[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.
____________________