[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9671-S9681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF JAMES A. TEILBORG, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
               DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of James A. 
Teilborg, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 
Arizona.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that under the prior unanimous 
consent agreement the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl; and I each have 1 hour for the Teilborg 
nomination, and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has up 
to 3 hours, unless time is yielded back, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
Edwards, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we are discussing 
some of the vacancies that exist in the Federal judiciary. There was a 
discussion this morning about an issue that is near and dear to my 
heart and important to the folks in North Carolina, which is the 
vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  Senator Robb came down and discussed Judge Gregory's nomination. 
Chairman Hatch responded. I would like to say a few words about that 
discussion.
  There are 15 authorized judgeships on the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. There are presently only 10 active judges on that court. By 
tradition, my State of North Carolina, which is the largest, most 
populous State in the Fourth Circuit, is allocated three of those 
judgeships. Out of those 10 judgeships --presently active judges on the 
Fourth Circuit--how many come from North Carolina? None.
  We are the only State in the nation that is not represented on a 
Federal circuit court, along with Hawaii. We are the largest State in 
the circuit. We have the largest population in the circuit, and we 
don't have a judge representing our State on this court. That has been 
true since Judge Ervin died in 1999.
  The people of North Carolina, who have cases regularly heard in the 
Fourth Circuit, have no one there representing them. In addition, to 
the extent the court is regularly interpreting matters of North 
Carolina law, which it is required to do in diversity cases, there is 
no judge in this court who is trained in North Carolina law. Now, this 
Congress recognized some time ago how important it was for States to be 
represented on their circuit courts of appeal by enacting a law--in 
fact, requiring that States have a judge on their Federal circuit court 
of appeals. We have none. As I indicated before, along with Hawaii, we 
are the only two States in the country that are not represented on our 
circuit court of appeals.
  Now, Chairman Hatch had some discussion this morning about Judge 
Gregory and his nomination to the Fourth Circuit in the State of 
Virginia, and the fact that that was a slot traditionally allocated to 
my State of North Carolina.
  My question to Chairman Hatch is: What are we doing about the 
nomination of Judge Wynn? Judge Wynn is a very well-respected, very 
moderate, centrist jurist from North Carolina, who has been nominated 
for over a year from my State to fill a vacancy that is traditionally 
allocated to North Carolina. There is no question that Judge Wynn would 
be approved by this

[[Page S9672]]

body if he ever got a hearing and a vote on the floor.
  Unfortunately, that has not happened. It is easy to understand why 
the Clinton administration believed they needed to take some action. 
That action has turned out to be to nominate Judge Gregory. I have to 
admit it was somewhat frustrating to me, representing North Carolina, 
to have Judge Gregory nominated for the slot he was nominated for 
because it was traditionally allocated to North Carolina. But, I do 
support Judge Gregory's nomination.
  In addition to having no judge from North Carolina being on the 
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, our court does not presently have, nor 
has it ever had, an African American judge. The Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals has the largest African American population in the country and 
does not now have, nor has it ever had, an African American judge. 
Obviously, there is a huge part of our population in the Fourth Circuit 
that has never been represented on this court. They are entitled to 
representation by a well-qualified judge.
  In fact, Judge Wynn who was nominated over a year ago--from my State 
that has no judge on the Fourth Circuit--is also an African American 
judge. I urge Chairman Hatch to grant Judge Wynn a hearing and to push 
forward his vote on the floor of this Senate where he will be approved.
  The bottom line is that Judge Gregory is a well-respected and well-
qualified African American lawyer from the State of Virginia who also 
deserves a hearing, and also deserves a vote in this body this year.
  The argument that is made--and Chairman Hatch made it this morning--
is we only need 10 judges on the Fourth Circuit, we don't really need 
the 15 that Congress in fact has authorized. The reason is that the 
chief judge of that circuit, Judge Wilkinson, says they do not need any 
more judges, they are operating perfectly efficiently.
  I point out several things.
  No. 1, the Fourth Circuit issues more one-sentence opinions than any 
Federal circuit court in the country. Litigants come before it and make 
their case. Instead of getting a reasoned decision about why they won 
or lost their case, they get one sentence. What does that tell them 
about how much attention in fact is being paid to their case?
  This same argument was made when there were 13 judges on the court. 
Now we are down to l0.
  Since when do we let the chief judge of the circuit court decide how 
many judges go on the court? That is a function we in Congress have 
responsibility for--not him.
  You can certainly make an argument that this is a partisan decision 
that the chief judge has made--that he likes the present composition of 
the court. He was a Republican-nominated judge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent for another 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield another 3 minutes without losing my 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, here we have the chief judge, who is a 
Republican-nominated judge, and a court that now has a majority of 
Republican judges. You can certainly make the argument that he likes 
the composition of the court the way it is; he never wants that to be 
changed.
  That is so fundamentally wrong and so fundamentally different from 
the way our Constitution provides. We should be nominating judges. 
Whether it is a Democratic or a Republican administration, it shouldn't 
make any difference in nominating well-qualified judges. This body 
should act on the qualification of those men and women to serve on the 
court, not based upon the Republican or Democratic composition of the 
court. It is just that simple. This should be totally nonpartisan.
  My State has no one representing them on the Fourth Circuit. There is 
not, nor has there ever been, an African American judge on this court.
  The simple bottom line is that we have the responsibility of deciding 
how many judges should be authorized for that court. We have made that 
decision--15. It is now down to 10. Of those 10, North Carolina has 
none. The people of North Carolina are entitled to be represented on 
this court.

  In addition to that, we should deal with the issue that there has 
never been an African American judge on this court.
  We presently have pending the nomination of two well-respected and 
very well qualified African American jurists.
  This is what I would say to the Chairman Hatch. Let us have a hearing 
on Judge Wynn. Let Judge Wynn have a vote on the floor of this Senate, 
and let the people of North Carolina have what, by law enacted by this 
body, they are entitled to, which is a judge representing them on their 
Federal court of appeals so that when my people go to the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals to have their case heard, they have at least 
one judge representing them on that court. Aren't they entitled to 
that?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
North Carolina for his comments. Senator Edwards has been a friend 
since he came to this body. I have, at the risk of embarrassing him, 
stated on a number of occasions on this floor that the Senate was 
enhanced by his presence here. As a lawyer, I must say that having him 
here because of his own experience as one of the most outstanding and 
most recognized trial lawyers in the country, to say nothing about his 
own State. I think Senators on both sides of the aisle should listen to 
what he said.
  He is not a Senator who speaks in the abstract and who simply reads a 
statement on this. This is a Senator who has spent time in the courts 
of his State and of the region. He has had active practice in both 
State courts and Federal courts. He understands the judicial system.
  He has argued cases at all levels. He has worked with lawyers who 
have been on his side of an issue and opposed to him. He knows, as does 
any lawyer who practices law, that no matter how much you might try a 
case at the trial level, at some point, especially if the stakes are 
high, that case is going to go up on appeal. It is going to go up on 
appeal whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant. Whoever loses 
that case, if it is of significance, will take it up on appeal.
  I recall the statements made in court when I was trying cases. The 
judge in chambers would say: OK, we will take it to the jury and let 
justice be done. Usually the person who had the weaker case said: If 
that is the case, I will appeal, if justice is done.
  But the fact of matter is cases become more and more complex and more 
and more significant to the litigants and to the issues of law. They go 
up on appeal, and you ought to have a good appellate court.
  I commend the Senator for what he has said. I hope we will listen to 
what is needed in that appellate court.
  We should also note, I suggest, that there is going to be a 
significant debate tonight in Boston between the two candidates of our 
two great parties--the Republican and Democratic Parties. Both parties 
have nominated those we consider to be our best choices. Obviously, I 
strongly support my friend of over 20 years, Al Gore. But I also know 
that the Republican Party has nominated a very distinguished Governor, 
George W. Bush.
  I mention this because Governor Bush and I, while we disagree on some 
issues, have one very significant issue on which we agree. He gave a 
speech awhile back and criticized what has happened in the Senate where 
confirmations are held up not because somebody votes down a nominee but 
because they cannot ever get a vote. Governor Bush said: You have the 
nominee. Hold the hearing. Then, within 60 days, vote them up or vote 
them down. Don't leave them in limbo.
  Frankly, that is what we are paid to do in this body. We are paid to 
vote either yes or no--not vote maybe.
  When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and not taking 
any action one way or the other, we are not only voting ``maybe'' but 
we are doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do 
this. They have to put their life on hold. They do not know what is 
going to happen: Are they going to be confirmed, or not? It is not like 
when any one of us runs for election; we know that on a certain

[[Page S9673]]

day the election occurs. We either win or we lose. But we know that on 
that Tuesday, we are going to know our fate. We won or we lost.

  These people come here and they never know what may happen. They 
don't know whether they will have a hearing. And if they have a 
hearing, they don't know if there will be a vote in committee. And if 
there is a vote in committee, they don't know whether they will come on 
the floor. And if they come on the floor, they don't know if they will 
have a vote because one person hiding in the Cloakroom will say: Don't 
allow it to come to a vote yet. So they may have 99 Senators voting for 
them but somebody mysteriously in the background says ``Don't vote,'' 
and they don't vote.
  Helene White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has 
been pending for 1,360 days. Governor Bush said we ought to have a vote 
up or down within 60 days. Let's have a vote on Helene White. She has 
been waiting not 60 days, not 600 days, but 1,360 days.
  Kathleen McCree Lewis, who has been nominated for the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, an outstanding African American woman, 
who has one of highest ratings of anybody we have ever seen come before 
the Senate, has been waiting for 370 days. Not the 60 days we talked 
about, but more than six times the 60 days. Bonnie Campbell, for the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, has been spending for 
more than 215 days.
  We are debating bringing up the Violence Against Women Act which has 
been stalled. The Violence Against Women Act has expired. Distinguished 
Senators on both sides of the aisle are working to bring it up and we 
cannot bring it up for a vote.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas, both of whom support it on the floor, and we 
cannot get that up for a vote.
  We also can't get Bonnie Campbell up, even though she is the Director 
of the Violence Against Women Office. She supported, worked for and 
administered the Violence Against Women Act, an act that has seen a 
dramatic decrease in violence against women.
  We ought to be standing and applauding Ms. Campbell. She is somebody 
who shows by her own experience that she can do the things necessary to 
bring down this scourge of violence against women in our country. Now 
that she has gone through the vetting process, and found out that she 
is one of the most qualified people to be a judge of anyone confirmed 
in the last 20 years, Republican or Democrat, we ought to at least let 
her have a vote instead of holding her in limbo.
  Elena Kagan for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia has been pending for more than 480 days without a vote; 
Lynette Norton, for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Pennsylvania, has been pending for more than 890 days; Patricia Coan, 
for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, has been 
pending for more than 500 days; Dolly Gee, for the U.S. District Court 
for the Central District of California has been pending for more than 
495 days; Rhonda C. Fields, for the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia, has been pending for 325 days; Linda Riegle, for 
the U.S. District Court of Nevada, has been pending for more than 165 
days.
  Let them have a vote. These women are outstanding. They 
have demonstrated more than most people who get confirmed in this body, 
Republican or Democrat, how well qualified they are. At least let them 
have a vote. If people want to vote against them, vote against them.

  I will state for the record that I will vote for every one of them. 
In checking with our side of the aisle, every single Democrat Senator 
will vote for every one of these women.
  President Clinton, in remarks before the Michigan Bar Association, 
recently spoke about the Senate's failure to act upon his judicial 
nominees, noting his nominees have received more top American Bar 
Association ratings than those of any President in 40 years. President 
Clinton, to his credit, has nominated people who have received higher 
ratings than any President, Democrat or Republican, in 40 years and 
they still get held up. He said:

       These people are highly qualified, which leads to only one 
     conclusion, that the appointments process has been 
     politicized in the hope of getting appointees ultimately to 
     the bench who will be more political. That is wrong. It is a 
     denial of justice.

  President Clinton is right. We should move forward with these 
nominees. Let them have a vote. Don't do this in the dark of the night 
holding people up.
  We are going to have four nominees, three from Arizona which has a 
desperate situation, where they need Federal judges. My friend from 
Arizona, Senator Kyl, has pointed out, quite rightly, that cases cannot 
be heard, several cases cannot be heard. He has had experiences as a 
civil lawyer. He knows how difficult that is.
  I say as a former prosecutor, when that happens, the criminal cases 
can't be heard because you don't have enough people on the bench. When 
that happens, the prosecutor has to start plea bargaining down. He or 
she has to either get a lighter sentence or has to start dropping 
charges all over the place because they know they can't get a trial 
because the judges aren't there.
  If we are going to be tough on law and order, we have to have the 
judges there. We cannot just say we are against crime. I am willing to 
concede that all 100 of us are against crime. But if we are going to 
fight crime, we have to have the men and women there to do it: the 
prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the judges.
  If we will move those judges through, I will vote for every one of 
them. But I also point out that they can move through very rapidly, all 
the judges from the time they were nominated, to the hearings, to the 
floor. A lot of the other judges discussed today are judicial nominees 
who have waited and waited and waited and waited and cannot get a vote.
  It is not too late in the session to move on these nominations. We 
know that we can make quick progress when we want to do so. The group 
of nominees being considered tonight include nominations received on a 
Friday, who had a hearing the next Wednesday and were reported that 
Thursday, all within a week. In addition, there is the example of a 
hearing held last month by the Government Affairs Committee on two 
District of Columbia Superior Court judges, one who was nominated on 
May 1 and the other who was nominated on June 26. Another example of 
the ability of the Senate to act is the September 8 confirmation of 
James E. Baker to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In 
addition, there is the examples of Timothy Lewis who was confirmed in 
waning days of the 1992 session, the last year of a Republican 
presidential term with a Democratic majority in the Senate. Judge Lewis 
was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 8, having only been 
nominated on September 17 of that year.

  Of course, the Republican candidate for the presidency has said that 
nominations should be acted upon within 60 days. Of the 42 judicial 
nominations currently pending, 37 have been pending from 60 days to 4 
years without final action.
  Let us compare the lack of action this year to what a Democratic 
majority in the Senate accomplished in 1992 during the last year of a 
Republican presidential term. The Senate confirmed 11 Court of Appeals 
nominees during that Republican President's last year in office and a 
total of 66 judges for that year. This year the Senate is will not 
reach anywhere near 66 confirmations, not 60, not 50, not even 40. In 
1992, the Committee held 15 hearings--twice as many as this Committee 
has found time to hold this year. In the last 10 weeks of the 1992 
session, the Committee held four hearings and all of the nominees who 
had hearings then were confirmed before adjournment. In the last 10 
weeks of the 1992 session, we confirmed 32 judicial nominations. In the 
last 10 weeks of this year we will be holding no hearings and 
confirming only four District Court nominees.
  We still have pending without a hearing qualified nominees like Judge 
Helene White of Michigan. She has been held hostage for over 45 months 
without a hearing. She is the record holder for a judicial nominee who 
has had to wait the longest for a hearing and her wait continues 
without explanation to this day.
  We still have pending before the Committee, the nomination of Bonnie 
Campbell to the Eighth Circuit. Ms Campbell had her hearing last May, 
but

[[Page S9674]]

the Committee refuses to consider her nomination, vote her up or vote 
her down. Instead, there is the equivalent of an anonymous and 
unexplained secret hold. Bonnie Campbell is a distinguished lawyer, 
public servant and law enforcement officer. She was the Attorney 
General for the State of Iowa and the Director of the Violence Against 
Women Office at the United States Department of Justice. And she enjoys 
the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator Harkin and 
Senator Grassley. I understand and share Senator Harkin's frustration 
and believe that the Senate's failure to act on this highly qualified 
nominee is without justification.
  We still have pending without a hearing the nomination of Roger 
Gregory of Virginia and Judge James Wynn of North Carolina to the 
Fourth Circuit. Were either of these highly-qualified jurists confirmed 
by the Senate, we would be finally acting to allow a qualified African 
American to sit on that Court for the first time. Fifty years has 
passed since the confirmation of Judge Hastie to the Third Circuit and 
still there has never been an African-American on the Fourth Circuit in 
the history of that Circuit. The nomination of Judge James A. Beatty, 
Jr., was previously sent to us by President Clinton in 1995. That 
nomination was never considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee or 
the Senate and was returned to President Clinton without action at the 
end of 1998. It is time for the Senate to act on a qualified African-
American nominee to the Fourth Circuit. It is also time for the Senate 
to act on the nomination of Kathleen McCree Lewis to be the first 
African American woman to serve on the Sixth Circuit. President Clinton 
spoke powerfully about these matters at the NAACP Convention. We should 
respond not be misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he said but, 
instead, by taking action on these well-qualified nominees.

  I commend Senators Robb and Warner, along with Representatives Bobby 
Scott and Jim Clyburn, for speaking out last Wednesday to draw 
attention to the Senate's failure to act upon the nomination of Roger 
Gregory to fill an emergency vacancy in the Fourth Circuit. As Senator 
Robb pointed out, Mr. Gregory has been nominated to fill a vacancy that 
has existed on the Fourth Circuit for 10 years. While the Court is 
authorized to have 15 judges, it is operating with only 10 judges 
today. That means the Court has one-third of its positions vacant. Beth 
Nolan, the Counsel to the President, recently wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal:

       [T]he seat for which Mr. Gregory was nominated has not been 
     filed before, nor allocated to any particular state in the 
     Fourth Circuit. Moreover, Roger Gregory has the strong 
     support of both of his home-state senators (who were indeed 
     consulted prior to nomination). Democratic Sen. Chuck Robb 
     recommended Mr. Gregory to the president and has been working 
     tirelessly on Mr. Gregory's behalf. Republican Sen. John 
     Warner has joined Sen. Robb in requesting that Sen. Hatch 
     give Mr. Gregory a hearing.

  It is past time for the Judiciary Committee to consider Mr. Gregory's 
nomination.
  We still have pending before the Committee the nomination of Enrique 
Moreno to the Fifth Circuit. He is the latest in a succession of 
outstanding Hispanic nominees by President Clinton to that Court, but 
he too is not being considered by the Committee or the Senate. Mr. 
Moreno succeeded to the nomination of Jorge Rangel on which the Senate 
refused to act last Congress. These are well-qualified nominees who 
will add to the capabilities and diversity of those courts. In fact, 
the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared that a judicial emergency 
exists on that court, caused by the number of judicial vacancies, the 
lack of Senate action on pending nominations, and the overwhelming 
workload.
  I remain vigilant regarding the Senate's treatment of nominees who 
are women or minorities. I have said that I do not regard the Chairman 
as a biased person. I have also been outspoken in my concern about the 
manner in which we are failing to consider qualified minority and women 
nominees over the last several years. From Margaret Morrow, Margaret 
McKeown and Sonia Sotomayor, through Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, 
and including Judge James Beatty, Jr., Judge James Wynn, Roger Gregory, 
Enrique Moreno and all the other qualified women and minority nominees 
who have been delayed and opposed over the last several years, I have 
spoken out.
  The Senate will never remove the blot that occurred last October when 
the Republican Senators emerged from a Republican Caucus to vote 
lockstep against Justice Ronnie White to be a Federal District Court 
Judge in Missouri. At a Missouri Bar Association forum last week, 
Justice White expressed concern that the rejection of his nominations 
to a federal judgeship will have a ``chilling effect'' on the desire of 
young African American lawyers to seek to enter the judiciary. The 
Senate took the wrong action last October when the Republican caucus 
rejected Justice White's nomination.

  At our last Executive Business Session in the Judiciary Committee, 
the Chairman used some of Senator Biden's remarks from a nominations 
hearing last November to make the point that he is neither racist nor 
sexist. And I agree. I do not believe that the Chairman is himself for 
or against a particular nominee based purely on race or gender, though 
I do understand that the Committee does keep track of such numbers for 
statistical purposes. But to paraphrase our former Chairman from later 
on in that Executive Business Session, it would be better for the 
current Chairman to explain to those of us on this side of the aisle 
and the public at large why he is not moving on particular nominations. 
I understand there may be outstanding FBI investigations that he is not 
at liberty to discuss, but I do not believe any such impediments exist 
that would prevent the Chairman from telling us why Helene White, Roger 
Gregory, and Enrique Moreno have not yet had a hearing.
  There continue to be multiple vacancies on the Third, Fourth, Fifth, 
Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. With 23 current 
vacancies, our appellate courts have nearly half of the total judicial 
emergency vacancies in the federal court system. I note that the 
vacancy rate for our Courts of Appeals is more than 11 percent 
nationwide. If we were to take into account the additional appellate 
judgeships included in the Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, a 
bill that was requested by the Judicial Conference to handle their 
increased workloads, the vacancy rate would be 16 percent.
  Also at our last executive business session, my friend from Utah, the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there is and 
has been no judicial vacancy crisis. That is a bold statement 
considering there are 67 current vacancies in courts and emergency 
situations, including the Fifth Circuit. If we pass the bill that has 
been requested by the nonpartisan judicial conference, we would have 
another 7 or more judicial vacancies, so we would have over 150 
judicial vacancies.
  The chairman went on to say that since 363 senior judges are now 
serving in the Federal judiciary the true number of vacancies is ``less 
than zero.'' While it is true that there are 363 senior judges now 
serving, it is inaccurate to say that the true number of vacancies is 
less than zero.
  I commend the large number of senior judges for coming in to help out 
and fill in. Some of them are well into their eighties. But that is not 
the way it should be. Surely, if we didn't have these senior judges, 
the courts would collapse under the weight of their own caseloads and 
the extended and extensive vacancies.
  What we have is a situation where selfless public servants have made 
a conscious decision to hold off on the rewards of retiring from a job 
well done to help administer fair and proper justice in our country. 
Our senior judges should be thanked for their diligent work and 
dedication. Still, their service does not mean we have fewer vacancies. 
Indeed, the Judicial Conference has recommended 70 new judgeships in 
addition to the already existing 67 vacancies.
  Let's not say the only way that can happen is if people, no matter 
how old they are, say: I will never retire; I will just keep on showing 
up and do the best I can. It is the lifeblood of our judiciary to have 
new judges come in.
  I regret that the last confirmation hearing for Federal judges held 
by the Judiciary Committee was in July. In fact, that was the last time 
the Judiciary Committee reported any nominees to the full Senate. 
Throughout August,

[[Page S9675]]

September, and now the first week in October, there have been no 
additional hearings held, or even noticed; no executive business 
meetings have included any judicial nominees on the agenda.
  I mention that because in 1992, the last year of the Bush 
administration, we had a Republican President and a Democratic majority 
in the Senate. We held three confirmation hearings in August and 
September. We continued to work to confirm judges.
  How late did we work, even though we have the so-called Thurmond rule 
which cuts off judicial nominations after about midyear? Do you know 
how long the Democrat-controlled Senate was confirming judges for a 
Republican President? Up to and including the very last day of the 
session; not up to and including 6 months before the session ended.

  I know there is some frustration. Some Senators have objected to 
Senate committees continuing to meet on other matters while the Senate 
is in session. That is partly because the matter is so acute with 
regard to the numerous vacancies in our court of appeals and the 
qualified women and men who have been nominated and stalled.
  The chairman says, and he holds the banner for his party, that 
Democrats have no grounds to complain. I remind the Senate of the hoops 
that Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon had to jump through in order to get 
a vote, including the extraordinary step of overcoming a motion to 
postpone indefinitely the vote on Marsha Berzon.
  So I hope we will continue to meet our responsibility to all 
nominees--men, women, and minorities. As long as the Senate is in 
session, I am going to urge action. Highly qualified nominees should 
not be delayed. The Senate should join with the President to confirm 
well-qualified, diverse, and fair-minded nominees to fulfill the needs 
of the Federal courts around the country.
  I see my friend from Arizona on the floor. I have spoken somewhat 
longer than I suggested to him that I would. I apologize for that, but 
I hope he will take some comfort from the fact that as I said at the 
beginning of my talk that I would vote for the nominees from his State, 
including one who has been a long-time friend of his. I am going to be 
urging Members on this side to do so. I can say with some certitude, 
all four will be confirmed.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate those remarks of the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It is probably 
a good segue for me to try to explain what has been going on here 
because colleagues who may be watching or people who are not in the 
Senate may be wondering what all of the discussion has been about when 
there are four specific nominees who President Clinton has nominated 
for Federal district judgeships and they are ostensibly being 
considered by the Senate and I have heard no discussion about the four. 
So I am going to discuss the four very briefly.
  The problem, as you have heard, is that many on the other side of the 
aisle are unhappy with the fact that other nominees have not been 
considered this year. You have heard all the discussion about that. You 
have heard Senator Hatch on our side explain why that is so. But there 
has been great displeasure on the other side because, in their view, 
not all the nominees they would have liked to have considered were 
considered.
  The four nominees who are before us today are the only four the 
Senate can consider. They are the only nominees who have gone all the 
way through the process from nomination, ABA clearance, FBI clearance, 
hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and then the Judiciary 
Committee having acted upon them to send them to the floor of the 
Senate. These are the only four on whom the Senate can act. I am 
pleased that, today, we will have the opportunity to do that.
  All four of these nominees were pending in July. The majority leader 
made a request of the minority to consider the four nominees. That 
request was denied, however. So these four nominees had to be held over 
the August recess. Obviously, on our side we would have much preferred 
that the four confirmations could have occurred because of the need to 
fill these vacancies for the District in Arizona--which I will refer to 
in just a moment--but to which Senator Leahy referred. He acknowledges 
we have a significant need in Arizona to fill these positions. But 
there was objection on his side to their consideration.

  So when we came back in September, the majority leader again asked 
the minority leader for concurrence to bring these four nominees to the 
floor for a vote. Again, that was denied by the Democratic side.
  People might ask: Why would Democrats be objecting to President 
Clinton's nominees? The reason has nothing to do with their merits. As 
Senator Leahy pointed out, undoubtedly all four of these nominees will 
be confirmed because they are all four very well qualified. The reason 
has to do with the politics of this Chamber. Because some Democrats 
were concerned that not all of their people had been yet considered, 
they were going to hold up nominees they perceived to be important to 
me and to Senator Fitzgerald from Illinois, the home State of the four 
nominees here before us.
  But the fact is, these people are needed to serve the people of the 
United States of America. They were nominees of President Clinton. So 
the bottom line is that it is now time for the nominations to be 
considered by the full Senate. We need to get over the politics. We 
need to get on with doing the people's business and confirm these four 
well-qualified individuals. I am pleased that both the majority and 
minority have now made that possible and that in a few minutes we will 
be able to vote for all of these candidates.
  The first three candidates should have been discussed this morning. I 
know they were not. Instead, we had the discussion that you have heard. 
But those four nominees, as Senator Hatch mentioned, are Michael Reagan 
from Illinois, about whom you will hear a little more in a moment from 
Senator Fitzgerald; Mary Murguia, a very well qualified assistant U.S. 
attorney from Arizona who, by the way, if confirmed, will be the first 
Latina to serve as a Federal district court judge from Arizona; and the 
Honorable Susan Bolton, a very distinguished Superior Court judge in 
Arizona. All three of those candidates I deem to be well qualified. I 
chaired the hearing. I can certainly attest to the fact that the two 
from Arizona have the highest qualifications.
  That leaves the fourth who is being considered separately here for 
reasons I will discuss in just a moment, but he is James Teilborg. 
Since I think it is appropriate when we are going to vote on somebody 
to actually have a little discussion about the individual, I am pleased 
to present a couple of minutes on his background here.
  He was born and raised on a farm in southern Colorado and was State 
President of the Colorado Future Farmers of America. He married his 
wife, Connie, 37 years ago. They have two sons, Andy and Jay, and three 
granddaughters.
  He and I attended the University of Arizona College of Law beginning 
in 1964. That is where I first met Jim Teilborg. I have known him ever 
since, and we have been close friends. So I can attest not only to his 
qualifications as a fine lawyer but also as a fine individual. He 
served in active duty U.S. Air Force to attend Navigator School. He is 
a retired colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve after 31 years 
in the National Guard and Reserve service. He was a member of the 
National Guard for 7 years, a navigator on the C-97 and KC-97 aircraft 
and, by the way, has been 23 years admissions counselor for the U.S. 
Air Force Academy. I would also note for the entire time I have been 
with the U.S. Congress, Jim Teilborg has chaired my service academy 
committee, a huge job of interviewing all the individuals who would 
like to attend one of our military service academies: interviewing 
them, making recommendations to me, and then for me to the academies. 
As a result of his exemplary service, I must say we have a much higher 
than average rate of acceptance by the service academies--because of 
Jim Teilborg's fine service.

  He was a founder of the law firm of Teilborg, Sanders & Parks, the 
12th largest law firm in Arizona. His practice focused on the areas of 
aviation, professional negligence, product liability, and complex tort 
litigation.
  The Presiding Officer will appreciate, as a pilot himself, that, of 
course, Jim

[[Page S9676]]

Teilborg is an accomplished pilot as well.
  He is a 33-year veteran trial lawyer. He was President of the 
Maricopa County Bar Association, and was a member of the board of 
directors. He was the lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit 
Judicial Conference, a distinguished position for a member of the bar, 
and has served as chairman of the Maricopa County Bar Association 
Medical/Legal Liaison Committee, and also served as chairman of the 
Special State Bar Disciplinary Administrative Defense Counsel.
  He is a Member of the International Association of Defense Counsel 
board of directors and was its president in 1981; and, a very 
prestigious honor, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. 
This is the pinnacle for anybody who really wants to call himself a 
trial lawyer. In the latest edition of ``The Best Lawyers of America,'' 
of course, he is included.
  Jim Teilborg is one of those rare individuals who has practiced law 
for all of this time, made no enemies that I know of, but a lot of 
friends in the practice of law as a very competent litigator, a fine 
individual, and one who, as we found when we interviewed people in 
Arizona about his potential nomination, had unanimous support among 
judges and lawyers for service on the Federal district court.
  I cannot think of anyone who would be more suited for the position 
because of his background, because of his judicial temperament, and 
because of his philosophy of always treating people fairly and his love 
for the law. It is personally a great honor for me and a pleasure to 
recommend James Teilborg to my colleagues.
  That is probably the last you will hear about Jim Teilborg. Nobody is 
going to argue against him as an individual, I am sure. Of course, none 
has so far. I am hopeful that the political disagreement we have had 
over other nominees will not spill over into a negative vote on Jim 
Teilborg.
  There is only one reason he has been set apart from the other 
nominees, and that is that he happens to be a Republican. Of course, I 
have supported nearly 97 percent of President Clinton's nominees during 
the time I have been in the Senate, and I daresay virtually all of them 
have been Democrats. One cannot base a vote on partisan reasons in this 
body.
  I was very pleased to hear Senator Leahy say he would urge the 
support for Jim Teilborg, as well as committing that support himself. 
While we on both sides of the aisle have voted against candidates for 
reasons having to do with the merits of that individual candidate, I do 
not know of any time I have seen a colleague vote against a nominee in 
protest of something someone else had done. That would be wrong. A 
protest vote having nothing to do with the individual would be wrong.
  If the Senator from Vermont will still stay on the floor one more 
moment, I will quote him because I want him to know how much I agree 
with this important statement of his.
  He said:

       We should be the conscience of the Nation. On some 
     occasions, we have been, but we tarnish the conscience of 
     this great Nation if we establish the precedents of 
     partisanship and rancor that go against all precedents and 
     set the Senate on a course of meanness and smallness.

  The Senator from Vermont was, I think, very accurate not only in what 
he predicted would be the consequence of the precedent we would set if 
we acted in that degree of smallness, but also I think expressed the 
view all of us share that our decisions should be based upon the 
merits, however we see them--maybe differently--but never voting on an 
individual because of the actions of someone else, to make a protest 
about some other point.
  I appreciate his comments, and I commend to all of his colleagues the 
statement he has made here with respect to Jim Teilborg.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I will be very happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate what my friend from Arizona said. And he is 
my friend. It has been my experience on the committee, even on issues 
that start out appearing to be partisan, that the Senator from Arizona 
has worked hard to remove that sense of partisanship. He and I have 
joined together on a number of pieces of legislation. I do not think he 
would object to the description as a conservative Republican and myself 
as a liberal Democrat, but we have both been pragmatic Senators in 
getting some very good pieces of legislation through.
  I mention that because he and I may well share a belief that there 
have been some times this year when it has become too partisan. I hope 
after the elections, no matter who is elected President and no matter 
what the numbers are in the House and the Senate, that a number of 
Senators who have had the experience of working together across the 
aisle will start off the year trying to find pieces of legislation we 
can do that will demonstrate to the country there are many Members of 
good will in both parties who do want what is best for this country. 
There will be issues, of course, where there are distinct party 
differences, but there are so many issues where there is far more 
unity. I hope we can do that.

  I thank the Senator for his kind words. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I will conclude. Some of 
the best things we have done have been in a bipartisan way--some of the 
things Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch have worked on in particular, 
things that Senator Feinstein and I have worked on in particular. I 
certainly look forward to getting together with Senator Leahy after the 
election to see how we begin next year, assuming I am returned to this 
body.
  I conclude with a quick comment about the need to fill this position 
in Arizona.
  In 1999, Congress created nine new Federal district court 
judgeships--four for Florida, two for Nevada, and three for Arizona. 
The Nevada positions and three of four in Florida have been confirmed, 
but none has been confirmed yet for Arizona. That is why this is such 
an important matter as we conclude our business this year.
  These nominees are needed to handle the ever-increasing caseload in 
Arizona, and here is an illustration of that caseload.
  Our criminal felony caseload has increased 60 percent in the last 3 
years. The district of Arizona ranks second in total weighted filings 
for a judge among the Nation's 94 districts, by the way, twice the 
national average--901 compared to the national average of 472. We are 
fourth in weighted felony filings per judgeship. Felony filings per 
judgeship weighted are 236 percent above the national average.
  So you can see, Mr. President, why this burgeoning amount of work in 
Arizona requires that we fill these positions. We have 19 Indian 
reservations and 21 tribes which produces a steady stream of U.S. 
jurisdiction cases which are not found in most other States. Because we 
are on the border, we have a lot of illegal immigration and drug 
smuggling cases. And Arizona is one of the fastest growing States in 
terms of population. It is pretty easy to see how a State such as 
Arizona can get into a position where it has to fill these positions.
  I am very pleased that at this point, just before the Senate 
concludes its business for the year, we are able to fill these three 
positions in Arizona, as well as the Illinois position. I am delighted 
my colleague from Vermont will be urging his colleagues on the 
Democratic side to support all four nominations. I have certainly done 
the same on our side of the aisle. I think it will send a very good 
signal of that very kind of bipartisanship Senator Leahy was talking 
about if all of these nominees receive our unanimous support.
  I reserve the remainder of whatever time is remaining on my side. Mr. 
President, it is my understanding that any quorum call time will be 
attributed to both sides equally; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have to make that request.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in a quorum call 
be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S9677]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to make some brief comments.
  I was listening, while I was chairing the session, to the very 
distinguished Senator from Vermont talking about how many appointments 
and how many nominees should be acted upon. He was very passionate in 
his appeal to just have a vote; let's just vote up or down. He named 
nominee after nominee and how many days they have been under 
consideration.
  I was tempted to go back and get the history as to some of the 
problems we are having with this administration and the fact that, yes, 
I am guilty of putting holds on judicial nominees and doing the same 
thing that, back in 1985, Senator Byrd did when Ronald Reagan was 
President of the United States.
  But rather than go into that, I will only say this--I don't want to 
take much time; I want the Senator from Iowa to have his time--we have 
acted upon President Clinton's nominees. In fact, it is my 
understanding that he is only five short of having an all-time record 
of having nominees being confirmed in a period of time.
  Even though the Senator from Vermont was quite eloquent in talking 
about all of the judicial nominees who were left without final action 
being taken, either to confirm or not confirm, if we quit right now and 
didn't confirm these four we are discussing today, at the end of 
President Clinton's term, that would leave a total of 67 vacancies. It 
is my understanding that 61 is considered to be a full bench.
  Let's say 67 vacancies are there. Back when President Bush was 
President, when he left office at the end of 1992, there were 107 
vacancies.
  The bottom line there is the Democrat-controlled Senate at that time 
was able to stop or was stopping more of the nominations than the 
Republican-controlled Senate is today.

  Seeing that the Senator from Iowa has left the Chamber and no one 
else is asking for time, I will go ahead at this point and proceed to 
the history behind this.
  Back in 1985, when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States 
and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, a lot of the 
conservative appointments--not just judicial nominations but others--by 
the President were not acted upon by the Democrat-controlled Senate. 
Consequently, President Reagan did something he should not have done 
back in 1985. He started making recess appointments, and he made many 
recess appointments. The majority leader at that time, the very 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote a letter to 
President Reagan.
  In this letter, he reminded him as to what the senatorial prerogative 
was in accordance with the Constitution. At that time he said: You have 
violated the Constitution with these recess appointments, and you have 
done so to avoid our confirmation or lack of confirmation. Therefore, 
if you have any more recess appointments, I will put a hold on all 
nominees, not just judicial nominations but all nominations.
  Consequently, after a short period of time, President Reagan wrote a 
letter back to Senator Byrd and said: You are right; it was a violation 
of the Constitution. And he recited that the Constitution had a 
provision for recess appointments only in the cases when the 
appointment occurs during the time we are in recess and that that was 
not the case when he made his recess appointments.
  Fifteen months ago, when we found out that President Clinton was 
making excessive recess appointments, I found the old letter that Bob 
Byrd had sent to President Reagan, and I sent that same letter to 
President Clinton, saying the same thing: If you continue to do recess 
appointments, we are going to put holds on all your nominees, except, I 
said, just judicial nominees. Consequently, President Clinton, after a 
period of 3 or 4 weeks, wrote a letter back and said that he would 
agree to the same terms Ronald Reagan had agreed to back in 1985. Then 
when President Clinton violated his word, I put holds on nominations. 
This was 15 months ago.
  As we all know, there was a vote to override my holds after a few 
months, and that was successful. However, for all judicial nominations 
that have not gone through the process since President Clinton did have 
17 recess appointments during the August recess, I have renewed that 
hold on all future judicial nominations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of Senators and staff, I 
initially had 3 hours of time on which to speak about the judicial 
nominees and, more specifically, the holdup that is happening on the 
Judiciary Committee with regard to the former attorney general of the 
State of Iowa, Bonnie J. Campbell, who has been nominated for a seat on 
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  In discussing this with several Senators, I can say that it is now my 
intention to speak for a few minutes and to yield back the remainder of 
my time. In discussions with our side, I understand there probably will 
be just voice votes on all of these nominees.
  Just for planning purposes--I know how sometimes I get irritated when 
I don't really know what is happening when some people have a lot of 
time--I want Senators to know I am going to speak for a few minutes, 
yield back my time, and then move to the votes on the nominees.
  Again, I want to respond a little bit to what my friend from Utah 
said this morning, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch. I am reading from the transcript of this morning's session. 
Senator Hatch said:

       It had always been my intention for the Judiciary Committee 
     to report Ms. Campbell's nomination. However, events 
     conspired to prevent that from happening.
       First, during the August recess, as I have explained, the 
     President determined to recess appoint several executive 
     branch nominees over the express objection of numerous 
     Senators.
       He did so notwithstanding his agreement to clear such 
     recess appointments with the relevant Senators. . . .
       Second, after their August recess, Democrat Senators 
     determined to place holds on the four nominations we are 
     debating today, even everybody admits--I think everybody 
     admits--that they are important nominations and this 
     arrangement that has been worked out has been fair.
       Again, they threatened to shut down the Senate's committee 
     work, going as far as to invoke the 2-hour rule and forcing 
     the postponement of scheduled committee hearings. . . . For 
     these reasons, Bonnie Campbell's nomination has stalled. Ms. 
     Campbell has only the White House and Senate Democrats to 
     blame for the current situation.

  I don't know what the Senator from Utah is talking about. Bonnie 
Campbell had nothing to do with whether the President made recess 
appointments or not. And the holds that were placed on the four 
nominations--they were saying, wait a minute, Bonnie Campbell had her 
hearing 2 months before some of the nominees that we are voting on 
today. Three of these nominees that will get their vote today were 
nominated, got their hearing and were reported out of Committee within 
one week in July of this year. Bonnie Campbell's hearing was in May.
  So we are only saying: Why not take those who had their hearings 
first? Why take up those who had them later? Bonnie Campbell had her 
hearing, answered questions; they had more written questions that they 
sent her, and she responded to those. Yet there again, three of the 
four judges we are voting on here today went through the first three 
steps of the process within one week.
  Ms. Campbell has only the White House and Senate Democrats to blame 
for the current situation? What is the Senator from Utah talking about? 
What is to blame are the pure rank politics of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and the Senate Republicans for holding up Bonnie Campbell's 
nomination and keeping it bottled up in committee.
  The Senator from Utah knows full well that this Senator from Iowa had 
every right to exercise his rights as a Senator on the floor, to bottle 
up a lot of things on this floor after the August recess. I did not do 
so because I was led to believe that, by acting in good faith, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee would act on Bonnie Campbell's nomination. 
Why? Because the Senator from Iowa,

[[Page S9678]]

Mr. Grassley--and if I am not mistaken, he is the second ranking member 
on the Judiciary Committee--supports Bonnie Campbell and has stated so 
publicly. So I figured, well, he is second ranking.
  Now, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from Arizona, is fourth ranking on the 
committee, but he gets his nominee through. He was nominated, had a 
hearing, and was reported out that week. Mr. Kyl gets his nominee 
through.
  Well, I figured if I acted in good faith--and I did so by not doing 
anything and letting the Judiciary Committee go from one week to the 
next, one week to the next, and I thought this week they didn't report 
her out, maybe they'll do it next week, or maybe the next week. Well, 
now, the time has run out and it is clear to me I was being strung 
along all this time with false promises that the Judiciary Committee 
would, indeed, act on Bonnie Campbell's nomination.
  So now to say that it is the Senate Democrats who are to blame for 
the current situation with Bonnie Campbell is utter fabrication, total 
nonsense. The Senator from Utah knows as well as I do that there is one 
reason it is being held up, and it is called politics--pure rank 
politics. Then, again, Senator Hatch says that the reason it has been 
held up is because President Clinton had some recess appointments, and 
that we had a hold on these four nominees for a while. Well, why is he 
singling out one nominee? Why is he targeting Bonnie Campbell? Why is 
Bonnie Campbell the target? What about all the other judges? Why is he 
singling her out?
  Is it because of her work to prevent domestic violence as the 
director of the Office of Violence Against Women at the Justice 
Department? The Senate Republicans have stalled passing the 
reauthorization of that law just as they have blocked Bonnie Campbell's 
nomination from getting a vote on the Senate floor.
  Bonnie Campbell has done a superb job of focusing on the issue of 
violence against women, especially domestic violence. The Violence 
Against Women Act has expired. It expired on the last day of September 
of this year. This Republican Congress didn't even see fit to take it 
up and pass it.
  So it is no surprise to me that in poll after poll after poll across 
this country women are saying no to Republican candidates because they 
see what has been happening here. This Republican Senate is holding up 
the one person who really knows what violence against women is about, 
who headed that office and has done a superb job; yet Senate 
Republicans aren't going to let her come out. How well has she done? 
Take a look at the House vote on reauthorization. The vote was 415 to 
3. Do you really think this bill would have been reauthorized if the 
person who has headed the office to implement its provisions had done a 
bad job?
  Well, I say to Senate Republicans, you better beware. The women of 
this country are watching what you do up here on the issues that are 
important to them. They want the Senate to reauthorize VAWA. They want 
judges who will enforce that law. Who better to do that than Bonnie 
Campbell? She is qualified, and no one has come to the Senate floor and 
said any differently since her hearing.
  I can tell you, this Republican Senate that is holding up her 
nomination and the reauthorization of VAWA will have only themselves to 
blame if the women of this country vote overwhelmingly against their 
party in November. It pains me to say this, but I think that is what it 
has come down to. If they want to play politics with Bonnie Campbell 
and Violence Against Women, go right ahead, but it will bite them bad. 
Real bad.
  You may think you are only holding up one person, only one judge, 
saying, well, she was from Iowa, not of any consequence. I say to my 
Republican friends, you are seriously mistaken. Bonnie Campbell did an 
outstanding job as attorney general for the State of Iowa. She was well 
known to women all over this country as a role model and someone they 
have looked to for leadership, someone who has brought honor to our 
State, honor to the legal profession, honor to this administration, and 
honor to what we are about as a nation in trying to provide more 
equality for women in this country.
  I say to my friends on the Republican side, if you think you are 
playing smart politics by holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination, I 
say to you that you are sadly mistaken.
  But I guess it has come down to this. I am told that there is no use 
even talking about it anymore. They are not going to let Bonnie 
Campbell's nomination be reported out. I don't know about that. I say 
it is never over until it's over. And perhaps some cooler heads will 
prevail on the Republican side. They will see that they are only 
hurting their own cause. They are only hurting themselves and their 
candidates who are out there running by holding up Bonnie Campbell's 
nomination.
  It is time we have more diversity on the Federal bench. Only 20 
percent of the Federal judiciary are women. Of the 148 circuit judges, 
only 33 are women. It is time we have more--qualified women on the 
federal bench.
  Last year, a report by the Task Force on Judicial Selection of 
Citizens for Independent Courts--an independent group--verified that 
the time to confirm female nominees is now significantly longer than 
that to confirm male nominees. There is a difference that has defied 
logical explanation. The fact is--it is true--to confirm female 
nominees takes a lot longer than men.
  We have some men who are being voted on today. We have one man being 
voted on today who was nominated in July. He was passed out the same 
week. Bonnie Campbell has waited 215 days since she was nominated.
  The standard bearer of the Republican Party this year--Gov. Bush of 
Texas--said there should be a deadline of 60 days from nomination 
through the process.
  Evidently, the Republicans in the Senate and on the Judiciary 
Committee are not paying much heed to their standard bearer.
  I am sorry to have to disagree with Mr. Hatch. But the White House is 
not to blame for this, and neither are the Senate Democrats.
  Mr. Hatch has an argument with the White House on recess 
appointments. That is another matter entirely. It has nothing to do 
with judicial nominees.
  Maybe he doesn't like what Mr. Clinton said at a press conference. 
Maybe Senator Hatch doesn't like a lot of things the President does. 
But does that give the Senator from Utah the right to hold up a 
judicial nominee because he doesn't like what the President did on some 
other matter?
  I want to point out again that three out of the four nominees voted 
on today were nominated, a hearing was held, and they were reported out 
of the committee in 1 week in July. Yet Bonnie Campbell has been 
waiting 215 days, and they will not report her out of the committee.
  One can only ask again why the Republicans are playing this political 
charade. I guess they figure, well, if they just hold on, maybe their 
guy will win and they can move ahead.
  But, as I said earlier, I think the Republicans over there ought to 
be aware of this one. This one is going to bite hard.
  Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Minnesota 
desires. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor to support my 
colleague, the Senator from Iowa, and to speak for a couple of minutes 
about Bonnie Campbell. I believe Bonnie Campbell would be the second 
woman to serve on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dianne Murphy 
from Minnesota is the first. Bonnie Campbell has done a lot of good 
work, but most important is her record at the Justice Department in the 
violence against women office.
  I come here to speak about this woman's magnificent work. Bonnie 
Campbell has probably more than any single individual made the most 
difference when it came to reducing violence and trying to end some of 
the violence in families; unfortunately, most of it directed against 
women and children. About every 13 seconds, a woman is battered in our 
country. A home should be a safe place. Somewhere between 3 million and 
10 million witness this in their homes.

[[Page S9679]]

  Bonnie Campbell has visited Minnesota. I have seen her speak with 
very quiet eloquence. I cannot say enough about the magnificent work 
she has done. As attorney general in Iowa, I think she passed the first 
anti-stalking law in the State. She is well known in Iowa. She is well 
known throughout the United States of America. She is a skillful 
lawyer. She would be a great judge. She is extremely important when it 
comes to being a voice for families in this country. She has done 
probably some of the best work that any individual could possibly do in 
this incredibly important area of reducing violence in this country. 
There is way too much violence--especially directed at women and 
children.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why we have been waiting 
almost 7 months or thereabouts for this nomination to move through the 
Senate.
  Minnesota is covered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dianne 
Murphy is from the State of Minnesota. She was the first woman to serve 
on this court. She is a great judge.
  Bonnie Campbell would be a great judge. We need her on this court. We 
need a judge who understands the concerns and circumstances of too many 
women's lives and too many children's lives in this country. We need a 
judge such as Bonnie Campbell who has such a distinguished background 
and such a distinguished career. We need a judge on the Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals like Bonnie Campbell with such a proven record of 
public service. I can't find anything in her background, I can't find 
anything in her record, I can't find anything about her which would 
make her anything other than 100 percent eminently qualified to serve 
on this court of appeals.

  I share in the indignation that my colleague from Iowa has expressed. 
There is no excuse to hold this nomination for one day longer. I think 
it is shameful that, in the Senate, really good people who have so much 
to offer, who could do such good--in this particular case, at the 
Eighth Circuit of Appeals--find themselves blocked for no good reason.
  I heard Senator Harkin say he thought this was going to come back to 
``bite.'' I hope it does. It is true; most of the people in the country 
are not so directly connected to this process of how we do 
confirmations of judicial appointments. We have had Senator Leahy doing 
yeoman work, and there are other Senators who have spoken. Senator 
Leahy provides the leadership. The more people learn about a person of 
the caliber of Bonnie Campbell--and as a man, I care a lot about how we 
can reduce this violence in families, how we can reduce the violence in 
homes--the more people hear about this, the more outraged they will be, 
and for good reason.
  I know it is asking too much, but I want to see a little bit more 
fairness. I want to see an end to this blocking of good people who 
could do good work and could help so much. Bonnie Campbell is a perfect 
example. We shouldn't be delaying this nomination one day. But we are. 
I just want to express my support for Bonnie Campbell.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Before I get into the substance of my remarks dealing 
with honoraria for judges, I echo the words of my colleague from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, as well as our leader on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy, about the holdup in judges. Senator Leahy has 
laid it out quite carefully; that is, that we have not appointed as 
many judges, on a percentage basis, as when Democrats controlled the 
Senate during the Reagan and Bush years.
  I particularly add my voice to those who are asking that Bonnie 
Campbell be added to the Eighth Circuit.
  The reason I rise is not only as a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
not only as somebody who believes we ought to fill the vacancies in our 
courts--and I am appreciative that Senator Hatch has worked with me to 
fill those vacancies in New York. Neither the Second Circuit nor any of 
the New York district courts have vacancies, and we did manage to fill 
at least six judgeships this year. I thank the chairman for that. But 
that doesn't mean the rest of the country should have things 
unanswered.
  I worked with Bonnie Campbell. I was the sponsor in the House of the 
Violence Against Women Act. It was authored originally by Senator Biden 
and Senator Boxer, when she was a House Member. She carried it between 
1990 and 1992. When she was elected to the Senate, she asked me to take 
the reins, and we did. We passed the law. As somebody greatly 
interested in the Violence Against Women Act, of bringing that dirty 
little secret, the amount of violence in our families, out into the 
sunlight so we could deal with it, I believed very strongly the right 
person should be appointed to be in charge of the act.
  Bonnie Campbell did a fabulous job on an issue of great concern to 
all Americans. I think it is just unfair to ``reward her'' by letting 
her sit there in limbo when she so deserves and could be such a great 
addition to the Eighth Circuit. I plead with my friend, the Senate 
majority leader, my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--
who, as I say, has been fair and good to New York on this issue--to 
bring the names of all four judges before the Senate, or all the judges 
who are waiting in the wings--there are more than four--but 
particularly Bonnie Campbell.

  On an issue related, as well, of debating a number of nominees to be 
Federal judges, I want to address an issue that affects the entire 
Federal judiciary: The ban on honoraria. Under current law, as we all 
know, Federal judges are not allowed to accept honoraria. That is how 
it should be. The framers of the Constitution designed article III to 
keep judges outside of politics and above influence. Read the 
Federalist Papers. One of the great debates was that Federal judges, in 
article III, achieve life appointment.
  There was one reason for it: So they would be unfettered, so they 
would be uninfluenced; they could make their own decisions, knowing 
that no sanction could be taken against them for decisions they made, 
and, just as importantly, so the public would know it.
  Because the judiciary has neither the power of the sword, as does the 
executive, nor the power of the purse, as does Congress, it is 
essential that the judiciary maintain its power--and it has, thank 
God--for these 211 years since the Constitution was written, through an 
untainted reputation for integrity and impartiality. The Federal 
judiciary has had it. It has frustrated us at times. It frustrated 
Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. It has frustrated some Members 
today on issues where we disagree with the majority. There is nothing 
we can do about it, thank God, because an independent judiciary is 
vital.
  I believe the public, if the surveys I have seen are correct, 
believes the Federal judiciary is independent--far more, I might say, 
than State and local judiciaries where there are either elections or 
appointments of term so that judges believe they have to please either 
an individual or even the whole electorate to make up their minds.
  Nothing could do more to undo the justified reputation so much wanted 
by the founders and sustained in this Republic as the provision that 
has been inserted into H.R. 4690 that would allow judges to accept 
honoraria. The repeal of the ban would create a significant loophole in 
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 which bars high-ranking Federal 
officials of all branches of Government from receiving speaking fees 
for 11 years. This prohibition has limited real and perceived 
corruption. It has limited real corruption and, probably much more 
widespread, perceived corruption. The conflicts of interest among 
Members of Congress, Federal judges, and senior members of the 
executive branch have been limited, as well.
  I, for one, opposed honoraria for Members of Congress. I don't 
believe in a standard for the judges and a different one for Members. 
While honoraria were allowed in the Congress for most of the years I 
served in the House, I refused to take them. I remember my first 
speech, right after I was elected. A leading financial institution in 
New York asked me to speak. I had just been appointed to the Banking 
Committee, which regulated a lot of their activities. After the speech, 
they handed me a check. I was sort of surprised; it sort of knocked my 
socks off. I looked at the check. I said: This is wrong; this is not a 
check for the ``Reelect Schumer Committee''--which I

[[Page S9680]]

would have believed would have been untoward to give me right after a 
speech anyway--but this is for me. They said: Yes, that is your 
honorarium.

  I felt bad about it, returned the check, and vowed not to take any 
honoraria in the future.
  It is even more important for judges because, as I said, they are not 
sanctioned to election; they are not supposed to be sanctioned to the 
whims of either the people or of special interest groups. It would 
simply lower the standard for the very officials for whom standards 
should be the highest.
  Thousands of U.S. citizens go before Federal judges every year and 
expect impartial justice. That is why judges have, as I mentioned, life 
appointments. That is why the rules so assiduously guard against even 
the appearance of impropriety. And that is why we spend so much time 
debating the appointment of these judges. We know once they are 
appointed, that is it; they are in for life.
  Lifting the ban will only leave litigants wondering whether the 
integrity of the judges has been undermined by speaking fees from 
groups that have a stake, or may have a stake, in the case before them.
  The Federal judiciary, it is said, is underpaid. If you believe it, 
raise the pay; budget the money. But don't, please, allow judges to 
moonlight as talking heads.
  That demeans our independent Federal judiciary. To simply give them 
leave to forage for speaking engagements is nothing less than an 
abdication of our responsibility. Moreover, exempting judges from the 
honorarium ban will give the biggest benefit to those who are in high 
demand for speaking engagements--likely the most famous, the most high 
ranking. Presumably inadequate compensation is a problem for all 
Federal judges, not just those who can garner the largest fees or even 
who are the most eloquent. We don't hire our judges, we don't appoint 
our judges, on the basis of eloquence.
  Additionally, if judges are underpaid, then they may be more 
susceptible to influence from outside income--even more reason to 
maintain the honorarium ban.
  In conclusion, the issue boils down to one simple, simple nugget: The 
faith of the people in their government. We have a great Republic. The 
more I am on Earth, the more I believe that the Founding Fathers were 
the greatest collection of practical geniuses history has ever known 
and the more I believe that our country is, as they put it, a noble 
experiment. It was when it started, and, God bless America, it still is 
today.
  Honoraria for judges strike a dagger right in the heart of what the 
Founding Fathers wanted--a totally independent judiciary, perceived as 
independent as well as actually being independent. Inserting this 
nefarious provision into the thick of an appropriations bill in the 
dark of night ruins that image. Unfortunately, the sneaky addition of 
this provision matches the substantive effect of it. It will only 
enhance the public's perception that those in government should not be 
trusted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that the Senators from Iowa and 
Vermont are ready to yield back their time; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Yes. On behalf of the Democrats who have been allocated 
time, time is yielded back.
  Mr. LOTT. With that in mind, we also yield back all our time on the 
majority side.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of James Teilborg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. This vote will occur momentarily. However, for just a 
minute, I will suggest the absence of a quorum, and we will be ready to 
proceed almost immediately. I want Senators to know the vote is about 
to begin.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are ready for the recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of James A. Teilborg, of Arizona, to be U.S. 
District Judge for the District of Arizona? The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. 
Lincoln) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is, Will the Senate advise 
and consent to the three nominations en bloc?
  The nominations , were confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to thank all of those responsible for 
helping in the steering of the confirmation of these four nominees--
Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy.
  I also would like to make a quick comment about my colleague, Senator 
Grassley, who observed earlier that even though I rank fifth on the 
Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley ranks second, I was able to 
secure these nominees; whereas, the nominee very important to Senator 
Grassley and Senator Harkin has not been considered.
  I want to make it clear that seniority had nothing to do with it. 
Senator Grassley has worked long and hard on behalf of the nominee that 
Senator Harkin has spoken about, Bonnie Campbell, former attorney 
general of Iowa.
  I worked very hard on behalf of these nominees. But to make it clear, 
the nominees from Arizona were President Clinton's nominees. I worked 
with my colleague in the House, Ed Pastor, a Democrat, in helping to 
ensure that these nominees could be considered in

[[Page S9681]]

this session of the Congress; that we could have the Senate Judiciary 
Committee approve the nominations, and send them to the floor for 
consideration. It was still laid over over the August recess. 
Notwithstanding all of that, we were able to get it done.
  But in the case of Bonnie Campbell, she is a circuit court nominee. I 
know Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have an agreement that they 
will support each other's nominees when the other party is in power. In 
this case, the Democratic President makes a nominee, and Senator Harkin 
is supportive and Senator Grassley is also supportive. He certainly has 
been supportive.
  I want the Record to be clear--I am sure Senator Harkin would concur 
in this--that Senator Grassley has been a very strong advocate for 
Bonnie Campbell.
  I think the circumstances that permitted us to confirm these other 
four nominees--one from Illinois and three from Arizona --didn't have 
anything to do with the seniority on the committee or it wouldn't have 
been possible for the Arizona judges to have been confirmed by the 
Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I respond by saying I was not trying to 
imply one way or the other that seniority had something to do with who 
gets out of the Judiciary Committee. My main point was that three of 
the four nominees we voted on today have been pending a very short 
time. They were nominated in July, their hearing was in July, and they 
were reported out of Committee in July--all in the same week. And they 
were brought to the floor today. Bonnie Campbell has been sitting there 
for 215 days. She had her hearing in May. Yet they won't report her out 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  This is unfair. It is unfair to her. It is unfair to the women of 
this country. It is unfair to the court which needs to fill this 
position. We recognize in Bonnie Campbell a champion, a champion of 
women, someone who has done an outstanding job in administering the 
office of violence against women. She is the only one who has held that 
office since the legislation was passed. The House last week voted 415-
3 to reauthorize it. Now we will try to do something in the Senate. I 
think the women of this country understand the Republican-controlled 
Judiciary Committee and the Republican-controlled Senate are stopping 
the Senate from having a vote on Bonnie Campbell for pure political 
reasons.
  I think it is wrong the way they are treating Bonnie Campbell in this 
nomination process. I will continue to point that out every day that we 
remain in session. It is unfair to her. It is unfair to the women of 
this country to have someone so qualified, someone who has done so much 
to reduce and prevent violence against women, to have the Senate 
Judiciary Committee bottle up her name and not even permit it to come 
on the floor for a vote.
  I am still hopeful perhaps they will see the light and permit that to 
happen, although time is running out. I will take every day we are here 
to talk about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have heard much debate today about 
Federal judges. One would think that President Clinton has fared very 
poorly in the judicial confirmation process, but this is simply not 
true. He has done quite well with the cooperation of the Republican-
controlled Senate.
  During the President's first term, the Senate confirmed nearly one-
quarter of the entire Federal Judiciary. After today, the Senate will 
have confirmed 44 percent or 377 Clinton judges.
  It is no secret that while I served as Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee during the first six years of the Reagan Administration, I 
made the confirmation of judges a top priority of the Committee. I am 
proud of our accomplishments during those years.
  Yet, with Republican control of the Congress, President Clinton's 
success rate is really no different. After today, the Senate will have 
confirmed only five more Article III judges for President Reagan than 
it has thus far for President Clinton.
  Today, the vacancy rate is 7.9 percent, and the Clinton 
Administration has recognized a 7 percent vacancy rate as virtual full 
employment for the Judiciary. The vacancy rate at the end of the Bush 
Administration was 11.5 percent, but there was no talk then about a 
vacancy crisis. At the end of the Bush Administraton, the Congress 
adjourned without acting on 53 Bush nominations. Today, there are only 
38 Clinton nominees pending in Committee.
  The Fourth Circuit is a good example of the healthy status of the 
Judiciary. The court is operating very well and does not need more 
judges. In fact, today, it is the most efficient circuit. The Fourth 
Circuit takes less time than any other to decide a case on appeal. The 
truth is that, due to a lack of cases needing oral argument, the Fourth 
Circuit has cancelled at least one term of court for each of the past 
four years, and two terms of court for the past two years.
  The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has made clear that additional 
judges are not needed, and he should know better than us the needs of 
his court. There is no good reason to add judges to the most efficient 
circuit in the nation. Given that a circuit judgeship costs about one 
million dollars per year for the life of the judge, it would be a waste 
of taxpayer money to do so.
  We also should not be misled by the fact that some vacancies are 
defined as a ``judicial emergency.'' The term is defined so broadly 
that, with one exception, all current circuit court judgeships that 
have been vacant for 18 months are considered ``emergencies.''
  The issue of judgeships in the Federal courts is not just about 
numbers and statistics. Much more is at stake. Each judgeship is a 
life-time appointment that yields great power but is basically 
accountable to no one.
  The Senate has a Constitutional duty to review each nominee carefully 
and deliberately. We take this responsibility very seriously in the 
Judiciary Committee, as we must. We cannot be a rubber stamp for any 
Administration. The entire Nation loses when we allow judicial 
activists or judges who are soft on crime to be confirmed to these 
life-time positions.
  Under Senator Hatch's leadership, the Judiciary Committee has taken a 
fair and reasoned approach to the confirmation process. As a result, 
the Clinton Administration has done quite well regarding judicial 
confirmations.

                          ____________________