[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 27 (Friday, March 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1919-S1920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLINOIS NOMINEES: MIKE McCUSKEY AND PAT MURPHY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak to an issue
which involves our Executive Calendar.
Since November of last year, there have been two names pending on
this calendar of judicial appointees for my home State of Illinois. One
is Patrick Murphy, of Marion, IL, to be U.S. District Court Judge for
the Southern District. The other is Michael McCuskey, who is seeking
the position of District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. It
is unusual that these two nominees would have been on the calendar for
such a long period of time, and the situation is aggravated by the fact
that these vacancies are very serious, creating, in fact, what has been
characterized as a judicial emergency.
The Southern District of Illinois has the second oldest judicial
vacancy in the Nation. The Southern District, for which Mr. Murphy is
seeking this confirmation, has been without this Federal judge for
1,952 days. In the Central District of Illinois, it has been more than
1,000 days since that judgeship has been filled. In fact, the exact
number is 1,255 days.
There are four judgeships in the southern district, two vacant.
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and I have proposed Mr. Murphy and Judge
David Herndon, of Alton, to be named to fill those spots. Mr. Murphy is
the only candidate who has reached the calendar to this point, but we
are hopeful that Judge Herndon will as well. This 50 percent vacancy
rate in one judicial district is much, much higher than the 10 percent
vacancy rate which we have experienced around the Nation. In the
Central District of Illinois, where I live, the numbers are exactly the
same; half of the judges have not been appointed. Of course the obvious
question is, What is wrong with these two nominees? Why would they sit
on the calendar of the U.S. Senate for over 1,000 days? They clearly
must have very serious problems. Exactly the opposite is the case.
These two gentlemen, Mr. Murphy and Judge McCuskey, were nominated by
President Clinton on July 31, 1997. They were unanimously recommended
by the Judiciary Committee on November 6 of the same year. They have
been sitting on this calendar for 127 days with absolutely no one
raising questions as to their qualifications for the job.
What happens to a person who finds himself in this predicament? I
have talked to many of them. Their lives are changed. The prospect of
being appointed to the Federal bench makes life difficult on a
professional and personal basis.
Judge McCuskey has a family. He is trying to find a place for his
family to live. Think about buying a home and not knowing when you can
move into it, and then the fear that if you move too soon, you will
disqualify yourself from your previous judgeship. That is what he is
facing.
His family is going through a lot of turmoil this week because they
had thought surely within 100 days the U.S. Senate would act on this
nomination, but it has not happened.
Mr. Murphy is in the private practice of law. We have spoken from
time to time. He has important cases representing people from his part
of Illinois, and people are wondering: ``Pat Murphy, are you going to
be around? Can we count on you? Will you take this case to trial?
Should we bring business to your office?''
All of these things weigh heavy on a person who has decided to make
this commitment to move forward and ask to be appointed to the Federal
bench.
I hope that Members of the Senate, those who will read my remarks and
those who hear them, will understand that this type of thing is more
than an inconvenience. It is a hardship that we should not impose on
two people for whom there is no controversy.
Let's take a look at the Central District of Illinois. There are 162
cases in that district that have been pending for more than 2 years.
Imagine if you were to say at some point, because of your business or
family concerns or personal needs, that you had to go to court, and
then you went into court with an attorney and said, ``How soon will
this be resolved?''
And they said, ``At least 2 years.''
``Two years?''
We can do better.
Fifty-five of the cases in the central district have been there for
more than 3 years; 30 of the suits are related to civil rights cases,
people who feel they have been discriminated against; 21 are civil
rights suits; 15 are contract disputes; 9 are personal injury cases; 11
are product liability suits; and 2 are patent cases.
Let me tell you how this works, since I have practiced law in this
district. When the day comes for you to go to trial after waiting 2
years, you better hope there isn't some intervening thing or event that
ends up postponing it. A friend of mine took a case and, after waiting
for 19 months, finally went to trial only to have a death in the family
of one of the other attorneys, causing them to postpone the trial date.
Then, of course, they were told they would have to wait for at least
another year before the case could be tried.
When the Senate fails to do its work and confirm judges, the hardship
is imposed on ordinary people in America and they are puzzled: ``Well,
why is this the case? Why does it take so long for me to get my day in
court?'' Is justice delayed truly justice denied? In many cases, it is.
In this situation, unfortunately, the burden is on us, those men and
women who sit in this Chamber and have the singular responsibility to
confirm Federal judges.
The Southern District of Illinois is another sad story when it comes
to the impact of the vacancies. Since 1992, case filings have increased
9 percent. People are still going to the courthouse; 58 cases there
have been pending for more than 3 years; 7 have been pending for 10
years. Why is that the case? Because Judge Phil Gilbert, the active
Federal judge in this district, with Judge Paul Riley, are working
overtime to try to deal with a heavy criminal docket which must be
dealt with first under the law and, of course, we want them to, and in
trying to deal with that docket, they keep postponing the civil docket.
So people wait.
In one of those 10-year-old cases in the southern district, a
plaintiff sustained serious neck and back injuries that required him to
pay out $15,000 in hospital bills. He was operating a mine shuttle cart
that hit a small obstruction. The cart had no shock absorbers, and he
suffered a serious injury, and now he waits for his day in court.
When you take a look at the statistics that have been compiled by the
administrative office of the U.S. Court System as to the median amount
of time that it takes a civil case to come to trial, it tells the story
even more graphically.
The Southern District of Illinois has the longest waiting period, 23
months. There are 94 districts nationwide, and the southern district
has the 54th longest median time from filing to trial; the central
district, 33 months. These numbers are from early last fall. More
recent numbers are not going to be encouraging or much different.
We have heard from the judges in both of the districts. Phil Gilbert
of the southern district has written to Members of the Senate and said
they are getting the job done--and I know he is working hard with Judge
Riley--but they badly need additional judges. Those are his words.
Judge Michael Mihm of the central district said that they, too, are
working to keep up with the caseload, but definitely feel the pinch.
They have had to delay one major civil trial. They are only getting the
job done by bringing in other judges from other districts, and, of
course, causing problems in those districts in the meantime.
Let me tell you about these two individuals, because I think you will
come to realize why they moved through the Judiciary Committee without
any controversy and why their still sitting on the calendar is a
travesty of justice.
Judge McCuskey was born in Peoria, IL. He is currently a State court
judge and for the last 9 years has been serving in that capacity.
Before that, for 2
[[Page S1920]]
years he was a circuit court judge. Since 1990, he has been a justice
for the third district appellate court.
Before going to law school, he worked at a local high school as a
history teacher and baseball coach. During law school, he helped pay
his bills by working as a security guard. After graduating, he started
his own law firm. Since becoming a judge, he has earned a reputation,
deservedly, from Democrats, Republicans, as well as Independents, as an
outstanding--firm, fair and thorough--jurist.
He is also involved in community work. Mike McCuskey is known
throughout the Peoria area for going to local grade schools and reading
to children. He emcees the senior citizen activities during the annual
county fair.
Then there is Pat Murphy in the Southern District of Illinois. I
never met Pat Murphy before he came to the interview process that Carol
Moseley-Braun and I held. I have to tell you, he just swept us off our
feet. He is such an impressive individual.
Pat Murphy was born and raised in Marion, IL, from a very humble
family. He served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. At the age of 17, he
enlisted. On almost exactly his 18th birthday, he arrived in Vietnam
where he served a tour of duty as an enlisted man in K Company, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marine Corps weapons platoon.
After he got out of the Marine Corps, Pat Murphy decided to go on to
get his college degree and law degree with the help of the GI bill.
His parents died, and some of his brothers and sisters were still
very young. Pat took on the responsibility of raising his four younger
brothers and sisters. As he said to us, ``We ended up raising one
another.''
I met Pat's brother Kevin. He is the unit manager and a guard at the
Marion Federal Penitentiary.
Pat's story shows extensive legal experience. Since beginning the
practice of law, Pat Murphy has tried almost 100 cases. I will tell
you, it is hard to find a trial attorney who can say that. He has tried
almost 100 cases before a jury; 200 before a judge. He has represented
banks, municipalities, school boards, insurers and individuals. He has
tried several criminal cases, representing plaintiffs and defendants.
In the first year he was eligible, he was elected to the prestigious
American College of Trial Attorneys. He has built more than a solid
reputation in southern Illinois. He has been building a national
reputation.
Isn't this the kind of person we want to serve on the Federal bench?
I think it is, and so does the Judiciary Committee in unanimously
approving his nomination.
One thing I have to say, though, that shouldn't be left out of Pat
Murphy's biography is that he is known throughout Marion and southern
Illinois for his unstinting generosity to veterans. He himself served,
as I said, in the Marine Corps during Vietnam, and ever since, he has
given local veterans pro bono--that is free--representation whenever
they walk through the door.
I have heard it said that in southern Illinois, when there is a
funeral and burial of a veteran, many times they will see this lawyer
come driving up, jump out of the car and stand in reverence at the
grave site for his fellow veteran.
Pat Murphy has endeared himself to so many of the people in southern
Illinois and would be an excellent choice for Federal judge.
So here we sit 127 days after these two men have their names brought
before the Senate for confirmation. There is no objection in the
Judiciary Committee, no objection to their qualifications and talents,
and yet they wait. With personal hardship, they are waiting patiently
for the opportunity to serve the United States of America as Federal
district court judges.
They have accepted that responsibility pending our confirmation.
Shouldn't the Senate accept its responsibility? Shouldn't we vote out
today, or at the latest the first day we can next week, these two men
so that they can serve their country as Federal district court judges,
so that they can, in some way, address the backlog of cases in the
southern and central districts and give people who have been waiting
patiently for their day in court an opportunity for a trial?
I hope we respond to this. I say to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate,
I am going to continue to raise this issue. I think it is unfair what
we are doing to these two individuals. I hope the Senate can move very,
very quickly to rectify this injustice.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to address a problem of
significant magnitude. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________