[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 48 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3338-S3342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF JOHN F. WALTER, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
         DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination of John 
F. Walter, of California, to be United States District Judge for the 
Central District of California.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read the nomination of John F. 
Walter, of California, to be United States District Judge for the 
Central District of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of John F. Walter, of California, to be 
United States District Judge for the Central District of California? 
The yeas and nays were previously ordered on this nomination. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Ex.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     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
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The nomination was confirmed.


    statements on the nominations of percy anderson and jack walter

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate is voting on the 47th 
and 48th judicial nominees to be confirmed since last July when the 
Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the shift in the Senate 
majority. With today's votes on Percy Anderson and Jack Walter to the 
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Senate 
will have confirmed its 38th and 39th district court judges in the less 
than 10 months since I became chairman this past summer. This is 
addition to the 9 judges confirmed to the Courts of Appeals. So the 
total number of Federal judges confirmed since the change in Senate 
majority will now be 48. Moreover, with the confirmations of these 
nominees, the Senate will have resolved 9 judicial emergencies since we 
returned to session and helped fill 16 emergency vacancies since I 
became chairman this past summer. The confirmation of these nominees 
today demonstrates, again, the speed with which President Bush's 
nominees are receiving consideration by the Judiciary Committee and the 
Senate.
  Percy Anderson, is a nominee to the U.S. District Court in the 
District of California. He is filling a judicial emergency vacancy that 
has been pending for more than 1,360 days. Mr. Anderson was nominated 
to fill the vacancy left by the elevation of Kim McLane Wardlaw in 
1998. I recall that President Clinton nominated Frederic Woocher to 
fill this judicial emergency vacancy on May 27, 1999. Mr. Woocher was 
one of those who received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee but 
was never placed on the agenda to receive a vote. He was one of the 
lucky judicial nominees who got a hearing, with the support of his 
home-state Senators, but his nomination was ultimately frustrated by 
never being considered by the Judiciary Committee. Like Allen Snyder of 
the District of Columbia, Bonnie

[[Page S3339]]

Campbell of Iowa, Clarence Sundram of New York, Anabelle Rodriguez and 
others, he was never allowed Judiciary Committee consideration and 
never received a vote. After 19 months, his nomination was returned to 
President Clinton, without receiving a vote in the Judiciary Committee 
at the time the Senate adjourned at the end of 2000.
  Jack Walter, a well-qualified nominee to the Central District of 
California with excellent federal court experience, is nominated to 
fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Judge John G. Davies in 
1998. That seat is a judicial emergency vacancy that has been vacant 
for more than 1,370 days--almost 4 years. I recall that President 
Clinton nominated Dolly M. Gee to fill this judicial emergency vacancy 
on May 27, 1999. Her nomination was returned to President Clinton, 
without any action by the Senate, at the end of 2000. After 19 months, 
that nomination, which was supported by both home-State Senators was 
returned to the President without a hearing or any consideration and 
was one of the scores of nominees on which the Senate did not take 
action over the 6\1/2\ years that preceded the shift in majority.
  Federal court vacancies rose from 63 in January 1995 to 110 in July 
2001, when the Senate majority shifted back to the Democrats and the 
Judiciary Committee was reassigned Members for this Congress. For 
example, the Central District in California currently has six 
vacancies. Today we are acting to fill two of those vacancies on this 
important Court. I can certainly understand the interest of Chief Judge 
Marshall of that District and why she attended the committee hearing on 
these nominations 2 weeks ago to support these nominees. I say to Chief 
Judge Marshall, help should be on the way very soon. I commend Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Boxer for their efforts to get these vacancies 
filled with qualified nominees.
  I recall that in the 6\1/2\ years that preceded the shift in Senate 
extensive delays attended even those nominations that were ultimately 
successful. That is, in spite of the strong support of the two Senators 
from California, judicial nominations for the District Court that 
serves Los Angeles, one of the fastest growing areas in the nation with 
a staggering caseload, were greated delayed if considered at all. We 
are trying to change that practice. During the years of a Republican 
Senate majority nominees such as Judge Virginia Phillips, Judge 
Christina Snyder, and Judge Margaret Morrow were delayed for months and 
months.
  Virginia Phillips was first nominated back in May 1998 to fill a 
judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court and was not confirmed 
until November 1999. Christina Snyder was first nominated to the 
District Court in May 1996 and was not confirmed until November 1997--
542 days after her initial nomination. The case of Judge Margaret 
Morrow is particularly egregious--she was pending before the Senate for 
16 months, had to be reported favorably on two occasions by the 
Judiciary Committee, was held up by an anonymous hold on the Senate 
floor calendar over a period of more than 7 months, and was not 
confirmed until 644 days after the date of her initial nomination.
  In contrast, the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee is moving 
expeditiously to fill the judicial emergency vacancies in the Central 
District of California. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter were not nominated 
until late January this year. They promptly received a hearing on their 
nominations on April 11, 2002, once the paperwork on their nominations 
was received and within three weeks of the Committee having received 
their ABA peer review ratings. Had the Administration not taken action 
that resulted in delaying the ABA peer reviews, the time might well 
have been even faster.

  Senator Hatch noted at their hearing that both of these nominees were 
first nominated in the last year of the Administration of President 
George H.W. Bush and did not have hearings before the end of that 
Senate session in October 1992. I recall that 66 judges were confirmed 
during the last year of the Bush administration, which set a record, 
but I do not know why these nominations were not considered. For anyone 
to try to assert that these nominations have been pending for over 10 
years, however, would be extraordinarily unfair and wrong. They were 
not confirmed in 1992, and not renominated for 10 years, until January 
2002. These nominations were not sent to the Senate until this January 
and the files were not completed until late March. Indeed, for them to 
have been pending for 10 years the Republican Senate majority that 
controlled judicial nominations from January 1995 through July 2001 
would be at fault. I would not make that criticism of the Senate 
Republicans of my predecessor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  The confirmation of these nominees today demonstrates our commitment 
promptly to consider qualified, consensus nominees. Mr. Walter and Mr. 
Anderson participated in bipartisan selection processes, and they are 
the first two nominees who have emerged from a bipartisan selection 
process that Senators Feinstein and Boxer established last year with 
the administration. Both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter received unanimous 
support from the bipartisan commission and appear to be well-qualified. 
Both come to the Senate with more than 25 years' experience as trial 
attorneys. I would like to commend Senators Feinstein and Boxer for 
their efforts to establish the bipartisan commission which has produced 
such fine nominees.
  The Senate's consideration of these nominations illustrates the 
effect of the reforms to the process that the Democratic leadership has 
spearheaded, despite the poor treatment of too many Democratic nominees 
in the past. There have been no anonymous holds and other 
obstructionist tactics employed with regard to these nominees even 
though such tactics were employed with the nominations of Judge Morrow, 
Judge Snyder, Judge Phillips, Mr. Woocher and Ms. Gee.
  As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving at a fast pace 
and confirming conservative nominees. Since the change in Senate 
majority, the Democratic majority has moved to confirm President Bush's 
nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior Presidents. The 
rate of confirmations in the past 10 months actually exceeds the rates 
of confirmation in the past three presidencies. It took 15 months for 
the Senate to confirm 46 judicial nominees for the Clinton 
administration. We have exceeded that number of confirmations today and 
in five fewer months. Also, in 1993, President Clinton had a Senate led 
by his own party, and we are considering Republican President George W. 
Bush's nominees at a faster pace in the Democratic-led Senate. The pace 
at the beginning of the Clinton administration amounted to the 
confirmation of 3.1 judges confirmed per month.
  In the first 15 months of the George H.W. Bush administration, only 
27 judges were confirmed. The pace at the beginning of the George H.W. 
Bush administration amounted to 1.8 judges confirmed per month. In 
President Reagan's first 15 months in office, 54 judges were confirmed. 
The pace at the beginning of the Reagan administration amounted to 3.6 
judges confirmed per month. By comparison, with today's confirmations, 
in the less than 10 months since the shift to a Democratic majority in 
the Senate, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a 
rate of 4.8 per month, a faster pace than for any of the last three 
Presidents.
  During the preceding 6\1/2\ years in which a Republican majority most 
recently controlled the pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate, 
248 judges were confirmed. Some like to talk about the 377 judges 
confirmed during the Clinton administration, but forget to mention that 
more than one-third were confirmed during the first two years of the 
Clinton administration while the Senate majority was Democratic and 
Senator Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. The pace of 
confirmations under a Republican majority was markedly slower, 
especially in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000.
  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 
in fewer than 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. We have confirmed 48 judicial 
nominees in

[[Page S3340]]

less than 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 Democrats have been in the Senate majority.
  Our Republican critics like to make arguments based on false rather 
than fair comparisons. 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, however, that Democrats are working harder and faster on 
judicial nominees, confirming judges at a faster pace than the rates of 
the past 20 years.
  I ask myself how Republicans can justify seeking to hold the 
Democratic majority in the Senate to a different standard than the one 
they met themselves during the last 6\1/2\ years. There simply is no 
answer other than partisanship. This double standard is most apparent 
when Republicans refuse fairly to compare the progress we are making 
with the period in which they were in the Senate majority with a 
President of the other party. They do not want to talk about that 
because we have exceeded the number of judges they confirmed per year.
  They would rather unfairly compare the work of the Senate on 
confirmations in the less than 10 months since the shift in majority to 
full, 2-year Congresses. I say that it is quite unfair to complain that 
we have not done 24 months of work on judicial vacancies in the less 
than 10 months since the Senate reorganized. These double standards 
asserted by the Republicans are 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.

  The Republican critics also refuse to recognize the fact that we are 
making progress with respect to Court of Appeals vacancies, as well. 
With this week's vote on Jeffrey Howard to the Court of Appeals for the 
1st Circuit, the Senate confirmed its 9th judge to our Federal Courts 
of Appeals. In less than 10 months since I became Chairman this past 
summer, the Senate has confirmed 9 judges to the Courts of Appeals and 
held hearings on two others, with another circuit judge hearing 
scheduled for tomorrow. This is more circuit judges than were confirmed 
in all 12 months of 2000, 1999, 1997, and 1996, 4 of the 6 years of 
Republican control of the Senate during the Clinton administration. It 
is triple the number of circuit judges confirmed in 1993, when a 
Democratic Senate majority was working with a President of the same 
party and received some cooperation from the Clinton administration. It 
exceeds the number of Court of Appeals judges confirmed by a Republican 
Senate majority in the first 12 months of the Reagan administration and 
it equals the number of circuit judges confirmed in the first 12 months 
of the first Bush administration.
  The Republican-controlled majority averaged only seven 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. 
In an entire session of the 105th Congress, the Republican majority did 
not confirm a single judge to fill vacancies on the Courts of Appeals. 
That year has greatly contributed to the doubling of vacancies on the 
Courts of Appeals during the time in which the Republican majority 
controlled the Senate.
  The Republican majority assumed control of judicial confirmation 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 the period in which the Republican majority controlled the 
Senate and in which they delayed reorganization, the period from 
January 1995 through July 2001, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals 
increased from 16 to 33, more than doubling.
  When members were finally assigned to the Judiciary Committee on July 
10, we began with 33 Court 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 Jeffrey Howard, we have reduced the number 
of circuit court vacancies to 29. Rather than the 38 vacancies that 
would exist if we were making no progress, as some have asserted, there 
now remain 29 vacancies. That is more than keeping up with the 
attrition on the Circuit Courts.
  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 
by more than 10 percent overall, from 33 down to 29, or 12.1 percent. 
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 vacancy rate on the Courts of Appeals is moving in the 
right direction--down.
  Despite claims to the contrary, under Democratic leadership, the 
Senate is confirming President Bush's Circuit Court nominees more 
quickly than the nominees of other Presidents were confirmed by 
Senates, even some with majorities from the President's own party. The 
number of confirmations to the Circuit Courts has exceeded those who 
were confirmed over 10-month time frames at the beginning of past 
administrations. With the confirmation of Jeffrey Howard, 9 Circuit 
Court nominees will have been confirmed in less than 10 months. This 
number greatly exceeds the number of Court of Appeals confirmations in 
the first 10 months of the Reagan administration (three), the first 
Bush administration (three), and the Clinton administration (two). This 
is three times the number of Court of Appeals nominees confirmed in the 
comparable 10-month periods of past administrations. With nine circuit 
judges confirmed in the less than 10 months since the Senate 
reorganized under Democratic leadership, we have greatly exceeded the 
number of circuit judges confirmed at the beginning of prior 
presidencies. Our achievements also compare quite favorably to the 
total 46 Court of Appeals nominees confirmed by the Republican majority 
in the 76 months during which they most recently controlled the Senate. 
Their inaction led to the number of Courts of Appeals vacancies more 
than doubling. With a Democratic Senate majority, the number of circuit 
vacancies is going down.
  Overall, in little less than 10 months, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee has held 16 hearings involving 55 judicial nominations and we 
will have our 17th hearing this week. 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 longstanding 
vacancies into this year. Vacancies continue to exist on the Courts of 
Appeals in 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 newfound 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 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. Had the Republicans 
not delayed and obstructed progress on Court of Appeals nominees during 
the Clinton administration, we would not now have so many vacancies. 
Had the Republicans even reversed course just this past year and 
proceeded on the circuit court nominees sent to the Senate in January, 
the number of circuit court vacancies today could be in the low 20's, 
given the pace of confirmation of circuit nominees since the shift in 
majority last summer.
  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

[[Page S3341]]

been able to do more and not have to leave so many vacancies and so 
many nominees without action.
  I hope to continue to hold hearings and make 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 Senators Grassley, Lott, 
Specter, Enzi and 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. Each of the 
previous 46 nominees confirmed by the Senate has received the 
unanimous, bipartisan backing of the committee.
  Some on the other side of the aisle have falsely charged that if a 
nominee has a record as a conservative Republican, he will not be 
considered by the Committee. That is simply untrue. Senator Hatch has 
emphasized that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter were nominated by the 
George H.W. Bush Administration and the current Bush Administration. I 
do not think that either President Bush thought he was nominating 
liberals to the bench. I do not think so either. These are two more 
examples of conservative nominees being strongly supported by Democrats 
on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the Senate.
  Another recent example is the nomination of Jeffrey Howard. Just 2 
years ago, he campaigned for the Republican nomination for Governor of 
New Hampshire and he has been a prominent figure in Republican politics 
in New Hampshire for many years. Thus, it would be wrong to claim that 
we will not consider President George W. Bush's nominees with 
conservative credentials. We have done so repeatedly. The next time 
Republican critics are bandying around charges that the Democratic 
majority has failed to consider conservative judicial nominees, I hope 
someone will ask those critics about the many other conservative 
nominees we have proceeded to consider and confirm.
  The nominees being voted on today participated in bipartisan 
selection processes and appear to be the type of qualified, consensus 
nominees that the Senate has been confirming expeditiously to help fill 
vacancies on our Federal courts. I am proud of the tremendous work we 
have done since the change in the majority and the way the committee 
and the Senate have considered nominees fairly and promptly.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Percy 
Anderson to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of 
California.
  It should be noted that the first President Bush nominated Mr. 
Anderson to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California in 1992, but regrettably, the Democratic Senate did not hold 
a hearing for him. After reviewing Mr. Anderson's distinguished legal 
career, I can tell you that he is a fine jurist who will add a great 
deal to the Federal bench in California. Following graduation from UCLA 
School of Law in 1975, Percy Anderson served as a Directing Attorney 
and Staff Attorney with San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal 
Services, representing indigent clients in civil matters.
  In addition, he helped less experienced lawyers with trial 
preparation and courtroom presentation in matters before the Superior 
and Municipal Court in Los Angeles. He then acted as a consultant for 
the Legal Services Corporation in the District of Columbia, before 
taking a position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney of the Criminal 
Division in Los Angeles.
  For the next 6 years, he served as First Assistant Division Chief, 
supervising other attorneys and managing criminal division affairs in 
the absence of the Division Chief. He joined the Bryan Cave law firm in 
1985, specializing in white collar criminal defense and aviation 
litigation, particularly products liability. In 1996, Mr. Anderson 
became a partner with the Los Angeles firm of Sonnenschein Nath & 
Rosenthal. He focuses his practice on trial and appellate litigation in 
the areas of commercial matters, intellectual property, products 
liability, false claims, and white collar criminal defense work. Mr. 
Anderson has home State support and my support. He will make an 
excellent Federal judge in California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise in support 
of the nominations of Percy Anderson and Jack Walter for the District 
Court of the Central District of California.
  Mr. Anderson and Mr. Walter are the first nominees to come out of 
California's new bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee, which Senator 
Boxer and I established with the cooperation and agreement of the White 
House. It is testament to the qualifications of both Mr. Anderson and 
Mr. Percy that each of these nominees was unanimously endorsed by the 
bipartisan advisory committee. Moreover, the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously approved their nominations.
  The process that led to these nominations is representative of how 
the system can work, and should work, to produce highly qualified 
judicial candidates. This process should serve as an example to other 
states as they too, work with the White House to develop nominating 
systems. Now, I would like to describe the nominees.
  Mr. Anderson, a resident of Inglewood, CA, has spent his entire 25-
year legal career practicing law in southern California including a 6-
year stint as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and 15 years in private 
practice. He is currently a partner at the firm of Sonneschein, Nath, 
and Rosenthal, where he specializes in commercial litigation and 
criminal defense. Judges and private practitioners in the Los Angeles 
area consistently praise Mr. Anderson for his legal acumen, high 
ethical standards, and professionalism.
  The other nominee we will vote on this morning is Jack Walter, a 
resident of Pacific Palisades, CA. Mr. Walter's credentials are equally 
outstanding. Since 1976, Mr. Walter has practiced criminal and civil 
litigation in a firm he co-founded, Walter, Firestone & Richter in 
1976. Over the years, Mr. Walter has represented over 75 indigent 
defendants who were charged with crimes in Federal court.
  Mr. Walter has also served as a judge pro tempore in the Santa Monica 
Municipal Court for over 5 years. Mr. Walter has legions of supporters 
in the legal community, including Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner.
  The ABA rated Mr. Walter as ``Well-Qualified,'' its highest rating.
  Before concluding, I want to stress to the Senate how urgent it is to 
fill these vacancies in the Central District of California. With six 
vacancies, the Central District has one of the most acute shortages of 
unfilled judgeships of any court in the country. The Administrative 
Office of the U.S. Courts has designated four of these vacancies as 
``judicial emergencies.'' With the nominations of Percy Anderson and 
Jack Walter, we are taking a much-needed step forward to alleviate the 
vacancy crisis in the Central District.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Senator Leahy for his expedited review 
and fair handling of these nominees.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of John 
Walter to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of 
California. It should be noted that in 1992 Mr. Walter was nominated to 
the same position by the first President Bush, but regrettably, he was 
not given a hearing by the Democratic Senate. Still, as was the case 10 
years ago, I have every confidence that John Walter will serve

[[Page S3342]]

with distinction on the Federal District Court for the Central District 
of California. After reviewing Mr. Walter's distinguished legal career, 
I have no doubt that he will be an asset to the Federal bench.
  Mr. Walter's solid experience in private practice and government 
service deserves attention here. Upon graduation from Loyola University 
of Los Angeles School of Law in 1969, Mr. Walter joined the Los 
Angeles, CA, firm of Kindel & Anderson as a civil litigation associate. 
Mr. Walter later served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal 
Division's Fraud and Special prosecutions Unit, where he prosecuted 
numerous Federal criminal cases, including the then-largest bank 
burglary in the United States. He returned to Kindel & Anderson in 1972 
and remained there as a civil litigator until 1976. Since that time, 
Mr. Walter has been a partner at the Los Angeles firm of Walter, 
Finestone & Richter.
  Mr. Walter exemplifies an attorney who gives back to the community. 
As a member of the Federal Indigent Defense Panel, Mr. Walter has 
represented more than 75 indigent defendants charged with federal 
crimes in Federal court and devoted thousands of pro bono hours to 
these cases. He has served as a judge pro tempore in the Santa Monica 
Municipal Court and as an arbitrator for the L.A. Superior Court 
Judicial Arbitration Program. He provides approximately 75 to 100 hours 
a year in the latter position.
  I am very proud of this nominee, and I know he will make a great 
judge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table, and the President will be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________