[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S2696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONFIRMATION OF EDWARD F. SHEA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted to see the Senate confirm Ed 
Shea as a Federal District Judge. I attended his confirmation hearing 
back on February 4 and found him to be all that his supporters and 
friends had said he would be. I know that he has the support of the 
Senators from the State of Washington. He also has the strong support 
of this Senator from Vermont. Ed Shea was nominated last September for 
a vacancy that occurred in 1996, over 15 months ago. Mr. Shea was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee without dissent and without 
objection. He was rated qualified for this position by the American Bar 
Association. I spoke of his nomination last week and am now delighted 
to see this nomination considered by the Senate.
  With this confirmation the Senate will have acted favorably on only 
14 nominees this year. I am glad that Margaret McKeown is luck number 
13 and Ed Shea is number 14, but remain concerned for the other 
nominees who have been unlucky and remain stalled on the Senate 
calendar.
  I have tried to bring to the attention of the Republican leadership 
the need to consider and confirm the two judicial nominees for District 
Courts in Illinois who have been languishing on the Senate calendar 
without action for the last five months.
  It is time for the Senate to consider the nominations of Patrick 
Murphy and Judge Michael McCuskey. The Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously reported these two nominations to the full Senate on 
November 6, 1997. Their confirmation are desperately needed to help end 
the vacancy crisis in the District Courts of Illinois.
  Pat Murphy is an outstanding judicial nominee. He has practiced law 
in the State of Illinois for 20 years as a trial lawyer and tried about 
250 cases to verdict or judgment as sole counsel. During his legal 
career, Mr. Murphy has made an extensive commitment to pro bono 
service--dedicating approximately 20 percent of his working time to 
representing disadvantaged clients in his community. For instance, Pat 
Murphy has served as the court-appointed guardian to a disabled minor 
since 1990, without taking any fee for his services. The American Bar 
Association recognized this extensive legal experience when it rated 
him as qualified for this nomination. Mr. Murphy also served his 
country with distinction as a Marine during the Vietnam War.
  Judge Michael McCuskey is also an outstanding judicial nominee. Judge 
McCuskey served as a Public Defender for Marshall County in Lacon, IL 
from 1976 to 1988. In 1988, he left the Public Defender's office and 
the law firm, Pace, McCuskey and Galley to sit on the bench in the 10th 
Judicial Circuit in Peoria, IL. He has served as a judge of the Third 
District Appellate Court of Illinois since his election in 1990.
  The American Bar Association recognized his stellar qualifications by 
giving Judge McCuskey its highest rating of well-qualified for this 
nomination.
  The mounting backlogs of civil and criminal cases in the dozens of 
emergency districts, in particular, are growing more critical by the 
day. This is especially true in the Central and Southern District 
Courts of Illinois, where these outstanding nominees will serve once 
they are confirmed. Indeed, in the Southern District of Illinois, where 
Pat Murphy will serve if his nomination is ever voted on by the full 
Senate, Chief Judge Gilbert has reported that his docket has been so 
burdened with criminal cases that he went for a year without having a 
hearing in a civil case. In 1996, 88 percent of the cases filed in all 
federal trial courts were civil, while 12 percent were criminal. But in 
the Southern District of Illinois, not one of those civil cases was 
heard by Chief Judge Gilbert.
  The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called the 
rising number of vacancies ``the most immediate problem we face in the 
federal judiciary.'' There is no excuse for the Senate's delay in 
considering these two fine nominees for Districts with judicial 
emergency vacancies.
  I have urged those who have been stalling the consideration of the 
President's judicial nominations to reconsider and to work with us to 
have the Judiciary Committee and the Senate fulfil its constitutional 
responsibility. Those who delay or prevent the filling of these 
vacancies must understand that they are delaying or preventing the 
administration of justice. Courts cannot try cases, incarcerate the 
guilty or resolve civil disputes without judges.
  I hope that the Majority Leader will soon set a date certain to 
consider the nominations of G. Patrick Murphy and Judge Michael 
McCuskey.
  These nominees may well be a case in which a secret hold by one 
Senator is delaying Senate action. I recall receiving a Dear Colleague 
letter from the Majority Leader in January 1997, the first day of this 
Congress. In that letter he proposed to address the frustrations with 
the hold system and what he termed ``a correction.'' The letter goes on 
to describe the hold as ``a request for notification of or protection 
on an unanimous consent request or proposed time agreement.'' The 
Majority Leader advised a Senator placing a hold ``should understand 
that he . . . may have to come to the floor to express his objection 
after being notified of the intention to move the matter to which he 
objects.''
  I also recall last summer when the nomination of Joel Klein to be the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division was a source of 
some controversy. I recall then that the Majority Leader proceeded to 
consideration of that nomination and allowed opponents to debate their 
concerns and the Senate was able to proceed to a vote and to Mr. 
Klein's confirmation.
  I hope that model will be utilized without further delay in 
connection with the Murphy and McCuskey nominations. These nominees are 
strongly supported by their home State Senators. Any Senator outside 
those Districts who wishes to oppose, speak against or vote no for any 
reason or no reason is free to do so. What we need to find a way to 
overcome is the veto of these nominations by a single Senator when a 
majority of the United States Senate is prepared to confirm them.
  We are falling farther and farther behind the pace the Senate 
established in the last nine weeks of last year. When the Chief Justice 
of the United States Supreme Court wrote in his 1997 Year End Report 
that ``some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for 
a . . . final floor vote'' he could have been referring to Patrick 
Murphy, Judge Michael McCuskey, Margaret McKeown and Judge Sonia 
Sotomayor.
  Nine months should be more than a sufficient time for the Senate to 
complete its review of these nominees. During the four years of the 
Bush Administration, only three confirmations took as long as nine 
months. Last year, 10 of the 36 judges confirmed took nine months or 
more and many took as long as a year and one-half. So far this year, 
Judge Ann Aiken, Judge Margaret Morrow, and Judge Hilda Tagle have 
taken 21 months, 26 months and 31 months respectively. Margaret 
McKeown's nomination has already been pending for 24 months. Judge 
Sotomayor's nomination has already been pending for 9 months. Pat 
Murphy's and Judge McCuskey's nominations have already been pending for 
8 months. The average number of days to consider nominees used to be 
between 50 and 90, it rose last year to over 200 and this year stands 
at over 300 days from nomination to confirmation. That is too long and 
does a disservice to our Federal Courts.
  I urge the Republican leadership to proceed to consideration of each 
of the judicial nominees pending on the Senate calendar without further 
delay.

                          ____________________