[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10036-S10037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we held the 26th hearing for judicial 
nominees since the change in majority in the summer of 2001. The 
Judiciary Committee has now considered 103 nominees in less than 15 
months. It took the Republican-controlled Senate 33 months--almost 3 
full years--to hold hearings for 100 of President Clinton's judicial 
nominees, although more than 100 were pending well before that. We have 
reached that mark in less than half that time.
  Since the summer of 2001, we have held more hearings for more 
judicial nominees--103 candidates--than in any comparable 15-month 
period of the 6\1/2\ years before the Senate changeover last year.
  We have also held more hearings for circuit court nominees--20--than 
in any comparable period of that previous 6\1/2\ years, when our 
predecessors allowed an average of only seven circuit court nominees to 
be confirmed per year. In the past three weeks we held two back-to-back 
hearings for controversial circuit court nominees back to back. In 
contrast, at 11 of the judicial nomination hearings held during the 
prior period of Republican control, no circuit court nominees were on 
the agenda.
  During their 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate, there were also 
30 months in which Republicans held no hearings at all. Democrats have 
held at least one hearing per month and have held almost two per month 
on average. We have been working nonstop to address the vacancy crisis 
we inherited. In the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, before the 
reorganization of the committee last summer, vacancies on the Courts of 
Appeals more than doubled from 16 to 33 and overall vacancies rose from 
65 to 110.
  Added to that were the 47 new vacancies that have arisen since last 
summer. Thus, rather than 157 vacancies, with the 80 circuit and 
district court nominees we have confirmed, there are now 77 vacancies.
  The President has yet to nominate anyone for 30 of these vacancies. 
With today's hearing for 7 judicial nominees, we will have held 
hearings for 21 of the 47 nominees currently pending.
  Many of the 26 judicial nominees who have not yet had a hearing were 
nominated only recently toward the end of this congressional session. 
Due to the White House's refusal to allow ABA peer reviews to begin 
prior to nomination and because the ABA peer reviews have been taking 
between 50 and 60 days from the time of nomination, the White House 
knows that many of these late nominees will not have their files 
completed in time for hearings.
  Thus, of the 26 who have not yet had a hearing, only seven have 
completed files--especially, ABA reviews and the consent of both of 
their home-State Senators. That is, the majority of the nominees who 
have not yet had a hearing--19--do not have completed files. Of the 
seven who are eligible for a hearing, but who have not yet had a 
hearing, six have relatively controversial records which require more 
review. The only remaining district court nominee did not have a 
complete file by the time the last hearing was noticed.
  Accordingly, with today's hearing, since the changeover last year we 
will have held hearings for 103 of the 110 eligible judicial nominees 
with complete files. Thus, 94 percent of this President's judicial 
nominees who had completed files have been given hearings. This 
remarkable achievement is irrefutable evidence of the good-faith 
efforts we have made to restore order to the confirmation process--good 
faith efforts that we continue to hope will be matched by the White 
House.
  I am certain that President Clinton would have been overcome with 
gratitude if the Republicans ever gave 94 percent of his judicial 
nominees hearings in the years Republicans controlled the confirmation 
process during his administration. They never did. Instead, in 1995 for 
example, Republicans allowed only 58 of the 86 pending judicial 
nominations of President Clinton to be confirmed, nowhere near 100 
percent or even 90 percent.
  In 1996, Republicans allowed only 17 of the 49 pending judicial 
nominees, or 35 percent, to be confirmed, and none were circuit court 
nominees. In 1997, Republicans allowed only 36 of the 79 Clinton 
nominees to be confirmed, or 46 percent. In 1998, Republicans allowed 
66 of 92 pending judicial nominees to be confirmed. In 1999 they 
allowed only 33 of the 71 judicial nominees to be confirmed, about 46 
percent, and in 2000 they allowed only 39 of the 81 pending judicial 
nominees to be confirmed, or 48 percent. Thus, during their 6 years of 
Senate control during the Clinton administration, Republicans allowed 
only about half of the judicial nominations to be confirmed on average 
per year. Their percentages are even worse for circuit court nominees. 
These are detailed in my floor statement of October 4.
  To this point, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on more 
judicial nominees--83--and on more circuit court nominees--17--than in 
any comparable 15-month period of prior Republican control. The 
Democratic-led Senate has already confirmed 80 of the judicial 
nominations of President George W. Bush. In so doing, we have confirmed 
more judicial nominees in less than 15 months that were confirmed in 
the last 30 months that a Republican majority controlled the Senate. We 
have done more in half the time.
  The expeditious pace should not be construed as a rush to process the 
appointment of judges to lifetime positions. I ask unanimous consent to 
print in the Record several recently published editorials from the 
Rutland Herald, the Barre Montpelier Times Argus and the Los Angeles 
Times. Each of these articles emphasize the important obligation of the 
Senate to thoroughly review the records of the President's judicial 
nominees. They serve as an important reminder that our outstanding 
record of treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more 
expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees were treated.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 3, 2002]

                       Caution on Court Nominees

       Since George Washington took the oath of office, U.S. 
     presidents have nominated 140 men and women to the Supreme 
     Court and many more to the federal courts of appeal and trial 
     courts. In two centuries, the Senatee has rejected 11 Supreme 
     Court nominees and an uncertain number of prospective lower 
     court judges. Seven others withdrew their high court 
     nominations, some to avoid likely defeat.

[[Page S10037]]

       The Senate has blocked ideologues, including die-hard 
     Federalists during the 18th and early 19th centuries, who it 
     concluded would not put aside their political beliefs on the 
     bench. It killed the nominations of men viewed as shills for 
     special interests and rejected others for being ethically 
     compromised or simply not smart enough or wise enough to sit 
     on federal courts for life.
       That history matters as the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     considers Dennis Shedd, Michael McConnell and Miguel Estrada 
     for seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Republicans insist 
     that the Senate panel, now with a one-vote Democratic edge, 
     has dragged its feet in confirming President Bush's picks and 
     that the tough questions senators have asked these three men 
     and others about their judicial philosophy and temperament 
     are a partisan effort to destroy the reputations of qualified 
     men and women. Neither charge holds water.
       In the 14 months since the Democrats took narrow control of 
     the Senate, the Judiciary Committee has confirmed 78 judges, 
     14 of them to appellate courts. That compares with an average 
     of 39 confirmations a year during the six-plus years of 
     Republican control.
       The committee has readily approved men and women more 
     centrist in their views and more likely to be fair-minded on 
     the bench. But committee members are right to hestitate over 
     Shedd, McConnell and Estrada.
       Shedd has published a scant 60 opinions in 12 years as a 
     judge. He has backed employers against claims by workers 
     almost without exception. In criminal cases, he has 
     generously interpreted the law to favor police. He held 
     quixotically that the federal family leave law does not apply 
     to state employees, a ruling that, by extension, could 
     invalidate other federal civil rights protections for state 
     workers.
       McConnell has repeatedly asserted that Supreme Court 
     precedents should not bind the current court. He has argued 
     before the Supreme Court that religious schools should 
     receive certain types of government aid on the same basis as 
     public schools.
       Estrada, a corporate lawyer who helped make Bush's case in 
     the Florida recount battle, has virtually no public writings 
     and no judicial experience. The committee needs to see the 
     memos he wrote at the U.S. solicitor general's office, which 
     Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has refused to release.
       The Senate's obligation in confirming judges is to the 
     people, not the president. All three men now before the 
     Judiciary Committee should give members pause.
                                  ____


                [From the Rutland Herald, Oct. 7, 2002]

                     Messe Off Base Critizing Leahy

                           (By Leslie Black)

       Former Attorney General Ed Meese and his so-called ``truth 
     squad'' have a nerve coming to Vermont to berate Senator 
     Leahy and insult the intelligence of Vermont citizens.
       Senator Leahy, in his important role as chair of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, is holding hearings on judicial 
     nominations responsibily and admirably. He has demonstrated a 
     commitment to choosing judges for the federal bench who are 
     willing to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
       Meese would prefer to see President Bush's anti-women's 
     rights, anti-civil rights nominees confirmed, and he came to 
     Vermont to spread poisonous misinformation about Senator 
     Leahy to the senator's own constituents.
       Vermont citizens don't need any of Meese's versions of the 
     ``truth.'' We know who represents us in the United States 
     Senate, and what he stands for. We wholeheartedly support 
     Senator Leahy's considered choice of federal judges and his 
     respect for law. We have confidence in his ability to do his 
     job honorably.
                                  ____


         [From the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, Apr. 23, 2002]

                            Defending Leahy

                           (By Edwin Granai)

       Sen. Leahy has been accused by some Vermont Republicans of 
     partisanship for not confirming Charles Pickering's 
     nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
       On the contrary, the Republican members of Leahy's 
     committee voted the party line in support of a judge whose 
     judicial record was often devoid of impartial objective 
     considerations relating to existing law, and most 
     importantly, to constitutional provisions.
       Aside from the Pickering nomination, the fact is that under 
     Leahy's chairmanship the Senate Judiciary Committee has 
     approved 42 consecutive Bush administration appointees to the 
     federal bench, including, though not Pickering, the 5th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Forty-two approvals out of 43 Bush nominations can hardly 
     be considered partisan. Orrin Hatch, Leahy's Republican 
     predecessor as chairman, sat on 53 of Clinton nominees. 
     Didn't even give them a hearing. The partisanship in the 
     Senate is clearly with the party of Leahy's accusers.
       Patrick Leahy may be imperfect along with the rest of us. 
     But as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he has 
     restored fairness and objectivity to the advise-and-consent 
     role of the Senate.
                                  ____


         [From The Barre Montpelier Times Argus, May 15, 2002]

                            Political Triage

       Edwin Meese, former U.S. attorney general, came to 
     Montpelier on Monday to apply a bit of political pressure 
     aimed at forcing Sen. Patrick Leahy to take speedier action 
     in confirming judicial nominations.
       Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has 
     responsibility for holding hearings on President Bush's 
     nominees to the federal bench. Bush himself has criticized 
     the delays to which he says Leahy has subjected his nominees, 
     saying vacancies on the bench threaten the administration of 
     justice.
       That was also the pitch made by Meese on Monday. His was 
     another voice in the partisan wrangling that surrounds the 
     issue. But Meese needn't have bothered.
       Vermont Republicans no doubt took comfort in the boost 
     their cause received from Meese's appearance. But on the 
     whole, Vermonters are probably pleased by the idea that Leahy 
     is giving Bush's more extreme nominees a closer look.
       Leahy has played a shrewd game on the issue. Contrary to 
     the accusations of his Republican opponents, he has actually 
     been more efficient than his Republican predecessors in 
     taking action on judicial nominees.
       Figures from Leahy's office show that the number of 
     vacancies on the bench grew from 65 to 110 from 1995 to 2001 
     when Republicans controlled the committee. That was a time 
     when Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican chairman, failed to 
     give a hearing to numerous nominees sent up by President 
     Clinton.
       By contrast Leahy's committee has already confirmed 52 Bush 
     nominees, which exceeds the number of nominees confirmed by 
     the Republican Senate during the final four years of 
     Clinton's presidency. And the number of vacancies has fallen 
     to 84.
       So what are the Republicans complaining about?
       They are complaining because, even though Leahy is moving 
     quickly to confirm nominees, he is not moving so quickly on 
     all of them. Those whom the Democrats view as extreme 
     conservatives are getting a long, careful look from the 
     committee, and their hearings have been delayed.
       The committee has already rejected the nomination of 
     Charles Pickering for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But 
     a nomination fight like that over Pickering takes a political 
     toll, and Leahy knows he cannot subject his committee to that 
     kind of grueling battle on all questionable candidates.
       When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they understood 
     the strategic value of delay. They defeated 24 Clinton 
     nominees to the appellate courts, but they did not defeat 
     them by an outright vote. They refused to allow a vote.
       Leahy has urged Bush to nominate moderate judges around 
     whom his committee can reach a consensus. But among Bush's 
     nominees there is a cadre of extreme conservatives with 
     questionable records on women's rights, workers' rights, and 
     consumers' rights.
       So Leahy is performing a sort of political triage. There 
     are so many judges to confirm that, in order to move quickly, 
     he has decided to act on those who can be confirmed quickly. 
     That leaves the more controversial nominees cooling their 
     heels.
       When Sen. James Jeffords abandoned the Republican Party, he 
     made it possible for Leahy to assume the chairmanship of the 
     Judiciary Committee. Jeffords was concerned about the 
     extremist tendencies of the Bush administration, and now 
     Leahy has been able to exercise power to moderate those 
     extremist tendencies.
       Meese should know that most Vermonters were pleased that 
     Jeffords gave Leahy that chance and that Leahy is making the 
     most of the opportunity.

                          ____________________