990, has never been filled, and President Clinton has not 
     nominated anyone to it. By the same token, he submitted 
     nominees just last year for two Texas district court 
     positions vacant since being authorized in 1990.
       Clearly, the president did not view vacancies in any of 
     those positions as ``emergencies.'' In all, of the 26 
     ``emergencies,'' only 12 apparently are deemed important 
     enough that the president has submitted nominations fill 
     them.
       The pace of confirmation hasn't changed much in the Senate 
     since 1987. That was the year Democrats regained control of 
     the Senate and slowed the process of confirming Reagan 
     nominees. District court confirmations averaged 129 days and 
     circuit court confirmations 113 days in 1987. This pace 
     continued during the Bush administration, when Democrats 
     controlled the Senate. The experience of the Robert Bork, 
     Douglas Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas nominations to the 
     Supreme Court did much to further politicize an already 
     labor-intensive and time-consuming review process.
       The pace quickened in 1993 and '94, when President 
     Clinton's district court nominees were confirmed on average 
     within 74 days of referral to the Democrat-controlled Senate. 
     The pace naturally slowed again when Republicans regained 
     control of the Senate.
       The chief justice's dismal assessment of the judiciary is 
     not warranted. Congress will continue to closely monitor the 
     needs of the judiciary to fulfill its function as a separate 
     and equal branch of government. As a part of this process, 
     Congress will create and maintain such judgeships as are 
     necessary to empower the judiciary to accomplish the fair and 
     equal application of justice through the interpretation and 
     application of our laws.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 1998.
     Mr. Jerome Shestack,
     President, American Bar Association, Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear President Shestack: I am sorry that I could not attend 
     the American Bar Association's annual convention this year, 
     as I am at the World Economic Summit. I understand, however, 
     that Senator Patrick Leahy ably represents the Judiciary 
     Committee. Nevertheless, I thought it prudent to make you 
     aware of my views regarding the so-called judicial vacancies 
     issue, in which, I am sure, the ABA has great interest.
       As you are doubtless aware, Chief Justice William Rehnquist 
     recently released his annual report on the federal judiciary. 
     In that report, he noted, among other things, the need 
     expeditiously to fill vacancies on the federal bench. The 
     Chief Justice's comments were very similar to those made over 
     the years, including 1992, when he urged the Senate to 
     confirm more of President Bush's judicial nominees. 
     Interestingly, 117 vacancies existed May 1992, compared with 
     the 88 we have today.
       In 1997, the Senate confirmed 36 judges, only slightly 
     behind the historical average of 41 judges confirmed during 
     the first sessions in each of the last five Congresses. And 
     the Judiciary Committee itself processed 47 nominees during 
     the past session. There are currently more sitting judges 
     than there were throughout virtually all the Reagan and Bush 
     administrations. As of today, there are approximately 756 
     active federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior 
     judges who must continue to hear cases, albeit with a reduced 
     workload. That brings the total pool of federal judges 
     available to hear cases up to 1,188.
       Despite claims to the contrary, the Senate has confirmed 
     the vast majority of President Clinton's nominees, and I am 
     confident that we will continue on a steady course this 
     session. I am basically pleased with the pace at which the 
     Judiciary Committee and the Senate have acted on the 
     President's nominees. Indeed, one of the Senate's first items 
     of business this session was to confirm three judicial 
     nominees, including Ann Aiken, a controversial nominee whom I 
     supported. We can, of course, always improve. I am hoping 
     that the Committee will establish a good working relationship 
     with the White House in this new year.
       Such a relationship, however, does not mean that the 
     President has carte blanche to appoint judges. The 
     Constitution obligates the Senate to give advice to the 
     President on his nominees and ultimately to consent to them. 
     Under my stewardship, the Judiciary Committee will not simply 
     push nominees through just for the sake of filling 
     vacancies. Only recently, after the Judiciary Committee 
     had expeditiously reviewed and held hearings on two 
     nominees, did information surface that caused one of those 
     nominees to withdraw and that places the other's 
     confirmation prospects in question. If the Committee were 
     blindly to follow some sort of a timetable in processing 
     nominees, the federal bench would have been adversely 
     affected. Indeed, such a specific timetable could 
     encourage nominees to withhold relevant information from 
     the Committee in

[[Page S294]]

     the hope of forcing a vote. There is a good deal of 
     background research that must be done by the Committee 
     before it can send a nominee to the floor. If the 
     Committee fails to do its groundwork, it fails the Senate, 
     and thus prevents that body from fulfilling its 
     constitutional duty. I do not hold the President to any 
     sort of a timetable in selecting nominees; nor would I 
     expect others to place such burdens upon the Senate.
       I would further note that the Chief Justice's report did 
     not focus solely on judicial vacancies. In fact, the primary 
     focus of his remarks was the increase in the federal 
     judiciary's workload. The Chief Justice complimented Congress 
     on its efforts to reform federal habeas corpus procedures and 
     to streamline prison litigation suits--two measures that he 
     indicated would be of great benefit to the judiciary. As I 
     recall, these were legislative measures the ABA opposed. 
     Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the ABA will be supportive of 
     further efforts to improve the judicial process.
       In a similar vein, the Chief Justice expressed concern 
     about the expansion of federal jurisdiction. I hope in the 
     coming months to review the current status of federal 
     jurisdiction and to search for recommendations on how federal 
     courts might be freed from hearing cases more properly 
     brought in state courts. I think we must be vigilant in 
     searching for ways to utilize properly the federal courts' 
     limited resources.
       Last year, I sought to steer the confirmation process in a 
     way that kept it a fair and principled one, and exercised 
     what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the 
     President's judicial nominees. Yet, the solution to an 
     increased judicial workload should not be simply to add more 
     judges or for the Senate to be held to some sort of a 
     confirmation timetable. I am confident that the Committee 
     will stay the course and continue to exercise its 
     constitutional duty in an appropriate manner. Thank you for 
     considering my views.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                                                         Chariman.

  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am glad to be here with my good friend 
from Utah and welcome him back from a productive weekend.
  Last week, I commended the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 
scheduling the judicial confirmation hearing, the first of this year, 
for tomorrow afternoon, and I commend the chairman again. I note that 
he is following through on his earlier statement by including both 
Margaret McKeown of Washington State and Susan Oki Mollway of Hawaii at 
that hearing. They have each been pending for over 18 months, and it 
will be good to have their confirmation hearing.
  I hope we will maintain pace this year that was established during 
the last 9 weeks of the last session. In order to do that, I hope that 
in addition to these nominees we can proceed to confirm additional 
nominees for article III judicial vacancies before the end of the week.
  I am delighted the Senate is getting the opportunity to consider the 
nomination of Judge Carlos Moreno to the United States District Court 
for the Central District of California. He has been strongly supported 
by both Senators Feinstein and Boxer. They have both spoken to me about 
him and strongly support him.
  I have spoken often about the District Court of the Central District 
of California, its workload and the need to confirm qualified nominees 
for the judicial vacancies that persist and are arising on that Court. 
I have spoken most often about that Court in connection with the 
longstanding nomination of Margaret Morrow. It is my expectation that 
the Senate will fulfill the commitment it made last year and proceed to 
that nomination by the end of next week.
  Judge Moreno received his undergraduate education at Yale College and 
his law degree from Stanford Law School. He was a deputy city attorney 
in Los Angeles, as well as a municipal court judge before joining the 
Los Angeles Superior Court in 1993. Judge Moreno is currently serving 
the people of California as a Judge of the California Superior Court. 
He received high remarks from the American Bar Association and was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee on November 13, 1997, unanimously. 
I thank both the majority leader and my good friend from Utah for 
bringing him up this morning.
  Along with Judge Moreno currently pending on the Senate calendar are 
Ms. Morrow, two nominees for long-vacant judgeships in Illinois and a 
Pennsylvania State court judge. I hope that we have a strong bipartisan 
vote in his favor.
  I also expect that today the Senate will confirm the President's 
judgment in nominating and reappointing Judge Christine Miller to the 
Court of Claims. The President's nomination of Judge Miller was 
received last year before her first term expired, but the Senate failed 
to act on it before adjournment last fall.
  The President used his recess appointment power to reappoint Judge 
Miller and resubmitted her nomination. Today the Senate will reaffirm 
the President's action and confirm her to a full term.
  The Court of Claims is an important court. It is established by 
Congress under article I of the Constitution. No less than the Federal 
judiciary that is appointed to fill vacancies in the article III courts 
that we speak about so often, the vacancies on the Court of Claims 
should be filled and filled without delay.
  Madam President, I hope that the distinguished Senator from Utah and 
I will be allowed by our caucuses to move forward on judges as quickly 
as possible. I know there is support in mine to do that.
  Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from California on 
the floor and yield to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, and I 
thank the Presiding Officer. I also would like to begin by thanking the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for what was, by and 
large, a rapid and prompt processing of Carlos Moreno. I submitted the 
name of Carlos Moreno to the President for appointment to the District 
Court from the Central District of California. In a sense, Madam 
President, I believe he is prototypical of really what a good Federal 
judge should bring to that office. I would like to just quickly go over 
what is an amazing success story.
  Judge Moreno was born in East L.A., just 2 miles from the Federal 
courthouse where he will be serving. He has earned the respect and 
admiration of both the legal and the law community, and he has had 13 
years of service on the State courts. He has strong bipartisan support, 
including the endorsements of the former Governor George Deukmejian and 
Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block.
  As the chairman of the committee pointed out, he obtained his 
bachelor's degree from Yale in 1970 and his J.D. from Stanford in 1975. 
He began his legal career in the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles 
where he worked for 4 years, from 1975 to 1979.
  He prosecuted numerous jury trials, misdemeanor prosecutions, and 
criminal and civil consumer protection cases. He worked as a litigation 
attorney for 7 years, handling commercial litigation in State and 
Federal courts. So he has experience in both the civil as well as the 
criminal law. His caseload there included bankruptcy, wrongful 
termination, banking, real estate, and antitrust.
  In 1986 the Governor of California, George Deukmejian, appointed him 
to the municipal court. He served there for 7 years, handling 40 civil 
jury trials in addition to a regular criminal trial workload.
  In 1993, Governor Wilson elevated him to the California Superior 
Court where he served for the past 4 years. He averaged approximately 2 
dozen jury trials a year, at least a third of which have been 
homicides. The remainder have consisted of a broad range of felonies 
and he has presided over about a dozen bench trials per year.
  So, 13 years as a municipal and superior court judge. This year he 
was selected as the superior court judge of the year by the criminal 
law section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and was described 
as one who earns praise from both prosecutors and defense attorneys for 
his fair, even-tempered handling of a high-volume calendar of criminal 
cases. The large number of court trials he handles in which both sides, 
both sides, waive the jury and try the case before him is an indicator, 
I believe, of the trust he has received from opposing counsels.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record letters of support by George

[[Page S295]]

Deukmejian, former Governor; a letter from the District Attorney of Los 
Angeles County; and a letter from the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Los Angeles, CA,

                                                  October 6, 1997.
     Re Judge Carlos R. Moreno.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: It has come to my attention that Judge 
     Carlos Moreno has been nominated for an appointment to the 
     U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
       In 1986, it was my pleasure to appoint him to the Compton 
     Municipal Court and in 1993 he was appointed by Governor Pete 
     Wilson to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
       It is my understanding that he has performed in an 
     exemplary manner as a Municipal and Superior Court Judge and 
     has a clear perception of the importance of maintaining a 
     judicial system that insures fairness and social order.
       Judge Moreno is well suited for this position. I am 
     confident that he has the appropriate judicial skills and in 
     light of his qualifications, I hope you will give him every 
     consideration for appointment to the U.S. District Court.
           Most cordially,
                                                George Deukmejian,
     35th Governor of California.
                                  ____

                                                Los Angeles County


                                            District Attorney,

                                     Los Angeles, CA, May 2, 1997.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator, San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Dianne: Superior Court Judge Carlos R. Moreno has 
     informed me that he is seeking an appointment to the U.S. 
     District Court for the Central District of California, and I 
     am writing to strongly recommend his nomination and 
     confirmation.
       Although Judge Moreno is not a personal acquaintance of 
     mine, I have had the opportunity to personally interview him 
     and to speak with several of my colleagues who have appeared 
     before him on many occasions. All of the persons I contacted 
     were effusive in their praise of the professional attributes 
     that Judge Moreno brings to the bench as a Superior Court 
     trial judge: he is fair, bright, willing to read with care 
     the lawyers' written motions, control his courtroom, and give 
     both sides fair hearings in his court. In addition, he 
     apparently relishes legal research and thoroughly 
     familiarizes himself with the issues of a case before he 
     gives a decision--a quality which would serve him well on the 
     Federal bench.
       I do not make recommendations on behalf of those seeking 
     appointments lightly, and in fact, I turn down most requests. 
     However, the level of support and enthusiasm expressed by my 
     colleagues on behalf of Judge Moreno prompted me to agree to 
     interview him, and I found him during the interview to have 
     the personal attributes that I had been told he displays on a 
     daily basis in his court. I am confident Carlos Moreno would 
     serve as a District Court judge with distinction, and I 
     believe his appointment would be beneficial to the citizens 
     of California.
           Very truly yours,


                                                 Gil Garcetti,

     District Attorney.
                                  ____

                                            County of Los Angeles,
                                Monterey Park, CA, April 23, 1997.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Dianne: It has come to my attention that Los Angeles 
     County Superior Court Judge Carlos R. Moreno has indicated 
     his desire to be appointed a United States District Court 
     Judge for the Central District of California. I am pleased 
     and honored to give him my personal endorsement.
       Judge Moreno has an extensive criminal justice background. 
     He has been a Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 
     County since November of 1993. Prior to that, Judge Moreno 
     was a City Attorney with the City of Los Angeles from 1975 to 
     1979 where he handled criminal and civil consumer protection 
     prosecutions and legislative and politically sensitive 
     matters. He was a member of the law firm of Kelley, Drye & 
     Warren from 1979 to 1986, and in October 1986 Judge Moreno 
     was elected Judge of the Municipal Court. He held that seat 
     until his appointment to the Superior Court in 1993. 
     Throughout his tenure on the bench, he has continually 
     demonstrated the prerequisite abilities necessary to be a 
     fair, impartial, and knowledgeable jurist.
       Judge Moreno is an extremely hard working individual of 
     impeccable character and integrity. His list of credits, both 
     professionally and within the community, is extensive.
       I would like to recommend that you favorably consider his 
     appointment. I have no doubt that he would be a distinguished 
     addition to the United States District Court.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Sherman Block,
                                                          Sheriff.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, to sum it up, I believe we have a 
man among men, a fine jurist, a fine attorney, skilled and 
knowledgeable in both criminal and civil law. This is the reason I 
respectfully submit him as someone who is really prototypical of the 
kind and type of background that one might bring to the Federal 
district court.
  I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman for the rapid 
processing of this distinguished nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support the nominations of 
Carlos Moreno and Christine Miller to serve as federal judges.
  Judge Moreno is superbly qualified to serve as a federal judge in the 
Central District of California. He is a graduate of Yale University, 
Harvard Business School, and Stanford Law School. Currently, he is a 
judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. As a member of that court's 
Trial Delay Reduction Committee he was instrumental in establishing and 
enforcing policies that successfully reduced trial backlogs in Los 
Angeles County. At a time when lengthy backlogs are also plaguing the 
federal courts, Judge Moreno's experience will be an important asset 
for California's Central District Court.
  Judge Miller is also well qualified to continue her service on the 
United States Court of Federal Claims. She has served on that court for 
the past fifteen years, and President Clinton's nomination of her for a 
second fifteen-year term is a tribute to her ability and leadership.
  I also want to take this opportunity to express my concern that the 
Senate has still not had a chance to vote on the nomination of Margaret 
Morrow to the federal district court for the Central District of 
California. Ms. Morrow was first nominated in May 1996. She was 
approved by the Judiciary Committee in June last year, and it is long 
past time for the Senate to vote on her nomination.
  On 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. But I am especially concerned about the 
Republicans' record of subjecting women who are nominated for federal 
judgeships to far greater delays than men.
  Women nominated to the 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. And, by 
confirming only 36 judges, the Senate condemned many of our nation's 
busiest courts to even lengthier delays in processing their civil 
cases.
  There is no question that Margaret Morrow possesses the necessary 
qualifications to be confirmed. She is a Harvard-educated attorney and 
a partner in a prestigious California law firm. She is the first woman 
to serve as the president of the California Bar Association. She is a 
well-respected attorney and a role model for women in the legal 
profession.
  Yet action on her nomination has been delayed--like nine other 
nominees who have been waiting for more than 18 months--because the 
Republicans are playing politics and preventing needed judicial 
positions from being filled.
  When even a Republican Chief Justice criticizes the Republican 
Congress for refusing to move more quickly to confirm judges, you know 
something's wrong. The Chief Justice is deeply concerned about the 
large number of judicial vacancies on the federal courts. There are too 
few judges to handle the workload.
  The bottleneck in the Senate is jeopardizing the court system and 
undermining the quality of justice. Fewer than half of President 
Clinton's nominees have been confirmed.
  We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a 
vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. 
But give them a vote.
  The distinguished majority leader has rightly noted that the process 
of confirming judges is time-consuming. The Senate should take care to 
ensure that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the 
Senate are confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. 
But it should not take longer to consider women than it does to 
consider men.

[[Page S296]]

  Some Republicans claim they have slowed the confirmation process to 
protect 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 
overwhelmingly when the Senate is finally allowed to vote on them? The 
closest vote that we have had on any nominee in this Congress was the 
76 to 30 vote in favor of Ann Aiken last week.
  The claim that Clinton judges are activist judges is a transparent 
ruse 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 issue 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 California's Central District Court, the Court to which both 
Carlos Moreno and Margaret Morrow have been nominated, the caseload has 
grown by 15 percent since 1994. 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.
  Across the country, real people are being hurt. In the Central 
District of Illinois, a disabled Vietnam veteran who was fired after 
enduring harassment from his co-workers has been waiting over three and 
a half years for a resolution to his case.
  In the Southern District of Texas, 4,000 victims of a student loan 
fraud are waiting for the outcome of a class action suit that has been 
pending for almost eight years.
  In the District Court of 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. The last communication the lead plaintiff received from the 
Court was in June of last year.
  In the Southern District of 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.
  These 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--disabled veterans searching for justice.
  I commend my colleagues for bringing two distinguished nominees to a 
vote today. I hope with this new year we will see a new day in moving 
ahead to fill the vacancies in our courts and end these unconscionable 
delays.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on these judges today, I learned long 
ago, and certainly have had it reiterated during my 23 years in the 
Senate, that it is not always wise to predict the outcome of votes. I 
have been surprised before both pleasantly and unpleasantly. I have 
been surprised at some I thought might pass and failed to pass, and 
other times have had a very pleasant surprise to find something did 
pass when I didn't expect it to.
  I think it is safe to say--and I believe there will be bipartisan 
consensus on this--that these judges' nominations will pass 
overwhelmingly, which is usually what happens with a judgeship.
  Starting this year we have proceeded on more judicial nominations in 
the first couple of weeks this session than we did over the course of 
the first months last year.
  I hope that we have strong bipartisan votes on these judgeships 
today. It will signal that the Senate is moving forward and that we 
will make progress to help fill the vacancies that plague the Federal 
judiciary. Today, there are 86 vacancies on the Federal courts. After 
these favorable votes, we will have 54 nominees pending before the 
Senate in need of our prompt attention. I have spoken with President 
Clinton on a couple of occasions recently, urging the White House to 
move quickly in sending up further nominations, and they are. We saw 
that on the first day that we came back when a dozen new nominations 
came up. We have 55 nominees pending. Almost two-thirds of the current 
vacancies have nominees pending to fill them.
  Now I think it is time to say that for whatever reasons--political, 
ideological or otherwise, for whatever reasons--the Senate went slowly 
last year on nominations. The distinguished chairman and I want to be 
allowed by our respective caucuses to move forward, fulfilling our 
roles as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to 
move nominations forward.
  I do not question the integrity of the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, who has worked very hard on this, and has on more than one 
occasion strongly supported somebody who would not have been his 
nominee had he been the one appointing; in the same way, I have 
strongly supported nominees of past Presidents who would not have been 
mine had I been the person making the nominations. But in both 
instances, the Senator from Utah and I looked at a man or a woman of 
high qualifications, of good legal background, perhaps of a different 
background than our own, but somebody who would serve the interests of 
justice well, and we have pushed forward for their confirmation.
  I hope, so that the U.S. Senate does not send the wrong image to the 
Judiciary and to the American people, that we would be able to move 
forward in the way the Senator from Utah and I have preferred to work 
in the past and move these judges, vote them in or vote them down.
  I am not suggesting to any Senator how he or she should vote. If they 
do not like a nominee, vote against that nominee. Give us a chance to 
vote on them, vote them up or vote them down, but keep the Federal 
Judiciary out of politics.
  It is, after all, one of the linchpins of our democracy, this great 
democracy. We are the third most populous country in the world, the 
most powerful nation on Earth, the most powerful democracy history has 
ever known. We maintain that power as a democracy and not a 
totalitarian society. We maintain it largely because of the integrity 
and independence of our Federal Judiciary. They act as a break on a 
runaway Executive or a runaway Congress because what they hold is their 
great shield and great bulwark. The Constitution of the United States 
is something that stands above all of us, whether as Members of the 
Congress, the Executive Branch or the Judiciary itself.
  We need their integrity and we need their independence. With it, we 
guarantee the diversity of thought and the diversity of action that 
protects our freedoms and our democracy--in this case, the greatest 
democracy on Earth.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on each of 
the nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Vote on Nomination of Carlos R. Moreno

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Carlos R. Moreno, of California, to be 
United States District Judge for the Central District of California.

[[Page S297]]

  The clerk will call the roll on the first nomination.
  The assistant 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 Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     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
     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
     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--4

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Coats
     Moynihan
  The nomination was confirmed.


         Vote on the Nomination of Judge Christine O. C. Miller

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Christine O. C. Miller, of the District of 
Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims? 
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 Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote aye.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     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
     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
     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--4

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Coats
     Moynihan
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________