[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 138 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10681-S10682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could take just a couple minutes to say 
a few words.
  I have listened to my friend from Arizona, but he has to understand--
the whole world has to understand--we, the Democrats, just took control 
of the Senate in June. For the first 6 months this year, the 
Republicans controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee. The chairman was 
Orrin Hatch. During that period of time, there was not a single 
confirmation hearing or a single judicial confirmation.
  They have to get real. They are not.
  My friend from Arizona says we are going to have to take time out and 
do nothing here. That is what we will be doing because we have to 
finish the appropriations bills.
  I also say what we have to do is very important. We have 
appropriation bills we must complete. No one is saying we will not 
confirm judges. Even though we didn't get many confirmations for 
President Clinton, this is not payback time. We are going to do the 
very best we can, and the Judiciary Committee has done the very best it 
can. There are hearings scheduled for this Thursday to report out a 
significant number of judges. They have known that. These hearings are 
not something we just planned. They have been planned for a long period 
of time.
  There was talk from my friend from Wyoming that we have to do U.S. 
attorneys. I don't know how many U.S. attorneys we did the past week, 
but it was 10 or 15 U.S. attorneys.
  Mr. LEAHY. Fourteen, I say to the Senator from Nevada. Not only 14, 
but we have been doing U.S. attorneys as fast as they have come in--26 
so far for the year. At times when we have gone to a markup for U.S. 
attorneys, the White House wouldn't even send up their material. We had 
my staff working until 3 in the morning to help them complete--for 
President Bush's nominees, to help them complete their paperwork to get 
it through. We are still waiting for them to send up the U.S. marshals. 
In 26 years, I have never known any President, Republican or Democrat, 
to take this long.
  And as the Senator from Nevada said, during the half a year the 
Republicans controlled the Senate, of course, they didn't have a single 
judicial confirmation hearing. They didn't confirm a single judge. We 
are now, of course, confirming them much faster than they were 
confirmed during the first year of the Clinton term or the first year 
of former President Bush's term. Actually, as I recall, when the 
Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton years, we had 34 
months that they didn't even have hearings on judges.
  We have been doing hearings every single month, whether we are in 
recess or not. So I suppose I could take a partisan attitude and say we 
will go as slowly on judges as they did with President Clinton. I 
thought that was unfair then; of course it is unfair now. I have no 
intention of taking the irresponsible position my Republicans 
colleagues did during that time.
  What we are doing is debating a motion to proceed to the foreign 
operations appropriations bill. Senators have asked me earlier: Is all 
our Middle East money in the foreign operations bill? Yes, it is.
  Is money in there for such things as President Bush has talked about; 
for example, for aid to the Afghan people? Yes, some of that is in that 
bill.
  Some have asked me if the money we provide to countries we have been 
calling on to stand up for the United States during this time--some of 
that money is in this bill that the other side wants to hold up. An 
amazing fact, Mr. President. Everywhere President Bush has said we want 
to help and work together, and we want your help; and we want to help 
you, I say to the leaders, that money the President is talking about, 
which he wants us to support him on, guess what. It is in this bill.
  I suspect that all Democrats are going to vote to go forward. We want 
to give the President the money he needs to help in this effort against 
terrorism. I am amazed that some Senators want to stop the President 
from getting that money. If they vote against going forward, then he 
will not get it. That is why I am amazed to find--I read in one of the 
papers, Republican Senators would hold up this bill--the bill that 
funds our foreign policy--at a time when the President of the United 
States is going around the world asking for support. It makes no sense.
  Every Senator has a right to vote the way he or she wants. But I can 
imagine what would be said if Democrats had ever done that to any 
President--Republican or Democrat. They would probably be calling for 
our impeachment.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I ask the chairman: Would the 
Senator agree that during this time of trouble and strife we have been 
going through, two of our greatest allies have been Israel and Egypt?
  Mr. LEAHY. Absolutely true.
  Mr. REID. Now, as a result of the inaction of the Senate, as has been 
threatened by the Senator from Arizona, these two countries that have 
been such a stalwart friend of the United States, they won't be getting 
the aid we have set forth in this bill, will they?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. In fact, we have a procedure when we pass the bill; a 
certain amount is provided upfront. That is not going to be there 
because we can't do it under a continuing resolution. It would be 
misleading to suggest otherwise. We have billions of dollars for our 
friends in the Middle East, held up, as the Senator said. We have 
military assistance for our European allies. We asked them to stand 
behind us. We have antiterrorism assistance in this bill.
  Imagine that. This bill has $38 million in antiterrorism assistance. 
I wonder how many Senators who would vote against sending this bill 
forward are willing to go back home and explain, well, even though the 
Democrats went a lot faster in judicial nominations than we did, we 
held up antiterrorism assistance. I would hate to have to make that 
argument back home, but they are going to have to.
  We have assistance for refugees in Africa--the poorest of the poor. 
Are we going to hold up that money? We have victims of drought and 
earthquakes in Central America. Are we going to hold up that money? We 
have funding to combat HIV/AIDS, the worst public health crisis in half 
a millennium. Are we going to hold up that money? How about assistance 
for combating poverty around the world, which breeds the hopelessness 
and resentment that provides the fertile breeding grounds for 
terrorists?
  President Bush spoke about that. The Secretary of State has made the 
same point. Do we want to hold up that money?
  It is self-defeating and shortsighted, and it is irresponsible to 
hold up funding for foreign policy when anyone can see we have 
shortchanged foreign policy for years.

  It is time to recognize that global leadership requires acting like a 
leader, not like petulant children in a school ground. It is about more 
than dropping bombs; it is about diplomacy and foreign assistance.
  Let's stop holding up this bill and get on with the Senate's 
business. It is utterly lacking in judgment. It unfairly punishes the 
entire Nation to hold up this bill.
  Think of the things that are being held back. Then look at the 
reason. They claim it is because judges are being held up.
  I have a chart. I mention this because my friend from Nevada 
mentioned it earlier. He mentioned how Republicans--Republicans didn't 
hold a

[[Page S10682]]

single hearing on a judicial nomination, not one, didn't confirm a 
single judicial nominee. When I became chairman of the reconstituted 
committee, 10 minutes after that we started having hearings. In fact, 
the Presiding Officer knows that a Republican appointee from his State, 
a nominee to the circuit court of appeals, the Presiding Officer and 
his colleague came to me and talked to me about it. That judge moved 
forward. Look at this chart. We have here the green line.
  This is what happened in the first term of George Herbert Walker 
Bush. By October 15, they had four judges. Take a look at President 
Clinton. He didn't get his first judge until September. By this time, 
we had four. Look what happened under our chairmanship. Within a couple 
of weeks of becoming Chair, I was having hearings on nominations. So 
this baloney about numbers--I thought I would share the facts.
  An easy fact to remember is that during this part of the year the 
Republicans didn't hold a single confirmation hearing or confirm a 
single judge. I have gone now faster than the first year of the last 
two Presidents--both President Bush and President Clinton--twice as 
fast, actually, moving judges through than it was done in their terms. 
That is only since becoming chairman of the committee in July. I held 
hearings two different days during the August recess. I was roundly 
criticized by two Republican members on the Judiciary Committee for 
even holding the hearings. You are almost damned if you do, damned if 
you don't.
  That is fine. They have an absolute right. I believe in the first 
amendment.
  The more important question here is not the judges.

                          ____________________