[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S2400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I know we are faced with a time problem, 
but since a separate extraneous issue was raised, I must respond to 
this question of judicial nominations.
  First of all, when I go to my State or around the country, the last 
thing I hear people clamoring for is more lifetime-tenured Federal 
judges. There is no clamor out there in the real world for more Federal 
judges.
  But, so the record will be clear, the number of Clinton appointments 
to the Federal judiciary as of that date is 252. The total number of 
Clinton nominees confirmed by the 105th Congress--that is last year and 
the first 3 months of this year--48, 9 for the court of appeals, 37 for 
district courts, 2 for the USIT; 36 in the first session and 12 in the 
second session.
  There are currently 81 vacancies in this very large Federal 
judiciary, and of that 81, 41 of them have not had nominees. It is 
pretty hard for us to consider nominees if we do not have them even 
presented to the Congress.
  I have been hearing this now for months about, ``Oh, why don't you 
move more?'' Maybe the administration ought to consider moving a little 
faster. They can't send them up here and immediately start complaining 
that they are not considered in the next week or even the next month. 
But half of the vacancies do not have a nominee pending. Plus, there 
are only six pending on the calendar, and we will probably consider a 
couple of those this week. So there will only be four pending on the 
Senate Executive Calendar for judicial positions.
  Then let me make one other point. Should we take our time and look at 
these people who are nominated to be Federal judges for life and hold 
sway over us in ways that exceed the imagination--and certainly I don't 
approve of--right down to trying to run our schools at the local level?
  Should we take our time, look at them carefully when they are 
received in the committee, have hearings on them, ask them a lot of 
questions, then send them to the floor and have them checked once 
again?
  Yes; and I will give you exhibit A of why we need to do that.
  Just look at the one that was withdrawn last week--Frederica Massiah-
Jackson, a nominee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who used 
profanity from the bench, had identified undercover policemen so that 
they could be recognized by the criminal element, a whole raft of 
things that came out, and, by the way, much of it after she was 
nominated, after she was reported by the Judiciary Committee and had 
been pending in the Senate for months.
  Finally, the local district attorney--I might say, a Democrat--and 
the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association came out in opposition 
to this nomination, and, after it had been reported by the Judiciary 
Committee, held on the floors for weeks and months, the administration, 
realizing she was going to be defeated, withdrew her nomination. Should 
we take our time on these Federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? 
Only one: I probably moved too many already.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.




                          ____________________