[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S628-S635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF FREDERICA A. MASSIAH-JACKSON, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE U.S. 
        DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion on the 
judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Massiah-Jackson. 
Within the past 24 hours, I and Senator Specter have been talking to 
the majority leader, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to 
those who are in opposition to her nomination in an attempt to resolve 
a lot of issues. And what Senator Specter and I have referred to, to 
complete this process of consideration in what we believe is the only 
fair way to do so, is to have an additional hearing for her to be able 
to respond to the information that has been presented so publicly now 
to the Congress and the Senate with respect to her nomination.
  The majority leader is intending to come down in the next 15, 20 
minutes to make a statement, which I fully support, and I know Senator 
Specter supports, which will, in a sense, move this nomination aside 
for now and have this nominee be given the opportunity to appear before 
the Judiciary Committee and answer this new information, or respond to 
the questions of members of the Judiciary Committee.
  That is all I have been asking for since the leader scheduled this 
nomination. I am hopeful that after we go out on recess next week, 
there will be scheduled a Judiciary Committee meeting for people who 
have provided the information to present that information formally to 
the committee, be questioned by committee members, and then for Judge 
Massiah-Jackson to have the opportunity to answer the charges that have 
been leveled against her.
  That will complete, in my mind, the process of fair consideration.
  Her nomination will remain here on the floor. It will remain on the 
Executive Calendar, and subsequent to the hearing, the majority leader 
will call the nomination up for a vote at that time.
  That is, again, all I have been requesting from the leader--is to 
give this process time to play out, fairness dictating the order of the 
day, and then give the Senate the opportunity to pass judgment as to 
whether we believe that she should be a judge in the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania.
  So I see this as a very favorable resolution of what I have been 
asking for in the past 24 hours.
  I thank the majority leader for his patience. This has been somewhat 
of a difficult ordeal having to juggle all the different sides on this 
issue.
  I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his willingness 
to hold another hearing. He knows that he has not been formally 
requested to do so by the Senate but has volunteered to make the 
committee available to further give Judge Massiah-Jackson the 
opportunity to respond to this new information that has been provided.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri has more to say on 
this nomination. He is ready to go. So I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to continue to explain the basis 
for my opposition to the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson to be 
a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  Although I have already spent time on the floor detailing this 
nominee's record, I think it is important and valuable to spend the 
time necessary to demonstrate the serious flaws of this

[[Page S629]]

nominee and to also highlight the caliber of the nominees that we are 
receiving from the President of the United States.
  There are a number of categories into which my objections to this 
nomination might fall.
  One would be a disrespect for the court and its environment, perhaps 
most clearly typified by the willingness of this nominee to use 
profanity in the courtroom.
  No. 2, a contempt for prosecutors and police officers that is 
evidenced in the way she has treated them and handled them as they have 
appeared in court and the way in which she has handled evidence 
assembled by those officers.
  Those are two major problems that I have with this particular 
nominee.
  No. 3, the concept of leniency in sentencing; the effort made by this 
nominee as a judge in the State of Pennsylvania to reduce the sentences 
which were given to those who had been convicted of crimes is notable. 
It has, as a matter of fact, even caught the attention of the appellate 
courts at which time those sentences have been reversed.
  These are among the most important factors that lead me to the 
conclusion that Judge Massiah-Jackson should not be confirmed as a 
United States district court judge.
  She should not be considered for a lifetime responsibility in 
administering justice in the United States of America; that in the 
event that the President refuses to withdraw this nomination, which he 
should do, that the Senate of the United States of America should 
reject this nomination.
  Let me just go through some of these points in order to establish a 
factual basis for these conclusions supporting the categories which I 
have mentioned.
  First is the contempt for prosecutors and police officers that Judge 
Massiah-Jackson has evidenced in the conduct of her responsibilities as 
a judge in Pennsylvania.
  In the case of Commonwealth v. Ruiz, Judge Massiah-Jackson acquitted 
a man accused of possessing $400,000 worth of cocaine because she did 
not believe the testimony of two undercover police officers, Detective-
Sergeant Daniel Rodriguez and Detective Terrance Jones. It was the 
second time she had acquitted alleged drug dealers nabbed by the same 
officers. The first time, the two undercover officers testified that 
they found two bundles of heroin on a table right next to the 
defendant's hand. The judge not only refused to believe this testimony, 
she went one step further. As the officers were leaving the courtroom, 
the judge reportedly told spectators in the court: ``Take a good look 
at these guys [the undercover officers] and be careful out there.''
  This identification by the judge was reported in the Philadelphia 
Inquirer.
  Detective-Sergeant Daniel Rodriguez confirmed this outrageous 
courtroom incident in a signed letter to the U.S. Senate. The 
detective-sergeant had the following comments regarding the incident, 
and I quote:

       I thought, ``I hope I don't ever have to make buys from 
     anyone in this courtroom.'' They would know me, but I 
     wouldn't know them. What the judge said jeopardized our 
     ability to make buys. And it put us in physical danger.

  I really believe that this officer sincerely wrote that letter and 
that he intended for the letter to say exactly what it said and that he 
felt the sense of physical danger that was occasioned by the special 
identification that the judge had made of him and another police 
officer.
  Detective Terrance Jones, the other undercover officer that was 
identified by Judge Massiah-Jackson in open court, according to the 
Philadelphia Inquirer, also confirmed the facts in a signed statement 
to the committee staff. He stated that the comments ``jeopardized our 
lives.'' Detective Jones also notes:

       As a law enforcement officer who happens to be African 
     American I am appalled that self-interest groups and the 
     media are trying to make the Massiah-Jackson controversy into 
     a racial issue. This is not about race. This is about the 
     best candidate for the position of Federal judge.

  Let me go to another case, the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks. In this 
case, in an action that led to a reversal by the appellate court, Judge 
Massiah-Jackson dismissed charges against the defendant on her own 
motion.
  Although the prosecution was prepared to proceed, the defense was not 
ready because it was missing a witness--a police officer who was 
scheduled to testify for the defense apparently had not received the 
subpoena. The defense requested a continuance to clear up the mixup 
concerning the subpoena. The commonwealth stated that it had issued the 
subpoena. The defense did not allege any wrongdoing or failure to act 
on the part of the commonwealth. Nonetheless, without any evidence or 
prompting from defense counsel, Judge Massiah-Jackson decided she 
simply did not believe that the commonwealth's attorney subpoenaed the 
necessary witness. Judge Massiah-Jackson held the commonwealth liable 
for the defense's lack of preparation for its own unpreparedness, and 
Judge Massiah-Jackson, on the motion of the court, dismissed the case 
without even the suggestion from the defense that the case should be 
dismissed. The facts ultimately revealed that the subpoena had been 
issued, but the officer was on vacation and had not received it. It was 
not the fault of the commonwealth. Judge Massiah-Jackson's decision was 
reversed on appeal as an abuse of discretion. The appellate court 
concluded that, ``Having carefully reviewed the record, we are unable 
to determine the basis for the trial court's decision to discharge the 
defendant. Indeed the trial court was unable to justify its decision by 
citation to rule or law.''

  There is a lot of discussion about whether we need to send this 
nomination back for additional information and for hearings before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  This particular case, for instance, was discussed at the hearing. 
When asked by a Senator if she had any comment or explanation of the 
situation, Judge Massiah-Jackson just replied, ``No, Senator, I 
don't.''
  It occurs to me that it is not necessary to reconvene the committee 
and to move this matter back from the floor of the Senate asking that 
there be opportunities for explanations for cases like that when those 
opportunities were available then.
  Commonwealth v. Hannibal is a case that is demonstrative of this 
particular nominee's lack of judicial temperament.
  In court, in response to prosecutor's attempt to be afforded an 
opportunity to be heard, the following exchange took place on the 
record:

       The Court. Please keep quiet, Ms. McDermott.
       Ms. McDermott for the Commonwealth: Will I be afforded----
       The Court. Ms. McDermott, will you shut your f***ing mouth.

  That is from the transcript of June 25, 1985, at page 17.
  Judge Massiah-Jackson was formally admonished by the Judicial Inquiry 
and Review Board for using intemperate language in the courtroom. This 
incident, incidentally, was also discussed by the committee with the 
judge, and the conduct was admitted.
  In the case of Commonwealth v. Burgos and Commonwealth v. Rivera, 
during a sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor told Judge Massiah-
Jackson that she had forgotten to inform one of the defendants of the 
consequences of failing to file a timely appeal. Of course, such a 
failure would prejudice the commonwealth on appeal. Judge Massiah-
Jackson responded to this legal argument with profanity, stating, ``I 
don't give a [expletive deleted].'' This incident was discussed at the 
committee hearing, and the conduct was also admitted.
  District Attorney Morganelli of Northampton County, PA, has suggested 
that the reason there are not more instances of foul language on the 
record is that Judge Massiah-Jackson's principal court reporter 
routinely ``sanitized the record.''
  It does not appear to be a coincidence that both of these profane 
outbursts were directed at prosecutors. Instead, Judge Massiah-
Jackson's foul language appears to be part and parcel of her hostility 
to law enforcement.
  Let me move to the issue of the leniency in sentencing which has been 
characteristic, I believe, of this judge's record. In the case of 
Commonwealth v. Freeman, the defendant shot and wounded a Mr. Fuller in 
the chest because Mr. Fuller had laughed at him. Judge Massiah-Jackson 
convicted the defendant of misdemeanor instead of felony aggravated 
assault. She sentenced him to do 2 to 23 months and

[[Page S630]]

then immediately paroled him so that he did not have to serve jail 
time. The felony charge would have had a mandatory 5- to 10-year prison 
term. Judge Massiah-Jackson explained her decision stating, ``The 
victim had been drinking before being shot,'' and the defendant ``had 
not been involved in any other crime since the incident.''
  Here we have an individual who shoots another individual, and this 
judge not only makes it a misdemeanor so that the sentence can be 
reduced from a minimum of 5 to 10 years to 2 to 23 months, but then 
paroles immediately the individual so that no jail time is served after 
the conviction. The judge explains this behavior saying that the person 
who had been shot had been drinking as if somehow, I guess, if you are 
drinking you are eligible to be shot; and that the defendant ``had not 
been involved in any other crime since the incident.''
  This case was not discussed at the hearing. No appeal was taken from 
this case.
  In the case of Commonwealth v. Burgos, during a raid on the 
defendant's house, police seized more than 2 pounds of cocaine along 
with evidence that the house was a distribution center.
  The defendant, Mouin Burgos, was convicted. Judge Massiah-Jackson 
sentenced the defendant to only 1 year's probation.
  Then District Attorney Ronald Castille criticized Judge Massiah-
Jackson's sentence as ``defying logic'' and being ``totally bizarre.'' 
He commented, ``This judge just sits in her ivory tower * * * She ought 
to walk along the streets some night and get a dose of what is really 
going on out there. She should have sentenced these people to what they 
deserve.''
  This case was discussed at the hearing, and Senators and the judge 
had an opportunity to explain their positions. No appeal was taken from 
this case.
  In the case of Commonwealth v. Williams, a first-degree robbery, 
unreported sentencing reversal case, I would like to provide just one 
more example of Judge Massiah-Jackson's leniency in sentencing, an 
example that I think is also relevant to whether we should have another 
hearing on this nominee.
  In the case of Commonwealth v. Williams, the defendant robbed a 47-
year old woman on the street at the point of a razor. The defendant 
used the razor to slash the woman's neck and arms and took her purse. 
The defendant had to undergo surgery to repair the slashed tendons in 
her hand and was forced to wear a splintering device that pulled her 
thumb back to her wrist. The defendant pled guilty to first-degree 
robbery. Under the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines, that offense 
carries a range of 4 to 7 years, with a mitigated range of 3\1/4\ to 5 
years. Despite these sentencing ranges, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced 
the defendant to a mere 11\1/2\ to 23 months. In order to do so, Judge 
Massiah-Jackson not only had to deviate substantially below the 
guidelines range but also had to ignore a mandatory weapons enhancement 
that raises the minimum sentence 1 to 2 years. The Commonwealth did 
appeal this meager sentence, and Judge Massiah-Jackson was reversed for 
her sentencing errors.
  Now, this decision is important not only because it demonstrates her 
leniency in sentencing but also because of what it says about the 
equity of giving Ms. Massiah-Jackson an additional hearing. We have 
heard a lot about Judge Massiah-Jackson's right to be heard and have 
been given the impression that she has been the victim of sandbagging 
by her opponents. It is true that there is information that was not 
available at the time of the committee's hearing. This sentencing case, 
for example, was not addressed at the hearing. But why wasn't it 
addressed at the hearing? That is no one's fault but Judge Massiah-
Jackson.
  The committee's standard questionnaire asks every candidate to list 
any judicial decisions which were reversed on appeal. Judge Massiah-
Jackson failed to list this case. Indeed, she testified that she had 
never been reversed on a sentencing appeal. So if this case wasn't 
debated or discussed at the hearing, it wasn't debated or discussed 
because at the hearing she had failed to disclose this when the 
committee had requested that she disclose it, and when asked 
additionally if there were cases like this upon which she had been 
reversed she informed the committee that she had not been reversed on 
sentencing appeal when in fact this case represented such a reversal.
  Now, it seems ironic to me that when we finally find out about the 
existence of those things which she said did not exist, she should be 
accorded a second hearing now to explain that which she failed to 
disclose. I think that is a serious problem. This is not only a 
failure-to-disclose problem but this is the disclosure of something 
which was specifically denied in the hearing.
  I make this point to make clear that this is not just a simple matter 
of giving someone a right to confront new allegations. She had the 
opportunity to respond to the allegations in this setting by providing 
the evidence in the first instance, or the case or the notification 
that she had been reversed on appeal, and in the second instance by not 
denying that she had ever been reversed on appeal. It strikes me that 
we are creating a troubling precedent by affording nominees a second 
hearing at least in part to explain materials that were requested prior 
to the first hearing.
  Let me move on to the case of Commonwealth v. Smith. This is leniency 
not just in sentencing but a predisposition on the part of this judge 
to suppress evidence and to do so improperly.
  Judge Massiah-Jackson has also demonstrated leniency in improperly 
suppressing evidence. The case that perhaps most dramatically 
illustrates this point is Commonwealth v. Smith, a case discussed by 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Chamber yesterday. It is 
a case that I also mentioned.
  In this tragic case, the victim, a 13-year-old boy, was raped at 
knifepoint in some bushes near a hospital. Eventually, the young boy 
managed to run away from his assailant nude and bleeding. Two nurses at 
the hospital saw him, and he told them what had happened, pointing out 
the bushes where he was attacked. The two nurses called the hospital 
security guards. They saw the defendant in the case emerge from the 
bushes with his clothing disheveled and then saw him walk quickly away. 
The women yelled out for the man to stop, and the police arrived on the 
scene and apprehended the defendant.

  The defendant denied raping the boy, but the police searched him and 
found a knife matching the description of that used in the rape. At 
that point the police arrested the defendant. Shockingly, Judge 
Massiah-Jackson ruled that the police lacked probable cause to arrest 
the defendant and suppressed all evidence, including the identification 
of the defendant by the two nurses.
  Now, not surprisingly, the appellate court, when confronted with this 
dubious judgment, reversed Judge Massiah-Jackson.
  So the situation is this, that Massiah-Jackson, lenient in 
suppressing evidence, was reversed by the appellate court. It has been 
pointed out, and I would thank Senator Specter for having so pointed 
out, that after a remand to the trial court the defendant was acquitted 
in a new trial before a different judge. But what seems to have 
received less attention is that all this occurred after Judge Massiah-
Jackson was reversed by the appellate court. Unlike the second judge 
who conducted a full trial, Judge Massiah-Jackson threw out the 
evidence on the ground that the police lacked even probable cause to 
arrest the defendant despite his proximity to the crime scene and the 
victim, and the other facts that are attendant thereto, including the 
identification by the individuals who were there at the time of his 
arrest. It is, of course, one thing to acquit someone after a trial but 
the notion that the police officers did not even have probable cause to 
arrest the defendant is just shocking, and the appellate court agreed.
  And the litany, incidentally, of illustrations regarding leniency in 
sentencing could go on. Last year there were 50 separate cases that 
were singled out just as exemplary of this leniency, but that was just 
last year. And organizations, law enforcement organizations, 
organizations that serve the culture by providing the safety and 
security for persons and their property which defines a civilized 
culture, have come out saying this individual should not be

[[Page S631]]

confirmed as a U.S. district court judge.
  The Philadelphia Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police announced its 
opposition to the confirmation of Massiah-Jackson on January 13 of this 
year. And just yesterday I had the privilege of attending a press 
conference in which Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police President 
Richard Costello made his opposition to this nominee unmistakably 
clear. The National Fraternal Order of Police announced its opposition 
on January 20. In coming out against this nominee, here is what the 
National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, Gilbert Gallegos, 
stated: ``Judge Massiah-Jackson has no business sitting on any bench, 
let alone a Federal bench.''
  After describing the incident in which Judge Massiah-Jackson pointed 
out undercover police officers in open court, Mr. Gallegos stated, ``I 
cannot adequately express my outrage.'' The National Fraternal Order of 
Police President concluded, ``To confirm Judge Massiah-Jackson would be 
an affront to every law enforcement officer and prosecutor in the 
Nation, all of whom have a herculean task of fighting crime. We 
shouldn't have to have [both] the judges and the criminals against 
us.''
  I note the presence of the majority leader in the Chamber, Mr. 
President, and I would gladly yield to the majority leader with the 
understanding that at the conclusion of his remarks my right to speak 
in the Chamber be retained.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity now to discuss 
this nomination with Senators on both sides of the aisle and those who 
did support her and certainly those who are opposed to this nomination. 
I think that we should not go forward to a vote at this time since 
there are very serious allegations out there. I am convinced they are 
true; I am convinced this nomination should not go forward; and I would 
urge at this point the President withdraw this nomination because 
clearly this nominee has very serious problems, conduct on the bench 
that is certainly inappropriate and a number of concerns about the 
nominee's attitude toward prosecutors and toward law enforcement. 
Clearly this is the type of nomination that should not be confirmed. 
But so that some of these articles, some of the cases, some of the 
suggestions that are now in the public arena can be properly looked 
into, I thought the best thing to do at this time would be to not go 
forward with a vote and allow time for the committee to have a hearing 
on the problems that have been identified. I don't think it can be 
disposed of in the near future.
  Having said that, I understand the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee will be conducting an additional hearing on the nominee 
sometime when we return from the recess we are about to go into at the 
close of business on Thursday or Friday. So we can see what that 
hearing turns up. But I think that no further action can be taken at 
this time. I thank all Senators for their consideration and will yield 
the floor to the Senator from Missouri. I appreciate him yielding me 
this time. And I know that the Senators from Pennsylvania will both 
seek recognition so that they can comment on the present status of this 
nominee.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe the Senator from Missouri still has 
the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak in response to the majority leader for up to 1 
minute.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri does have the floor.
  Does the Senator from Missouri object to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania an opportunity to make brief remarks, and that is the 
reason I placed the quorum call, for an opportunity to make that offer.
  The nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson is a nomination which I 
think should call us each to a very serious consideration of our 
responsibilities here in the U.S. Senate. Judges who are appointed for 
life, who really do not answer to the voters, do not answer to the 
administration or the executive branch, have a very high degree of 
power in the culture and we should be very careful about the 
individuals that we endow with the authority of becoming Federal 
judges. The National Association of Police Organizations understands 
that and the National Association of Police Organizations announced its 
opposition on January 22, to this nominee.
  Further, there is opposition from the local law enforcement community 
in Philadelphia, opposition from individuals that one would not expect 
to ordinarily oppose a nominee except in extraordinary situations: 
Lynne Abraham, who is the district attorney in the Philadelphia area--a 
Democrat, someone you would expect to be aligned with the President and 
his nominations--at great political cost, with substantial display of 
putting the benefit of the community in Philadelphia above party 
loyalty, came out against the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson 
in a letter to Senator Specter, at least that is my information, on 
January 8. She wrote:

       My position on this nominee goes well beyond mere 
     differences of opinion, or judicial philosophy. Instead, this 
     nominee's record presents multiple instances of deeply 
     ingrained and pervasive bias against prosecutors and law 
     enforcement officers--and, by extension, an insensitivity to 
     victims of crime. Moreover, the nominee's judicial demeanor 
     and courtroom conduct, in my judgment, undermines respect for 
     the rule of law and, instead, tends to bring the law into 
     disrepute.
       This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances 
     of demonstrated leniency towards criminals, an adversarial 
     attitude towards police and disrespect toward prosecutors 
     unmatched by any other present or former jurist with whom I 
     am familiar.

  That is a very serious charge from the prosecutor, someone of the 
same party as the President who nominates this judge. I quote again:

       This nominee's judicial service is replete with [full of] 
     instances of demonstrated leniency toward criminals, an 
     adversarial attitude toward police and disrespect toward 
     prosecutors unmatched by any other present or former jurist 
     with whom I am familiar.

  The words ``full of'' were my amplification. Her text did not include 
that.
  Other local law enforcement officials who feel that this is a 
nomination which should not go forward--the Northampton County District 
Attorney, John Morganelli, another Democrat, announced his all-out 
opposition to this nomination on January 6, 1998. Mr. Morganelli 
provided members of the committee with a letter detailing the numerous 
incidents of unprofessional conduct that have marked Judge Massiah-
Jackson's tenure on the State trial bench. The concluding paragraphs of 
that letter are worth quoting at length:

       [The] record is one of an unusually adversarial attitude 
     toward the prosecution and police. Much personal animosity 
     towards prosecutors and police in general. Other portions of 
     her record indicate a tendency to be lenient with respect to 
     criminal defendants.

  I continue with his letter:

       This judge sat as a fact finder in the vast majority of her 
     cases because criminal defendants almost always felt it 
     advantageous to  waive  their  right  to  a  jury  trial  in 
     order to present their case directly to the judge. * * * In 
     addition, she has shown a lack of judicial temperament with 
     respect to vulgar language from the bench on the record and 
     much of it off the record. Also, as indicated above, Judge 
     Massiah-Jackson has attempted to meddle with the appellate 
     process in Pennsylvania by contacting appellate courts and 
     improperly attempting to influence appellate decisions. Her 
     comments,

[[Page S632]]

     conduct, record and lack of judicial temperament by itself 
     should call into question her stature to serve as a Federal 
     Judge.
       Numerous District Attorneys and police organizations in the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania oppose this nomination as a slap 
     in the face to the law enforcement community.

  That is the conclusion of District Attorney Morganelli's letter, 
opposing the confirmation of this judge.
  In addition, the Executive Committee of the State of Pennsylvania's 
District Attorneys Association has unanimously voted to officially 
oppose the nomination. On January 8 the Executive Committee of the 
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, in a unanimous vote, 
officially opposed the nomination. The President of the association 
wrote a letter on January 26, expressing the association's opposition.
  I would just comment it is not usual for prosecuting attorneys, or 
for district attorneys, or for police organizations to attack judges, 
especially judges who are sitting as judges in their jurisdictions, the 
same judges they have to go before on a regular basis in seeking to 
effect justice in the society, to make sure we have the right law 
enforcement, the right prosecution, the right conviction and the right 
detention of those who have been deemed guilty of a crime. It is not 
comfortable, it is not easy, it is not expected. It is, I think, fair 
to describe it as rare, that someone would, as a prosecutor, or that 
the association of prosecutors, or that the police, or the associations 
of police, would come forward and make statements that say not only is 
this the worst judge I have ever seen but this is the worst judge of 
which I have any awareness. These are individuals who have a 
substantial awareness of the judicial system as a result of their broad 
experience in the system.
  If my recollection serves me correctly, the district attorney in 
Philadelphia, Lynne Abraham, is a former judge herself. She has an 
ability to know what the circumstances of the judge's responsibilities 
are. And when she comes forward to say that this judge is a judge that 
is so out of touch with the balance necessary to accord fairness in the 
system by being so predisposed to the defendant's position and 
antithetical to the prosecutor's position, and antagonistic to the 
position of the Commonwealth as opposed to that of the individual who 
is seeking to be declared innocent of the charges, she just indicates 
that we can do better. And I think that is really the case that we have 
here.
  The pool of legal talent in Pennsylvania is not shallow. We have 
talked about Philadelphia lawyers all across the country for a long 
time, because Philadelphia is known as a center for individuals who 
know how to work with the law and to do it effectively, who know what 
their responsibilities are and to make sure that those responsibilities 
can be carried out in the best interests of their clients. And I 
believe that there are those in that community who could well serve 
this President as nominees and could well serve this country as 
nominees. And I believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate, 
when you have a nominee who is not of the caliber and quality that is 
appropriate for membership on the Federal bench, for the Senate to 
stand up and say so. And I believe that is our responsibility here.
  I don't believe that the Founding Fathers of this great country put 
the U.S. Senate in the stream that leads to the Federal judiciary so 
that it could act in a way which is a rubberstamp, so that it could 
say, well, in spite of the fact that this individual is an affront to 
the judicial system, disrespects it with profanity, disrespects its 
participants by profaning them and their conduct, is so lenient with 
criminals that it causes major questions, has to be reversed on 
criminal appeals and, when asked about it, denies ever being reversed 
until the appeals are found--I don't think we have to have that kind of 
person. I don't think we are here to pass that kind of person through 
to a lifetime tenure, to a system which will, really, give her great 
latitude in imposing upon the people of this country the authority of 
the United States in demanding or commanding adherence to the law. I 
really think that we can do better. And I think we ought to do better.
  It is not hard for us to do that. Surely we have cooperated 90, 95 
percent--I don't know--of the time, that these cases go through. Most 
of them never even get debated. This case was--they insisted that we 
debate. When I was last at a committee meeting I thought we should not 
move this case to the floor for debate. There was an outcry, a 
substantial, significant outcry, insisting that we move this case to 
the floor for debate. Now that we have moved it to the floor for debate 
there is a substantial outcry to move it back to the committee.
  I think the real fact of the matter is we know, we know enough about 
this case to say this is not an individual that we want to welcome into 
the lifetime tenure of the Federal judge. It does not mean the 
individual cannot have merit, cannot do different things, is banished 
from any other responsibilities. It is simply someone who is not suited 
to be endowed with the authority of a Federal judge, a serious 
responsibility in this society and culture.
  I suppose we can let this individual go back for additional committee 
hearings or additional deliberations. But in my view that is a mistake. 
And, in my view there are times when the Senate should simply act as 
the Constitution calls upon it to act, that is to either provide the 
advice and consent which is appropriate and constitute the nominee as a 
member of the judiciary or deny the advice and consent and move on 
because America can and should do better.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to thank the majority 
leader, again, for his willingness to cooperate with both Senator 
Specter and me in our request that Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination 
not be voted on here in the next few days but that the process be able 
to be worked out and worked through, a hearing to be held. I know 
Senator Specter, who cannot be here right now, fully supports this 
process that we now have begun to get her a hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee. And then I hope very promptly to bring her back to the floor 
of the U.S. Senate for a vote.
  I would not like to see this nomination hang out for a long period of 
time after the hearing. I don't think that would be fair, again, to her 
or to the process, or to the President who I know, in having 
conversations with the White House, they would like to see this matter 
be dealt with in an expeditious fashion after the hearing takes place. 
A hearing will not be able to take place until the week after next 
because we are not in session next week. So I am hopeful we can bring 
this judge up for a final vote here in the U.S. Senate within a 3-week 
period of time, maybe a 4-week period of time. I think that would be 
appropriate for her and I think appropriate for the Senate at some 
point to pass judgment on this nominee. I think it is important when 
the President puts a nominee up who has had, certainly, the amount of 
attention that this nominee has had, that the Senate, all Members, get 
an opportunity to express their opinion as to whether this nominee has 
the credentials and qualifications and qualities necessary to serve on 
the Federal judiciary.
  With that, I again thank the majority leader and thank my colleagues 
for allowing this procedure. There are things that could have been 
done. I talked to several of my colleagues about those things that 
could be done. The Senator from Missouri and others would have liked to 
vote today. In fact they could force a vote today. It is within the 
right of any Senator on this nomination to offer a tabling motion, 
which would bring the debate to a stop and cause a vote. They have 
agreed to not do that and I appreciate that very much.
  They could have derailed this effort. But their indulgence in 
allowing what two home State Senators believe is a fair process, their 
indulgence in allowing what we believe to be a fair process, in 
acquiescing to those desires, is noble indeed and very much 
appreciated. So I thank the Senators from Alabama, Missouri, and others 
who have expressed a willingness to expedite consideration of this 
nominee, for their willingness to withhold and allow the process to 
work out just a few more weeks. And then take the nominee back to the 
floor.

[[Page S633]]

  There will be no vote in committee. She will not be recommitted to 
committee. There will be no action necessary by the committee. Her 
nomination will remain on the floor of the U.S. Senate and will be 
eligible to be recalled by the leader at his discretion, which is our 
understanding, subsequent to the hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

  So that is the state of play, if you will, of this nomination, and it 
is one I find wholly acceptable at this point. I know my colleague, 
Senator Specter, does also.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson for the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I opposed this 
nominee in Committee, and nothing has changed in the interim to make me 
any more likely to support her.
  I believe that the President is entitled to some deference in his 
choice of judges for the Federal Bench, and I try to give his nominees 
the benefit of the doubt. However, because of Judge Massiah-Jackson's 
judicial temperament and record of leniency toward criminal defendants, 
I cannot support her nomination.
  Judicial temperament is an essential quality for judges. They must be 
professional, civil, and fair. To earn esteem and honor, they must 
exhibit dignity and be respectful of those who appear before them.
  Unfortunately, Judge Massiah-Jackson has shown a lack of judicial 
temperament while serving on the Pennsylvania trial court. She has used 
profane language from the Bench, which I will not repeat here. There is 
simply no excuse for a judge to use profanity in court.
  Also, we have received numerous letters from bipartisan professionals 
to the effect that she is hostile and unfair toward prosecutors and 
police officers. The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which 
unanimously voted to oppose her nomination, wrote that she has ``an 
anti-police, anti-prosecution bias'' and that her actions as a trial 
judge ``at times . . . have bordered on the outrageous.'' The Attorney 
General of Pennsylvania, Michael Fisher, has weighed in against her. 
The National Fraternal Order of Police wrote that she ``has made a 
career of dismissing out of hand testimony by police officers, treating 
them as second-class citizens.'' The Philadelphia FOP echoed this 
criticism, saying that her actions ``make it appear she is on a crusade 
against public safety.'' The Philadelphia District Attorney, Lynne 
Abraham, whose office prosecutes criminal cases within Philadelphia 
where Judge Massiah-Jackson has served as a judge, was resolute. She 
wrote that the ``nominee's record represents multiple instances of a 
deeply ingrained and pervasive bias against prosecutors and law 
enforcement officers, and by extension, an insensitivity to victims of 
crime. The nominee's judicial demeanor and courtroom conduct . . . 
undermine respect for the rule of law and . . . tend to bring the law 
into disrepute.'' She then compared this judge to others stating, 
``This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances of 
demonstrated leniency toward criminals, an adversarial attitude towards 
police, and disrespect and a hostile attitude towards prosecutors 
unmatched by any other present or former jurist with whom I am 
familiar.''
  An example of the judge's hostility toward police that has created 
much attention is an incident where she pointed out two undercover 
narcotics agents and told those in her courtroom to take a good look at 
the officers and, quote, ``watch yourselves.'' This story was published 
in a Pennsylvania newspaper, and I asked her about it in writing during 
the hearing process, which gave her plenty of time to reflect on the 
matter. She responded, ``I have read the 1988 article and it is 
inaccurate. I would not and did not make any such statement to the 
spectators.'' However, the two undercover agents that the article 
referred to later signed statements saying she had singled them out and 
referred to them in this manner.
  She has also made public comments about crime that warrant concern. 
Although she informed me in response to a written question that she is 
not opposed to imposing the death penalty, she was very critical of the 
death penalty in a 1994 speech. Quoting Justice Harry Blackman, she 
said, ``the death penalty experiment has failed.'' She added, ``It is 
not a deterrent to criminal behavior.'' Later in the speech she said, 
``Locking folks up is a belated and expensive response to a social 
crisis.''
  It is very unusual for us to receive opposition to a nominee for the 
Federal Court from prosecutors and professionals as we have here. I 
commend the prosecutors and police who have taken this bold stand. They 
have brought a great deal of attention to a nominee who is simply not 
fit to serve on the Federal court.
  The public opposition to this nominee from prosecutors and police, in 
addition to the information we had at the time she was considered in 
Committee, should be more than enough for Senators to oppose her. It 
should not even be necessary to consider cases and statistics that have 
been brought to our attention in the past few weeks.
  Let me close by referring again to the letter from the Fraternal 
Order of Police. I quote, ``To confirm Judge Messiah-Jackson would be 
an affront to every law enforcement officer and prosecutor in the 
Nation. . . . We shouldn't have to have the judges and the criminals 
against us.''
  Mr. President, I agree. I will stand with prosecutors and police on 
this nomination.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
copy of the letters that I quoted in my statement.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Pennsylvania District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                                 Harrisburg, PA, January 26, 1998.
     Sen. Orin Hatch,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: As 
     President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, 
     I am writing to express the Association's opposition to the 
     nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson for a position 
     as a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
       As you may know, recently the Executive Board of the 
     Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association which speaks on 
     behalf of all 67 elected District Attorneys in Pennsylvania 
     voted unanimously to oppose the aforesaid nomination. We 
     recently met with Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Rick 
     Santorum of Pennsylvania in person to convey the sentiment of 
     District Attorneys in Pennsylvania.
       A review of Judge Massiah-Jackson's record during her 
     tenure as a Criminal Court Judge clearly shows that she has 
     exhibited an anti-police, anti-prosecution bias as a Criminal 
     Court Judge. At times, her actions as a Common Pleas Judge in 
     Philadelphia have bordered on the outrageous. She has used 
     profanity in her courtroom, embarrassed and exposed police 
     officers in her courtroom and has even interfered in the 
     appellate process by attempting to ``recommend'' to an 
     appellate court that a Commonwealth appeal of one of her 
     decisions be quashed. Given the prevalence of federal habeas 
     corpus appellate practice, especially as it related to 
     capital convictions obtained from state courts, the prospect 
     of seating a member to the Federal Judiciary with a record 
     like Ms. Massiah-Jackson's should give those involved in the 
     confirmation process pause and concern.
       Therefore, I strongly urge all members of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee and all members of the United States 
     Senate to oppose this particular nomination.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Michael D. Marino,
     President.
                                  ____

                                     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,


                                   Office of Attorney General,

                                 Harrisburg, Pa, January 29, 1998.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
     RE: Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson.
       Dear Senator Specter: I wish to express my opposition to 
     President Clinton's nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-
     Jackson to serve on the United States District Court for the 
     Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
       I am writing on Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination after 
     spending considerable time reviewing her record on the Court 
     of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Due to the importance 
     of this nomination and because of the seriousness of the 
     allegations raised with respect to Judge Massiah-Jackson's 
     record, I have delayed taking a public position until I had 
     the opportunity to review all available data. This review has 
     also included discussions with members of my staff and other 
     prosecutors who have personally appeared before Judge 
     Massiah-Jackson. To a person, these prosecutors have 
     expressed concern about the Judge's demeanor, her temperament 
     and the manner in which she disposes of cases. I have also 
     reviewed sentencing statistics and discussed Judge

[[Page S634]]

     Massiah-Jackson's sentencing practices with these 
     prosecutors. This review and these discussions have revealed 
     a record of leniency in sentencing criminal defendants, a 
     bias against police and prosecutors and an insensitivity to 
     the plight of victims.
       The major criticisms about Judge Massiah-Jackson come from 
     the period of time she was assigned to the Court's Criminal 
     Division. In recent years, she has been assigned to the Civil 
     Division. U.S. District Court judges have a civil and 
     criminal court caseload. The Office of Attorney General and I 
     represent the Commonwealth in the U.S. District Court in 
     civil and criminal cases.
       As Attorney General, I supervise a large office which 
     includes 180 lawyers and 266 criminal agents. My prosecutors 
     and agents are often cross-designated in federal court and 
     also work jointly with police officers, agents and 
     prosecutors from other federal, state and local agencies. My 
     Office's cases are sometimes prosecuted in federal court, 
     notably when they are developed in conjunction with a federal 
     task force. A federal judiciary that properly safeguards 
     individual rights and liberties while respecting the 
     dedication and commitment of the law enforcement community is 
     essential to our efforts on behalf of the people of the 
     Commonwealth.
       Based on my review of Judge Massiah-Jackson's criminal 
     court record and the antipathy she has displayed toward 
     police, prosecutors and victims, I must respectfully ask you 
     to oppose her nomination when it is voted on by the United 
     States Senate and to ask your colleagues to do likewise.
       My hope would be that the President will quickly nominate 
     someone who will bring the needed diversity to the United 
     States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Pennsylvania, but a person with a record that shows a more 
     balanced perspective than this nominee.
       Thank you for your consideration of my position.
           Very truly yours,
                                                D. Michael Fisher,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                 National Legislative Program,

                                  Washington, DC, 27 January 1998.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I am writing on behalf of the more 
     than 270,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to urge 
     that you withdraw your support for the nomination of Judge 
     Frederica Massiah-Jackson to the Federal judiciary.
       Senator Specter, Judge Massiah-Jackson has no business 
     sitting on any bench, let alone a Federal bench. Frankly, I 
     have difficulty reconciling why you would offer her 
     nomination any of your support. She routinely demonstrates 
     that she lacks any sense of judicial propriety and 
     temperament. Her manners and language in the court room are 
     ugly. Her record of sympathy and leniency toward criminals, 
     even violent criminals, is extreme. Most objectionably, Judge 
     Massiah-Jackson consistently parades her anti-police bias by 
     using her power and authority as a judge to belittle, harass, 
     and threaten the law enforcement officers who appear in her 
     court. Her contempt for prosecutors appearing before her is 
     so rancorous, that a broad grassroots effort has been led by 
     members of her own political party to oppose her elevation to 
     the Federal judiciary.
       In 1994, a man appeared before Judge Massiah-Jackson 
     charged with numerous offenses. He had struck a pedestrian 
     with his car, left her lying in the gutter, and then pummeled 
     into unconsciousness a relative of the victim who attempted 
     to prevent his fleeing the scene. She described the behavior 
     of this man, who had a prior record of 19 arrests and eight 
     convictions, as ``Not really criminal. He had merely been 
     involved in a car accident.'' The man was sentenced to two 
     years probation.
       To add insult to injury, a few years earlier this same man, 
     who then was out on bail for another offense, appeared before 
     Judge Massiah-Jackson. His counsel asserted that a particular 
     police officer was harassing him with ``unnecessary'' traffic 
     stops. Despite the lack on any evidence, Judge Massiah-
     Jackson offered to have the court file a complaint against 
     the officer on the defendant's behalf! She concluded, without 
     any discernable reason other than her contempt for law 
     enforcement officers, that this officer was masterminding a 
     plot to threaten and harass the man and his family! Senator 
     Specter, she threatened in open court to appear as a fact 
     witness against this officer in the event the defendant, his 
     family, or friends came to any harm. What kind of a judge is 
     this?
       On one occasion, Senator, Judge Massiah-Jackson acquitted a 
     criminal of drug possession by simply refusing to believe the 
     testimony of undercover narcotics investigators. After 
     dismissing the charges, she urged spectators in her court to 
     ``take a good look at the undercover officers and watch 
     yourselves.'' I cannot adequately express my outrage, sir. 
     She deliberately jeopardized the lives of these officers. Is 
     this the type of judge we want sitting on the Federal bench?
       This is surely the most offensive and egregious example of 
     her conduct, but hardly an uncommon one for Judge Massiah-
     Jackson, who has made a career of dismissing out of hand 
     testimony by police officers, treating them as second-class 
     citizens barely worthy of even her contempt. Frankly, I am 
     amazed she has served on any bench at all.
       I urge you to ensure that all judicial nominees are 
     properly screened, so that the likes of Judge Massiah-Jackson 
     do not find their way to the Senate floor again. And I 
     strongly urge you to withdraw your support of her nomination 
     and cast your vote against her confirmation on 28 January. To 
     confirm Judge Massiah-Jackson would be an affront to every 
     law enforcement officer and prosecutor in the nation, all of 
     whom have the herculean task of fighting crime. We shouldn't 
     have to have the judges and the criminals against us.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gilbert G. Gallegos,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                                     Philadelphia Lodge No. 5,

                               Philadelphia, PA, January 13, 1998.
     Hon. Richard (Rick) Santorum,
     U.S. Senator, Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Senator Santorum: The Fraternal Order of Police, in an 
     effort to protect and properly serve its members, has a keen 
     interest in all Jurists whose appointment could affect the 
     safety and welfare of its Police.
       To this end, the Fraternal Order of Police is opposed to 
     the nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah Jackson to the 
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Pennsylvania.
       The reasons for this determination by the F.O.P. is that 
     Judge Jackson has an established record of being extremely 
     lenient on criminals; insensitive to the victims of crime; 
     and has posed a direct threat against Police.
       Judge Jackson's bizarre rulings, coupled with her 
     challenging and adversarial attitude toward Police and 
     prosecutors, make it appear she is on a crusade against 
     public safety.
       The Police have a hard enough time dealing with the felons 
     on the street. They don't need to be worrying about the 
     people in positions of authority placing them in more danger. 
     Yet, that is exactly what Judge Jackson did to several 
     Narcotic Officers in open Court.
       It is an insult to the entire Judicial System and the 
     community it services when a Jurist of this caliber would 
     even be considered for an appointment to a position that 
     could negatively affect public safety.
       Must one be reminded that--Crime is out of control. 
     Innocent people are being attacked and slaughtered on our 
     streets. Drugs are in every neighborhood. Our citizens are 
     fleeing the City in great numbers. Our residents are living 
     in fear everyday. Our City is in decay.
       We must stop the violence; we must stop the insanity!
       The appointment of Judge Massiah Jackson to the U.S. Court 
     would be directly counter-productive to this effort. We need 
     a Federal Judge who has proven to be tough on crime. One who 
     is a highly regarded professional in the field of law. We 
     must have a Judge who can help bring new hope to those in 
     despair.
       In closing, Philadelphia has many Judges who can fill the 
     requirements needed for this position. Unfortunately, Judge 
     Massiah Jackson is not one of them.
       Respectfully submitted,
     Richard B. Costello,
       President.
     Michael G. Lutz,
       Past President.
                                  ____



                                   District Attorney's Office,

                                Philadelphia, PA, January 8, 1998.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: On December 9, 1997, you phoned my 
     office seeking my position on the nomination of Judge 
     Frederica Massiah-Jackson as a Judge for the United States 
     District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. When 
     we spoke, I told you that, in my thirty years of public 
     service, including almost sixteen years as a Judge and over 
     six years as Philadelphia's District Attorney, never before 
     had my United States Senator solicited my position on any of 
     the many prior Federal District or Circuit Court nominees who 
     had sought confirmation. I further related that it had been 
     my general policy to refrain from speaking out on Federal 
     judicial nominations.
       Immediately after our brief phone conversation, you wrote 
     and faxed me a letter seeking my written concurrence in a 
     quoted paragraph regarding my general policy. I have 
     deliberately deferred responding because, instead of offering 
     a perfunctory response, I thought it prudent, under the 
     present circumstances, to re-evaluate my general policy, to 
     see if there were compelling reasons to deviate from it. I 
     have concluded that this nomination presents such reasons.
       Between the time of our conversation and today, I have 
     carefully reviewed sentencing statistics, verdicts, courtroom 
     testimony, newspaper and other print media reports, together 
     with a number of other pieces of anecdotal evidence, 
     including office memoranda. After having done so, I have 
     concluded that I must stand opposed to this nomination.
       This decision is a difficult one because I campaigned with 
     and served on the bench at the same time as Judge Massiah-
     Jackson. I firmly believe in the rule of law and the 
     independence of the judiciary, and I would never oppose a 
     nomination merely because of a personal disagreement with 
     some decisions or remarks that a judge might make in the heat 
     of courtroom arguments.
       My position on this nomination goes well beyond mere 
     differences of opinion, or judicial philosophy. Instead, this 
     nominee's

[[Page S635]]

     record presents multiple instances of a deeply ingrained and 
     pervasive bias against prosecutors and law enforcement 
     officers--and, by extension, an insensitivity to victims of 
     crime. Moreover, the nominee's judicial demeanor and 
     courtroom conduct, in my judgment, undermines respect for the 
     rule of law and, instead, tends to bring the law into 
     disrepute.
       This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances 
     of demonstrated leniency towards criminals, an adversarial 
     attitude towards police, and disrespect and a hostile 
     attitude towards prosecutors unmatched by any other present 
     or former jurist with whom I am familiar.
       I must, however, make this point perfectly clear: I believe 
     firmly that the next member of the Eastern District judiciary 
     should be an African-American woman. The under-representation 
     of minorities on our federal bench has been permitted to 
     exist for far too long. Fortunately, the Philadelphia area is 
     blessed with many eminently well-qualified African-American 
     women lawyers, in academia, public service, private practice, 
     and on the bench. Had any one of these been selected, she 
     would already be presiding on our Federal District Court 
     bench.
       I trust that this letter satisfies your inquiry.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lynne Abraham,
                                                District Attorney.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is there time set aside for 
morning business now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not. However, the Senator may, by 
unanimous consent, request permission to proceed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________