[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5424-S5425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, Xavier Becerra, Jose E. Serrano 
and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus called upon the Republican 
leadership to vote upon the Latino nominees to judgeships who have 
languished in the Senate far too long. I welcome the views of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus to the debate and I ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of their letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. I have spoken often, too often, about the crisis in the 
Second Circuit and our need for the Senate to move forward to confirm 
the nominees pending on the Senate calendar to that important court.
  Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a qualified nominee who was confirmed to the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 
1992 after being nominated by President Bush. She attended Princeton 
University and Yale Law School. She worked for over four years in the 
New York District Attorney's Office as an Assistant District Attorney 
and was in private practice with Pavia & Harcourt in New York. She is 
strongly supported by Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato. She is a 
source of pride to Puerto Rican and other Hispanic supporters and to 
women. When confirmed she will be only the second woman and second 
judge of Puerto Rican descent to serve on the Second Circuit.
  By a vote of 16 to 2, the Judiciary Committee reported the nomination 
of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Senate. That was on March 5, 1998, over 
two months ago. No action has been taken or scheduled on that 
nomination and no explanation for the delay has been forthcoming. This 
is the oldest judicial nomination pending on the Senate Executive 
Calendar. In spite of an April 8 letter to the Senate Republican Leader 
signed by all six Senators from the three States forming the Second 
Circuit urging prompt action, this nomination continues to be stalled 
by anonymous objections. Our bipartisan letter to the Majority Leader 
asked that he call up for prompt consideration by the Senate of the 
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. That was over one month ago. I 
request unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be included in the 
record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Nor is Judge Sotomayor the only woman or minority judicial nominee 
who has been needlessly delayed. Indeed, if one considers those 
nominees who have taken the longest to confirm this year, we find a 
disturbing pattern.
  Hilda Tagle, the only Hispanic woman the Senate has confirmed this 
year, took 32 months to be confirmed as a District Court Judge for the 
Southern District of Texas--that was over two and one-half years. As I 
have noted, Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Second Circuit is the 
longest pending on the Senate calendar, another qualified Hispanic 
woman nominee. Judge Richard Paez, currently a District Court Judge and 
a nominee to the Ninth Circuit, was first nominated in January 1996. 
Twenty-eight months latter, Judge Paez's nomination remains pending on 
the Senate calendar. Nor have we seen any progress with respect to the 
nomination of Jorge Rangel to the Fifth Circuit or Anabelle Rodriguez 
to the District Court for Puerto Rico, although her nomination was 
received in January 1996 almost 28 months ago.
  For that matter, we have seen the President's nomination of the Judge 
James A. Beaty, Jr., the first African-American to the Fourth Circuit 
stalled for 29 months, since December 1995.
  We have seen the attack on Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson, who would 
have been the first African-American woman to serve on the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, but who was forced to withdraw. We have seen 
the nomination of Clarence Sundram held up since September 1995, almost 
32 months.
  With the delays in the Senate consideration of Margaret Morrow and 
Margaret McKeown earlier this year, we had the opportunity to consider 
why it is that the Senate takes so much longer to consider and confirm 
so many woman nominees. That question has yet to be answered 
adequately.
  Margaret Morrow was targeted by some and debate on her nomination was 
delayed for more than a year. She was first nominated in May 1996 and 
was not voted on for 21 months. When we finally got a vote, she was 
confirmed by a vote of more than two to one. Margaret Morrow was the 
first and only woman to serve as the President of the California State 
Bar. The ABA gave her its highest rating. She had strong bipartisan 
support. She was held up for a judicial emergency vacancy for many 
months without cause of justification.
  Nor was Margaret Morrow an isolated case. Consider the nomination of 
Judge Ann Aiken to the District Court in Oregon. That nomination was 
received in November 1995 but not considered by the Senate until 
January 1998, 26 months later. She, too, was confirmed by a vote of 
more than two to one.
  Then we had the case of Margaret McKeown who was nominated to a 
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit in March 1996 but not considered until two 
years later in March 1998. When she received a Senate vote, she was 
confirmed by a vote of 80 to 11.
  We still have Susan Oki Mollway pending before the Senate without a 
vote although she was first nominated back in December 1995 for the 
vacancy on the District Court in Hawaii--that was more than 29 months 
ago and still she is without a vote.
  In his annual report on the judiciary last year, the Chief Justice of 
the United States Supreme Court observed: ``Some current nominees have 
been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote 
or a final floor vote. The Senate confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 
36 in 1997, well under the 101 judges it confirmed

[[Page S5425]]

in 1994.'' He went on to note: ``The Senate is surely under no 
obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary 
time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.''
  For some unexplained reason, judicial nominees who are women or 
racial or ethnic minorities seem to take the longest. Of the 10 
judicial nominees whose nominations have been pending the longest 
before the Senate, eight are women and racial or ethnic minority 
candidates. A ninth has been delayed in large measure because of 
opposition to his mother, who already serves as a judge. The tenth is 
one who blew the lid off the $1.4 milllion right-wing campaign to 
``kill'' Clinton judicial nominees.
  Pending on the Senate calendar, having been passed over again and 
again, are Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Richard Paez and Susan Oki 
Mollway. Ronnie White has now finally been reported, as well. Held up 
in Committee after two hearings is Clarence Sundram. Still without a 
hearing are Anabelle Rodriquez, Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., and Jorge C. 
Rangel. What all these nominees have in common is that they are either 
women or members of racial or ethnic minorities. That is a shame.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1998.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, Russell Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     Chairman, Senate Government Affairs Committee, Dirksen Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader and Mr. Chairman: As Members of the 
     Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), we are writing to 
     express our grave concern with the lack of progress and 
     consideration of judicial nominees before the Senate. In 
     particular, we are profoundly distressed that several of 
     those nominees are highly qualified individuals of Latino 
     descent. While this Congress has seen a slowdown in the 
     confirmation process it is notable that Latino judicial 
     nominees have been subjected to inexplicable delays.
       Of the Federal judges confirmed in the 105th Congress (1997 
     and 1998), only 2 have been Latinos. At present, there are a 
     number of Latinos with strong judicial and academic 
     qualifications pending Senate judicial confirmation. Yet, 
     several Latino judicial nominees have languished 
     unjustifiably in the Senate for over two years and only two 
     of the candidates have been reported out of committee.
       The delay in the confirmation process results in 
     significantly higher caseloads for existing Federal judges, 
     and a system that guarantees frustration for those who 
     utilize it. Already, and Second Circuit has been declared a 
     ``judicial emergency''--the circuit has seats that have been 
     vacant for more than 18 months. Overburdened judges and a 
     slowdown of court proceedings undermine faith in our judicial 
     system and our democracy as a whole.
       Inaction by the Senate is contributing to the 
     underrepresentation of Latinos on the Federal bench. Latinos 
     make up less than 5% of all Federal judges. We urge your 
     prompt and favorable action in confirming judicial 
     candidates.
           Sincerely,
     Xavier Becerra.
     Jose E. Serrano.

                          ____________________