[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2932-S2935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF LEGROME D. DAVIS, OF PENNSYLVANIA TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will go
into executive session.
The nomination will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Legrome D. Davis, of
Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the confirmation of Judge Legrome Davis
to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will be
the 17th judge confirmed since the beginning of this session. Under
Democratic leadership, in less than 4 months the Senate has confirmed
as many judges as were confirmed in all 12 months of the 1996 session
under Republican leadership. In fact, included among the 17 judges whom
we will have confirmed since January this year are 2 judges to our
Courts of Appeals. That stands in sharp contrast to the 1996 session in
which the Republican majority did not allow even a single Court of
Appeals nominee to be confirmed--not one. I submit that we have already
done better in less than 4 months than our predecessors and critics did
during the entire 12 months of the 1996 session.
The confirmation of Judge Davis today illustrates the progress being
made under Democratic leadership and the fair and expeditious way in
which we have considered nominees. Judge Legrome Davis was first
nominated to the position of U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania by President Clinton on July 30, 1998. The
Republican-controlled Senate took no action on his nomination and it
was returned to the President at the end of 1998. On January 26, 1999,
President Clinton renominated Judge Davis for the same vacancy. The
Senate again failed to hold a hearing for Judge Davis and his
nomination was returned to the President on December 15, 2000, after 2
more years of inaction in a second full Congress while the Senate was
controlled by a Republican majority. Under Republican leadership, Judge
Davis' nomination languished before the Committee for 868 days without
a hearing. Unfortunately, Judge Davis was subjected to the kind of
inappropriate partisan rancor that befell so many other nominees to the
district courts in Pennsylvania and to the Third Circuit during the
years Republicans controlled the Senate. I want to note emphatically,
however, that I know personally that the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, supported Judge Davis's nomination and
worked hard to get him a hearing and a vote. The lack of Senate action
on Judge Davis's initial nominations are in no way attributable to a
lack of support from the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Far from it.
In fact, I give Senator Specter credit for getting President Bush to
renominate Judge Davis earlier this year and want to commend him
publicly for all he has done to support this nomination from the
outset.
This year we have moved expeditiously to consider Judge Davis. Judge
Davis was nominated by President Bush in late January 2002, the
Committee received his ABA peer review on March 12, he participated in
a confirmation hearing the next week on March 19, and he received a
unanimous vote by the Judiciary Committee on April 11--less than 3
months after his nomination, and less than 1 month after his paperwork
was completed. The saga of Judge Davis recalls for us so many nominees
from the period of January 1995 through July 10, 2001, who never
received a hearing or a vote and who were the subject of secret
anonymous holds by Republicans for reasons that were never explained.
At Judge Davis' recent confirmation hearing Senator Santorum
testified that Judge Davis did not get a hearing after President
Clinton nominated him because local Democrats objected. I was the
ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee during those years and
never heard that before. My understanding at the time, from July 1998
until the end of 2000, was that Judge Legrome Davis would have had the
support of every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate.
He was not included in the May 2000 hearing for a few other
Pennsylvania nominees. His not being included was a part of the
discussion on the record, a discussion about unwillingness of some to
act on nominees in a presidential election year although Senator
Specter emphasized his personal commitment to supporting Judge Davis.
Senator Hatch never indicated to me that he thought Democratic
opposition was the reason he could not include Judge Legrome Davis in a
hearing over those 3 years.
Judge Davis has served as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas in the
First Judicial District in Pennsylvania for more than 13 years. Prior
to serving as a judge, he had an extensive career litigating criminal
cases in State courts. He has participated in numerous task forces and
a variety of pro bono projects aimed to improve the judicial system. He
is well-qualified and has broad bipartisan support. I know that Judge
Davis and his family are glad that this day has finally arrived. I
expect that the people served by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will be happy with the Senate's action today.
Judge Davis will be the 45th judicial nominee to be confirmed since
last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the
Senate majority changed. With today's vote on Judge Davis, the Senate
will confirm its 45th judicial nominee in the less
[[Page S2933]]
than 10 months since I became Chairman this past summer. The Senate has
confirmed more judges in the last 10 months than were confirmed in 4
out of 6 full years under Republican leadership. The number of judicial
confirmations over these past 10 months 45 exceeds the number confirmed
during all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997 and 1996.
As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving at a fast pace
to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong bipartisan
support. Those partisan critics who assert that our rate of confirming
President Bush's judicial nominees is bad are ignoring the facts. They
willfully confuse the actual ``pace,'' or rate, of confirmation with
the misleading percentages they like to construct. The facts are that
looking at the number of confirmations in similar time periods shows
that we are confirming President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than
the nominees of prior presidents, including those who worked closely
with a Senate majority of the same political party.
The rate of confirmation in the past 10 months actually exceeds the
rates of confirmation in the past three presidencies. For example, in
the first 15 months of the Clinton administration, 46 judicial nominees
were confirmed, a pace on average of 3.1 per month. In the first 15
months of the first Bush administration, 27 judges were confirmed at a
pace of 1.8 judges per month. Likewise, in President Reagan's first 15
months in office, 54 judges were confirmed, a pace of 3.6 per month. In
less than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in the
Senate in less than two thirds of the time period--President George W.
Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate of more than 4.5
judges per month, a faster pace than for any of the past 3 Presidents.
During the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate, judicial
confirmations averaged 38 per year a pace of consideration and
confirmation that we have already exceeded under Democratic leadership
over these past 10 months in spite of all of the challenges facing
Congress and the Nation during this period and all of the obstacles
Republicans have placed in our path. At the end of today, we have
confirmed 45 judicial nominees in just 10 months. This is almost twice
as many confirmations as George W. Bush's father had over a longer
period--27 nominees in 15--months than the period we have been in the
majority in the Senate.
The Republican critics typically compare apples to oranges to
mischaracterize the achievements of the last 10 months. They complain
that we have not done 24 months of work in the less than 10 months we
have been in the majority. That is an unfair complaint. A fair
examination of the rate of confirmation shows that Democrats are
working harder and faster on judicial nominees, confirming judges at a
faster pace than the rates of the past 20 years. The double standards
asserted by Republican critics are just plain wrong and unfair, but
that does not seem to matter to Republicans intent on criticizing and
belittling every achievement of the Senate under a Democratic majority.
I would like to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee and our
Majority Leader and Assistant Majority Leader for all of their hard
work in getting us to this point. The confirmation of the 45th judge in
less than 10 months, especially these last 10 months, in spite of the
unfair and personal criticism to which they have each been subjected,
is an extraordinary achievement and a real example of Senators acting
in a bipartisan way even when the other side makes it as difficult as
possible.
Republicans have been imposing a double standard on circuit court
vacancies as well. The Republican attack is based on the unfounded
notion that the Senate has not kept up with attrition on the Courts of
Appeals. Well, the Democratic majority in the Senate has more than kept
up with attrition, and we have been acting to close the vacancies gap
on the Courts of Appeals that more than doubled under the Republican
majority.
Just this week, the Senate confirmed Judge Terrence O'Brien to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 98 to
zero. His confirmation was the eighth circuit court nominee to be
confirmed in the almost 10 months since I became Chairman this past
summer. Just today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the 11th
Court of Appeals nominee to come before the Committee in less than 10
months. Thus, another Court of Appeals nominee is already on the Senate
Executive Calendar and being scheduled for floor action.
In a little less than 10 months since the change in majority, the
Senate has confirmed 8 judges to the Courts of Appeals and held
hearings on 3 others. In contrast, the Republican-controlled majority
averaged only 7 confirmations to the Courts of Appeals per year. Seven.
In the less than 10 months the Democrats have been in the majority, we
have already exceeded the annual number of Court of Appeals judges
confirmed by our predecessors. The Senate in the last 10 months has
confirmed as many Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in all of
2000 and more than were confirmed in 1997 or 1999, and 8 more than the
zero from 1996. Another way to put it is that within the last 10
months, the Democratic majority in the Senate has confirmed as many
Court of Appeals judges as were confirmed in the 2000 and 1996 sessions
combined and confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than were confirmed
in the 1999 and 1996 sessions combined or in the 1997 and 1996 sessions
combined.
The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmations in
January 1995 and did not allow the Judiciary Committee to be
reorganized after the shift in majority last summer until July 10,
2001. During that period from 1995 through July 10, 2001, vacancies on
the Courts of Appeals increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling.
When I became chairman of a Committee to which Members were finally
assigned on July 10, we began with 33 Courts of Appeals vacancies. That
is what I inherited. Since the shift in majority last summer, 5
additional vacancies have arisen on the Courts of Appeals around the
country. With this week's confirmation of Judge O'Brien, we have
reduced the number of circuit court vacancies to 30. That is, we have
kept up with attrition by confirming 5 Court of Appeals judges and then
acted to lower the number of vacancies by already confirming 3
additional judges. Those are the facts.
Since our Republican critics are so fond of using percentages, I will
say that we will have now reduced the vacancies on the Courts of
Appeals by almost 10 percent in the last 10 months. In other words, by
confirming 3 more nominees than the 5 required to keep up with the pace
of attrition, we have not just matched the rate of attrition, but
surpassed it by 60 percent. I add this facetiously to show how
ridiculous their use of percentages is in this setting.
Rather than the 38 vacancies that would exist if we were making no
progress, as some have asserted, there are now 30 vacancies--that is
more than keeping up with the attrition on the Circuit Courts.
Republican critics unfairly seek to attribute to the Democratic
majority the lack of action by the Republican majority before the
historic change last summer.
While the Republican Senate majority increased vacancies on the
Courts of Appeals by over 100 percent, it has taken the Democratic
majority less than 10 months to reverse that trend, keep up with
extraordinary turnover and, in addition, reduce circuit court vacancies
overall. This is progress. Rather than having the circuit vacancy
numbers skyrocketing, as they did overall during the prior 6\1/2\
years--more than doubling from 16 to 33--the Democratic-led Senate has
reversed that trend. The vacancies numbers are moving in the right
direction--down.
It is not possible to repair the damage caused by longstanding
vacancies in several circuits overnight, but we are improving the
conditions in the 5th, 10th and 8th Circuits, in particular. The
confirmation of Judge O'Brien this week made the second judge confirmed
to the 10th Circuit in the last 4 months. Next week we will proceed
with a nominee to the 6th Circuit.
Overall, in little less than 10 months, the Senate Judiciary
Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations. That
is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in any
year of its control of the Senate. In contrast, one-sixth of President
Clinton's judicial nominees--more than 50--never got a Committee
hearing and Committee vote from the Republican majority, which
perpetuated
[[Page S2934]]
longstanding vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on
the Courts of Appeals in large part because a Republican majority was
not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of
President Clinton's Court of Appeals nominees in 1999 and 2000, and was
not willing to confirm a single judge to the Courts of Appeals during
the entire 1996 session.
Despite the new-found concern from across the aisle about the number
of vacancies on the circuit courts, no nominations hearings were held
while the Republicans controlled the Senate in the 107th Congress last
year. No judges were confirmed during that time from among the many
qualified circuit court nominees received by the Senate on January 3,
2001, or from among the nominations received by the Senate on May 9,
2001.
The Democratic leadership acted promptly to address the number of
circuit and district vacancies that had been allowed to grow when the
Senate was in Republican control. The Judiciary Committee noticed the
first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the
reorganization of the Senate, and held that hearing on the day after
the Committee was assigned new members.
That initial hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee on whom the
Republican majority had refused to hold a hearing the year before. We
held unprecedented hearings for judicial nominees during the August
recess. Those hearings included a Court of Appeals nominee who had been
a Republican staff member of the Senate. We proceeded with a hearing
the day after the first anthrax letter arrived at the Senate. That
hearing included a Court of Appeals nominee. In a little less than 10
tumultuous months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 16 hearings
involving 55 judicial nominations--including 11 circuit court
nominees--and we are planning to hold another hearing next week for
half a dozen more nominees, including another Court of Appeals nominee.
That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in
any year of its control of the Senate. The Republican majority never
held 16 judicial confirmation hearings in 12 months and we have to do
so in less than 10 months.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding regular hearings on
judicial nominees and giving nominees a vote in Committee, in contrast
to the practice of anonymous holds and other obstructionist tactics
employed by some during the period of Republican control. The
Democratic majority has reformed the process and practices used in the
past to deny Committee consideration of judicial nominees. We have
moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the process from
1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue slips public
for the first time.
I do not mean by my comments to appear critical of Senator Hatch.
Many times during the 6\1/2\ years he chaired the Judiciary Committee,
I observed that, were the matter left up to us, we would have made more
progress on more judicial nominees. I thanked him during those years
for his efforts. I know that he would have liked to have been able to
do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so many nominees
without action.
I hope to hold additional hearings and make additional progress on
judicial nominees. In our efforts to address the number of vacancies on
the circuit and district courts we inherited from the Republicans, the
Committee has focused on consensus nominees for all Senators. In order
to respond to what Vice President Cheney and Senator Hatch now call a
vacancy crisis, the Committee has focused on consensus nominees. This
will help end the crisis caused by Republican delay and obstruction by
confirming as many of the President's judicial nominees as quickly as
possible.
Most Senators understand that the more controversial nominees require
greater review. This process of careful review is part of our
democratic process. It is a critical part of the checks and balances of
our system of government that does not give the power to make lifetime
appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow
ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are
outside of the mainstream of legal thought, and whose decisions would
further divide our nation.
The Committee continues to try to accommodate Senators from both
sides of the aisle. The Court of Appeals nominees included at hearings
so far this year have been at the request of Senator Grassley, Senator
Lott, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi and Senator Smith from New
Hampshire--five Republican Senators who each sought a prompt hearing on
a Court of Appeals nominee who was not among those initially sent to
the Senate in May 2001. Next week's hearing will continue that effort
and include a Court of Appeals nominee from Tennessee at the request of
Senator Thompson.
Each of the 45 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the
unanimous, bipartisan backing of the Committee. Only Judge Roger
Gregory has had a single vote cast against his confirmation in all of
the Senate votes on all of these nominees. The confirmation of Judge
Davis is the 45th judicial nominee to be confirmed since I became
Chairman last July. Like Judge Roger Gregory, this is the confirmation
of a qualified nominee who could not get a hearing when the Republican
majority controlled the Senate. I had hoped that at the end of the day,
justice would be done. I am glad that this is that day, and that at the
end of today Judge Davis will also have been considered and confirmed.
These consensus nominees could and should have been acted upon before
this year. I thank Judge Davis for his commitment and patience, and
congratulate him and his family on this important day.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of
Judge Legrome Davis to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
Judge Davis' nomination is yet another example of President Bush's
bipartisan approach to judicial nominations. This is the second time,
Judge Roger Gregory being the first, that this administration has
renominated a candidate who was originally nominated by the previous
adminstraiton. It is a rarity for a new adminstration to renominate a
previous administration's judicial nominees, especially when the two
administrations are of different parties. Clearly, the President is
leading by example when he calls upon the Senate to rise above petty
partisanship and provide fair hearings and prompt votes to every
judicial nominee regardless of what party controls the White House or
the Senate.
I have had the pleasure of reviewing Judge Davis' distinguished legal
career, and I have come to the conclusion that he is a fine
Pennsylvania State judge who will only add to the distinguished Federal
bench in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Davis graduated from Princeton University and Rutgers-Camden
School of Law. After graduation, he joined the Office of the District
Attorney of Philadelphia as an Assistant District Attorney in the Law
and Trial Divisions. Eventually, he rose to become Assistant Chief of
Narcotics and then Chief of the Rape Unit.
One of the many examples of his fine character revolves around a
defendant's rape conviction before Judge Davis led the D.A.'s Rape
Unit. Upon examination of new evidence, it became clear that the
alleged victim, in the case, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and
had hallucinated the criminal episode. The investigation that freed the
defendant was conducted by Davis.
His record of rulings before the appellate courts is equally as
impressive. Judge Davis has filed approximately 150 cases, of which
only 3 were overturned on appeal--and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
reinstated his decision in one of those cases.
Judge Davis has been a champion in reforming the Philadelphia court
system. He helped author and was an early proponent of Philadelphia's
differentiated case management system. This system, which groups
defendants with similar case dispositions into one of four ``tracks,''
has resulted in a 47 percent reduction in the Felony-Waiver Unit's
pending inventory.
I am very pleased that we will confirm Judge Davis today.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in January 2002, Judge Legrome Davis
was nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
[[Page S2935]]
The American Bar Association rated Judge Davis as well-qualified for
a judgeship on the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Judge Davis presently serves on the Court of the Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, a position he has held since 1987.
From 1992 until January 2001, Judge Davis served as the Supervising
Judge of the Criminal Division, with principal responsibility for all
issues of policy, planning and administration involving criminal case
processing.
During his tenure as Supervising Judge, numerous city, state and
federal funding authorities awarded the First Judicial District more
than nineteen million dollars to support supervisory endeavors for
defendants developed by Judge Davis and administered under his
direction.
He is the Coordinator of the Female Offenders' Criminal Justice
Treatment Network, a collaborative project linking the criminal justice
and treatment communities in addressing the complex and special
challenges of women in the criminal justice system.
Judge Davis was integral in conceptualizing and implementing the
court reforms which were integral to the suspension of the federal
prison cap in 1995.
Previously he worked for Ballard, Spahr, Ingersoll & Andrews, and the
Office of the General Counsel of the University of Pennsylvania. He was
also an Assistant District Attorney for nine years, serving in the
Homicide, Narcotics, and Career Criminal Units, and was the Chief of
the Rape Prosecution Unit when he left office to seek a state court
judgeship.
He has been honored by the Pennsylvania Trial Judges Association
``Golden Crowbar Award, the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Board of
Judges Exceptional Service Award, the Philadelphia Bar Association;
Thurgood Marshall Award, the Philadelphia Coalition for Victim
Advocacy; Victim Advocacy Award and the Fraternal Order of Police
Honorary Lifetime Membership--Lodge 92.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could announce to colleagues, this
is the last vote tonight. There will not be any votes tomorrow. The
Senate will not be in session tomorrow, and there will be no rollcall
votes on Monday. The next rollcall vote will occur sometime Tuesday
morning.
I thank my colleagues. Have a good evening and a good weekend.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Legrome D. Davis, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania? The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles),
the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Ex.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Bond
Boxer
Inouye
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________