[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10747-S10751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2506, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2506) making
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am not going to speak at great length
about why we are in the position we are. I have already spoken. As I
have said, Senator Leahy has a hearing scheduled this week. He is going
to have some hearings next week. The report I received recently is that
we have not done any U.S. marshals because we do not have them. They
have not been sent to the committee. We cannot do it.
We approved 14 U.S. attorneys last Thursday. We are moving these
nominations along just as quickly as we can.
The Senator from Wyoming is absolutely right we need to do; an energy
bill, but we cannot do an energy bill. We have had 2 weeks where we
have done nothing. We still have five appropriations bills to handle,
plus all the conferences, and they are not letting us move to them.
Sure, we can do two things on the floor at once; we agree. But they
are not letting us do one thing on the floor. The leader has said that
we will get to energy as soon as we can, and that means we have to get
rid of all these other items first.
We are approaching Thanksgiving. We have already had two continuing
resolutions. This is not the time to dillydally. We have very important
things we need to do for this country, and we are in quicksand on
judges. We are going to go forward the best we can and jump through all
the procedural hoops they are making us jump through. I would think
sometime in the near future the administration might get involved. The
administration has more to lose than anyone else. This is the
minority's side.
No one can criticize the Democratic majority in working with the
President. We have worked hand in hand with him. He and the majority
leader speak three times a day on issues relating to this country and
the world. The minority is making a real mistake holding up this
legislation. That is a decision they have made, and they are going to
have to live with it. We are going to do the best we can, I repeat,
jumping through all these hurdles.
In the process, we are going to use up 3 or 4 weeks of time that we
could be doing other bills. We have a bioterrorism bill on which
Senators Kennedy and Frist have worked. I do not know if they will let
us go to it when the committee reports it out. We hope the committee
can report it out as early as Thursday. In the meantime, all the other
legislation is being held up.
People think we can waltz through the rest of these appropriations
bills in a matter of a day or two. It has never happened, and it never
will happen. These bills take a lot of time even though we agree on the
numbers.
We need to do a bioterrorism bill. We have a bipartisan bill we
should bring
[[Page S10748]]
up. We had airline safety. They would not let us bring that up.
I repeat, when it comes down to the end of this year and people are
saying where is the energy bill and other bills, remember last week and
this week: We have done nothing. Most of it has been procedural in
nature.
We were fortunate last week to finally, getting through all the
procedural hoops, get airline security passed, and with a lot of
cooperation we were able to do the counterterrorism legislation, but it
has been a struggle. We should be further through the appropriations
process more than we are.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Economic Stimulus
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, one of the items, of course, that is
being considered and has, in fact, been considered and passed in the
House is the economic stimulus--doing some things now that will
encourage and get more activity in our economy.
We, of course, through the last couple of years have seen some
decline in the economy, and now with the September 11 attacks, we have
seen substantial change. We are faced with the challenge to do that
which will have an impact--hopefully an immediate impact--on the
economy.
It has been very difficult to define exactly what is best to do. We
have met several times with Chairman Greenspan and Bob Rubin, the
former Secretary of the Treasury, to talk about what would have the
most impact on the economy in the short term. There are very many ideas
out there.
Quite frankly, among professional economists there is not unanimity
as to what would have the most impact. Certainly, most people agree
that it needs to be a large movement. Some think it ought to be $100
billion, which is a huge amount--however, a relatively small amount of
the gross national product. It is difficult to know.
This Congress has already passed $50 billion or more that has to do
with defense and with repair in New York City. I question, of course,
whether those expenditures will be made soon enough to have an impact
on the economy and whether they, indeed, fit in as part of the economic
package. I, frankly, am inclined to think they do.
Then we are faced with what should be the additional effort. It is my
understanding the House-passed bill was nearly $100 billion in addition
to what we spent, which is more than the President has suggested, I
believe, which is $50 billion to $75 billion. We have that decision to
make and, of course, what will most quickly and efficiently affect the
economy. I believe we should have some parameters to decide in general
what we want to do and then see how these individual items fit into it.
One ought to be those things that we know will have an impact on the
economy and do it in the short run.
Another is, since we are talking about shortrun remedies, we ought to
be picking solutions that are not long term so we will have another
opportunity after this economy has gathered some strength to take a
look at them and see if they should be in place long term.
Obviously, when Members have tax issues and have been looking for a
vehicle to put them on, they will be interested in putting them on a
stimulus bill. We have to be careful this does not become a Christmas
tree.
What do we do? There is the question of how much of this stimulus
ought to be done in terms of the consumers' ability to purchase. What
can we do about moving more money into the hands of consumers so they
can do a redistribution of income?
On the other hand, how much of this package should be in the form of
incentives for business, such as deferred taxes, or reducing the time
for appreciation?
These are the issues we will have to decide. Many are interested in
doing something with the corporate alternative minimum tax put in about
1985 as a reaction to some of the tax reductions that were made prior
to that time, which have the effect, of course, of causing certain
levels of income tax to have to be paid, regardless of whether there
are tax breaks that can be taken advantage of otherwise.
So very many people in the business sector believe that could be
changed. It would encourage the purchase of new equipment.
Some suggest a 5-year carryback of net operating expenses as another
way to put money in the hands of business to create jobs and move
forward. Accelerated appreciation is another area discussed. The House
provision has a 30-percent reduction in the first year--again, to
encourage businesses to invest in their equipment and in their
inventory.
There are issues on foreign trade to make it more competitive for
businesses. For individuals, there is talk about making tax reductions
we put into place earlier this year more permanent, to not expire at a
certain length of time. That has to be discussed. Capital gains
reductions are quite often talked about. Some wonder if capital gains
reductions will, again, have that short-term impact. Others have
suggested the capital gains ought to be limited only to those purchases
after September 11 to encourage purchases rather than sales. Any
payroll tax deduction will provide an opportunity to put money into the
hands of citizens, including those who are not paying income tax.
There are recommended vacation tax credits to get people on the move:
To fly, to stay in hotels. The industry is suffering a good deal.
There are lots of opportunities. I am hopeful as we draw it up in the
Finance Committee we have parameters to make sure they comply with our
goals and our purpose and our motives. I think we can do that. It ought
to be confined to short-term activities so we can review them again in
the future. These are some of the things being discussed. They are very
important.
Now we find ourselves faced with three different challenges: One is
the war on terrorism; another is the economy, which has been impacted;
and doing the things we do in everyday life and continue to deal with
government operations. These are the challenges. I believe we will meet
the challenges. We need to move forward.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Would the Chair explain the parliamentary matter now before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is now considering the motion to
proceed to H.R. 2506.
Mr. REID. Potentially, if I am not mistaken, there is as much as 30
hours available under that motion to proceed; is that right,
postcloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not on a postcloture situation. There
is no time limit.
Mr. REID. I say to the Chair, cloture was not invoked yesterday, so
we are not bound by the 30 hours; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Unless something happens, we are on this bill forever; is
that right? There is no time limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed.
Mr. REID. There is no time limit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Is it possible to move to some other matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not while the motion is pending.
Mr. REID. Only by unanimous consent, is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is right.
Mr. REID. Unless the minority agrees to move to an appropriations
bill or move to this appropriations bill or move to bioterrorism, it
cannot be
[[Page S10749]]
done without their consent; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, as he
knows, we had a cloture vote on this appropriations bill, and we did
not invoke cloture. We have what is known as a filibuster--not on an
appropriations bill but even on the motion to proceed to the
appropriations bill.
There is a time and a place for everything. I certainly would never
abridge the right of any Member of the Senate to use the rules in any
manner they prescribe for themselves or their constituents. It is in my
judgment rather unseemly at this moment, given what is happening in
this country, for this Senate effectively to be at parade rest--
standing, sitting, waiting, doing nothing. We have appropriations bills
that need to come to the floor of the Senate. They have been through
the Appropriations Committee, but we cannot get them to the floor of
the Senate because we have people objecting.
The other side says they don't want the Senate to do its business at
this point, so they object. This appropriations bill is foreign
operations. It is a critically important piece of legislation dealing
with issues such as the security of our Embassies. Does anyone wonder
at this moment and at this time, given the security threats we face at
virtually every Embassy around the world, staffed by American citizens,
whether we ought to wait to pass legislation dealing with Embassy
security? I don't think there is not great cause for me to wonder. Of
course we should. We ought to move this appropriations bill to the
floor of the Senate, debate it, and pass it.
Let me go back for a moment to describe why I believe this should not
be business as usual and why I believe it is unseemly for some simply
to plant themselves at this moment and say: We are not going to allow
the Senate to do anything. September 11 changed a lot of things in our
lives. The heinous act of mass murder by perverted people changed a lot
in the lives of all of us. This attack against our country, but
basically an attack against freedom, makes everyone feel less secure.
We have resolved from that moment to do things differently.
One of the things that happened almost immediately following the
President's speech to a joint session of Congress was a new attitude
and a new spirit in the Congress. All of a sudden, those who previously
had been Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, were
standing during debate, proclaiming themselves so described, all of a
sudden those labels were gone. There did not seem to be any longer an
``our'' side and a ``your'' side or a ``your'' side and ``my'' side.
There was only in this Chamber, and only in the House of
Representatives, and only between us and the President, one side. It
was our side. Just our side. We were all in on the same side,
determined to try to deal with these cowardly acts of terrorism.
That, regrettably, has changed some. There is now a different
attitude in recent days. Folks decided we shouldn't work together, that
we shouldn't do the Senate's business, that we shouldn't pass
appropriations bills, that we should essentially stall and stop. It
doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't serve anybody's interests. It
doesn't serve the interests of the United States, and it certainly
doesn't serve the interests of the American people.
I mentioned this appropriations bill has money for the security of
our embassies all around the world. Is what we really want to do at
this moment to slow down this process, to say embassy security somehow
is not very important, that there is no urgency here? I don't think so.
I think our job ought to be to say these are important issues for the
Senate to address--not tomorrow, not next week, but now. It is not just
this bill. It is especially this bill today because that is what we are
talking about, the motion to proceed to this bill, but it is so many
other appropriations bills and so much additional work that we and the
House must do together.
Aviation security, we did that bill. Antiterrorism, we did that bill.
Neither has been done in a satisfactory way by the other body. So we
need to resolve those differences, and that is critically important.
But most especially the business of the Senate is to take up
important issues, including this bill from the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, debate it, and pass it. If someone
here has heartaches about what is in it, offer amendments and have
votes. God bless you; you have every opportunity in the Senate to do
that. The rules allow you to do that. But it is not appropriate, in my
judgment, to shut this place down because someone got cranky about
something else. If you are in a bad mood, find another room, but at
least here on the floor of the Senate let's try to do the Senate's
business.
If there was ever an opportunity and requirement to demonstrate to
the American people this is a new time and new day and we are facing
threats in a new way together, this is the time to do it. Let's adopt
these motions to proceed, pass these bills, and provide for the
security of American embassies included in this bill.
Madam President, Senator Daschle, the majority leader, is present. I
will yield the floor and allow him to proceed.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from North
Dakota for his excellent statement. I don't think I could have said it
as well. But I really appreciate the passion with which he has
expressed himself.
These are important bills. We are going through international crises
that demand leadership, demand responsiveness, demand that these bills
get done. He said it so well. I hope our colleagues have the
opportunity to hear him as I just did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to share a few thoughts
with regard to the process of nominating and confirming Federal judges.
We have had a problem, as I have seen it, in recent months, leaving us
with an ever-growing backlog, one of the largest backlogs of judicial
vacancies we have ever had. I would like to share a few thoughts about
that.
One of the bases for rationalizing this apparent slowdown is the view
that President Clinton's judges were not treated fairly. Many of you
have heard that. I think we ought to talk about that straight up.
President Clinton nominated and got confirmed 377 Federal judges,
almost exactly the number President Reagan had in his 8 years in
office. They both had 8 years in office. He had one of his nominees,
only one, who was voted down by this Senate. The rest we either
confirmed or were pending when he left office.
When President Clinton left office, he had 41 nominees pending before
this Senate, nominees who had not been acted upon. Historically, that
is a low number. Under the leadership of Chairman Orrin Hatch, the
Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at that
time, a Republican, he moved President Clinton's nominees effectively
and gave them fair hearings, and for the most part they were promptly
confirmed if they were deserving. That 41 nominees were unconfirmed is
a rather low number, in my view. Really, 67 vacancies were in existence
at that time in the Federal judiciary. We have over 800 Federal judges,
and 60-some judges has generally been considered a normal vacancy rate.
It just about takes that much time for the names to go up to the
President, for him to consider them, an FBI background check to be
done, to submit the nominee's name, they answer all the questionnaires
we demand of them, ABA does a background check--and it just takes some
time. So you seldom will be below 50 vacancies in the Federal
judiciary.
However, we begin to see the numbers increase dramatically. Just a
few days ago we had 110 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. Now I think
it is 108 after the confirmation of the 2.
To me, this is too large a vacancy. Let me tell you why I am
concerned about it. I will be frank with you about it. The reason I am
concerned is that there is a sense in which this slowdown in
confirmations is a part of a plan to block President Bush's nominees in
an unusual and special way. Unlike anything we have seen before.
There was a report in the New York Times on April 30 of this year
reporting
[[Page S10750]]
about the private retreat the Democratic Members of this body had. The
Republicans have those retreats, too. At that retreat, Professor
Laurence Tribe, who is well known, Cass Sunstein, and Marcia
Greenberger discussed with the Democratic Senators their idea to
develop a ``unified party strategy to combat the White House on
judicial nominees.'' That was the New York Times reporting on that
conference.
Professor Tribe and the others apparently advocated scrutinizing
nominees more closely than ever in order to slow down the nomination
process, stating that it was:
. . . important for the Senate to change the ground rules
and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because
they are scholarly and erudite.
This is the same Laurence Tribe who was very active in the Bork
nomination and Thomas nomination fight and actually wrote a book in
1985 titled ``God Save This Honorable Court'' in which he talked about
the strategy of blocking judicial nominations.
Before we had gotten started in this process, those of us on this
side had cause for concern because there was a stated policy of
changing the ground rules or to block President Bush's constitutional
ability to have his nominees treated fairly and confirmed, if fit and
qualified.
Subsequent to that, we began to have a number of hearings in the
courts subcommittee, of which I am the ranking Republican member. The
first hearing dealt with a suggested change in how we ought to do
nominations. The change and question was whether or not ideology should
be considered in the judicial process. That has been generally rejected
consistently.
Invited to testify on that panel were Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe,
and Marcia Greenberger--surprise, surprise. Also invited to testify was
Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to a Democratic President, and
a man of great respect in the community.
In his remarks, he differed with those other professors, however, and
made clear that he opposed--and quoted a commission of which he was a
member--making politics and ideology a factor in the confirmation
process.
If someone has an obsessive political or personal or ideological view
that would keep them from being objective in analyzing facts and law,
they ought not to be confirmed. But just to say that you are a liberal
Democrat--as overwhelmingly the 377 judges confirmed by President
Clinton were--that you are, therefore, not qualified, or if you are a
conservative Republican you are not qualified to serve on the bench
would be a historic change in the ground rules all right--not a change
they suggested ought to be done before President Bush took office but a
change they suggest only after their President left office. We have a
new President. So we are concerned about this.
The first hearing was suggesting that we ought to have a higher role
of politics in the judiciary. Lloyd Cutler, to his credit, and other
professors who were members of that panel, also to their credit, were
firmly opposed to politicizing the judiciary. It is a dangerous thing.
I was a U.S. attorney for 12 years and assistant U.S. attorney for 2.
Almost 15 years of my life was spent practicing law and trying cases
full time before Federal judges. I didn't always agree with them, but I
will say with great conviction that they were wonderful judges--men and
women of integrity and ability who did things right. If you had the law
on your side, you could be expected to prevail. If you went to court
and said: I have cases that say this evidence is admissible, Your
Honor; I have evidence that says their document is not required to be
produced in this hearing, Your Honor, and if you could show the judge
that, you could almost always count on them to rule correctly according
to the law, whether they were Republicans or Democrats.
This idea that somehow, if you are a liberal or a conservative, you
are therefore going to allow that to affect your ability to control a
courtroom and do justice to people is wrong and dangerous. And I am
nervous that we would suggest to the American people that this is so. I
do not believe it is.
At one of our hearings recently, when I asked Senator Fred Thompson
from Tennessee, a skilled lawyer, if he believed in his experience as a
litigator that he could expect unfairness or a difference of views on
issues simply because of who appointed the judge to the bench, he said
he did not. His experience as a judge was normally expected to rule
correctly on the law and the facts. Certainly that has been my
experience over the years.
Actually, I would add parenthetically that is one of the great
reasons for our strength and health and economic prosperity as a
nation. We have a rule of law. Whether you are a British corporation or
a corporation from any nation in the world or a domestic corporation or
an individual or a poor person or a rich person, we believe in the
ideal and in the reality that person would receive equal justice under
law. Indeed, those are the words chiseled and engraved into the front
of the Supreme Court building across the street--``Equal Justice Under
Law.'' That is the American-British--Anglo-American--legal ideal that
we have adhered to effectively. Nations where that rule of law has been
commonplace and followed have prospered. I have come to believe in
recent years as I have gotten older that if you examine nations that
are not doing well economically, that do not have freedom and the
things we have, it is fundamentally because they lack a rule of law.
You can't invest, you can't plan, and you can't develop a long-term
goal for the future and save money today in order to expand your
business tomorrow if everything is unstable, and if you have to pay off
politicians and never know what the law is going to be.
We are blessed with a rich heritage of law that is so valuable that
we should never see it undermined. We must protect it. The last line of
the great hymn is our liberty and respect of the law. The American
people respect law. We must do that. We must further that, and not
create this image by a bunch of politicians in a committee room
suggesting that what goes on in courtrooms throughout America is
political and not based on law and fact. That would undermine public
respect for law. I believe that very deeply.
I was sorry that we went off on that tack. It was a good hearing. The
chairman was very fair and everybody got their say. It was probably a
good thing to talk about it and get it out in the open. I don't dispute
that. But I think it is important that we in this body do not suggest
to the American people that politics affects the law out in the field
in the courtrooms all over America because it, in my view, does not.
The second hearing we had was on the burden of proof. It was
suggested in these hearings that the burden of proof is on the nominees
to prove somehow that they ought to be confirmed. That would be a big
change in policy. I do not know what you are supposed to do. Are you
supposed to come to a judiciary hearing with 100 of your best friends?
What are you supposed to do?
What we do know is that the process has served us pretty well over
the years. The President of the United States gets to nominate Federal
judges under the Constitution. He solicits information back from the
district involved or the circuit that is involved. Names come up to the
President. He evaluates them and decides whom he is going to nominate.
They do a pretty good job, frankly, of asking around, finding out if
there is any trouble in the person's background, would they make a good
nominee. In my view, as the years have gone by, the President has been
even more intent on getting people who will be good judges than people
who might be political friends or things of that nature. So that goes
up.
The President tentatively selects a nominee. This is the person they
would like to submit. They do their own checking around. Then they give
it to the FBI, and they do an intensive, full field investigation. The
agents interview anybody with whom that person has worked. They
interview people who have litigated against them. They interview judges
before whom they have practiced. Then they come back with an FBI
report. They find out whether or not they have been arrested, whether
or not they have had drug abuse problems, or any other problem they
might have in their background. They will interview an ex-wife, people
who may have a basis to complain, and they put that in the report.
[[Page S10751]]
So the President has that report. Then he decides whether or not to
submit the name. And that report is available to all of us in the
Senate--only the Senators--in confidential form. We can go and examine
that report. If we see something we do not like, even though the
President has approved that person, we can oppose a nominee on that
basis. So that is the way the system works.
After the nominee hits the Senate, the Senate sends a big
questionnaire to the nominee. First the President submits a big
questionnaire to the nominee, and depending on the investments and the
career of the nominee, the questionnaire can have hundreds of pages of
responses to all these questions. Then we have another one from the
Senate. That one is done. Then the ABA, the American Bar Association,
goes out and does their background check. They talk to judges. They
talk to lawyers. They talk to the president of the local bar
association, the president of the ABA, the members of the ABA from that
community. They talk to people who have litigated in intense situations
with the nominee. That is an important factor. In the pit, in the
depth, in the intensity of a big-time lawsuit, if the person has
character flaws, they will usually show up. Most lawyers are pretty
objective. They will fairly evaluate a person they have litigated
against, and they will tell the ABA and the FBI what they think about
them.
So then the ABA makes their recommendations as to whether or not this
nominee is ``qualified'' or ``exceptionally well qualified.''
I think that is a pretty good process. So I suggest it is not wise at
that point to say: Mr. Nominee, after you have done all these things,
it is your burden, as we sit up here as Senators, to convince us, after
the tremendous career you may have had in the practice of law--maybe
you have a well-qualified rating--you have to convince us to vote for
you. I do not know how you do that.
I think the record speaks for itself. Historically we have not had
that as a standard. In fact, in the first 125 years of this country's
existence we never even had hearings on the nominees. If something came
up on a nominee that the Senate did not like, they could object, but
they did not even have hearings on the nominee. I do not mind an
objection to hearings; it is probably a healthy thing. The Senate
should not be a rubber stamp. But also we should not put that burden on
the nominee, after they have done all that, before they are confirmed.
So, Madam President, we will also have another series of hearings
that are designed to intensify a basis for opposition to President
Bush's nominees, all of which I think is a dangerous direction. So I
say all that as a matter of background. That is not myth. That is not
an unfair characterization of where we are.
There is a move, apparently, by some, to change the ground rules of
confirmation. It has, apparently, already begun to infect our process.
I have some charts in the Chamber I would like to show that depict
where we are in terms of vacancies in the Federal courts today.
In the 103rd Congress, there were 63 vacancies at this same time
period. This was during a time when Senator Biden, a Democrat, chaired
the Judiciary Committee.
In the 104th Congress, there were 65 vacancies during this same time
period. Senator Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. There
were 65 vacancies. This was during President Clinton's administration.
Then, with a Republican chairman, a Republican majority in the
Senate, and a Democratic President, Chairman Hatch got the number down
to 50 vacancies.
Then in the 106th Congress, the last year of President Clinton's
administration, there were 67 vacancies--just about the traditional
average. In fact, historically they tend to be a little higher in the
last year of an administration.
But now, just a few months later, the vacancy rate has surged from 67
to 110. Perhaps it is 108 today after those confirmations, but that is
an unhealthy trend. I believe President Bush and those who want to see
him have a fair day for his judges have a right to be concerned in
light of particularly the statements that they want to change our
ground rules.
One of the things we have found, as we have looked at the process, is
that the Senate, regardless of who is in the majority party, has done a
good job of confirming judges who were nominated prior to August in
that first year. In other words, from January through July, the
President submits his nominees, as he can. It is a little difficult for
him at first because he has a lot of people to appoint--he has a
Cabinet to select, and new things are happening for the President in
those first months--but, fundamentally, we have seen that the President
has done very well with the nominees he has submitted.
President Reagan, in his first year in office, was able to get every
judge he nominated, prior to August, confirmed before the Senate
recessed for the year in November or December. He had 100 percent
confirmed.
Former President Bush got 100 percent of his nominees confirmed
during that time.
President Clinton got 93 percent confirmed. I think there was one
judge who did not get confirmed who was nominated before August. This
was under President Clinton and a Republican Senate--well, maybe it was
a Democrat Senate at that time. They did not confirm one, but all the
rest were confirmed.
But under this President, President Bush--and we are coming along to
the end of this session; there are people saying we ought to be out of
here in a month or less--has only gotten 18 percent of those judges
confirmed.
I know there have been some things that have happened that make it a
little difficult, but, frankly, I think we ought to work a little
harder. We have had a change of party, and we have had an attack on
America that has disrupted us in many ways. But many of these nominees,
you have to understand, are highly rated by the ABA. They are highly
respected by their local men and women in the bar association, and no
one objects to them. They have no objections against them. Republicans
and Democrats back home support them.
There is one from my district. She worked for me. She was hired as an
assistant U.S. attorney under President Carter. She worked 12 years for
me. Absolutely wonderful. She recently received a unanimous ``well
qualified'' rating. She has no political agenda. A lot of these
nominees are like that, just good lawyers, men and women of integrity
and ability. They need to be moved forward. We could be a lot further
along than we are today.
One of the reasons we are behind is that we are not bringing enough
of these noncontroversial judges, or any of the judges, forward at
hearings on nominations.
Under the heading ``judicial nominees per hearing,'' in 1998, they
had 4.2 judges as the average number per hearing to be confirmed.
We have a hearing in which the judge appears and answers any
questions Senators might have. Later there is a vote within the
committee whether or not to confirm.
You can't have a vote in the committee until there has been a hearing
to take information and question the nominee about anything anybody
would like to ask. So the hearing is a critical step in getting
confirmations. In 1999, it was 4.2. In 2000, it was 4.2.
____________________