[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8647-S8648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an important matter. As I 
begin, I am reminded of a statement my mother used to make. Actually, I 
recall my grandmother making this statement.
  The statement is to ``cut off your nose to spite your face.'' I have 
found out that actually that phrase can be traced back to the late 
1700s, when our Constitution was created. It essentially means doing 
something senseless, frequently out of spite, and which frequently ends 
up hurting the actor. The idea is that you are not happy with your face 
so you are going to cut off your nose. We all understand that that 
doesn't exactly solve the problem and, in the end, creates a bigger 
problem than the one with which you started.
  That phrase is applicable to something our friends of the minority 
are doing with respect to Federal judges. We have heard and have been 
subjected to a weekly dose of expressions of disappointment by members 
of the minority that the Senate has not confirmed more of President 
Clinton's judicial nominees. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
recently had to respond to that criticism because it had escalated to 
such a point that it demanded a response.
  In fact, not only were members of the Judiciary Committee being 
critical of the Republican chairman and the Republican Senate for not 
confirming more judges, but the President and Members of the House of 
Representatives chimed in with very, as Senator Hatch called it, 
``reckless and unfounded'' accusations.
  For example, one Democratic House Member was quoted as saying that 
the Senate:

       . . . has made the judiciary an exclusive club that closes 
     the door to women and minorities. . . . Its determinations 
     have been made on the basis of racism and sexism, plain and 
     simple.

  Other Democrats have argued that there is a judicial vacancy crisis 
and that ``scores of vacancies continue to plague our Federal courts.'' 
That is a statement of a prominent member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.

  In the face of comments such as this, Senator Hatch had to respond, 
and respond he did. He pointed out that the claims are false, both the 
claims of the inordinate number of judges being held, allegedly, and 
also the charge of racism.
  The Senate considers judicial nominees on the basis of merit, 
regardless of race or gender. As Chairman Hatch pointed out, minority 
and female nominees are confirmed in nearly identical proportion to 
their white male counterparts. The Republican Senate is confirming 
nominees at a reasonable rate, about the same rate as has occurred in 
the past.
  From statistics I have from the Judiciary Committee, there are 
currently 64 vacancies out of the 852-member Federal judiciary, which 
yields a vacancy rates of about 7.5 percent. A good comparison is the 
year 1994--by the way, at the end of a Democratically-controlled, the 
103rd Congress--when there were 63 judicial vacancies, 1 less, yielding 
a vacancy rate of 7.4 percent. By comparison, at the end of the Bush 
administration, when Democrats controlled the Senate, the vacancy rate 
stood at 12 percent.
  It is possible to find statistics to prove about anything, but the 
fact is, as the chairman of the committee pointed out, this Congress is 
confirming judges of the Clinton administration at about the same rate 
as past Congresses, and certainly the vacancy rate is not as bad as it 
had been at previous times.
  The important point is that Democrats, members of the minority, who 
are critical of Republicans for not confirming the nominees, need to be 
careful of this charge because it is they who are now refusing to 
confirm President Clinton's nominees to the Federal district court. 
There are currently four nominees who are ready to be brought to the 
full Senate floor for confirmation. Indeed, all four of these nominees 
were presented to the minority for their approval. There is no 
objection on the Republican side.
  The minority leader, speaking for Members of the Senate minority, 
objected to the Senate's consideration of confirmation of these four 
Clinton nominees to the Federal district court, the only four 
candidates on whom the Senate can vote. None of the other nominees has 
gone through the committee and is therefore ready for us to act.
  These are the four nominees currently on the Executive Calendar: 
Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton, Mary Murguia, James Teilborg, and Michael 
Reagan. The first three are nominees from Arizona. They were all 
nominated on July 21, 2000, by President Clinton. Michael Reagan of 
Illinois is the other nominee. He was nominated on May 12, 2000.
  I chaired the hearing for these four nominees on July 25, 2000. They 
are all qualified nominees. I recommended them all to my colleagues on 
the Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Indeed, they were approved by 
the Judiciary Committee on July 27, 2000, and sent to the floor for 
consideration. They were supposed to be confirmed before the August 
recess. When an unrelated negotiation between Leader Lott and Minority 
Leader Daschle broke down and reached an impasse, floor action on these 
nominees was postponed until this month, when we returned from the 
August recess. That is when the minority leader rejected the majority 
leader's request that these four be considered by the full Senate.
  It doesn't matter to me whether they are confirmed by unanimous 
consent or by a vote, but in any event, these are the four on whom we 
can act. They ought to be acted on, and I believe all should be 
approved.

  With respect to the three in Arizona in particular, I note that last 
year Congress created nine new Federal district court judgeships--four 
for Florida, three for Arizona, and two for Nevada. There was a very 
specific reason for this action. There is a huge caseload in these 
three States. The judges are falling further and further behind, 
primarily in the State of Arizona; I believe also in Florida. This is 
due to the number of criminal prosecutions for illegal drugs, alien 
smuggling, and related cases. All of the new judgeships for Nevada have 
been confirmed, and three of the four judgeships for Florida have been 
confirmed. None of the judgeships for Arizona has been confirmed.
  It is important that these nominees of President Clinton be confirmed 
by the Senate. They are critical to handling the caseload in the State 
of Arizona.
  Here is where the old phrase of my mother and grandmother comes into 
play: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Because some of the 
members of the minority party wish we could confirm even more judges, 
they are holding up the confirmation of these judges. There is nothing 
against the qualifications of any of the four. It is just that if they 
can't have everything their way, then, by golly, nobody is going to get 
anything.
  It is President Clinton who has nominated these four candidates. It 
is not somebody from Arizona, though Democratic Congressman Ed Pastor 
and Senator McCain and I strongly support these three nominees.
  One, Mary Murguia, is a career Federal prosecutor. She is currently 
at the

[[Page S8648]]

U.S. Department of Justice as the executive director of the Attorneys 
General Association. She would be, incidentally, the first Latino ever 
to be confirmed for the U.S. district court from the State of Arizona.
  Jim Teilborg is a lifelong trial attorney with enormous experience in 
courts and would--I think everyone recognizes--make a tremendous 
Federal judge.
  Judge Susan Bolton is one of the most respected members of the 
Arizona Superior Court, the trial court at the State court level, one 
of the most respected judges in the entire State. In fact, I have 
received comments from many lawyers who have said: We think your three 
nominees from Arizona are fantastic. We just wish Judge Bolton didn't 
have to leave because she is so important to the judiciary at the State 
level.
  Judge Michael Regan from Illinois, likewise, has very high 
qualifications. The point is this: These are Clinton administration 
nominees. They are needed to fill important vacancies in the Federal 
district court. Members of the minority have complained incessantly all 
year long that we need more judges and that the Senate needs to confirm 
the President's nominees, and they complain when the Senate has taken 
more time than they thought was warranted to confirm these judges. So 
the Senate Judiciary Committee acts to put these judges before the full 
Senate, and what happens? Members of the minority object. They won't 
let the Senate even vote on these four nominees. That is what I call 
cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  It is obstruction tactics; it is dealmaking at its worst. This is 
what people object to when they look at the Federal Government. It 
doesn't treat these individuals as human beings whose lives and careers 
are on hold. Incidentally, it has happened before. This is not the 
first time members of the minority have held up the nomination of a 
Democratic nominee by the Democratic President. In 1997, Democrats 
blocked the nomination of Barry Silverman to the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. He had to wait until the following year to be confirmed. 
Again, there was a dustup over a nominee from Illinois, as I recall, 
and the point was: If we can't get everything we want, you are not 
going to get anything you want.
  It is not only me and not only the people of Arizona; it is also the 
will of the President of the United States that is being thwarted. It 
is not as if partisan politics were involved with respect to the people 
being nominated because they are Republicans, Democrats, or 
Independents. In fact, obviously, the majority are Democrats. So you 
have a Democratic President nominating mostly Democratic candidates for 
the court, and the Democratic minority is holding them up.
  One of our distinguished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, recently said on the 
floor, ``We cannot afford to stop or slow down judicial nominations.'' 
I agree with Senator Leahy on this point. I hope that he and Senator 
Daschle and the other Senators who have an interest in this important 
subject will continue to support the confirmations of judges as long as 
we can and at least support the confirmations of those who the Senate 
can act on because they are the only ones who have been cleared to this 
point and, in any event, will recognize the irony in their criticism on 
the Senate floor for not confirming judges, when it is their action and 
their action alone that is preventing the confirmations of these four 
nominations to the Federal district bench. It is time for action. I 
hope my colleagues will quickly clear these four nominees for 
confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my understanding is that we have 10 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is scheduled to conclude at 2 
p.m.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________