[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S640-S660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF MARGARET M. MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 135, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of 
California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District 
of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nomination is limited to 2 hours 
equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Utah and the Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of 
Margaret Morrow to the Federal District bench in California.
  Ms. Morrow enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is no wonder. She 
graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and cum laude from 
the Harvard Law School. She is presently a partner at Arnold and Porter 
in their Los Angeles office where she handles virtually all of that 
office's appellate litigation.
  I plan to outline in greater detail why I intend to support Ms. 
Morrow's nomination. But first I would like to discuss the Judiciary 
Committee's record with respect to the confirmation of President 
Clinton's judicial nominees.
  As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most 
important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, 
the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President 
advice concerning his nominees, and to consent to their ultimate 
confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the 
committee has moved on judicial nominees, I note that it has undertaken 
its duty in a deliberate and serious fashion. Indeed, with respect to 
Ms. Morrow, there were concerns. Her answers to the committee were not 
entirely responsive. Rather than simply pushing the nomination forward, 
however, I believed it was important for the committee to ensure that 
its questions were properly answered. Thus, the committee submitted 
written questions for Ms. Morrow to clarify some of her additional 
responses. And, having reviewed Ms. Morrow's answers to the questions 
posed by the committee, I became satisfied that she would uphold the 
Constitution and abide by the rule of law.
  In fact, we held two hearings in Margaret Morrow's case, as I recall, 
and the second hearing was, of course, to clarify some of these issues 
without which we might not have had Ms. Morrow's nomination up even to 
this day.
  Thus, I think it fair to say that the committee has fairly and 
responsibly dealt with the President's nominees. Indeed, the Judiciary 
Committee has already held a judicial confirmation hearing, and has 
another planned for February 25. Thus, the committee will have held two 
nomination hearings in the first month of the session.
  I note that Judiciary Committee processed 47 of the President's 
nominees last session, including Ms. Morrow. Today there are more 
sitting judges than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan 
and Bush administrations. Currently, there are 756 active Federal 
judges. In addition, there are 432 senior Federal judges who must by 
law continue to hear cases. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 
vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The 
others have taken senior status, and are still actively participating 
in that court's work. I am saying that the other nine judges have taken 
senior status. Those who have retired, or those who have taken senior 
status, are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges 
available to hear cases is 1,188, a near record number.
  I have sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it 
a fair and a principled one, and exercised what I felt was the 
appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial appointees.
  I would like to personally express my gratitude and compliments to 
Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for his 
cooperative efforts this past year. In fact, I would like my colleagues 
to note that a portrait of Senator Leahy will be unveiled this very 
evening in the Agriculture Committee hearing room. This is an honor 
that I believe my distinguished colleague justly deserves for his 
efforts on that great committee. I want Senator Leahy to know that I 
plan on attending that portrait unveiling itself even though this 
debate is taking place on the floor between 4 and 6 today.

  It is in this spirit of cooperation and fairness that I will vote to 
confirm Ms. Morrow. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, 
does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling judicial 
vacancies. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold 
the Constitution and abide by the rule of law.
  Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe that the 
evidence demonstrates that Margaret Morrow will be such a person. Ms. 
Morrow likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval 
Office. But the President is sitting there, and he has seen fit to 
nominate her.
  She has the support of the Senators from California. And the review 
conducted by the Judiciary Committee suggests that she understands the 
proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule 
of law. There is no doubt that Ms. Morrow is, in terms of her 
professional experience and abilities, qualified to serve as a Federal 
district court judge. I think the only question that may be plaguing 
some of my colleagues is whether she will abide by the rule of law. As 
I have stated elsewhere, nominees who are or who are likely to be 
judicial activists are not qualified to serve as Federal judges, and 
they should neither be nominated nor confirmed. And I want my 
colleagues to know that when such individuals come before the Judiciary 
Committee I will vociferously oppose them. In fact, many of the people 
that have been suggested by the administration have been stopped before 
they have been sent up. And that is where most of the battles occur, 
and that is where most of the work between the White House and myself 
really occurs. I have to compliment the White House in recognizing that 
some people that they wish they could have put on the bench were not 
appropriate persons to put on the bench because of their attitudes 
towards the rule of law primarily.
  While I initially had some concerns that Ms. Morrow might be an 
activist, I have concluded, based on all the information before the 
committee, that a compelling case cannot be made against her. While it 
is often difficult to tell whether a nominee's words before 
confirmation will match that nominee's deeds after confirmation, I 
believe that this nominee in particular deserves the benefit of the 
doubt. And

[[Page S641]]

all nominees deserve the benefit of the doubt, unless the contrary is 
substantial--or, should I say, less evidence to the contrary is 
substantial. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that Ms. Morrow will engage in judicial activism. In fact, 
Ms. Morrow has assured the committee that she will abide by the rule of 
law, and will not substitute her preferences for the dictates of the 
Constitution.
  If Ms. Morrow is a woman of her word, and I believe she is, I am 
confident that she will serve the country with distinction.
  I would like briefly to address some of the questions raised by those 
who oppose Ms. Morrow's nomination. Perhaps the most troubling evidence 
of potential activism that Ms. Morrow's critics advance comes from 
several speeches she has given while president of the Los Angeles, CA, 
Bar Association. At the fourth annual Conference on Women in the Law, 
for example, Ms. Morrow gave a speech in which she stated that ``the 
law is almost by definition on the cutting edge of social thought. It 
is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which 
have always been to the rules which are to be.''
  Now, if Ms. Morrow was speaking here about ``the law'' and ``rules'' 
in a substantive sense, I would have no choice but to read these 
statements as professing a belief in judicial activism. On that basis 
alone, I would likely have opposed her nomination. However, Ms. Morrow 
repeatedly and somewhat animatedly testified before the committee that 
she was not speaking substantively of the law itself but, rather, was 
referring to the legal profession and the rules by which it governs 
itself.
  When the committee went back and examined the context of Ms. Morrow's 
speech, it concluded that this explanation was in keeping with the 
theme of her speech.
  In her inaugural address as president of the State Bar of California 
on October 9, 1993, Ms. Morrow quoted then Justice William Brennan, 
stating that ``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal 
institutions are engines of change able to accommodate evolving 
patterns of life and social interaction.''
  Here again some were troubled that Ms. Morrow seemed to be advocating 
judicial activism. Ms. Morrow, however, assured the committee that she 
was not suggesting that courts themselves should be engines of change. 
In response to the committee she testified as follows:

       The theme of that speech was that the State Bar of 
     California as an institution and the legal profession had to 
     change some of the ways we did business. The quotation 
     regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in 
     the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation.

  Once again, the committee went back and scrutinized Ms. Morrow's 
speech and found that its theme was in fact changes the bar should make 
and did not advance the theme that courts should be engines of social 
change. The committee found the nominee's explanation of the use of the 
quotation, given its context, very plausible. In addition, the nominee 
went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her written responses to 
the committee to espouse a clearly restrained approach to 
constitutional interpretation and the rule of the courts. Frankly, much 
of what she has said under oath goes a long way toward legitimized, 
very restrained jurisprudence that some of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle called out of the mainstream just a decade ago.
  For example, she testified that she would attempt to interpret the 
Constitution ``consistent with the intent of the drafters.'' She later 
explained in more detail that judges should use the constitutional text 
``as a starting point, and using that language and whatever information 
there is respecting the intent behind that language one ought to 
attempt then to decide the case consistent with that intent.''
  She later testified that judges should not ``by incremental changes 
ease the law from one arena to another in a policy sense.'' And in 
written correspondence with the committee, Ms. Morrow further 
elaborated on her constitutional jurisprudence by highlighting the case 
which in her view adopted the proper methodology to constitutional 
interpretation.
  As she explained, in that case the Court ``looked first to the 
language of the Constitution,'' then ``buttressed its reading'' of the 
text by ``looking to the language of other constitutional provisions.'' 
And finally to ``the intent of those who drafted and ratified this 
language as reflected in the Federalist Papers, debates of the 
Constitutional Convention and other writings of the time.''
  Contrary to the claim that she condemns all voter initiatives, Ms. 
Morrow has actually sought to ensure that voters have meaningful ways 
of evaluating such initiatives.
  In a widely circulated article, Ms. Morrow noted that the intensive 
advertising campaigns that surround citizen initiatives often focus 
unfairly on the measure's sponsor rather than the initiative's 
substance. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make meaningful 
choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by 
a majority.''
  Read in its proper context, this statement seized upon by Ms. 
Morrow's critics was a statement concerning the quality of information 
disseminated to the voters, not a comment on the voters' ability to 
make intelligent policy choices. Thus Ms. Morrow's statement is not 
particularly controversial but in fact highly respectful of the role 
voters must play in our electoral system. In fact, Ms. Morrow argued 
that the courts should not be placed in a position of policing the 
initiative process. She explained that ``having passed an initiative, 
the voters want to see it enacted. They view a court challenge to its 
validity as interference with the public will.''

  For this reason, Ms. Morrow advocated reforms to the California 
initiative process to take a final decision on ballot measures out of 
the hands of judges and to place it back into the hands of the people.
  In supporting this nomination, I took into account a number of 
factors, including Ms. Morrow's testimony, her accomplishments and her 
evident ability as an attorney, as well as the fact that she has 
received strong support, bipartisan support from both Democrats and 
Republicans. Republicans included Ninth Circuit Judges Cynthia Hall, 
Steven Trott and Pamela Rymer, Reagan-Bush appointees, as well as Rob 
Bonner, a respected conservative, former Federal judge and head of the 
drug enforcement agency under President Bush.
  I know all of these people personally. They are all strong 
conservatives. They are really decent people. They are as concerned as 
you or I or anybody else about who we place on the Federal bench, and 
they are strongly in favor of Margaret Morrow, as are many, many other 
Republicans. And they are not just people who live within the district 
where she will be a judge. They are some eminent judges themselves.
  I have a rough time seeing why anybody basically under all these 
circumstances would oppose this nominee. Each of those individuals I 
mentioned and others, such as Richard Riordan, the Republican mayor of 
Los Angeles, have assured the committee that Ms. Morrow will not be a 
judicial activist. I hope they are correct. And at least on this point 
I have seen little evidence in the record that would suggest to me that 
she would fail to abide by the rule of law once she achieves the bench 
and practices on the bench and fulfills her responsibility as a judge 
on the bench.
  In sum, I support this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same. I am also pleased, with regard to these judicial nominees, that 
no one on our side has threatened to ever filibuster any of these 
judges, to my knowledge. I think it is a travesty if we ever start 
getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit my 
colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of 
occasions the last number of years during the Reagan-Bush years. They 
always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were 
not the votes to invoke cloture. But I really think it is a travesty if 
we treat this third branch of Government with such disregard that we 
filibuster judges.
  The only way I could ever see that happening is if a person is so 
absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench that the only way you could 
stop that person is to filibuster that nominee. Even then, I question 
whether that should be done. We are dealing with a

[[Page S642]]

coequal branch of Government. We are dealing with some of the most 
important nominations a President, whoever that President may be, will 
make. And we are also dealing with good faith on both sides of the 
floor.
  I have to say, during some of the Reagan and Bush years, I thought 
our colleagues on the other side were reprehensible in some of the 
things they did with regard to Reagan and Bush judges, but by and large 
the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or 
bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been 
President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have 
to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you 
have an overwhelming case, as may be the case in the nomination of 
Judge Massiah-Jackson, unless you have an overwhelming case, then 
certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I 
hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have 
disagreement, and I have to say that some of my colleagues disagree 
with this nomination, and they do it legitimately, sincerely, and I 
think with intelligence, but I think they are wrong. And that is after 
having been part of this process for 22 years now and always trying to 
be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the 
nominees are.
  It is important because most of the fight has to occur behind the 
scenes. It has to occur between honest people in the White House and 
honest people up here. And that's where the battles are. When they get 
this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some 
that we have problems with still in the Judiciary Committee, but that 
is our job to look at them. That is our job to look into their 
background. It is our job to screen these candidates. And, as you can 
see, in the case of Massiah-Jackson we had these accusations but nobody 
was willing to stand up and say them. I am not about to rely on 
unsubstantiated accusations by anybody. I will rely on the witness 
herself in that case. But we never quit investigating in the committee, 
and even though Massiah-Jackson was passed out of the committee, the 
investigation continued and ultimately we find a supernumber of people, 
very qualified people, people in that area who have a lot to do with 
law and justice are now opposed to that nomination. We cannot ignore 
that. But that is the way the system works. We have had judges withdraw 
after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because 
something has come up to disturb their nomination.
  That is the way it should work. This is not a numbers game. These are 
among the most important nominations that any President can make and 
that the Senate can ever work on. In the case of Margaret Morrow, I 
personally have examined the whole record, and, like I say, maybe 
people on our side would not have appointed her if they were President, 
but they are not the President. And unless there is an overwhelming 
case to be made against a judge, I have a very difficult--and 
especially this one; there is not--I have to say that I think we do a 
great injustice if we do not support this nomination.
  So with that, I will yield the floor.
  How much time does the distinguished Senator need?
  Mrs. BOXER. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  If my colleague would prefer to control the time on his side, I would 
be happy--should I yield to the Senator?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would prefer we yield to Senator Leahy given his 
schedule.
  Mr. HATCH. Let's split the time. You control half the time, and I 
will control half. You can make the determination, or if you would 
like----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 36 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this really has been a long time coming, 
and I appreciate the effort of my friend, the chairman, who is on the 
floor, to support this nomination. I commend my good friend, the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been indefatigable in this 
effort. She has worked and worked and worked. I believe she has spoken 
to every single Senator, every single potential Senator, every single 
past Senator, certainly to all the judges, and she has been at us over 
and over again to make sure that this day would come. She has worked 
with the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and Republican and 
Democratic Senators alike. I appreciate all that she has done. We have 
all been aided by our colleague, Senator Feinstein. She has spoken out 
strongly for Margaret Morrow as a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
as a Senator.
  I feel though, as Senator Boxer has said, that none of us would have 
predicted that it would take 21 months to get this nomination before 
the Senate. I know that we would not even be here now if the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished majority leader 
had not made the commitment before we broke last fall to proceed to 
this nomination this week.
  I have spoken about this nomination so many times I have almost lost 
track of the number. I will not speak as long as I would otherwise 
today because I want to yield to the Senator from California. But I 
think people should know that for some time there was an unexplained 
hold on this outstanding nominee. This is a nominee, incidentally, who 
was reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice. This is a nominee 
who is the first woman to be the president of the California State Bar 
Association and a president of the Los Angeles County bar.
  This is a nominee who is a partner in a prestigious law firm. This is 
a nominee who has the highest rating that lawyers can be given when 
they come before our committee for approval as a judge. This is a woman 
about whom letters were sent to me and to other Senators from some of 
the leading Republicans and some of the leading Democrats in California 
and from others whose background I know only because of their 
reputations, extraordinary reputations. I have no idea what their 
politics are. But all of them, whether they describe themselves as 
conservatives, liberals, moderates or apolitical, all of them say what 
an extraordinary woman she is. And I agree.
  I have read all of the reports about her. I have read all the things 
people said in her favor, and the things, ofttimes anonymous, said 
against her. I look at all those and I say of this woman: If I were a 
litigant, plaintiff or defendant, government or defendant, no matter 
what side I was on, I could look at this woman and say I am happy to 
come into her court. I am happy to have my case heard by her--whether I 
am rich, poor, white, black, no matter what might be my background. I 
know she would give a fair hearing.
  Now, finally, after 12 months on the Senate calendar without action 
over the course of the last 3 years, I am glad that the debate is 
beginning. I am also glad we can now look forward to the end of the 
ordeal for Margaret Morrow, for her family, her friends and her 
supporters.
  Her supporters include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 
half the Republican members on that committee. The Republican Mayor of 
Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, calls her ``an excellent addition to the 
Federal bench.'' All of these people have praised her.
  To reiterate, this day has been a long time coming. When this 
accomplished lawyer was first nominated by the President of the United 
States to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Central District 
of California, none of us would have predicted that it would be more 
than 21 months before that nomination was considered by the United 
States Senate.
  I thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for fulfilling the commitment made late last year to turn to 
this nomination before the February recess. Fairness to the people and 
litigants in the Central District of California and to Margaret Morrow 
and her family demand no less.
  I trust that those who credit local law enforcement and local 
prosecutors and local judges from time to time as it suits them will 
credit the views of the many California judges and local officials who 
have written to the Senate over the last several months in support of 
the confirmation of Margaret Morrow. I will cite just a few examples:

[[Page S643]]

Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block; Orange County District 
Attorney Michael R. Capizzi; former U.S. Attorney and former head of 
the DEA under President Bush, Robert C. Bonner; former Reagan Assistant 
Attorney General of the Criminal Division and former Associate Attorney 
General and current Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott; and 
California Court of Appeals Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey.
  I deeply regret that confirmation as a Federal Judge is becoming more 
like a political campaign for these nominees. They are being required 
to gather letters of support and urge their friends, colleagues and 
clients to support their candidacy or risk being mischaracterized by 
those who do not know them.
  Margaret Morrow's background, training, temperament, character and 
skills are beyond reproach. She is a partner in the law firm of Arnold 
& Porter. She has practiced law for 24 years. A distinguished graduate 
of Bryn Mawr College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Morrow was the first 
woman President of the California State Bar Association and a former 
president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She has had the 
strong and unwavering support of Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein of 
California.
  In light of her qualifications, it was no surprise that in 1996 she 
was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1997 her 
nomination was again reported favorably, this time by a vote of 13 to 
5.
  Yet hers has been an arduous journey to Senate consideration. She has 
been targeted--targeted by extremists outside the Senate whose $1.4 
million fundraising and lobbying campaign against judges needed a 
victim. As our debate will show today, they chose the wrong woman.
  Lest someone accuse us of gratuitously injecting gender into this 
debate, I note the following: Her critics have gone so far as to deny 
her the courtesy of referring to her as Ms. Morrow. Instead, they went 
out of their way repeatedly to refer to her as ``Miss'' in a Washington 
Times op ed. Margaret Morrow is married to a distinguished California 
State Court Judge and is the proud mother of a 10-year-old son. It is 
bad enough that her words are taken out of context, her views 
misrepresented and her nomination used as a ideological prop. She is 
entitled to be treated with respect.
  Nor was this reference inadvertent. The first point of criticism in 
that piece was her membership in California Women Lawyers, which is 
criticized for supporting parental leave legislation.
  Senator Feinstein posed the question whether Margaret Morrow was held 
to a different standard than men nominees. That is a question that has 
troubled me throughout this process. I was likewise concerned to see 
that of the 14 nominees left pending at the end of last year whose 
nominations had been pending the longest, 12 were women and minority 
nominees. I did not know, until Senator Kennedy's statement to the 
Senate earlier this year, that judicial nominees who are women are now 
four times as likely as men to take over a year to confirm.
  At the same time, I note that Senator Hatch, who supports this 
nomination, included two women whose nominations have been pending for 
more than a year and one-half, at last week's Judiciary Committee 
hearing. I also note that the Senate did vote last month to confirm 
Judge Ann Aiken to the Oregon District Court. So one of the four 
article III judges confirmed so far this year was a woman nominee.
  Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women 
involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive 
and responsible. Her good work in this regard should not be punished 
but commended.
  As part of those efforts Margaret Morrow gave a speech at a Women in 
the Law Conference in April 1994. That speech was later reprinted in a 
law review. Critics have seized upon a phrase or two from that speech, 
ripped them out of context and contended that they show Margaret Morrow 
would be an unprincipled judicial activist. They are wrong. Their 
argument was refuted by Ms. Morrow in her testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee.
  This criticism merely demonstrates the critics own indifference to 
the setting and context of the speech and its meaning for women who 
have worked so hard to achieve success in the legal profession. Her 
speech was about how the bar is begrudgingly adjusting to women in the 
legal profession. How telling that critics would fasten on that 
particular speech on women in the law and see it as something to 
criticize.
  Margaret Morrow spoke then about ``the struggles and successes'' of 
women practices law and ``the challenges which continue to face us day 
to day in the 1990s.'' Margaret Morrow has met every challenge. In the 
course of this confirmation, she has been forced to run a gauntlet. She 
has endured false charges and unfounded criticism. Her demeanor and 
dignity have never wavered. She has, again, been called upon to be a 
role model.
  The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the 
President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los 
Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National 
Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys 
from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the 
nomination of Margaret Morrow. They wrote that: ``Margaret Morrow is 
widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both 
parties.'' She ``is exactly the kind of person who should be appointed 
to such a position and held up as an example to young women across the 
country.'' I could not agree more.
  By letter dated February 4, 1998, a number of organizations including 
the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and 
women's lawyer associations from California likewise wrote urging 
confirmation of Margaret Morrow without further delay. I ask that a 
copy of that letter be included in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 February 4, 1998.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We write to express our concern over a 
     series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate 
     that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These 
     include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in 
     the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain 
     nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. 
     Some court observers have opined that collectively these are 
     the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence 
     since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 
     1937.
       In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain 
     ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial 
     activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they 
     nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats 
     unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose 
     nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or 
     minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast 
     to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest 
     period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, 
     Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States 
     District Court for the Central District of California, was 
     nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an 
     outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her 
     enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the 
     bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups.
       An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil 
     litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal 
     awards, and the first female president of the California Bar 
     Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and 
     experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words 
     of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally 
     distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has 
     also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a 
     demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the 
     Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono 
     Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year 
     as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 
     150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to 
     indigent clients throughout the county. Not surprisingly, the 
     American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave 
     her its highest rating.
       Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her 
     accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan-
     appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the 
     Central District of California and head of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, 
     has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate 
     legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political 
     affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote 
     that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working 
     individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I 
     have no doubt that she would

[[Page S644]]

     be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters 
     include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, 
     including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California 
     judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and 
     three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen 
     Trott.
       Despite here outstanding record, Morrow has become the 
     target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups 
     that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected 
     her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and 
     attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' 
     According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted 
     because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an 
     absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is 
     among the most highly respected in the state. Another 
     ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a 
     sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest 
     domination of the ballot initiative process in California. 
     Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter 
     initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, 
     they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of 
     recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch 
     to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial 
     activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary 
     Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal 
     positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California.
       Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond 
     any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen 
     months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously 
     approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to 
     languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at 
     the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second 
     hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, 
     after which several Senators placed secret holds on her 
     nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. 
     These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation 
     during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, where recently 
     lifted.
       As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics 
     with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with 
     his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive 
     qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the 
     Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair 
     consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is 
     scheduled as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President.
       American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director.
       Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National 
     Director.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, 
     Executive Law.
       Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, 
     Executive Director.
       Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda 
     Matthews, President.
       California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President.
       Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, 
     Director.
       Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. 
     Murphy, Executive Director.
       Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Patricia 
     Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund.
       Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs.
       Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, 
     Executive Director.
       Marin County Women Lawyers: Eileen Barker, President.
       Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund: Antonia 
     Hernandez, Executive Director.
       Monterey County Women Lawyers: Karen Kardushin, Affiliate 
     Governor.
       NAACP: Hilary Shelton, Deputy Director, Washington Office.
       National Bar Association: Randy K. Jones, President.
       National Center for Youth Law: John F. O'Toole, Director.
       National Conference of Women Bar Associations: Phillis C. 
     Solomon, President.
       National Council of Senior Citizens: Steve Protulis, 
     Executive Director.
       National Employment Lawyers Association: Terisa E. Chaw, 
     Executive Director.
       National Gay & Lesbian Task Force: Rebecca Issacs, Public 
     Policy Director.
       National Lawyers Guild: Karen Jo Koonan, President.
       National Legal Aid & Defender Association: Julie Clark, 
     Executive Director.
       National Organization for Women: Patricia Ireland, 
     President.
       National Women's Law Center: Marcia Greenberger and Nancy 
     Duff Campbell, Co-presidents.
       Orange County Women Lawyers: Jean Hobart, President.
       People for the American Way Action Fund: Mike Lux, Senior 
     Vice President.
       San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance: Geraldine Rosen-Park, 
     President.
       Santa Barbara Women Lawyers: Renee Nordstrand, President.
       Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees: 
     Ann Hoffman, Legislative Director.
       Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Greer C. 
     Bosworth, President.
       Women Lawyers of Alameda County: Sandra Schweitzer, 
     President.
       Women Lawyers of Sacramento: Karen Leaf, President.
       Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz: Lorie Klein, President.
       Women's Legal Defense Fund: Judy Lichtman, President.
       Youth Law Center: Mark Soler, Executive Director.

  Mr. LEAHY. It is time. It is time to stop holding her hostage and 
help all Americans, and certainly those who are within the district 
that this court will cover in California. It is time to help the cause 
of justice. It is time to improve the bench of the United States. It is 
time to confirm this woman. And it is time for the U.S. Senate to say 
we made a mistake in holding it up this long. Let us go forward.
  Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah has no objection, I would 
like now to yield, and yield control of whatever time I might have, to 
the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Leahy, before he leaves the floor, and 
because Senator Hatch in his absence explained the wonderful tribute he 
is going to have shortly with his portrait being hung in the 
Agriculture room, and he himself said that he is so respectful of you 
and wants to show his respect so much that he is going to join you, so 
that will leave me here on the floor to debate with the Senator from 
Missouri--before you leave the floor I wanted to say to you and to 
Senator Hatch together, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, 
without the two of you looking fairly at this nomination, this day 
would never have come.
  To me it is, in a way, a moving moment. So often we stand on the 
floor and we talk about delays and so on and so forth. But when you put 
the human face on this issue and you have a woman and her husband and 
her son and a law firm that was so excited about this nominee, and you 
add to that 2 years of twisting in the wind and not knowing whether 
this day would ever come, you have to say that today is a wonderful 
day.
  So, before my colleague leaves, I wanted to say to him: Thank you for 
being there for Margaret Morrow and, frankly, all of the people of 
America. Because she will make an excellent judge.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California and to 
my friend from Utah, I do appreciate their help in this. I can assure 
you that, while my family and I will gather for the hanging of this 
portrait--I almost blushed when you mentioned that is my reason for 
being off the floor--I can assure you I will be back in plenty of time 
for the vote and I will have 210 pounds of Vermonter standing in the 
well of the Senate to encourage everybody to vote the appropriate way.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much, Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes. 
The Senator from Utah has 30 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is I would have 15 minutes, then?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 
minutes has passed, and I will reserve 5 minutes in which to debate the 
Senator from Missouri, because I know he is a tough debater and I am 
going to need some time.
  Mr. President, as I said, I am so very pleased that this day has come 
at long last, that we will have an up-or-down vote on Margaret Morrow. 
I really think, standing here, perhaps the only people happier than I 
am right now are Margaret and her husband and her son and her law 
partners and the various citizens of California, Republicans and 
Democrats, who worked together for this day.
  Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream values and mainstream 
America, and the depth and breadth of her support from prominent 
Republicans and Democrats illustrate that she is eminently qualified to 
sit as a Federal judge. I don't think I could be any more eloquent than 
Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy, in putting forward her 
credentials.

[[Page S645]]

  What I am going to do later is just read from some of the 
many letters that we got about Margaret, and then I, also, at that 
time, will have some letters printed in the Record.

  Again, I want to say to Senator Hatch how his leadership has been 
extraordinary on this, and also I personally thank Majority Leader Lott 
and Democratic Leader Daschle for bringing this to the floor and 
arranging for an agreement that this nominee be brought to the floor. I 
thank my colleague from Missouri for allowing an up-or-down vote, for 
not launching a filibuster on this matter. I think Chairman Hatch spoke 
of that eloquently, and I am very pleased that we can have this fair 
vote.
  I recommended Margaret Morrow to the President in September of 1995. 
She was nominated by the President on May 9, 1996. She received her 
first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was 
favorably reported out unanimously by the committee 2 days later. 
Because there was no action, she was renominated again on January 7, 
1997, and had her second hearing on March 18, 1997. This time she was 
reported out favorably. This time the vote was 13 to 5.
  I want to make the point that there is a personal side to this 
judicial nomination process. For nominees who are awaiting 
confirmation, their personal and professional lives truly hang in the 
balance. Margaret Morrow, a 47-year-old mother and law partner has put 
her life and her professional practice on hold while she waited for the 
Senate to vote on her nomination. Her whole family, particularly her 
husband and son, have waited patiently for this day. That is stress and 
that is strain, as you wait for this decision which will so affect your 
life and the life of your family and, of course, your career.
  Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself when he 
once said, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, 
vote them down or vote them up, because the nominees probably have 
plans to make and there are families involved.'' I think Senator Dole 
said it straight ahead. So I am really glad that Margaret's day has 
come finally.
  I do want to say to Margaret, thank you for hanging in there. Thank 
you for not giving up. I well understand that there were certain 
moments where you probably were tempted to do so. There were days when 
you probably thought this day would never come. But you did hang in 
there, and you had every reason to hang in there.
  This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College 
and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 
years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a 
partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is 
married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has 
a 10-year-old son, Patrick Morrow Boland, who actually came up here on 
one of the times that she was before the committee.
  Over the years, Margaret has represented a diverse group of business 
and Government clients, including some of the Nation's largest and most 
prominent companies.
  In the time I have remaining now, I want to quote from some very 
prestigious leaders from California, and from the Senate, who have 
spoken out in behalf of Margaret Morrow. First we have Senator Orrin 
Hatch. He spoke for Margaret himself, so I won't go over that quote.
  Robert Bonner, former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, 
former U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California 
and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed by 
President George Bush, he sent a letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, 
Domenici, Sessions and Specter. In it he says:

       The issue--the only real issue--is this: Is Margaret Morrow 
     likely to be an activist judge? My answer and the answer of 
     other Californians who have unchallengeable Republican 
     credentials and who are and have been leaders of the bar and 
     bench in California, is an unqualified NO. . . . On a 
     personal note, I have known Margaret Morrow for over twenty 
     years. She was my former law partner. I can assure you that 
     she will not be a person who will act precipitously or rashly 
     in challenging the rule of law.
  He continues:

       Based on her record, the collective knowledge of so many 
     Republicans of good reputation, and her commitment to the 
     rule of law and legal institutions, it is clear to me that 
     Margaret will be a superb trial judge who will follow the law 
     as articulated by the Constitution and legal precedent, and 
     apply it to the facts before her.

  I think that this statement is quite powerful. We have numbers of 
others as well. In a letter to Senators Abraham and Gordon Smith and 
Pat Roberts, Thomas Malcolm, who is chairman of Governor Wilson's 
Judicial Selection Committee for Orange County and served on the 
Judicial Selection Committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and 
Seymour, wrote the following:

       I have known Ms. Morrow for approximately 10 years. Over 
     the years, she has constantly been the most outstanding 
     leader our California Bar Association has ever had the 
     privilege of her sitting as its President. . . . Of the 
     literally hundreds of nominations for appointment to the 
     federal bench during my tenure on Senators Hayakawa, Wilson 
     and Seymour's Judicial Selection Committees, Ms. Morrow is by 
     far one of the most impressive applicants I have ever seen.

  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Remaining of my 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 3 minutes of your 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 3 minutes remaining I am 
going to quote from some others.
  Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan, in a letter to Senator Hatch, 
said:

       Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the Federal 
     bench. She is dedicated to following the law and applying it 
     in a rational and objective fashion.

  Republican judges in the 9th Circuit, Pamela Rymer and Cynthia Hall--
they are both President Bush and President Reagan's appointees 
respectively--in a letter to Senators Hutchison, Collins and Snowe, 
write:

       [We] urge your favorable action on the Morrow nomination 
     because [we] believe that she would be an exceptional federal 
     judge.

  Representative James Rogan, former Republican Assembly majority 
leader in the California State Assembly, the first Republican majority 
leader in almost 30 years--actually he testified in front of the 
Judiciary Committee and said:

       When an individual asks me to make a recommendation for a 
     judgeship, that is perhaps the single most important thing I 
     will study before making any recommendation . . . I am 
     absolutely convinced that . . . she would be the type of 
     judge who would follow the Constitution and laws of the 
     United States as they were written. . . . [I]t is my belief . 
     . . that should she win approval from this committee and from 
     the full Senate, she would be a judge that we could all be 
     proud of, both in California and throughout our land.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of people from all over California endorsing Margaret Morrow.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               Republican Support for Margaret M. Morrow

       Robert C. Bonner, former U.S. Attorney (appointed by 
     President Reagan), former U.S. District Court Judge in the 
     Central District of California and former Head of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration (appointed by President Bush), 
     Partner at Gibson, Dunne and Crutcher in Los Angeles (2 
     letters).
       Thomas R. Malcolm, Chairman of Governor Wilson's judicial 
     selection committee for Orange County and previously served 
     on the judicial selection committees of Senators Hayakawa, 
     Wilson, and Seymour.
       Rep. James Rogan (R-27-CA), former Assembly Majority 
     Leader, California State Legislature, former gang murder 
     prosecutor in the LA County District Attorney's Office, 
     former Municipal Court Judge in California.
       Pamela Rymer, Curcuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President 
     Bush.
       Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Reagan.
       Lourdes Baird, District Court Judge, U.S. District Court, 
     Central District of California, appointed by President Bush.
       H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice, State of California 
     Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), 
     appointed by Governor Deukmejian.
       Richard J. Riordan, Major, City of Los Angeles.
       Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Orange County.
       Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus, ARCO, Los Angeles.
       Clifford R. Anderson, Jr., supporter of the presidential 
     campaigns for Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and former member 
     of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee (when

[[Page S646]]

     he was Senator) member of Governor Wilson's State judicial 
     evaluation committee.
       Sherman Block, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles.
       Roger W. Boren, Presiding Justice, State of California 
     Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), 
     appointed by Governor Wilson.
       Sheldon H. Sloan, former President of Los Angeles County 
     Bar Association.
       Stephen Trott, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President 
     Reagan.
       Judith C. Chirlin, Judge, Superior Court of Los Angeles 
     County, appointed by Governor Deukmejian.
       Richard C. Neal, State of California Court of Appeal, 
     Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian 
     and Wilson.
       Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice, Superme Court of 
     California, appointed by Governor Deukmejian.
       Charles S. Vogel, Presiding Justice, State of California 
     Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by 
     Governors Reagan and Wilson.
       Dale S. Fischer, Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, 
     appointed by Governor Wilson.
       Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice, State of California 
     Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by 
     Governors Deukmejian and Wilson.
       Edward B. Huntington, Judge, Superior Court of the State of 
     California, San Diego, appointed by Governor Wilson.
       Laurence H. Pretty, former President of the Association of 
     Business Trial Lawyers.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to you again, I know you 
have been very fair as I presented the case to you, this is a woman 
that every single Senator should be proud to support today. It is not a 
matter of political party. This is a woman uniquely qualified. I almost 
want to say, if Margaret Morrow cannot make it through, then, my 
goodness, who could? I really think she brings those kinds of 
bipartisan credentials.
  I reserve my 5 minutes and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield myself so 
much time as I may consume, and I ask that the Chair inform me when I 
have consumed 15 minutes.
  I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. 
It is appropriate that we bring to the floor nominees who are well 
known to the committee for debate by the full Senate. I commend the 
chairman of the committee for bringing this nomination to the floor. I 
have no objection to these nominations coming to the floor and no 
objection to voting on these nominees. I only objected to this nominee 
coming to the floor to be approved by unanimous consent because I think 
we deserve the opportunity to debate these nominees, to discuss them 
and to have votes on them.
  So many people who are not familiar with the process of the Senate 
may think that when a Senator says that he wants to have a debate that 
he is trying to delay. I believe the work of the Senate should be done 
in full view of the American people and that we should have the 
opportunity to discuss these issues, and then instead of having these 
things voted on by unanimous consent at the close of the business day 
with no record, I think it is important that we debate the nominee's 
qualifications on the record.
  I think it is important because the judiciary is one-third of the 
Government of the United States. The individuals who populate the 
judiciary are lifetime appointments.
  The United States Constitution imposes a responsibility on the Senate 
to be a quality screen, and it is the last screen before a person 
becomes a lifetime member of the judiciary. So we need to do our best 
to make sure that only high-quality individuals reach that level, 
individuals who have respect for the Constitution, who appropriately 
understand that the role of the courts is to decide disputes and not to 
expand the law or to somehow develop new constitutional rights. The 
legislature is the part of the body politic that is designed to make 
law. The courts are designed to settle disputes about the law.
  It is against this background that I am pleased to have the 
opportunity to debate the nomination of Margaret Morrow.
  Let me begin by saying that Ms. Morrow is an outstanding lawyer. No 
one wants to challenge her credentials. No one believes that she is not 
a person of great intellect or a person of tremendous experience. She 
is a person who has great capacity. It has been demonstrated in her 
private life, her educational record and in her life of service as an 
officer of the California Bar Association.
  The only reservations to be expressed about Ms. Morrow, and they are 
substantial ones in my regard--they are not about her talent, not about 
her capacity, not about her integrity--they are about what her 
interpretation of the role of a judge is; whether she thinks that the 
law as developed in the court system belongs on the cutting edge, 
whether she thinks that the law, as developed in the court system, is 
an engine of social change and that the courts should drive the Nation 
in a direction of a different culture and a direction of recognizing 
new rights that weren't recognized or placed in the Constitution, and 
that needed to be invented or developed or brought into existence by 
individuals who populate the courts. That, I think, is the major 
question we have before us.
  So let me just say again, this is an outstanding person of intellect, 
from everything I can understand a person of great integrity, a person 
whose record of service is laudable and commendable. The only question 
I have is, does she have the right view of the Constitution, the right 
view of what courts are supposed to do, or will she be someone who goes 
to the bench and, unfortunately, like so many other lawyers in the 
ninth circuit, decide that the court is the best place to amend the 
Constitution? Does she think the court is the best place to strike down 
the will of the people, to impose on the people from the courts what 
could not be generated by the representatives of the people in the 
legislature.

  So, fundamentally, the question is whether or not this candidate will 
respect the separation of powers, whether this candidate will say the 
legislature is the place to make the law, and whether she will 
recognize that courts can only make decisions about the law. Will she 
acknowledge that the people have the right to make the law, too? After 
all, that is what our Constitution says, that all power and all 
authority is derived from the people, and they, with their elected 
representatives, should have the opportunity to make the law.
  It is with these questions in mind that I look at some of the 
writings of this candidate for a Federal judgeship, and I come to the 
conclusion that she believes that the court system and the courts are 
the place where the law can be made, especially if the people are not 
smart enough or if the people aren't progressive enough or if the 
Constitution isn't flexible enough.
  I can't say for sure this is what would happen. I have to be fair. I 
have to go by what she has written. I will be at odds with the 
interpretation of some of the things said by the committee chairman. I 
respect the chairman, but I think that his interpretation of her 
writings is flawed.
  In 1995, in a law review comment, Ms. Morrow seemed to endorse the 
practice of judicial activism, that is judge-made law. She wrote:

       For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge 
     of social thought. It is a vehicle--

  Or a way--

     through which we ease the transition from the rules which 
     have always been to the rules which are to be.

  She is saying that the law is the vehicle, the thing that takes you 
from what was to what will be. I was a little puzzled when the 
committee chairman said that the committee found that she didn't mean 
the substantive as expressed in the courts and the like. Let me just 
say I don't believe the committee made any such findings. I have 
checked with committee staff, and it is just not the case that the 
committee made findings.
  It is true that a majority of the members of the committee voted this 
candidate to the floor, but the committee didn't make findings that 
this was not a statement of judicial activism. Frankly, I think it is a 
statement of judicial activism, despite the fact that Ms. Morrow told 
the committee that she was not speaking about the law in any 
substantive way, but rather was referring to the legal profession and 
the rules governing the profession.
  The law, by definition, is on the cutting edge of social thought? 
Social

[[Page S647]]

thought doesn't govern the profession, social thought governs the 
society. The transition of the rules from the way they have always been 
to the rules which they are to be? I think it is a stretch to say that 
this really refers to the legal profession.
  If she meant that the legal profession is a vehicle through which we 
ease the transition from the rules which always have been to the rules 
which are to be, that doesn't make sense. Clearly she is referring to 
something other than the legal profession or the rules of professional 
conduct.
  Some have suggested that because Ms. Morrow initially made these 
remarks at a 1994 Conference on Women and the Law, that it is plausible 
that she was referring to the profession and not to the substantive 
law. But I think it is more likely that her statement reflects a belief 
that the law can and should be used by those who interpret it to change 
social norms, inside and outside of the legal profession.

  Truly, that is a definition of activism, the ability of judges to 
impose on the culture those things which they prefer rather than have 
the culture initiate through their elected representatives those things 
which the culture prefers.
  Frankly, if it is a question of a few in the judiciary defining what 
the values of the many are in the culture, I think that is 
antidemocratic. I really believe that the virtue of America is that the 
many impose their will on the Government, not that the few in 
Government impose their will on the many.
  Reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of Ms. 
Morrow's statement. Others can argue about whether or not hastening 
social change is a proper role for judges in the courts. But I think it 
is fair to conclude that Ms. Morrow's comments were an endorsement of 
judicial activism.
  In 1993, Ms. Morrow gave another speech that suggested approval of 
judicial activism, quoting William Brennan, an evangelist of judicial 
activism. Morrow stated:

       Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal 
     institutions are ``engines of social change'' able to 
     accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction 
     in this decade.

  She said these remarks were not an endorsement of activism. She told 
the Judiciary Committee the subject of the comments was, once again, 
not the law but the legal profession and the California State Bar 
Association.
  To say that both law and legal institutions are engines of social 
change I think begs the question of whether you are just talking about 
the State bar association. In this statement, Ms. Morrow refers 
specifically to the law and legal institutions. Ms. Morrow's words were 
a call for activism to those who administer the law.
  Again, the committee chairman indicated that the committee found that 
she was referring to those things she referenced in her testimony. That 
may have been the conclusion of some on the committee as a basis for 
how they voted, but I don't believe the committee made any findings 
about what her statements meant.
  Ms. Morrow was the president of the California State bar in 1993 and 
1994, one of the things for which she is to be applauded. She was first 
woman elected president of the bar. But according to press reports, her 
first bar convention as president was ``marked by only one big issue: 
gun control.'' Even U.S. Attorney Janet Reno traveled all the way to 
the San Diego convention to exhort attendees to work against Americans' 
``love affair with guns.''
  And although a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibited the 
California bar from using dues for political activities and 
specifically listed advocacy of gun control legislation as an example, 
Ms. Morrow said the bar should consider the Court's ruling, ``assess 
the risks, and then do what is right.''
  So looking into the face of a Supreme Court decision of the United 
States, Ms. Morrow said, ``Yeah, we should figure out what we think is 
right and assess the risks,'' I suppose of getting caught and what the 
consequences would be, ``and then just basically do what we think is 
right.''
  I think if we are going to ask someone to undertake the 
responsibility of administering justice in the Federal judicial system, 
we have to expect them to accord the Constitution of the United States 
respect. We have to expect them to accord the rulings of the Supreme 
Court of the United States respect, and to assess the risks and do what 
is right is not a philosophy.
  Frankly, one does not need to assess the risks if one is going to do 
what is right. If you are going to do what is right, there are no 
risks. Rather than imply that the Court's prohibition on using bar dues 
for political purposes may be somehow circumvented or disregarded, Ms. 
Morrow could have stated her clear intention to respect the Court's 
decision and to urge her membership to do the same.
  Ms. Morrow not only has indicated her willingness to use the law ``on 
the cutting edge'' and to use the law, the legal profession and the 
courts to change the rules whereby people live and to make law and not 
just interpret law or decide disputes, she has argued that when the 
people get involved in making the law, the result is dubious and should 
be called into question and into doubt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I allocate myself such further time as I may consume in 
making this next point.
  Mr. President, Ms. Morrow's supporters argue that her comments about 
judicial activism are taken out of context or misinterpreted, but I 
don't believe that they are. Her supporters will have a harder time 
explaining away Ms. Morrow's disparaging and elitist views about direct 
citizen involvement in decisionmaking processes.
  If she is not clear about saying that she would displace the 
legislative function by being a judicial activist in one arena, that 
is, when it comes to interpreting the law and expanding the 
Constitution, she is very clear about her disrespect for legislation 
enacted by the people.
  In 1988, she wrote an article and smugly criticized the ballot 
initiative as used by the citizens of California. Here is what she 
wrote in that article:

       The fact that initiatives are presented to a 
     ``legislature'' of 20 million people renders ephemeral any 
     real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.

  What she is saying, in other words, is that whenever the people get 
involved, decisions will not be intelligent. She suggests that the 
courts are going to have to step in and do the right thing, what they 
know to be better than what the people have said, and take over. I 
think a lot of Americans would be concerned if the courts simply took 
over.
  By the way, I noted there was a substantial list of letters that were 
sent to the desk on behalf of individuals that endorsed Ms. Morrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list assembled by the Judicial 
Selection Monitoring Project be printed in the Record. It lists more 
than 180 different grassroots organizations, from the American 
Association for Small Property Ownership to the Independent Women's 
Forum to the Women for Responsible Legislation, that oppose this 
nomination.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                Judicial Selection


                                           Monitoring Project,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: We strongly oppose the nomination of 
     Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for one or more of 
     the following reasons.
       First, her activities and writings reveal aggressive 
     advocacy of liberal political causes and the view that courts 
     and the law can be used to effect political and social 
     change. This combination foretells liberals judicial activism 
     on the bench. She wants bar association to take ``a strong 
     active voice'' on political issues and has written that the 
     law is ``on the cutting edge of social thought'' and ``the 
     vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules 
     which have been to the rules which are to be.'' She opposes 
     any restrictions on blatantly political litigation by the 
     Legal Services Corporation.
       Second, as Senator Charles Grassley has said, Morrow's 
     ``judgment and candor are under a great deal of question.'' 
     Morrow twice withheld nearly 40 articles, reports, and 
     speeches from the Senate Judiciary Committee, including those 
     clearly reflecting her activist approach to the law. She 
     refused to answer Senators' legitimate questions following 
     her hearing, and eventually provided answers that Senator 
     Grassley called ``false and misleading.''
       Finally, and perhaps most important, Americans now know 
     what Morrow's wholesale condemnation of direct democracy will

[[Page S648]]

     mean if she becomes a federal judge. She has written that 
     ``any real hope of intelligent voting'' by the people on 
     ballot measures is only ``ephemeral.'' On October 8, the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals in California implemented that same view and 
     swept aside an initiative enacted by Californians because two 
     judges thought the voters did not understand what they were 
     doing. It is clear that Morrow will be yet another judge more 
     than willing to substitute her own elitist judgments for the 
     will of the people.
       A nominee who believes the courts can be used to enact 
     liberal political an social policy, whose ``judgment and 
     candor are under a great deal of question,'' and who will 
     undermine democracy has no place on the federal bench.
           Sincerely,
       Alabama Citizens for Truth
       Alabama Family Alliance
       Alliance Defense Fund
       Alliance for American
       American Association of Christian Schools
       American Association for Small Property Ownership
       American Center for Law and Justice--DC
       American Center for Law and Justice--National
       American Family Association
       American Family Association of KY
       American Family Association of MI
       American Family Association of MO
       American Family Association of NY
       American Family Association of TX
       American Foundation (OH)
       American Land Rights Association
       American Policy Center
       American Pro-Constitutional Association
       American Rights Coalition
       Americans for Choice in Education
       American for Decency
       Americans for Tax Reform
       California Coalition for Immigration Reform
       Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
       Center for Arizona Policy
       Center for Individual Rights
       Center for New Black Leadership
       Christian Coalition
       Christian Coalition of California
       Christian Coalition of IA
       Christian Coalition of KS, Inc.
       Christian Exchange, Inc.
       Christian Home Educators of Kentucky
       Citizens Against Repressive Zoning
       Citizens Against Violent Crime
       Citizens for Better Government
       Citizens for Community Values
       Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Inc.
       Citizens for Economically Responsible Government
       Citizens for Excellence in Education (TX)
       Citizens for Law & Order
       Citizens for Reform
       Citizens for Responsible Government
       Citizens United
       Coalition Against Pornography
       Coalitions for America
       Colorado Coalition for Fair Competition
       Colorado for Family Values
       Colorado Term Limits Coalition
       Concerned Women for America
       Concerned Women for America of Virginia
       Legislative Action Committee
       Conservative Campaign Fund
       Conservative Opportunity Society PAC
       Constitutional Coalition
       Constituionalists Networking Center
       Coral Ridge Ministries
       Council of Conservative Citizens
       Defenders of Property Rights
       Delaware Family Foundation
       Eagle Forum
       Eagle Forum of Alabama
       Eagle Forum, Inc. (FL)
       Environmental Conservation Organization
       Evergreen Freedom Foundation
       Family Foundation (KY) (The)
       Family Foundation (VA) (The)
       Family Friendly Libraries
       Family Institute of Connecticut
       Family Life Radio--Micky Grace (KFLT, Phoenix)
       Family Policy Center (MO)
       Family Research Council
       Family Research Institute of Wisconsin
       Family Taxpayer's Network (IL)
       Family Taxpayers Foundation
       First Principles, Inc.
       Focus on the Family
       Freedom Foundation (The)
       Frontiers of Freedom
       Georgia Christian Coalition
       Georgia Sports Shooting Association
       Government Is Not God PAC
       Gun Owners of America
       Gun Owners of South Carolina
       Heritage Caucus/Judicial Forum
       Home School Legal Defense Association
       Idaho Family Forum
       Illinois Citizens for Life
       Illinois Family Institute
       Impeach Federal Judge John T. Nixon
       Independence Institute
       Independent Women's Forum
       Indiana Family Institute
       Individual Rights Foundation (Center for Pop Cult)
       Institute for Media Education (The)
       Iowa Family Policy Center
       ``Janet Parshall's America''--WAVA FM
       Judicial Selection Monitoring Project
       Judicial Watch, Inc.
       Justice for Murder Victims
       Kansas Conservative Union
       Kansas Eagle Forum
       Kansas Family Research Institute
       Kansas Taxpayers Network
       Landmark Legal Foundation
       Law Enforcement Alliance of America
       Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc.
       League of American Families
       League of Catholic Voters (VA)
       Legal Affairs Council
       Liberty Counsel
       Life Advocacy Alliance
       Life Coalition International
       Life Decisions International
       Life Issues Institute, Inc.
       Madison Project (The)
       ``Mark Larson Show (The)''--KPRZ San Diego
       Maryland Assoc. of Christian Schools
       Massachusetts Family Institute
       Michigan Decency Action Council
       Michigan Family Forum
       ``The Mike Farris Show''
       Minnesota Family Council
       Mississippi Family Council
       Morality Action Committee
       Nat'l Center for Constitutional Studies
       Nat'l Center for Public Policy Research
       Nat'l Citizens Legal Network
       Nat'l Coalition for Protection of Children & Families
       Nat'l Family Legal Foundation
       Nat'l Institute of Family & Life Advocates
       Nat'l Legal and Policy Center
       Nat'l Legal Foundation (The)
       Nat'l Parents' Commission
       Nat'l Rifle Association
       NET-Political News Talk Network
       Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association
       New Hampshire Landowners Alliance
       New Hampshire Right to Life
       New Jersey Family Policy Council
       Northwest Legal Foundation
       Oklahoma Christian Coalition
       Oklahoma Family Policy Center
       Oklahomans for Children & Families
       Organized Victims of Violent Crime
       Parents Rights Coalition
       Pennsylvania Landowners Association
       Pennsylvanians For Human Life
       ``Perspectives Talk Radio''--Hosted by Brian Hyde (KDXU)
       Philadelphia Family Policy Council
       Pro-Life Action League
       Public Interest Institute
       Putting Liberty First
       ``Radio Liberty''
       Religious Freedom Coalition
       Resource Education Network
       Resource Institute of Oklahoma
       Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, Inc.
       Safe Streets Alliance
       Save America's Youth
       Seniors Coalition (The)
       Sixty (60) Plus Association
       Small Business Survival Committee
       South Carolina Policy Education Foundation
       South Dakota Family Policy Council
       ``Stan Solomon Show''
       Strategic Policies Institute
       Take Back Arkansas, Inc.
       Talk USA Network
       TEACH Michigan Education Fund
       Texas Eagle Forum
       Texas Public Policy Foundation
       Toward Tradition
       Traditional Values Coalition
       U.S. Business and Industrial Council
       Utah Coalition of Taxpayers
       WallBuilders
       West Virginia Family Foundation
       ``What Washington Doesn't Want You to Know'' Hosted by Jane 
     Chastain
       Wisconsin Information Network
       Wisconsin State Sovereignty Coalition
       Women for Responsible Legislation

  Mr. ASHCROFT. I think the fact that these grassroots organizations 
oppose this nomination reflects the fact that they distrust an 
individual who distrusts the people. Whenever you have someone moving 
into the Federal court system who expresses in advance the fact that 
when people get involved in government, it renders an intelligent 
result ephemeral or unlikely to take place, I think they have a right 
to be disconcerted and upset.
  She continued in her article:

       Only a small minority of voters study their ballot pamphlet 
     with any care, and only the minutest percentage takes time to 
     read the proposed statutory language itself. Indeed, it seems 
     too much to ask that they do, since propositions are . . . 
     difficult for a layperson to understand.

  Basically, this says that lawyers are smart enough to understand 
these things but ordinary people cannot and, as a result, cannot make 
intelligent decisions. I have noted before that it is not a requirement 
to be a lawyer to be a Member of the Senate. Ordinary people can run 
for the U.S. Senate. And they do. You need only be 35 years old.
  I have also noticed that, very frequently, only a small minority of 
the Senators have read, in the totality, the legislation which is 
before the Senate. If you are going to say that laws are not effective 
and should not be respected because they were not read thoroughly or 
not everybody who voted on them was a lawyer, that would be a premise 
for disregarding any law passed in the United States. It would be a 
premise for saying that the laws of the United States are not to be 
accorded deference by the courts. And sometimes I think that is the way 
the courts look at them.

[[Page S649]]

  They look at the laws that are enacted by the Congress and they say, 
``Well, we're going to have to expand that. We're going to have to 
change that. They weren't smart enough. The representatives of the 
people weren't smart enough. They didn't know what they were doing.''
  Frankly, this distrust of democracy is the kind of thing that 
provides the predicate for judicial activism where individuals 
substitute their judgment for the law of the Constitution, where courts 
substitute their preferences for the people's will as expressed in the 
law.
  This has been a particular problem with the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, which has been striking down propositions approved by the 
voters of Californians right and left.
  Proposition 140. A three-judge panel affirmed a decision by Judge 
Wilkin, a Clinton appointee, to throw out term limits for State 
legislators. The ninth circuit en banc reversed and upheld the 
constitutionality of the initiative.
  Here you have it. The people of California decide they want term 
limits, and you have a Federal judge who thinks, ``Well, they don't 
know what they're doing. They're just people. They aren't lawyers. They 
didn't read this carefully enough,'' and it is set aside. That is the 
attitude we cannot afford to replicate there.
  Proposition 209. Judge Henderson struck down this prohibition of race 
and gender preferences. People of America do not want quotas and 
preferences. They want to operate based on merit. So the people of 
California did what the people should do when they want something in 
the law, they enacted it through the constitutional method of passing 
an initiative.
  But the judge, Federal judge, thinking himself to be superior in 
wisdom to the voters--maybe the judge had been reading the article by 
Ms. Morrow that said, ``The fact that initiatives are presented to a 
`legislature' of 20 million people renders ephemeral any real hope of 
intelligent voting by a majority''--struck down that initiative.
  Proposition 187. This law denying certain public benefits to illegal 
aliens was declared unconstitutional by another judge.
  Proposition 208 was recently blocked in its enforcement by Judge 
Karlton.
  Over and over again in California we have had this problem caused by 
judges who basically think that the initiatives of the people are not 
due the respect to be accorded to enactments of the law. And when 
judges place themselves above the people, when judges elevate their own 
views to a point where they are saying that they have a legislative 
capacity to say what ought to be the law rather than to resolve 
disputes about the law, I think that is when we get into trouble.
  Now, many confirmation decisions will require Senators to anticipate 
what will happen. We cannot really know for sure what is going to 
happen. Almost 4\1/2\ years ago the Senate confirmed, by unanimous 
consent, without a vote, Claudia Wilken to be a district court judge in 
the Northern District of California.
  She was asked about things like this before the Judiciary Committee. 
And she stated, ``A good judge applies the law, not her personal views, 
when she decides a case.'' She said judges should fashion broad, 
equitable relief ``only where the Constitution or a statute'' requires. 
But she's the judge who said that the term limits initiative passed in 
California in 1990 was unconstitutional. Now, when the Federal 
Constitution itself has term limits for the President, you have to 
wonder if she is not just trying to substitute her judgment and 
displace the judgment of the people of California.
  Last April, Judge Wilken ruled that the term limits initiative, which 
was passed by the voters in the State, and approved by the California 
Supreme Court--violated the Constitution. The new law, Judge Wilken 
held, was unfair to those voters who wanted to support a candidate with 
legislative experience. I wonder if maybe she had been reading the 
material of the nominee in this case. I wonder if she really believed 
that ``The fact that initiatives are presented to a `legislature' of 20 
million people renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by 
a majority.''
  The ninth circuit court of appeals, which covers California, is the 
circuit in which these questions arose. Unfortunately, it is the most 
active circuit judicially. I think we have to be very careful when we 
are appointing individuals to courts within that circuit that we do not 
find ourselves reinforcing this judicially active mentality.
  Let us just take a look at what kind of legal environment they are in 
out there.
  In 1997, the Supreme Court reversed an astounding 27 out of 28 ninth 
circuit decisions.
  In 1996, it was 10 out of 12 decisions that were reversed.
  In 1995, it was 14 out of 17.
  It is obvious that the ninth circuit is out of control, filled with 
individuals who believe that the people are to be disregarded, that the 
intelligence resides solely in the court system. Frankly, I think that 
is a troublesome problem.
  Here is what one of the judges on the ninth circuit said, expressing 
pride in the fact that the court was frequently reversed. Chief Judge 
Procter Hug said in a recent interview:

       We're on the cutting edge of a lot of cases.

  Does the phrase ``cutting edge'' remind you of anything? Another one 
of those quotes from Ms. Morrow.

       We're on the cutting edge of a lot of cases. If a ruling 
     creates a lot of heat, that's why we have life tenure.

  I really believe that life tenure is supported by the need for 
independence, but it is not to be a license to take over the 
legislative responsibility of Government. It is not to be a license to 
be out there on the cutting edge, to be writing new laws, instead of 
deciding controversies presented by application of old laws.

  On the ninth circuit, no judge is reversed more than judge Stephen 
Reinhardt, the renegade judge who in recent years has argued that the 
Constitution protects an individual's right to commit physician-
assisted suicide. Of course, he was reversed by the Supreme Court. He 
recently ruled that school-administered drug tests for high school 
athletes violated the Constitution. His creation there of a new 
constitutional right again was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Finally, Reinhardt argued that farmers lack standing to challenge the 
Endangered Species Act because they have an economic interest in doing 
so. This decision also was reversed by the Supreme Court. And just last 
week, Reinhardt reversed a lower court decision and held employers are 
prevented by the Constitution from conducting genetic tests as part of 
their employees' routine physicals--another new constitutional right 
found by an activist judge.
  Judge Reinhardt seems to share the arguments made by Ms. Morrow in 
her article about initiatives. To Reinhardt, the Constitution is not a 
charter to be interpreted strictly; rather, it is an outline for 
creative judges to fill in the blanks.
  I think judges who believe that the Constitution is written in pencil 
and who think that the Bill of Rights is written in disappearing ink 
are judges that are out of control. We have to be careful we don't put 
more individuals on the bench who have a disregard for the separation 
of powers and who do not understand that what the people do under the 
authority of the Constitution is valid and must be respected.
  I see my colleague from the State of Alabama has arrived and is 
prepared, I believe, to make remarks in this respect. I want to thank 
him for his outstanding work on the Judiciary Committee. He takes his 
work very seriously. He is a champion of the Constitution of the United 
States. He understands that the people are the source of power. He 
understands well that judges are very important. It is important that 
we have intelligent judges, capable judges; but also, judges that 
respect the fact that they have a limited function of resolving 
disputes. And in so doing they are not to amend the Constitution or 
extend the law but to rely upon the legislature or the people to do 
that whenever is necessary.
  I yield to the Senator from Alabama 10 minutes in which to make his 
remarks in opposition to this nominee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I spent 15 years in my professional career as a Federal 
prosecutor prosecuting full-time before Federal judges. I have had the 
pleasure of practicing before some of the finest judges in America. It 
is a thrill to have

[[Page S650]]

that opportunity, to have the opportunity to represent the United 
States of America in court and to utilize our Constitution, our laws 
and our statutes, and the logic that God gives us the ability to 
utilize, to analyze difficult problems.
  Many of us can disagree, but I do rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court bench for the 
Central District of California. This is not an easy decision. These are 
not pleasant tasks for those of us on the Judiciary Committee and in 
this Senate to decide to vote against a Presidential nomination. But if 
we believe in that and we are concerned about that, our responsibility 
as Members of this body calls on us to do so.
  By all accounts, she is a fine lawyer and a good person. However, her 
writings and speeches which span over a decade indicate that she views 
the Federal judiciary as a means to achieve a social or political end.
  This nomination is all the more important when one considers that Ms. 
Morrow's home State of California has repeatedly been victimized 
recently by liberal and undemocratic Federal judges. Moreover, judicial 
activism has plagued her judicial circuit, the ninth circuit, like no 
other circuit in the country.

  Consider for a moment how big a problem judicial activism is on the 
ninth circuit. In 1997, last year, the Supreme Court reversed 27 out of 
28 decisions rendered by the ninth circuit. In 1996, the Supreme Court 
reversed 10 out of 12 ninth circuit decisions. That pattern has been 
going on for decades. As a Federal prosecutor in Alabama, when criminal 
defense lawyers file briefs and cite law to argue their opinion or to 
suppress evidence or matters of that kind, they most frequently cited 
ninth circuit opinions because those were the most liberal in the 
country on criminal law. Frankly, they were not given much credit 
around the country. Most judges in the United States recognize that 
this circuit too often was out of step with the rest of the country.
  There are a number of factors that cause me to oppose the 
confirmation of Ms. Morrow. Chief among the factors is her skepticism, 
if not outright hostility, toward voter initiatives. In a 1988 article, 
Morrow criticized California's initiative process. In this article, she 
stated, really condescendingly, these words, ``The fact that 
initiatives are presented to a `legislature' of 20 million people 
renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.'' 
I suggest that that indicates a lack of respect for that process and 
the jealously guarded privilege of California voters to enact 
legislation by direct action of the people.
  She further criticized the initiative process with this statement: 
``The public, by contrast, cast its votes for initiatives on the basis 
of 30- and 60-second advertisements which ignore or obscure the 
substance of the measure.''
  At the time of her hearing, I found that Ms. Morrow's suspicion of 
initiatives particularly troubling because of two recent California 
initiatives, Proposition 187 and Proposition 209, the California civil 
rights initiative, both of which have been blocked by activist Federal 
judges in California. In fact, the judges in the ninth circuit have 
invalidated voter initiatives on tenuous grounds since the early 1980s. 
These decisions demonstrate the enormous power that a single sitting 
Federal district judge possesses to subvert the will of the people. 
Morrow's criticism of citizen initiatives reveals an elitist mindset 
characteristic of activist judges who use the judiciary to impose their 
personal values onto the law.
  Unfortunately, recent events have left me even more concerned about 
her disdain for the people's will as expressed in voter initiatives. 
Late last year, the ninth circuit effectively enshrined Ms. Morrow's 
view of initiatives into ninth circuit law. In an opinion striking down 
yet another voter initiative, term limits for California State 
legislatures, the ninth circuit held that Federal courts must 
scrutinize voter initiatives more closely than ``ordinary legislative 
lawmaking.'' This ``extra scrutiny'' is necessary, according to the 
ninth circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Betty Fletcher, because 
initiatives are not the product of committee hearings and because ``the 
public also generally lacks legal or legislative expertise.'' In the 
end, the ninth circuit invalidated the term limits initiative not 
because term limits are unconstitutional--because I submit to you they 
plainly are not unconstitutional--but because the two Federal judges 
did not think the voters fully understood what they were voting for.
  The ninth circuit does not need any more reinforcements in its war on 
the initiative process. The people of California are rightly jealous of 
their initiative process. They are frustrated that judges go out of 
their way to strike down the decisions they reach by direct 
plebiscite. We don't need to send them another judge, another leader on 
that court who would support the anti-initiative effort.

  Ms. Morrow's distaste for voter initiatives is not the only troubling 
aspect of her record. For example, in a 1995 law review comment, she 
wrote what can be interpreted clearly to me as a blatant approval of 
judicial activism:

       For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge 
     of social thought. It is a vehicle through which we ease the 
     transition from the rules which have always been to the rules 
     which are to be.

  I know she has suggested a view of that language that would indicate 
that she meant something like the practice of law, rather than the rule 
of law. But that's not what she said and, in fact, maybe she meant it 
to apply to both circumstances. In fact, I think that's the most 
accurate interpretation of it. She may well have been talking about the 
practice of law, but at the same time her approach to law, because that 
is what her language includes. It would suggest to me that this is, in 
fact, the language of a judicial activist.
  In a 1983 speech, she also made comments that suggest approval of 
judicial activism. In this speech, she quoted Justice William Brennan, 
the evangelist of judicial activism, stating:

       Justice can only endure and flourish if the law and legal 
     institutions are ``engines of change'' able to accommodate 
     evolving patterns of life and social interaction in this 
     decade.

  Obviously, using the law as an ``engine of change'' is the very 
definition of judicial activism and is fundamentally incompatible with 
democratic government.
  Mr. President, it is a serious matter when the people, through their 
contract with the Government and their Constitution, set forth plain 
restraints on the power of the law, when the people, through their 
legislators in California, or through their Congress in Washington, 
pass statutes requiring things to be done one way or the other, and 
when a judge, if they do not respect that law, feels like he or she can 
reinterpret or redefine the meaning of words in those documents in such 
a way that would allow them to impose their view of the proper outcome 
under the circumstances. That makes them a judicial activist. I submit 
that these writings from her past indicate that tendency.
  Also, in 1983, the nominee strongly criticized the Reagan 
administration's efforts to restrict the Legal Services Corporation 
from filing certain categories of lawsuits. As many of you know, the 
Legal Services Corporation grantees--they receive money from the 
Government--have repeatedly filed partisan suits in Federal courts to 
achieve political aims. For example, the Legal Services Corporation has 
repeatedly sued to block welfare reform efforts in the States. Issues 
of public policy simply are not properly decided by litigation. The use 
of public tax dollars to promote an ideological agenda through the 
Federal courts is not acceptable.
  Of course, support for the historic mission of the Legal Services 
Corporation--helping the poor with real legal problems --is not the 
issue. What bothers me is Ms. Morrow's opposition to President Reagan's 
attempt to depoliticize the Legal Services Corporation and to direct 
it's attention fundamentally to its goal of helping the poor. But we 
had a very serious debate in America and I think, for the most part, it 
has been won; for the most part, Legal Services Corporation has been 
restrained. There are still problems ongoing, but I hope we have made 
progress, despite the very strong opposition of Ms. Morrow in her 
writings.
  So Ms. Morrow's intelligence, academic record, and professional 
achievements are not in question. However,

[[Page S651]]

her writings, published over the last decade, provide a direct look at 
her view of the law. That view, I must conclude, indicates that Ms. 
Morrow would be yet another undemocratic, activist Federal judge.
  One last point must be made. Unlike other judicial nominees, Ms. 
Morrow has not previously been a judge. Consequently, she does not have 
a lengthy judicial record for the Senate to review. In this situation, 
we must rely on her private writings and speeches to determine her 
judicial philosophy. This is not an easy or certain task. We must make 
judgments as to what is relevant and probative and what is not. In this 
situation, I have made such an inquiry and have decided to oppose the 
confirmation of this very able attorney. The Senate must fulfill its 
advise and consent responsibilities to ensure that federal judges 
respect their constitutional role to interpret the law. Consequently, I 
urge you to oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation 
of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District for the Central District of 
California.
  Her consideration by the United States is long overdue:
  Ms. Morrow's nomination has twice been reported out by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, on which I have the honor to serve;
  Both times she has enjoyed the public support of the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch;
  Both times the American Bar Association voted unanimously to give her 
its highest rating, ``well qualified.''
  Yet for nearly two years, Ms. Morrow's nomination has languished in 
the Senate.
  By way of background, Ms. Morrow graduated from Harvard Law School, 
cum laude, in 1974. Prior to that, she graduated from Bryn Mawr 
College, magna cum laude, in 1971.
  Since 1996, she has been a partner in the Los Angeles office of 
Arnold & Porter, one of the nation's preeminent corporate law firms.
  Prior to 1996, she helped form the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn, 
Kully & Morrow in 1987, where she chaired the firm's Appellate 
Department.
  Prior to 1987, she practiced for 13 years at the Los Angeles firm of 
Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn, & Rossi, where she attained the rank 
of partner and handled a wide range of commercial litigation in the 
federal and state courts.
  The legal profession has recognized Ms. Morrow's quality of work, 
commitment to the profession, and dedication to the broader community 
with a host of awards.
  Among the many legal awards Ms. Morrow has received are the 
following:
  In 1997, she received the Shattuck-Price Memorial Award, the Los 
Angeles County Bar Association's highest award, awarded to a lawyer 
dedicated to improving the legal profession and the administration of 
justice.
  In 1995, she received the Bernard E. Witkins Amicus Curiae Award, 
presented by the California Judicial Council to non-jurists who have 
nonetheless made significant contributions to the California court 
system.
  In 1994, the Women Lawyers Association in Los Angeles recognized Ms. 
Morrow as most distinguished woman lawyer with the Ernestine Stalhut 
Award.
  She received the 1994 President's Award from the California 
Association of Court-Appointed Special Advocates for her service on 
behalf of abused, neglected, and dependent children.
  In 1990, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles presented her with 
the Maynard Toll Award for her significant contribution to legal 
services for the poor. She is the only woman to date who has received 
this award.
  Margaret Morrow's excellent legal skills have been consistently 
recognized:
  She was listed in the 1997-1998 edition of The Best Lawyers in 
America.
  In 1995 and 1996, the Los Angeles Business Journal's ``Law Who's 
Who,'' listed her among the one hundred outstanding Los Angeles 
business attorneys.
  In 1994, she was listed as one of the top 20 lawyers in Los Angeles 
by California Law Business, a publication of the Los Angeles Daily 
Journal.
  Margaret Morrow has held leadership positions in Federal, State and 
county bar associations and other legal organizations.
  She served as the first woman President of the State Bar of 
California, a position she held from 1993 to 1994. Prior to that, she 
served as the State Bar's Vice-President.
  From 1988-89, she served as President of the Los Angeles County Bar 
Association, creating the Pro Bono Council and the Committee on the 
Status of Minorities in the Profession during her term.
  As President of the Barristers' Section of the Los Angeles County 
Bar, she established a nationally recognized Domestic Violence 
Counseling Project as well as an AIDS hospice program.
  She directed the American Bar Association's Young Lawyers' Division 
and served on its Standing Committee for Legal Aid for Indigent 
Defendants.
  She has served on the boards of a number of legal services programs, 
and has been a member of several Advisory Committees of the California 
Judicial Council.
  The true test of Margaret Morrow's qualifications to serve on the 
federal bench is the long list of attorneys, judges, law enforcement 
personnel, and community leaders who actively support her nomination.
  Indeed, the list of Margaret Morrow's supporters reads like a ``Who's 
Who'' of California Republicans and Bush, Reagan, Deukmejian, and 
Wilson appointees.
  Just to highlight a few of Margaret Morrow's many supporters:
  Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, Republican;
  Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, Republican;
  Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi, Republican;
  Former DEA Head, U.S. District Judge, and U.S. Attorney, Robert 
Bonner, who was appointed to those positions by Presidents Bush and 
Reagan; Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Stephen Trott, Reagan appointees to 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the list goes on and on.
  Perhaps most telling is the recommendation of H. Walter Croskey. 
Judge Croskey is a Governor Deukmejian appointee to the appellate court 
of the State of California, and a self-described life-long conservative 
Republican.
  Judge Croskey is well-acquainted with Margaret Morrow's reputation in 
the legal community, having observed her over a period of 15 years, 
when she appeared before him in both trial and appellate courts, and 
worked professionally on numerous State and local bar activities.
  Based on his observations, this conservative Republican appellate 
jurist concluded:

       She is the most outstanding candidate for appointment to 
     the Federal trial court who has been put forward in my 
     memory.

  Margaret Morrow is, by any measure, an unusually accomplished member 
in her profession, and I believe that her qualifications will serve her 
well as a member of the Federal judiciary.
  I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm her nomination.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. I rise in strong support of Margaret 
Morrow to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. She is well-qualified 
to serve as a federal judge, and she has already been waiting far too 
long for the vote she deserves on her nomination.
  Margaret Morrow was nominated in the last Congress in May 1996. 
Partisan politics prevented action on her nomination before the 1996 
election, but even that excuse can't be used to justify the Senate's 
failure to act on her nomination in all of 1997.
  Margaret Morrow is a partner in a prestigious California law firm, 
and 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.
  Her nomination has wide support. The National Association of Women 
Judges calls her ``an extraordinary candidate for the federal bench, a 
true professional, without a personal or political agenda, who would be 
a trustworthy public servant of the highest caliber.'' The National 
Women's Law Center calls her ``a leader and a path blazer among women 
lawyers.''
  She also has the support of many prominent Republicans, because of 
her impressive qualifications for the bench.

[[Page S652]]

Representative James Rogan says that ``she would be the type of judge 
who would follow the Constitution and the laws of the United States as 
they were written.'' Richard Riordan, the Republican Mayor of Los 
Angeles has stated that the residents of Los Angeles ``would be 
extraordinarily well-served by her appointment.'' Robert Bonner, who 
headed the Drug Enforcement Administration under President Bush, says 
that Morrow is ``a brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind.''
  I hope we can move ahead today her nomination. But I also want to 
express my concern over a related issue--the excessive difficulty that 
women judicial nominees are having in obtaining Senate action or their 
confirmation. An unacceptable double standard is being applied, and it 
is long past time it stopped.
  In this Republican Congress, 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.
  Women nominees may eventually be approved by the Judiciary Committee. 
But too often their nominations languish mysteriously, and no one will 
take responsibility for secretly holding up their nominations.
  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 there is no reason the process should take longer for women than it 
does for men.
  It is time to end the delays and double standards that have marred 
the Senate's role in the Advice and Consent process. I urge my 
colleagues to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow and to vote for 
her confirmation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Ashcroft feels strongly about the 
validity of citizen initiatives. So do I. So does Margaret Morrow. As 
she explained to the Committee when she testified and reiterated in 
response to written questions, she fully respects and honors voters 
choice.
  Ms. Morrow has explained to the Committee that she is not anti-
initiative in spite of what some would have us believe. In response to 
written questions, she discussed an article she wrote in 1988 and 
explained, in pertinent part:

       My goal was not to eliminate the need for initiatives. 
     Rather, I was proposing ways to strengthen the initiative 
     process by making it more efficient and less costly, so that 
     it could better serve the purpose for which it was originally 
     intended. At the same time, I was suggesting measures to 
     increase the Legislature's willingness to address issues of 
     concern to ordinary citizens regardless of the views of 
     special interests or campaign contributors. I do not believe 
     these goals are inconsistent.
       . . . . The reasons that led Governor Johnson to create the 
     initiative process in 1911 are still valid today, and it 
     remains an important aspect of our democratic form of 
     government.

  Does this sound like someone who is anti-democratic? No objective 
evaluation of the record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-
initiative. No fair reading of her 1988 article even suggests that.
  After the November 1988 elections in California, she was writing in 
the aftermath of five competing and conflicting ballot measures on the 
most recent California ballot. They had been placed there by competing 
industry groups, the insurance industry and lawyers each had their 
favorites, and each group spent large sums of money on political 
advertising campaigns to try to persuade voters to back their version 
of car insurance restructuring. It was chaotic and confusing for 
commentators and voters alike.
  Rather than throw up her hands, Margaret Morrow wrote in a bar 
magazine as President of a local bar association that lawyers could 
contribute their skills to make the process more easily understood by 
those voters participation is limited to reading the ballot measures 
and descriptions and voting.
  Her concerns were not unlike those of our colleague from Arizona, who 
proclaimed last year that when the voters of Arizona adopted a state 
ballot measure to allow medical use of marijuana, they had been duped 
and deceived. Indeed, Senator Kyl criticized that ballot initiative 
passed by the voters of Arizona during the last election and said: ``I 
believe most of them were deceived, and deliberately so, by the 
sponsors of this proposition.''
  Senator Kyl proceeded at a December 2, 1996 Judiciary Committee 
hearing to focus on the official description of the proposition on the 
Arizona ballot as misleading. His approach was similar to what the 
majority did on the 9th Circuit panel that initially held the 
California term limits initiative unconstitutional, but that does not 
make Senator Kyl a ``liberal judicial activist.''
  I also recall complaints from conservative quarters when the people 
of Houston reaffirmed their commitment to affirmative action in a 
ballot measure last fall. They complained that the voters in Houston 
had been deceived by the wording of the ballot measure.
  There have been problems with citizen initiatives and the campaigns 
that they engender. But that problem is not with Margaret Morrow or her 
commitment to honor the will of the voters. The problem is that they 
are being utilized in ever increasing number to circumvent the 
legislature and the people's will as expressed through their 
democratically-elected representatives. They are no longer the town 
meeting democracy that we enjoy in New England but the glitzy, Madison 
Avenue, poll-driven campaigns of big money and special interest 
politics.
  Margaret Morrow was right when she pointed out that these measures, 
their ballot descriptions and their advertising campaigns ought to be 
better, more instructive, more clearly written. The thrust of that now-
controversial article was that lawyers should contribute their skills 
better to draft the measures so that once adopted they are clear and 
controlling, so that they are not followed by court challenges during 
which courts are faced with difficult conflicts over how to interpret 
and implement the will of the people.
  We know how hard it is to write laws in a way that they are binding 
and leave little room for misinterpretation. With all the staff and 
legislative counsels, and legal counsels and specially-trained 
legislative drafters and Congressional Research Service and hearings 
and vetting and comments from Executive Branch departments and highly-
skilled and experienced and highly-paid lobbyists, Congress has a 
difficult time writing plain English and passing clear law. Were it not 
for the administrative agencies and supplemental regulatory processes 
even more of our work product would be the target of legal actions by 
those who lost the legislative battle over each contested point.
  For those who preach unfettered allegiance to initiatives, I commend 
their rhetoric but note that it does not advance us. The questions in 
most of the subsequent legal challenges to voter-passed ballot measures 
are either what does it mean or was it passed fairly. Both those 
questions are premised on an acceptance of the will of the voters.
  For example, the first challenge to the California term limits 
initiative was not that in Federal court that resulted in the split 
opinion by a panel of the Ninth Circuit that is later reversed. No, the 
earlier challenge was in the state courts and reached the California 
Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court was required to determine, 
what did the ballot measure say, was it written to be a lifetime ban or 
a limit on the number of consecutive terms that could be served.
  That was not an easy question given the poor drafting of the measure 
and the official materials that described it to the voters. Indeed, the 
California Attorney General, a conservative Republican, argued that the 
measure meant only to be a limit on the number of consecutive terms. 
After three levels of state court proceedings and months and months and 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees the case was decided by 
a split decision of the California Supreme Court.
  The Federal challenge to the statute followed on the alternative 
ground that the voters were not clearly informed what the measure 
meant. This is only important for those who cherish the will of the 
voter and want to protect against voter fraud.
  On citizen initiatives, Margaret Morrow has told the Committee:

       I support citizen initiatives, and believe they are an 
     important aspect of our democratic form of government. . . .

[[Page S653]]

       I believe the citizen initiative process is clearly 
     constitutional. I also recognize and support the doctrine 
     established in case law that initiative measures are 
     presumptively constitutional, and strongly agree with [the] 
     statement that initiative measures that are constitutional 
     and properly drafted should not be overturned or enjoined by 
     the courts.

  Contrary to the impression some are seeking to create about her 
views, she told the Committee:
       In passing on the legality of initiative measures, judges 
     should apply the law, not substitute their personal opinion 
     of matters of public policy for the opinion of the 
     electorate.

  I am disappointed to see that some have sought to make the nomination 
of Margaret Morrow into a vote about guns; it is not. During two years 
of consideration by the Judiciary Committee and through two sets of 
hearings and waves of written questions, no one even asked Ms. Morrow 
about guns.
  Nonetheless, some who have sought to find a reason to oppose Ms. 
Morrow have fastened upon a few phrases taken out of context from a 
National Law Journal article from October 1993 that discussed the 67th 
California State Bar conference. This meeting followed the July 1993 
killings in the San Francisco offices of the law firm of Pettit & 
Martin.
  The National Law Journal's report notes that the representatives of 
the local voluntary bars considered 100-plus resolutions for referral 
to the State Bar's Board of Governors. The fact missed by those who are 
seeking to criticize this nominee is that the State Bar took no anti-
gun action.
  The National Journal report noted that the widow of one of the 
victims pleaded at a reception that the convention ``take action on gun 
control.'' What has gone unrecognized is that in spite of the emotional 
rhetoric at the conference, the California State Bar took no such 
action. Instead, mindful of the legal constraints on bar associations 
and the United States Supreme Court decision in Keller v. State Bar, 
the conference scaled back anti-gun resolutions. A resolution calling 
for a ban on semiautomatic handguns from the San Francisco delegation 
was reworded as a safety measure for judges, other court personnel and 
lawyers. A resolution from the Santa Clara delegation was turned into a 
mere call for a study.
  The Chairwoman of the conference was not Margaret Morrow but Pauline 
Weaver of Oakland. Margaret Morrow was not installed as the new 
President of the California State Bar until the end.
  Ms. Morrow told the National Law Journal that the bar should act like 
a client and do what is right by following the legal advice of its 
lawyers. That is what the California State Bar did under Margaret 
Morrow. In fact, and this is the key fact missed by those who seek to 
criticize Ms. Morrow, the California State Bar followed the law as 
declared by the United States Supreme Court and did not take action on 
gun control.
  Mindful of the strictures of law, Margaret Morrow appointed a special 
committee of the Board of Governors to review the resolutions that had 
been recommended at the conference. Based on the recommendations of 
that committee, the Board of Governors of the California State Bar did 
not take a stand on gun control and did not even adopt the resolutions 
passed at the State conference.
  This is hardly a basis on which to oppose this outstanding nominee. 
First, she was not involved in the efforts by some to push gun control 
resolutions through the State Bar, following the horrific killings in 
the San Francisco law offices a few months before. Second, she was not 
installed as the President of the State Bar until the end of the 
conference. Third, the actions she took as President were essentially 
to make sure the Board of Governors understood the law and the limits 
on what they could do.
  So, in spite of the emotional plea by victims and the desires of 
certain activists, the California State Bar did not adopt gun control 
resolutions in 1994 and did not act to use mandatory dues for political 
activities. Far from demonstrating that she would be a judicial 
activist or is anti-gun, these facts show how constrained Margaret 
Morrow was in making sure the law was followed and everyone's rights 
were respected.
  I grew up hunting and fishing in the Vermont outdoors and I enjoy 
using firearms on the range. I believe in the rights of all Americans 
to use and enjoy firearms if they so desire. I voted against the Brady 
bill and other unconstitutional anti-gun proposals. I have no reason to 
think that Margaret Morrow will judicially impose burdens on gun 
ownership.
  I urge others to review the facts. I am confident that they will come 
to the same conclusion that I have with respect to the nomination of 
Margaret Morrow and the lack of any basis to conclude that she is anti-
gun.
  I ask unanimous consent that a January 15, 1998 letter to Senator 
Boxer signed by 11 members of the Board of Governors of the California 
State Bar that year be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 January 15, 1998.
     Re Margaret M. Morrow: Judicial nominee for the Central 
         District of California.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: We write concerning the nomination of 
     Margaret M. Morrow to the United States District Court for 
     the Central District of California. It has recently come to 
     our attention that various individuals and/or groups have 
     charged that Ms. Morrow ``vowed to push a gun control 
     resolution'' through the State Bar of California during the 
     year she served as President of that association.
       Each of us was a member of the State Bar Board of Governors 
     during Ms. Morrow's year as President. We represent a broad 
     spectrum of political views. We are Republicans and 
     Democrats, liberals and conservatives. We write to inform you 
     that Ms. Morrow did not advocate that the State Bar take a 
     position on gun control, and that the association in fact did 
     not take a position on the issue during the 1993-1994 Board 
     year.
       The assertion that Ms. Morrow vowed to push gun control 
     appears to emanate from an article that appeared in the 
     National Law Journal concerning the 1993 State Bar Annual 
     Meeting. At that meeting, the Conference of Delegates, which 
     is comprised of representatives of voluntary bar associations 
     throughout California, passed two resolutions that called 
     upon the State Bar to study the possible revision of laws 
     relating to firearms, and propose and support measures to 
     protect judges, court personnel, lawyers, lawyers' staffs and 
     lawyers' clients from gun-related violence. These resolutions 
     were passed in the wake of a shooting incident at a prominent 
     San Francisco law firm that took the lives of several of the 
     firm's lawyers and employees.
       At the time the Conference resolutions were passed, Ms. 
     Morrow had not yet assumed the office of President. When 
     asked how the Board of Governors would respond to the 
     resolutions, she told the National Law Journal that she would 
     ``discuss Keller strictures with the Board,'' and also that 
     she believed the bar ``should act more like a client, . . . 
     that is, get legal advice, `assess the risks and then do what 
     is right.' '' Ms. Morrow's reference to ``Keller strictures'' 
     was a reference to the United States Supreme Court's decision 
     in Keller v. State Bar. That case held that the bar could not 
     use mandatory lawyers' dues to support political or 
     ideological causes.
       On its face, therefore, the National Law Journal article 
     does not support the assertion that Ms. Morrow ``vowed to 
     push a gun control resolution'' through the State Bar. 
     Rather, it reports that she vowed to discuss legal 
     restrictions on the bar's ability to act on such a resolution 
     with other members of the Board.
       Ms. Morrow's actions in the months that followed the Annual 
     Meeting further demonstrate that she followed the law as it 
     relates to this subject. Consistent with usual State Bar 
     procedure, the resolutions passed by the conference of 
     Delegates were considered by the Board of Governors. Because 
     of the legal issues involved, Ms. Morrow appointed a special 
     committee of the Board to review the resolutions and 
     recommend a position to the full Board. Based on the 
     committee's recommendation, the Board did not adopt the 
     resolutions passed by the Conference. Rather, it adopted a 
     neutral resolution that called on lawyers to ``participate in 
     the public dialogue on violence and its impact on the 
     administration of justice,'' and suggested that the State Bar 
     sponsor ``neutral forums on violence and its impact on the 
     administration of justice.'' The even-handed tone of the 
     resolution was due, in large part, to the belief of Ms. 
     Morrow and others that the Board should not violate Keller's 
     spirit or holding. Stated differently, Ms. Morrow and the 
     Board followed the law, and avoided taking a stand in favor 
     of or against gun control.
       We hope these comments help set the record straight with 
     respect to Ms. Morrow's actions as President of the State 
     Bar.
           Very truly yours,
         Michael W. Case,
         Maurice L. Evans,
         Donald R. Fischbach,
         Edward B. Huntington,
         Richard J. Mathias,
         James E. Towery,
         Glenda Veasey,
         Hartley T. Hansen,
         John H. McGuckin, Jr.,
         Jay J. Plotkin, and

[[Page S654]]

         Susan J. Troy.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that Senators Ashcroft and Sessions 
have not challenged Ms. Morrow's truthfulness before the Committee. At 
their press conference last fall announcing their opposition to her 
nomination, they were careful to avoid such personal attacks. Instead, 
they based their conclusions on her writings. I disagree with them and 
agree with those who read those writings in context. That is a 
disagreement, we draw different conclusions from the same words. That 
is understandable.
  What I do not understand is how anyone can continue to repeat the 
claim that Ms. Morrow was not truthful with the Committee. She was 
required to answer more litmus test questions and was more forthcoming 
than any nominee I can remember.
  Some have made the confirmation process into an adversary process. 
Ms. Morrow is not paranoid; someone has been out to get her.
  In this difficult context, in which the Morrow nomination was 
targeted by forces opposing the filling of judicial vacancies, charges 
against Ms. Morrow's integrity and character remain out of line and 
unfounded. Unfortunately, I have heard repeated over the last day the 
charge that Ms. Morrow provided a false answer to a written question 
propounded at the Committee. That is incorrect.
  While I will not take the Senate's time to refute all of the 
unfounded arguments that have been used in opposition to this 
nomination, I do want to clear up the record on this. This is a matter 
of honor and honesty. I do not want the record left unchallenged should 
her son, Patrick, come to read it someday.
  The written questions propounded long after the Committee deadline 
following the March 18, 1997 hearing included the following: ``Are 
there any initiatives in California in the last decade which you have 
supported? If so, why? Are there any initiatives in California in the 
last decade you have opposed? If so, why?"
  On April 4, the nominee responded in writing noting:

       I have not publicly supported or opposed any initiative 
     measure in the past decade, with one exception.'' The nominee 
     proceeded in her answer to describe her participation as a 
     member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Board of 
     Trustees in a unanimous vote authorizing the Association to 
     oppose a measure sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche concerning 
     AIDS, a measure that was also opposed by Governor Deukmejian 
     and many others.

  I raised objection to these questions at a meeting of the Committee 
on April 17 because I saw them as asking how Ms. Morrow voted on the 
more than 150 initiatives that Californians had considered over the 
last 10 years. Later, the Senator who submitted these questions 
indicated that he did not intend to ask how the nominee voted and he 
revised the questions. When he did, he resubmitted another set of 
supplemental written questions to the nominee on April 21, he 
acknowledged that 160 initiatives have been on the ballot in California 
in the last 10 years and he disavowed any interest whether or not the 
nominee voted on the initiatives but asked for ``comment'' on a list of 
initiatives.
  Some have come to contend that the portion of the answer about public 
support or opposition to initiatives was ``intentionally or 
unintentionally'' not truthful information. Their supposed ``smoking 
gun'' is a November 1988 article in the Los Angeles Lawyer magazine. 
What this contention about dishonesty ignores is that the nominee had 
previously furnished the Committee with the November 1988 article and 
that article had been inquired about at the March 18 hearing and in the 
follow up written questions. In fact, the written questions that 
included the ones at issue contained quotes from the article and 
questions specifically about it. Thus, no one can seriously contend 
that this article was unknown to the Committee or that the nominee had 
failed to disclose it.
  Equally important, and the reason I suspect that the nominee did not 
refer to the article in her written response to the questions in issue, 
was that the article was not relevant to these particular questions. 
Preceding questions had inquired about the meaning of the article. The 
questions in issue ask about support or opposition for initiatives and 
appear to inquire about such support or opposition for initiatives in 
the course of their being considered by voters in California.
  By contrast, the article concerned measures that had already been 
acted upon by the voters of California, including one that had been 
considered two years previously. They were not support for or 
opposition to these initiatives, as the nominee, or, for that matter as 
I, understood those questions. They were commentary after the fact by 
way of comment upon the growing resort to initiatives in California and 
ways lawyers might help to improve the initiative process and the 
drafting and consideration of initiatives as well as a call for the 
State legislature to function more efficiently.
  Indeed, when the author of those questions received the initial 
answer, he did not question that it was untruthful or feign ignorance 
of the November 1988 article. Instead, when he revised and resubmitted 
supplemental questions he prefaced his revised question by noting that 
he was aware of the nominee's ``public comments regarding citizen 
initiatives.''
  Thus, no one can fairly believe that this nominee's answer was 
incomplete or deceptive for having failed to include express reference 
to an article that was not advocating in favor or in opposition to a 
pending initiative and about which the questioner had knowledge, had 
already specifically inquired and on which the questioner promptly 
professed knowledge.
  Stripped of the rhetoric and hyperbole, there is simply no basis to 
contend that this nominee mislead the Committee by her answer. This is 
no basis to question her candor. Any purported ``major misstatement of 
fact'' is not that of this nominee but would be of those who accuse her 
of a lack of honesty or candor.
  No fair and objective evaluation of the record can yield the 
conclusion that she is anti-initiative. No fair reading of her 
statements suggests a basis for any such assertion.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Missouri said I could yield myself 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments 
regarding the nomination of Margaret Morrow.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side have attempted to argue that 
Ms. Morrow has been treated unfairly. This unsubstantiated argument is 
based partly on the questions she was asked in the Judiciary Committee. 
However, all that some of us were trying to achieve in asking those 
questions was to attempt to understand what Ms. Morrow's views were on 
a number of important issues to the American people. In particular, 
we've had a number of Federal judges overturn popular initiatives, in 
direct conflict with voters' decisions. The last thing we need is 
another Federal judge that will defy what the voters have decided. Ms. 
Morrow has spoken against citizen initiatives and has publicly opposed 
specific ballot initiatives. So, we believed it was important to 
understand better what kind of a judge she might be.
  Now, we've heard Margaret Morrow was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee in the last Congress without a problem. So, why is there a 
problem now? Well, I think to our credit, we on this side tried to give 
the President a great deal of deference regarding his nominees. But, as 
Senator Hatch and others have pointed out, the President has appointed 
a number of judges who have taken it upon themselves to try to make the 
law, and have angered the public in doing so. This record now demands 
the kind of scrutiny Senator Leahy advocated, which has been absent 
until the last couple of years or so. I've received a great deal of 
letters from my State asking me to do a better job of scrutinizing 
nominees.
  Of course, after getting used to us rubber-stamping nominees, I'm 
sure it's been quite a shock to see Republicans borrowing from the 
Democrats' playbook and turning the tables. Over the last year, I've 
heard irresponsible and overheated rhetoric directed at Republicans 
regarding judicial nominees.
  To suggest, as some misguided Members have, that Ms. Morrow's gender 
is a factor in our decision to ask her

[[Page S655]]

questions, or even oppose her nomination, is both irresponsible and 
absurd. As others may have noted, we've processed around 50 women 
judicial nominees for President Clinton, including Justice Ginsberg, 
and I've supported almost all of them. As a matter of fact, the first 
nominee unanimously confirmed last year was a woman candidate, and 
we've already confirmed a couple this year. It's just absurd to think 
that any Senator makes his or her decision on a nominee based on gender 
or race.
  Mr. President, I sent Ms. Morrow five pages of questions in total. As 
a contrast, I sent Merrick Garland 25 pages of questions. So, 5 pages 
versus 24 pages. And, we're supposedly unfair to Ms. Morrow. Figure 
that one out.
  I must say though, it was easier getting Mr. Garland to respond to 
his 25 pages of 100 or so questions than it was to get Ms. Morrow to 
answer her 5 pages.
  Mr. President, when a judicial nominee, whether a man or a woman, 
writes an article which is critical of democratic institutions like the 
citizen initiative process, it is our duty as Senators to learn the 
reasons for this. How can a Senator reasonably give advice and consent 
without understanding a potential judge's position on such fundamental 
issues? With the recent propensity of Federal judges, especially in 
California, to overturn Democratic initiatives on shaky grounds. It's 
important that we not confirm another activist judge who is willing to 
substitute his or her will for that of the voters.
  I recall during the Democrat-run confirmation hearings of various 
Republican nominees the issue of ``confirmation conversion'' was a 
recurrent theme.
  But, now the shoe is on the other foot. When Ms. Morrow answered 
written and oral questions contradicting her former beliefs on certain 
issues, I became somewhat concerned. Several of my followup questions 
related to such ``conversations.'' Where there are discrepancies, we 
have a duty to uncover the reasons why.
  But a more disturbing problem I have seen with Ms. Morrow's writing 
is that, on number of issues, she doesn't say her views have changed. 
She says we are misreading her writing. In other words, she doesn't 
really mean what she appears to say.
  In the 1988 article on citizen initiatives, for example, Ms. Morrow 
writes in language that is highly critical of the voters. She has 
recently responded that she ``had not meant to be critical of citizen 
initiatives.'' Yet, in her article she goes so far as to state that

       The fact that initiatives are presented to a 
     ``legislature'' of 20 million people renders ephemeral any 
     real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.

  In her statement, Ms. Morrow was basically saying that initiatives 
are inherently flawed, although now she is translating it differently. 
So this raises serious questions about Ms. Morrow's ability to 
enunciate her views in a clear and concise manner, which we all hope 
judges will do. If such conflicting messages are reflected in her 
writing as a lawyer, her potential judicial opinions may be equally 
confusing. How can citizens rely on writings of someone who has a 
record of contradicting herself?
  But, on top of these shortcomings, Mr. President, there is a matter 
of more importance. Whether intentionally or not, Ms. Morrow has, 
unfortunately, provided false and misleading information to the 
Judiciary Committee. And, I believe the integrity of the committee and 
the nomination process is at stake.
  When asked her views on a number of initiatives, Ms. Morrow first 
responded by stating unequivocally, ``I have not publicly supported or 
opposed any initiative measure in the past decade with one exception.'' 
And, then she mentioned a specific initiative from 1988 sponsored by 
the extremist Democrat, Lyndon Larouche, that she opposed.
  But, despite Ms. Morrow's unequivocal denial, in 1988 it turns out 
she also publicly attacked three other initiatives that pitted the 
insurance industry against trial lawyers. Ms. Morrow wrote, 
``Propositions 101, 104 and 106 were, plain and simple, an attack on 
lawyers and the legal system.'' In 1988, she went on to attack a 1986 
proposition that would have reduced the salaries of public officials. 
She argued it would have ``driven many qualified people out of public 
service.'' Of course, we hear that worn out argument every time we 
debate our own pay raises.
  Now, Ms. Morrow had stated, without question, that she had not taken 
any public position on these initiatives whatsoever. And, after 
creating this foundation of sand, she used it to refuse to answer 
questions on her views.
  Well, the foundation crumbled after the chairman demanded responses, 
and perhaps the nominee realized her misinformation had been 
discovered. Only then did she finally provide more responsive answers 
to the questions.
  But, the fact remains that regardless of whether there was an 
intention or motive, false and misleading information was provided to 
the Judiciary Committee by the nominee, an experienced lawyer, who one 
would presume either knew, or should have known, what she was doing. If 
she indeed didn't realize what she was doing, then one has to question 
her ability to be careful with the details, which would reflect on her 
ability to function as a Federal judge.
  Now, I'm sure that many of you are unaware of this problem, so I'm 
bringing it to your attention. Unfortunately, some have tried to make 
the feeble argument that these were just mistakes that should be 
overlooked. Well, this isn't a mistake of failing to provide articles 
to the committee, which the nominee did. This isn't a mistake of 
quoting a controversial statement of Justice Brennan, and they saying 
she pulled the quote from some book, but hadn't read the context of the 
quote, and didn't know what it meant.
  This is a major misstatement of fact, that was used as the basis for 
not responding to the committee. This is not what we expect from 
lifetime tenured judges. Mr. President, this is below the standard we 
all demand. This is below the standard afforded most Americans in their 
dealings with the government. For these reasons Mr. President, I will 
vote against the nominee.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that I be able to speak for 5 minutes and retain 
the remainder of my time, and Senator Hatch would like to have his 5 
minutes retained as well. My understanding is I have 10 minutes, he has 
5 minutes, and I will now use 5 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to put in the Record an article from the Los 
Angeles Lawyer, November 1988, that directly refutes the remarks by the 
Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who said that Ms. Morrow misled 
the committee and publicly took a stand on initiatives when clearly in 
this article it is very obvious she wrote about these after those 
initiatives were voted on in all cases. I think it is very serious that 
the Senator from Iowa, who is my friend and we work on many issues 
together, would misstate what occurred.
  So, Mr. President, at this time I would place this article in the 
Record. She says she is commenting on initiatives that had appeared on 
the November 8 ballot in one case. On the other she commented on an 
initiative that was voted on 2 years prior. So I ask unanimous consent 
that be printed in the Record for starters.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Reforming the Initiative Process--An Opportunity To Restore Responsible 
                        Government to California

                        (By Margaret M. Morrow)

       We in California have this month concluded the single most 
     expensive and one of the most complicated initiative 
     campaigns in history. I refer, of course, to the battle over 
     Propositions 100, 101, 103, 104 and 106, the insurance and 
     attorneys' fees initiatives, which appeared on the November 8 
     ballot. Much as we might like to dismiss these propositions 
     and the campaigns they spawned as an aberration, we cannot do 
     so. The cost and tone of the campaigns, and the complexity of 
     the measures involved, are simply the latest examples of a 
     disturbing trend toward overuse and abuse of the initiative 
     process.
       Much of the rhetoric in the recent campaign focused on 
     lawyers, and much of the spending pro and con was done by 
     lawyers. Insurance industry Propositions 101, 104 and 106 
     were, plain and simple, an attack on lawyers and the legal 
     system. They were not the first such assault and they 
     probably will not be the last. Self-interest alone, 
     therefore,

[[Page S656]]

     may dictate that lawyers examine the initiative process to 
     see if it is serving the purpose intended by its creators. 
     Our responsibility as citizens compels us to do so as well, 
     since recent abuse of the initiative process is but one 
     symptom of a general malaise in government in this state.
       The right of initiative was placed in the California 
     Constitution in 1911, as part of a series of reforms 
     championed by populist Governor Hiram Johnson. Johnson 
     believed that the initiative would serve as a check on the 
     unaccountable, corrupt or unresponsive legislature, and would 
     provide a grass roots vehicle for citizens who saw their 
     desires thwarted by elected representatives.
       The initiative was never intended to serve as a substitute 
     for legislative lawmaking, nor as a weapon in the arsenal of 
     wealthy special interest groups. In reality, however, it has 
     become both of these things.


                           dramatic increase

       The number of initiatives put before the public has risen 
     dramatically in recent years. Only 17 initiatives were filed 
     in the 1950s. This number rose to 44 in the 1960s, and leaped 
     to 180 in the 1970s. Thus far in the 1980s, 204 initiatives 
     have been filed. There were 12 on this month's ballot alone, 
     covering such diverse topics as the homeless, AIDS, insurance 
     rates, attorneys' fees, cigarette taxation and part-time 
     teaching by judges at public universities and colleges.
       This increased use of the initiative process is 
     attributable to a number of factors. In recent years, 
     California legislators have become so beholden to special 
     interest groups for campaign financing and added personal 
     income that they have been paralyzed to act on controversial 
     measures negatively impacting their benefactors. One need 
     look no further than tort reform and insurance reform, the 
     meat of Propositions 100, 101, 103, 104 and 106, to see that 
     this is true. Bills on these subjects have been consistently 
     opposed by trial lawyers associations on the one hand, and 
     the insurance industry on the other. Whether one favors 
     reform in these areas or not, it is hard to argue with the 
     fact that their movement in the legislature has been stymied 
     not on the merits, but because of the perceived power of the 
     interests involved. This lawmaking paralysis, coupled with 
     tales of corruption in Sacramento, has led the public to lose 
     confidence in and to mistrust state government. A natural 
     side effect has been an increase in the popularity of the 
     initiative.
       Special interest groups, too, have begun to perceive the 
     utility of the initiative in pushing their agendas. Measures 
     sponsored by such groups often lend themselves to packaging 
     for mass media consumption. Initiatives, moreover, get less 
     scrutiny than legislative bills, and frequently this is just 
     what their interest group sponsors want. In the legislature, 
     many eyes review a bill before it is put to a final vote. 
     Legislative counsel examines it for technical or legal 
     shortcomings. Various committees look at it from different 
     perspectives. Pros and cons are debated, and compromises are 
     reached.
       The public, by contrast, casts its vote for initiatives on 
     the basis of 30- and 60-second advertisements which ignore or 
     obscure the substance of the measure, and which focus instead 
     on who sponsors the proposition. The process allows for no 
     amendment or compromise. An initiative is an all-or-nothing 
     proposition.
       Reformers and special interest groups have been joined, 
     ironically enough, by politicians and officeholders in 
     frequent resort to the initiative. Lawmakers, frustrated with 
     being the party out of power or seeking to increase their 
     popularity through association with a successful proposition, 
     have begun to sponsor and promote a variety of initiatives. 
     They do so to circumvent a legislative process they cannot 
     control or to create leverage they can use to manipulate that 
     process more effectively. Personal popularity is enhanced, 
     too, when one lends one's name to a successful ballot 
     proposition.


                            SPIRALING COSTS

       This increased use of the initiative has fundamentally 
     changed the nature of the right. Spiraling costs have made a 
     mockery of its grass roots origins. A good example of the 
     runaway expense associated with most initiative campaigns is 
     Proposition 61, a measure which appeared on the ballot two 
     years ago. This proposal would have drastically reduced the 
     salaries of all government officials, including judges, and 
     driven many qualified people out of public service. The 
     measure was opposed by virtually every recognized 
     organization and by the state's most prominent political 
     leaders. Yet opponents were told that they would have to 
     raise millions of dollars to ensure the measure's defeat. 
     This year's battle over insurance and attorney's fees raises 
     the even more frightening specter of massive campaigns 
     financed by wealth special interest groups. The insurance 
     industry alone has spent something in the range of $50 
     million promoting its position on Propositions 100, 101, 103, 
     104, and 106. These kinds of numbers make any true grassroot 
     effort by a group of citizens nothing more than a pipedream.
       Misleading advertising and reliance on seconds-long 
     television and radio spots, moreover, defeat any chance that 
     citizens can obtain the information necessary to cast an 
     informed vote. The fat that initiatives are presented to a 
     ``legislature'' of 20 million people renders ephemeral any 
     real hope of intelligent voting by a majority. Only a small 
     minority of voters study their ballot pamphlet with any care 
     and only the minutest percentage take time to read the 
     proposed statutory language itself.
       Indeed, it seems too much to ask that they do, since 
     propositions are often lengthy and difficult for a layperson 
     to understand. Proposition 104, for example, consumed almost 
     13 pages of small, single-spaced type in the most recent 
     ballot pamphlet and concerned some of the most technical 
     aspects of the Insurance Code. The problem is exacerbated by 
     the fact that paid advertising and news reports tend to focus 
     on the identity of the proponents and opponents and on how 
     much money each campaign is spending, rather than on the 
     substance of the measure and the arguments in favor of or 
     against it. Some advertising, in fact, is affirmatively 
     misleading concerning the content and effect of the 
     initiative.
       To add to the confusion, many initiatives are poorly 
     drafted, internally inconsistent or hopelessly vague. Bills 
     introduced in the legislature are subjected to many levels of 
     review before final passage, and drafting or clarity problems 
     usually surface and are resolved before a final vote is 
     taken. Initiatives, by contrast, receive no prior review 
     before being put to a vote of the people. The likelihood of 
     any subsequent review is minimal too, since an initiative, 
     once approved, can only be amended by another vote of the 
     people.
       The net result is that many of the more complicated 
     measures passed by the voters end up in the courts for final 
     review.
       As David Magleby of Brigham Young University, a leading 
     authority on the initiative process, has said, ``Unlike other 
     political processes, there are no checks and balances on the 
     initiative process [other] than the courts.'' The courts are 
     thus forced to become ``the policeman of the initiative 
     process.''
       Requiring that the courts assume this role is not good for 
     the public image of the judiciary or of the legal profession. 
     Having passed an initiative, voters want to see it enacted. 
     They view a court challenge to its validity as interference 
     with the public will, and blame the lawyers and judges who 
     control the legal process for thwarting the public's 
     directive.

                           *   *   *   *   *

     numerous proposals for reform of the initiative process over 
     the years. Some have urged that contributions to initiative 
     campaigns be limited, and that disclosure of financial 
     backers be required in all campaign advertising. Others have 
     suggested that initiatives go directly to the legislature for 
     a vote before being presented to the electorate. Still others 
     have proposed that all initiatives be screened by the 
     Secretary of State's office for legal and drafting problems 
     before they qualify for the ballot. Several of these ideas 
     are sound and would address some of the most glaring problems 
     with the initiative process as it now operates. Given the 
     campaign we have just endured, we must hope that these 
     proposals are resurrected quickly and implemented swiftly.
       Initiative reform, however, is not enough. There must be in 
     addition an overhaul of the way business gets done in 
     Sacramento, so that the legislature can function as it should 
     and resort to the initiative is not necessary. Limits on 
     campaign spending, higher salaries coupled with rules 
     prohibiting the taking of honoraria and gifts, quarterly 
     disclosure of contributions by legislators and serious self-
     policing through active ethics committees in the Assembly and 
     Senate are just a few of the ideas which should be explored. 
     Whatever the solution, legislators must become what they were 
     intended to be--representatives of the people, not puppets of 
     a panoply of interest groups who define public good in terms 
     of their own pocketbooks.
       Lawyers and lawyers' organizations should be at the 
     forefront of these reform efforts. Lawyers are among those 
     most uniquely concerned with the interpretation of laws and 
     the enforcement of legal rights. We are among those most 
     familiar with the delicate balance between executive, 
     legislative, and judicial branches envisioned by the founders 
     of our democratic form of government. Our traditions and our 
     rules of professional responsibility, moreover, obligate us 
     to work for the public good. There is no greater public good 
     than strong, effective, good government.
       We lawyers assert that we are among the leaders of society, 
     and it is time we began to act the part. I intend to 
     establish a committee to examine existing proposals for 
     reform, explore other options and recommend a course of 
     action. Our Association has a real opportunity, which we 
     cannot ignore, to contribute to restoring responsible 
     government of California. We welcome your ideas and support.

  Mrs. BOXER. I also want my colleagues to understand that the Senator 
from Iowa asked Ms. Morrow in an unprecedented request which, frankly, 
had Senators on both sides in an uproar, to answer the question how she 
personally voted on 10 years' worth of California initiatives. It was 
astounding. I remember going over to my friend, whom I enjoy working 
with, and I have worked with him on so many procurement reform issues, 
and I said, ``Senator, I can't imagine how you would expect someone to 
remember how they voted on 160 ballot measures,'' some of which had to 
do with

[[Page S657]]

parks, some of which had to do with building railroads, some of which 
had to do with school bond measures. And besides, I always thought--and 
correct me if I am wrong--we had a secret ballot in this country; it is 
one of the things we pride ourselves on.
  Now, Margaret Morrow has been forthcoming. That is why she has the 
strong support of Senator Orrin Hatch, and let's read what Senator 
Hatch has written about Margaret Morrow.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since my name was mentioned, I would 
like to respond, if the Senator would yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I will be happy to allow a 30-second response.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will only remind the Senator from California that the 
point I was making is not when--the question I was proposing is not 
when Ms. Morrow responded. The question is that she said she did not 
take a position on public policy issues except for that one, and she 
did take, we found out that she did take positions on public policy 
issues. So she was misleading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I might make a point here. When one is asked if one 
took a stand on an initiative, one would assume the critical point is 
at what time you speak out about it. My goodness, if we are forbidden 
as human beings, let alone the head of a bar association, to comment on 
what voters have voted on and to talk about ways the initiative process 
can be improved--and I am going to put into the Record her remarks on 
that point because she has such respect for the initiative process. She 
has thought about ways to improve it--if we are gagged as human beings 
from commenting on what the voters have voted on, this is a sad state 
of affairs for this country.
  So I want to talk about what Senator Hatch has said about Margaret 
Morrow. I think it is important. He said it himself quite eloquently at 
the beginning of this debate. But I want to reiterate because he sent a 
letter out to all of our colleagues, and he talked about the comment 
that Margaret Morrow made that has been so taken out of context by my 
colleagues.
  He said that the committee, the Judiciary Committee, studied Margaret 
Morrow's response to make a decision as to whether she was an activist 
judge, and they concluded that her explanation was in keeping with the 
theme of her speech. And essentially, Senator Hatch goes on to say, 
``[T]he nominee went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her 
written responses to the Committee to espouse a clearly restrained 
approach to the constitutional interpretation and the role of the 
courts.''
  Then he goes on to say the following:

       In supporting the nomination, the Committee takes into 
     account a number of factors including Ms. Morrow's testimony, 
     her accomplishments and her evident ability as an attorney, 
     as well as the fact that she has received strong support from 
     a number of Republicans.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask I be allowed another 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. So my colleagues have every right to oppose Margaret 
Morrow. My goodness, it is a free country. They have every right to 
vote against her and speak against her. But I would like when we have 
arguments in the Chamber, particularly where someone is not present, 
that these arguments be true, that these arguments hold up, that these 
arguments are backed up by the facts.

  I want to point out that in several of my colleagues' dissertations 
here today, they have talked about other lawyers, they have talked 
about other judges. It is extraordinary to me that they do not want 
Margaret Morrow, so they talk about three other judges. Margaret Morrow 
is Margaret Morrow. She is not judge X, judge Y or judge Z. She is 
Margaret Morrow. She is coming before us, the second woman ever elected 
to head the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the first woman ever 
elected to head the California State Bar Association. This is the 
largest State bar in any State. Republicans voted for her for that 
position. Democrats did as well. She has the most extraordinary support 
across the board.
  So when we attack Margaret Morrow, my goodness, don't talk about 
other judges. Talk about Margaret Morrow. If my colleagues are running 
for the Senate, they want to be judged on who they are, what do they 
stand for, not to stand up and say, well, I can't vote for this 
candidate X because he or she reminds me of candidate Y, and if he gets 
in, he will act like candidate Y.
  One great thing about the world today is we are all individuals. We 
are all human beings. God doesn't make us all the same. That is why I 
am going to vote against cloning. We are different than one another. So 
when you attack Margaret Morrow, I think you need to do it in a fair 
way, not by the fact that another judge ruled a certain way. And when I 
come back to my last 5 minutes, I will continue on this theme.
  I yield back and retain my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield to myself the remainder of the 
time and ask you to inform me when there is 1 minute remaining.
  I am concerned about this nominee who has indicated that when the 
people are involved in developing the law through a referendum, you 
don't get intelligent lawmaking. I am concerned about that because from 
her writings it appears that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
embraced that very view. When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sought 
to set aside the California voters' commitment to term limits, they did 
so based on what they considered to be the lack of expertise of the 
people. Here is what Judge Reinhardt said when he set aside the term 
limits initiative in California:

       The public lacks legal or legislative expertise--or even a 
     duty to support the Constitution. Our usual assumption that 
     laws passed represent careful drafting and consideration does 
     not obtain.

  Where might he get an idea like that idea, to allege that the people 
are disregarded because they don't have legal training.
  Here is what Ms. Morrow said:

       The fact that initiatives are presented to a legislature of 
     20 million people renders ephemeral any real hope of 
     intelligent voting by the majority.

  This is the judge who has been reversed over and over again when the 
California Ninth Circuit was reversed 27 out of 28 times by the Supreme 
Court. They are embracing this philosophy in those kinds of items.
  Reinhardt said:

       The public . . . lacks the ability to collect and study 
     information that is utilized routinely by legislative bodies.

  Where could he have gotten that? Same philosophy as Ms. Morrow who 
said:

       . . . propositions are often lengthy and difficult for a 
     layperson to understand. The public . . . casts its votes for 
     initiatives on the basis of 30- and 60-second advertisements.

  Both of these reflect a distrust of the people: One an activist 
judge, one of the most reversed judges in history; the other an 
offering of this administration for us to confirm.
  I am calling into question the judgment and the respect that this 
nominee has for the people. And it is based on her statements. By 
contrasting her to Judge Reinhardt, I am trying to point out that the 
same kind of mistakes made by the most reversed judge on the ninth 
circuit are the kinds of mistakes that you find in Ms. Morrow's 
writings, and I think it reflects a confidence in lawyers and judges 
that permits them to do things that the law doesn't provide them a 
basis to do.
  The law says the people of California have a right, if they want to 
have term limits, to have an initiative that embraces it. But what does 
Judge Reinhardt say? Judge Reinhardt says:

       Before an initiative becomes law, no committee meetings are 
     held, no legal analysts study the law, no floor debates 
     occur, no separate representative bodies vote on the bill. . 
     . .

  He does that as a means of setting aside the law, saying the people 
are simply too ignorant. They have not studied this carefully enough.
  Where would Morrow be on that kind of issue? According to her 
writings:

       In the legislative, many eyes review a bill before it is 
     put to a final vote. Legislative counsel [another lawyer] 
     examine it for technical or legal shortcomings. Various 
     committees look at it from different perspectives. Pros and 
     cons are debated.

  We have already in California and on the west coast in the Ninth 
Circuit

[[Page S658]]

Court of Appeals, a court of appeals that is reversed constantly. In 
their setting aside of initiatives, in their invasion of the province 
of the people, and in their invasion of the legislative function, they 
take a page out of the writings of this candidate. But I don't think we 
need more judicial activists. I think it is clear she believes the 
cutting edge of society should be the law and its profession. I think 
the cutting edge needs to be the legislature and the people expressing 
their will in initiatives. That is where the law should be changed. The 
engine of social change should not be the courts. The engine for social 
change should be the people and their elected representatives. When the 
people enact a law through the initiative process, it is imperative 
that the will of the people be respected.
  Even if you graduate from the best of law schools and you have a 
great understanding of legal principles, our country says that the 
people who cast the votes are the people whose will is to be respected. 
Because she seems to believe otherwise, I do not think this nominee 
should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this point, since Senator Hatch is not 
here, he has given me permission to use up his time and mine, and I 
assume I have about 7 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, sometimes I think my colleagues have a 
very strange definition of activist judge. Listening to them, I think 
if you have a heartbeat and a pulse, they call you an activist. I mean, 
I--really, listen to them.
  Are you supposed to nominate a person who has not had a thought in 
her head, who cannot say, 2 years after an initiative passed, that she 
thought it was good, bad, or indifferent, who cannot comment on a way 
to make the initiative process better?
  They also have a way of selective arguing--selective arguing. In 
1988, Margaret Morrow wrote the following. This is directly from an 
article in 1988, way before she even dreamt of coming before this 
Senate. Here is what she wrote:

       Having passed an initiative, voters want to see it enacted. 
     They view a court challenge to its validity as interference 
     with the public will.

  So here is Margaret Morrow arguing that when the voters pass an 
initiative, they want it enacted. I see Senator Hatch is here, so when 
I finish my 2 minutes I am going to yield him his 5 minutes.
  I want to say that this is a woman whose practice, if you look at it, 
is far from anyone's definition of being an activist. These are the 
areas of law that she has practiced.
  Contract disputes, business torts, unfair competition, securities 
fraud, directors' and officers' liability, employment law, arbitration 
law, copyright and trademark infringement, libel, partnership 
dissolution, real estate development, government contracts, and 
insurance coverage.
  So my colleagues paint the picture of someone who is entirely 
different from Margaret Morrow. Mr. President, I just ask my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to vote on Margaret Morrow. Do not vote on 
judge X, do not vote on judge Y, don't vote on some ideological basis 
because you think she is going to be a certain way. Follow the 
leadership of Chairman Hatch, follow the leadership of the many 
Republican conservatives who have gone on the line to fight for 
Margaret Morrow.
  I have to say to my colleague from Missouri, thank you for bringing 
this debate almost to an end. I think I have enjoyed debating you. I 
wish we could have done it sooner rather than later. But I am pleased 
that we have reached this day, and to Margaret and to her family, I 
hope that tonight you will have a reason to celebrate. I can't be sure 
until the votes are in, but we will know soon.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would just like to continue my response to 
some of the arguments offered by my colleagues, and set the record 
straight. On the issue of Ms. Morrow's position on ballot initiatives, 
there are some people who, having read an article she wrote in 1988, 
believe that Ms. Morrow holds disdain for citizen initiatives. This is 
completely false. I repeat--any concerns that Ms. Morrow holds a 
position other than being 100% supportive of citizen initiatives has no 
basis in fact. In fact, in that 1988 article, Ms. Morrow expressed her 
concern about misleading advertisements which provide misinformation 
for voters. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make 
meaningful choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent 
voting by a majority.'' Read in context, this statement concerned the 
quality of information disseminated to the voters, and was not a 
comment on the ability of voters to make intelligent choices with the 
necessary information in hand. Ms. Morrow holds the utmost respect for 
democratic institutions like the citizen initiative process in 
California.
  In that same 1988 article, Ms. Morrow argued that courts should not 
be put in the position of policing the initiative process. ``Having 
passed an initiative,'' she explains, ``voters want to see it enacted. 
They view a court challenge to its validity as interference with the 
public will. . . .'' Hopefully my colleagues here in the Senate 
understand that Ms. Morrow merely advocated reforms that would 
ameliorate problems in the California initiative process.
  For those who may still not be convinced, I would like to read a 
portion of a letter that I referred to earlier from Robert Bonner, who, 
as I mentioned, was former U.S. Attorney under President Reagan, former 
U.S. District Court Judge in the Central District of California and 
former Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration under President 
Bush. Mr. Bonner writes:

       The concerns expressed about judicial activism appear to be 
     based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of certain 
     articles written by Margaret years ago in her capacity as 
     President of the State Bar of California, the Los Angeles 
     County Bar Association, and the Barristers (young lawyers) 
     section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. In 
     particular, in 1988, while she was the President of the Los 
     Angeles County Bar Association, Margaret wrote an article 
     concerning the initiative process. The article was critical 
     of the way certain recently concluded initiative campaigns 
     had been run, and suggested ways in which the initiative 
     process could be strengthened by communicating more 
     information to the electorate about the substance of the 
     measures. It also discussed procedural reforms that would 
     assist in correcting the drafting errors that sometimes 
     provide the basis for a legal challenge. Finally, it 
     suggested measures to reduce the influence of special 
     interests and increase the legislature's willingness to 
     address issues of concern to the citizens of the state.
       The article does not suggest hostility to the initiative 
     process; rather it seeks to strengthen the process. 
     Margaret's responses to the Judiciary Committee demonstrate 
     that she unequivocally supports the initiative process and 
     believes that all legislative enactments, including 
     initiatives, are presumptively constitutional, and that 
     courts should be reluctant to overturn them. Margaret 
     explained to the committee her desire to strengthen the 
     process, not make it vulnerable to legal challenge. She also 
     explained that the article proposed ways to make the process 
     more efficient and less costly, so that the initiatives could 
     serve the purpose for which they were intended.

  To anyone still skeptical, I invite you to call Robert Bonner, who 
believes in Margaret Morrow. In his letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, 
Domenici, Sessions and Specter, Mr. Bonner urged them to give him a 
call with any questions.
  Finally, the California Research Bureau, which is a branch of the 
state public library and supplies nonpartisan data to the executive and 
legislative branches of the California state government, has much the 
same role as the Congressional Research Service does for the U.S. 
Legislative Branch. The Bureau put out a study in May of 1997, entitled 
California's Statewide Initiative Process, which iterated many of the 
same concerns Ms. Morrow has about the initiative process in 
California, and which the senior senator from California, Senator 
Feinstein, referred to during the markup of Ms. Morrow's nomination. 
For instance, this impartial, non-partisan research service notes that 
proponents and opponents of a ballot measure may not have the incentive 
to provide clear information to voters. Further, the Bureau notes that 
a number of scholars, elected officials, journalists and commissions 
have examined the initiative process over the last decade.

  The Bureau cited to concerns about ``serious flaws that require 
improvement,'' including limited voter information, deceptive media 
campaigns,

[[Page S659]]

the lack of legislative review, poor drafting, and the impact of money 
in the initiative process. In other words, Margaret Morrow believes in 
ballot initiatives, but has concerns similar to those of the California 
Research Bureau, a nonpartisan research service for the California 
State Legislature.
  In summary, let there be no doubt that Ms. Morrow supports citizen 
initiatives as an important part of our democratic form of government. 
She also subscribes to the position that legislative enactments, 
including initiatives, are presumed to be constitutional, and that 
courts should be reluctant to overturn legislation. Margaret Morrow did 
suggest ways the initiative process could be strengthened by providing 
more information to the electorate and by correcting the drafting 
errors that sometimes form the basis for a legal challenge, but she 
does NOT oppose ballot initiatives.
  On charges that she may be a judicial activist, let me make it very, 
very clear. Ms. Morrow believes in the respective roles of the 
legislative and judicial branches, and will look to the original intent 
of the drafters of the laws and our Constitution.
  Some have questioned whether Margaret Morrow will be an activist 
judge. Her critics pulled a quote, out of context, from one of her many 
speeches, and those critics have decided that that single quote is 
evidence that Margaret Morrow will be an activist judge. The quote in 
controversy is from a 1- to 2-minute presentation to the State Bar 
Conference on Women in the Law. She says: ``For the law is, almost by 
definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is the vehicle 
through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always 
been to the rules which are to be.''
  As Margaret said during her second hearing, the overall context of 
that speech concerned how lawyers were going to govern the legal 
profession. She wasn't speaking of the substance of the law. Rather, 
she was referring to the legal profession. Her point in that speech was 
if lawyers have to work 2,000 to 3,000 hours a year in order to have 
positions in private law firms, how will both men and women in the 
legal profession govern and balance their careers and their family 
lives? In her speech at the Women in the Law Conference, Margaret 
Morrow said: ``[Women lawyers] should reject the norm of 2000-plus 
hours a year; the norm that places time in the office above time with 
family . . . We should work to infuse our perspective into the law--our 
experience as women, as wives, and as mothers.''
  I would also refer you to the letter from Robert Bonner which so 
clearly states that he, and so many other Republians of good 
reputation, can assure you that Margaret Morrow will not be an activist 
judge.
  Finally, some of her critics base their belief that Ms. Morrow will 
be an activist judge on a speech she made during her installation as 
the first woman president of the State Bar of California on October 9, 
1993. In her speech, Ms. Morrow quoted Justice William Brennan: 
``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions 
are engines of change, able to accommodate evolving patterns of life 
and social interaction.'' Taken out of context, her critics believe Ms. 
Morrow will use the courts as an engine of change. However, during her 
hearing, Ms. Morrow confessed she pulled Justice Brennan's statement 
from a book of quotes, and she testified that ``The theme of that 
speech was that the State Bar of California as an institution and the 
legal profession had to change some of the ways we did business. The 
quotation regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in 
the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation.'' In fact, 
the speech was about the changes the bar should make so that it would 
be more responsive to the public. It did not advance a theme that the 
courts should be engines of change.

  To respond to my colleagues' charge that Margaret Morrow advocated 
gun control while president of the state bar, let me just say that this 
is patently untrue, and is refuted by 11 of the 21 Members of the 
California State Bar Board of Governors who were on the board at the 
time in question. They were there, they know what happened and what 
didn't happen, and they have signed a letter confirming that Margaret 
Morrow did not advocate gun control as her critics accuse her of. These 
11 members are Republicans and Democrats alike.
  These Republicans and Democrats explain in their letter to me that in 
1993, the State Bar Conference of Delegates--representatives of 
voluntary bar associations throughout California--adopted two 
resolutions calling upon the Bar to study a possible revision of 
firearms laws and to propose measures to protect judges, lawyers, and 
others from gun violence. These resolutions were prompted by a tragic 
shooting incident at a San Francisco law firm in which several people 
were killed. These resolutions were passed before Ms. Morrow assumed 
her position as the first woman President of the State Bar of 
California.
  The resolutions were then considered by the State Bar Board of 
Governors, of which Margaret Morrow was president in 1993-94. She 
appointed a special committee to consider the firearms resolutions, 
saying that she wanted to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court 
decision, Keller v. State Bar, that forbids a state bar from using 
mandatory lawyers' dues to support political or ideological causes.
  The Board of Governors, under Margaret Morrow's leadership, rejected 
the resolutions passed by the delegates and passed explicitly neutral 
language instead. Let me repeat this very important point. As President 
of the State Bar Board of Governors, Margaret Morrow led the Board in 
deciding to reject resolutions on gun laws passed by the California Bar 
Conference of Delegates and instead adopted a neutral resolution, which 
suggested that the State Bar sponsor ``neutral forums on violence and 
its impact on the administration of justice.'' Therefore, she did the 
exact opposite of what her critics accuse her of. She followed the law 
as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, precisely what she 
will do if she is confirmed as a district judge.
  I yield the remaining 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we close this debate, I would like to 
take just a moment to reiterate my support for Margaret Morrow. As my 
friend from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, has conceded, Ms. Morrow 
certainly enjoys the professional qualifications to serve as a United 
States district court judge.
  Unfortunately, those who have chosen to vote against Ms. Morrow have 
failed to identify a single instance in the nominee's legal practice in 
which she has engaged in what can be considered as activism. The best 
the opponents to Ms. Morrow can do is take quotes from several of her 
speeches and read into that an activist intent. I do not believe, 
however, that when closely analyzed, those claims stand up. Regarding 
the two brief statements being used to question Ms. Morrow's propensity 
to engage in judicial activism, when balanced against the 20-plus-year 
distinguished and dedicated career, the statements are simply 
insufficient to determine that Ms. Morrow would be a judicial activist.
  The first statement attributed to Ms. Morrow that the ``law is on the 
cutting edge of social thought,'' when placed within its proper context 
and read along with the entire speech is not troubling to me. I note 
that the opposition did not discuss the text of that speech or the 
theme of the speech, because the speech itself is not controversial in 
any manner. In fact, the theme of the speech advocates change in the 
legal profession itself. The speech does not advocate judicial 
activism. This is why no one has mentioned any other sentence or phrase 
from the speech. It simply does not advocate activism.
  The second statement attributed to Ms. Morrow, that the law and legal 
institutions are engines of change, was taken from a quote by Mr. 
Justice Brennan. Whether you agree with Mr. Justice Brennan or not, he 
was one of the most substantial Justices in history. And she was 
quoting him. Again, the opposition has not mentioned the theme of the 
speech from which this quote was taken. The speech also advocated 
change in the legal profession, not activism in the courts.
  I personally believe that the profession could stand some changes in 
certain areas. It is not fair to this nominee or any other that her 
entire career

[[Page S660]]

and judicial philosophy be judged on the basis of a few statements, 
arguably very ambiguous statements. I cannot ignore the overall theme 
of the speeches from which these statements were taken. The speeches in 
no way advocated activism. They only advocated change in the legal 
profession.
  Ms. Morrow's legal career speaks for itself. She will be an asset to 
the Federal bench, in my opinion. Thus, when Ms. Morrow's statements 
are read in context, they do not paint a picture of a potential 
activist. Moreover, when asked by the members of the committee to 
explain her judicial philosophy and her approach to judging, she gave 
an answer with which any strict constructionist would agree. And when 
asked to explain whether her speeches were intended to suggest that 
judges should be litigating from the bench, she adamantly denied such a 
claim.
  Given her plausible explanation of these statements criticized by my 
good friends from the Judiciary Committee and her sworn testimony that 
she would uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law, I have 
to give her the benefit of the doubt and will vote to confirm her. I 
think and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
  Ordinarily, I believe that a nominee's testimony should be credited 
unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Here, those who 
oppose this nominee lack such evidence. What they are left with are 
snippets from some of her speeches, speeches that we are trying to 
divine the intent of, while lacking the evidence to think otherwise.
  I will credit the testimony of the nominee and her stated commitment 
to the rule of law. I sincerely hope that she will not disappoint me, 
and I believe that she is a person of integrity and one who will judge, 
as she has promised, in accordance with the highest standards of the 
judgeship profession and with the highest standards of the Constitution 
and the rule of law.
  On this basis, I support the nominee. I believe we all should support 
this nominee. She has had a thorough hearing and we have had many, many 
discussions of this. But I just don't think we should take things out 
of context and stop a nominee on that basis.
  With that, I hope our colleagues will support the nominee. Mr. 
President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of California, to be 
United States District Judge for the Central District of California?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Ford) and 
the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Ex.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Ford
     Levin
     Reid
     Specter
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________