[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 33 (Monday, March 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2993-S2997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Lack Of SPR Policy

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak for a 
few minutes about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the lack of 
action by the administration to deal with the problems we see in our 
oil markets today. What we are seeing by the administration is not bad 
policy, as such. What it is is a lack of policy for how we will use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a critical time such as the one we are 
in today. This indecision, this failure to articulate a policy, is 
hurting consumers and it is hurting our economy.
  We have an oil supply crisis on our hands right now. Oil prices hit 
$40 a barrel last week. Domestic crude and product stocks are at an 
all-time low and oil prices are now hovering at levels that we have not 
seen since the gulf war. High energy prices such as this do hurt 
consumers and the economy. The question is, What has the administration 
done to minimize this economic pain that Americans are feeling?
  The average consumer may not know what the price of oil is on a daily 
basis, but the average consumer does know the price of gasoline at the 
pump, and American consumers have had to bear the brunt of several 
weeks of very high gasoline prices while Saudi Arabia has been ramping 
up their production to maintain, if not to increase, their market 
share.
  I do not know the connection between our national policy and Saudi 
Arabia's maintenance of market share. That has not been explained to 
me. But last fall, after the elections, when crude supply was first 
impacted and prices began to rise, the administration was urged to act 
to do a test sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil by several oil 
analysts.
  A Strategic Petroleum Reserve release on this small scale would have 
been appropriate then. It would have been a simple statement outlining 
the administration's SPR policy, and it would have helped to calm 
jittery markets, which is certainly what we have seen in recent days 
and weeks. The situation we now face, in which the curtailment of oil 
supplies is hurting our national economic security, is precisely what 
we foresaw when Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The 
curtailment has been months in the making. The current crisis in 
Venezuela has pushed the supply situation to a level that is beyond 
``severe''.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established in 1975, in direct 
response to the Arab oil embargo. Today, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve contains a total of 599.3 million barrels, almost 60 days' 
worth of imports. When this body considered the Omnibus Appropriations 
Act for 2003, I offered an amendment to extend our authority to use the 
SPR. That authority was set to expire later this year. I am pleased 
that the Senate adopted that provision and that as a result we have 
another 5 years of authority during which we can use SPR as a response 
to oil supply crises.
  However, the authority was enacted for a reason. There is a supply 
problem. We have known this for some time now. In December, 3 million 
barrels of Venezuelan crude came off the market altogether. This has 
had a larger supply impact than removing all Iraqi crude will have 
under a war scenario, which we all, I believe, consider to be very 
likely.
  Prior to December 2002, Venezuela was one of the world's five largest 
oil exporters. Its net exports averaged 2.4 million barrels per day. 
During the first 9 months of 2002, oil from Venezuela supplied 
approximately 14 percent of U.S. net oil imports, or about 1.5 million 
barrels per day.

  The United States depends on Venezuela for substantial volumes of 
gasoline imports as well as oil imports. A 10-week general strike in 
Venezuela has resulted in a sharp decrease in Venezuela's exports to 
the United States. The strike comes at a time when markets are already 
tight.
  On Tuesday, in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, we 
heard testimony from the Secretary of Energy that everything was 
getting better in Venezuela, that the crisis was passing. Recent 
events, though, suggest that this may not be the case. A key factor in 
the uncertainty that is keeping prices up is the uncertainty 
surrounding the administration's intentions about using the SPR. A 
clear statement from the administration of the conditions under which 
oil would be released from the SPR would have an immediate effect on 
lowering oil prices.
  A cryptic phrase that is used by the administration is that they 
would release oil from the SPR only in the case of ``a severe supply 
disruption.'' But since the administration will not elaborate on what a 
severe supply disruption entails, the suspicion is that they will never 
release oil from SPR absent an all out war in the Persian Gulf that 
involves major damage to Saudi oilfields. For that reason, the 
psychology of the market largely discounts the existence of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time, and consumers are paying all-
time high prices at the pump.
  Gas prices have risen more than 30 cents a gallon since December. Gas 
prices are high in part because our crude stocks are down. We are 
operating at minimum operating levels in the refining sector. With high 
crude prices, increased refining output means even higher prices at the 
pump.
  Demand for gasoline is high as we head into the driving season. Since 
most spare capacity in the market is in the Middle East, it is going to 
take awhile to get the oil we need. It does not take much to send 
prices spiking again. Cold weather can do it. Disruption in supply from 
Venezuela or Nigeria could do it. War in the gulf could do it.
  My colleagues have listened to many speeches over the last year 
bemoaning the fact we do not have an energy policy. I am not going to 
ask that we come to closure today on a universal, all-encompassing, 
comprehensive energy policy. I would settle for a single action by the 
administration. That would be a clearly enunciated and understandable 
policy for when we will use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The administration may be sufficiently captive to a minimalist 
ideology in dealing with this oil crisis, that they never actually plan 
to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I hope very much that is 
not the case.
  I call on the President to give us a clear and understandable signal 
as to what his policy is. Merely saying we

[[Page S2994]]

will wait for a severe supply disruption is not an adequate response. 
Consumers deserve more. The costs to our economy may become 
unacceptable. It certainly is a severe issue weighing down our economy 
at the present time.
  I yield the floor and 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Measure Placed on Calendar--H.R. 534

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I understand 
H.R. 534 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 534) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     prohibit human cloning.

  Mr. HATCH. I object to further proceeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection having been heard, the bill will 
be placed on the calendar.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask we now go back into executive 
session.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is in executive session.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it has now been nearly 4 weeks since we 
began debating the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We have heard all of the 
arguments for and against his nomination. What we have not heard is a 
good reason why this filibuster should continue. We have not heard any 
good reason why his nomination should not be brought for an up or down 
vote.
  One of the reasons that some of my Democratic colleagues say they 
oppose Mr. Estrada is because he allegedly did not answer their 
questions at his hearing. I do find this complaint unpersuasive, 
particularly given that (1) the hearing was chaired by a Democratic 
Senator, (2) the hearing lasted all day, (3) Mr. Estrada answered 
question after question on a broad variety of topics, and (4) every 
committee member had the right to ask Mr. Estrada follow-up questions 
in writing but only two did.
  Nevertheless, in a letter dated last Thursday, February 27, 2003, 
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a letter to all 100 Senators 
directing them to additional sources of information on Miguel Estrada. 
This is an important letter, and I will take a moment to read the 
letter:

       Dear Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, Senator Hatch, and 
     Senator Leahy: I write in connection with the nomination of 
     Miguel Estrada. Some Democrat Senators have indicated that 
     they would like to know more about Mr. Estrada's record 
     before a vote occurs. As I stated in my letter of February 12 
     to Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy, we believe that the 
     Senate has had sufficient time and possesses sufficient 
     information to vote on Miguel Estrada. More important, a 
     majority of Senators have indicated that they posses 
     sufficient information and would vote to confirm him.
       But if some Senators believe they must have more 
     information before they will end the filibuster of this 
     nomination, we respectfully suggest that there are three 
     different and important sources of information that have been 
     and remain available and that would appropriately accommodate 
     the request for additional information. We ask that you 
     encourage interested Senators to avail themselves of these 
     sources as soon as possible.
       First, as I have written to you previously, individual 
     Senators who wish to meet with Miguel Estrada may and should 
     do so immediately. We continue to believe that such meetings 
     could be very useful to Senators who wish to learn more about 
     Mr. Estrada's record and character.
       Second, Senators who have additional questions for Mr. 
     Estrada should immediately pose such questions in writing to 
     him. We propose that additional questions (in a reasonable 
     number) be submitted in writing to Mr. Estrada by Friday, 
     February 28. Mr. Estrada would endeavor to answer such 
     questions in writing by Tuesday, March 4. He would answer the 
     questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner 
     consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of 
     judicial nominees, as he has before.
       Third, Senators who wish to know more about Mr. Estrada's 
     performance and approach when working in the United States 
     Government--and, in particular, how that relates to his 
     possible future performance as a Circuit Judge--should 
     immediately ask in writing for the views of the Solicitors 
     General, United States Attorney, and Judges for whom Mr. 
     Estrada worked and ask them to respond by Tuesday, March 4. 
     In particular, interested Senators could immediately send a 
     joint letter to each of the following individuals for whom 
     Mr. Estrada has worked in the United States Government: Judge 
     Amalya Kearse, Justice Anthony Kennedy, former United States 
     Attorney Otto Obermaier, former Solicitor General Ken Starr, 
     former Solicitor General Drew Days, former Solicitor General 
     Walter Dellinger, and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman. 
     In our judgment, these men and women could provide their 
     views on Mr. Estrada's background and suitability to be a 
     Circuit Judge by March 4 without sacrificing the integrity of 
     the decisionmaking processes of the Judiciary, United States 
     Attorney's office, and Solicitor General officer. And their 
     views could assist Senators who seek more information about 
     Mr. Estrada.
       We believe that these sources of information, which have 
     been available for some time, would readily accommodate the 
     desire for additional information expressed by some Senators 
     who have thus far supported the filibuster of a vote on this 
     nominee. We ask that you encourage Senators who have objected 
     to the scheduling of a vote to avail themselves of these 
     sources of information. And we respectfully ask that the 
     Senate vote up or down as soon as possible on Mr. Estrada's 
     nomination, which has been pending for nearly two years.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alberto R. Gonzales,
                                         Counsel to the President.

  Mr. HATCH. As far as I know, none of the Senators who have sought 
more information about Mr. Estrada have availed themselves of any of 
these sources. This brings to mind the story of the young man who 
killed both his parents, then threw himself on the mercy of the court 
because he was an orphan. Here, my Democratic colleagues who are 
complaining the loudest about not having enough information about Mr. 
Estrada are the very ones who are apparently not interested in finding 
out more about him through readily available means. Meanwhile, the 
filibuster goes on and on.
  Another significant letter was circulated on Wednesday of last week, 
this one signed by more than 50 of our colleagues in the House. This, 
too, is a powerful letter. Let me read the letter:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                February 26, 2003.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Senator Harry Reid,
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: It is our understanding that the major 
     objection raised by the Senate Democratic Leadership and many 
     members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to the nomination of 
     Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit is that you have not been provided 
     sufficient information about his legal views. Specifically, 
     we understand that you are opposing his nomination because of 
     the Administration's failure to provide you with internal 
     memoranda prepared by Mr. Estrada while he served as 
     Assistant to the Solicitor General.
       We are deeply concerned that your objection to the 
     Administration's refusal to produce these memoranda not only 
     breaks with precedent but is also a threat to the ability of 
     Executive Branch Officials, members of the Judiciary, and 
     Members of Congress to receive confidential legal advice.
       As you are no doubt aware, the Clinton Administration 
     memoranda you are requesting in the case of Mr. Estrada were 
     not requested for the seven previous nominees to the Courts 
     of Appeals who had worked in the Solicitor General's office. 
     Understandably, the improper appearance of a double standard 
     for this particular nominee has been created. In addition, 
     every living former Solicitor General--Democrat and 
     Republican--signed a joint letter to the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, stating that the memoranda request would have a 
     debilitating effect on the ability of the Department of 
     Justice to represent the United States before the Supreme 
     Court.
       Forcing the disclosure of confidential memoranda in this 
     instance would do serious institutional harm to all three 
     branches of government. For example, should legal memoranda 
     prepared for you by one of your staff be available for review 
     by future senators (or by the Administration) in the event 
     that the staff member were to be nominated or be considered 
     to a judicial or other post? This appears to be the precedent 
     you are attempting to set. As we trust you understand, such a 
     precedent would no doubt impact the type and quality of 
     advice we seek and receive from our staff.
       We strongly urge you to reconsider your objections and drop 
     your request for the confidential memoranda of the Clinton 
     Justice Department.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stood on the Senate floor last week when 
the debate on Mr. Estrada's nomination entered its third week, and I 
said that there is a simple solution to the logjam

[[Page S2995]]

that has become the Senate. It is a straightforward solution that does 
not require the release of confidential memoranda or questionable 
claims that Mr. Estrada failed to answer questions before the 
committee. The solution is for Senators to vote on Mr. Estrada's 
nomination. Vote for him or vote against him; do what your conscience 
dictates. Just vote.
  One reason I believe we are not voting, and the filibuster continues, 
is because our friends on the other side of the aisle know Mr. Estrada 
has enough votes to be confirmed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia.
  I have mentioned before that Mr. Estrada has a substantial and 
impressive record, despite the claims to the contrary of some of my 
Democratic colleagues.
  One very substantial part of his record consists of the 15 cases he 
has argued before the United States Supreme Court. In each of these 
cases, a brief was filed that is publicly available for everyone and 
anyone to review. And in each of these cases, there is a transcript of 
Mr. Estrada's argument before Supreme Court.
  The briefs and transcripts of each of Mr. Estrada's 15 Supreme Court 
cases are right here. As you can see, there is a very substantial 
record on Mr. Estrada. I invite any one of my Democratic colleagues who 
have not reviewed or acknowledged this record to do so. You can get a 
pretty good idea of the cases he argued, the reasoning he used, the 
legality that he cites, the law he applies--more than almost any other 
nominee for the Circuit Court of Appeals in the history of the country.
  But in case any of my Democratic colleagues are finding themselves 
short on time these days--after all, perpetuating a filibuster does 
require a substantial amount of effort--I want to spend a few moments 
on the cases Mr. Estrada argued before the Supreme Court. A look at 
these cases and the significance of the legal issues argued in them 
should dispel any notion that Mr. Estrada has no record.
  Let's start with the 1999 case of Strickler v. Greene, which Mr. 
Estrada argued pro bono on behalf of a death row inmate. He argued that 
the Commonwealth of Virginia violated the seminal Supreme Court case of 
Brady v. Maryland by withholding material exculpatory evidence. 
Although he spent hundreds of hours in his quest to overturn Tommy Lee 
Strickler's death sentence, he lost the case by a 7-2 margin.
  In another case, Richards v. Wisconsin, Mr. Estrada argued on behalf 
of the United States as amicus curiae that it generally is reasonable 
for police officers who have a warrant to search a dwelling for 
evidence of drug trafficking, to enter the dwelling to execute the 
warrant without a prior announcement of their presence and purpose. A 
unanimous Supreme Court agreed with him; he won 9-0.
  In the case of Old Chief v. United States, Mr. Estrada argued for the 
United States that the district court properly exercised its 
discretion, in a prosecution of a convicted felon for possession of a 
firearm, to admit evidence of the defendant's prior felony conviction 
even though the defendant offered to stipulate to that fact. He 
narrowly lost that case by a 5-4 margin.
  The case of United States v. Gonzales dealt with 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 924(c), which provides that ``[n]otwithstanding any other 
provision of law'' prison terms under the statute ``shall [not] run 
concurrently with any other terms of imprisonment.'' Mr. Estrada argued 
on behalf of the United States that a court may not order that a 
sentence imposed under Sec. 924(c) is to run concurrently with a State-
law sentence that the defendant is already serving. He won this case 7-
2.
  In Montana v. Egelhoff, Mr. Estrada argued for the United States as 
amicus curiae that the Due Process Clause does not bar a State form 
preventing a jury in a criminal case from considering evidence of the 
defendant's voluntary intoxication in determining whether he possessed 
the mental state required for the crime charge. He won this case 5-4.
  In Degen v. United States, Mr. Estrada argued for the United States 
that the district court had properly invoked the so-called fugitive 
disentitlement doctrine to bar the petitioner from contesting a civil 
forfeiture action. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him in this 
case, which, of course, just goes to show that you can't win them all.
  Mr. Estrada did score a unanimous victory in Citizens Bank v. 
Strumph. In that case, Mr. Estrada argued on behalf of the United 
States as amicus curiae that a bank's temporary refusal to pay a debt 
upon the debtor's demand was not an exercise of its setoff right in 
violation of Sec. 326 of the Bankruptcy Code, which stays a creditor's 
right of setoff pending an orderly determination of the debtor's and 
creditor's rights.
  The case of Reno v. Koray considered 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3585, which 
provides that a criminal defendant generally must ``be given credit 
toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent 
in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences.'' Mr. 
Estrada argued for the United States that a Federal prisoner does not 
receive credit on his sentence for time he spent released on bail. He 
won this cases 8-1.
  In United States v. Robertson, Mr. Estrada argued on behalf of the 
United States that the interstate movement of goods and people in 
connection with the operation of a gold mine is sufficient to justify 
the conclusion that the activities of the gold mine affect interstate 
commerce within the meaning of the RICO statute. He won this case 9-0.
  In United States v. Mezzanatto, Mr. Estrada argued on behalf of the 
United States that the Government may use statements made in the course 
of plea discussions to impeach a criminal defendant's contrary 
testimony at trial, when the defendant and his counsel expressly agreed 
before those statements were made that the government would have the 
right to use them. He won this case 7-2.

  In United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, Mr. Estrada argued for the 
United States that a delay between a defendant's arrest on State 
narcotics charges and presentment to a Federal magistrate on subsequent 
Federal charges did not require suppression of an inculpatory statement 
to Federal agents that was made while defendant was in custody on the 
State charges. He won this case 9-0.
  The case of Powell v. Nevada considered the rule of County of 
Riverside v. McLaughlin, which provides that a judicial probable cause 
determination must be made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Mr. 
Estrada argued on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae that the 
rule did not apply retroactively. The Supreme Court ruled against his 
position 7-2.
  In NOW v. Scheidler, Mr. Estrada argued on behalf of the United 
States as amicus curiae that RICO does not require proof that either 
the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were 
motivated by an economic purpose. It just so happens that in this case, 
the defendant against whom Mr. Estrada argued was an abortion 
protestor, and Mr. Estrada argued on the same side as NOW. His position 
prevailed when an unanimous court agreed with him.
  In Austin v. United States, Mr. Estrada argued for the United States 
that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause does not apply to 
civil forfeiture proceedings. He lost this case 9-0.
  Last but not least, in Deal v. United States, Mr. Estrada argued for 
the United States that a defendant who is convicted in a single 
proceeding of multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) is not 
subject to the statute's provisions imposing a more severe sentence for 
a ``second or subsequent conviction.'' He won this case 6-3.
  What these cases show, Mr. President, is that in 6 years Mr. Estrada 
compiled an impressive record before the Supreme Court. He argued 15 
cases, winning 10 of them. In half of those cases, he won in a 
unanimous decision. There can be no question that Mr. Estrada has a 
record that anyone would be proud of by any standard.
  Mr. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2996]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there are a couple things I will speak 
about during this period of time: One, I do want to address myself to 
the issue now before us; that is, the issue of whether or not Miguel 
Estrada should proceed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Then I will talk a little while about the events over the 
weekend as they pertain to the looming war in Iraq.
  But as pertains to Mr. Estrada, as long as this person is in front of 
us on the floor of the Senate, as long as my good friend from Utah 
keeps taking the floor to ask for a vote on Mr. Estrada, this Senator 
will continue to take the floor to continue to remind my good friend 
from Utah of what happened to Bonnie Campbell under the Clinton 
administration when the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee.
  My friend, the Senator from Utah said:

       An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask. If the Democrats 
     have enough votes to defeat Miguel Estrada, I am not going to 
     complain about it. I might feel badly about it. I might think 
     it is the wrong thing to do, but they have a right to do 
     that. If my colleagues disagree, and don't like this, they 
     can speak out, they can give their reasoning and vote no. 
     Politics ought to be left out of it.

  It is unfortunate we did not hear that when President Clinton's 
nominees were sent to the Senate for confirmation. In fact, I said the 
same thing as my friend from Utah said at the time on the nomination of 
Bonnie Campbell to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Bonnie Campbell is a 
former attorney general of the State of Iowa, an individual who, by all 
reckoning, did an outstanding job at the Department of Justice, heading 
the Office of Violence Against Women.

  She was nominated by President Clinton to be on the Eighth Circuit, 
and we could not even get a vote on her. She received her hearing in 
May of 2000 and answered whatever questions were propounded to her. She 
stood willing to produce any and all documents she had ever written for 
anyone. No, not once did any Republican Senator complain that Bonnie 
Campbell was not forthcoming. In fact, I am told that not once did a 
Republican Senator complain that a Clinton nominee did not adequately 
answer these questions.
  So here she was, ready to answer, ready to move on. The hearing was 
held. She had the ABA stamp of approval. As I said, she had a long and 
distinguished history in the field of law. There were Members on both 
sides of the aisle who supported her nomination. Both Senator Grassley 
and I, from the State of Iowa, supported her nomination.
  On September 21, 2000, I said right here:

       If, for some reason, you think she is unqualified--I can't 
     imagine why--then cast your vote, but at least let's bring 
     the nominee to the floor. This, I think, is a black mark on 
     the operations of the Senate, another indication of how the 
     leadership of this Senate refuses to do the people's 
     business, to let things come out on the floor so we can vote 
     things up or down.

  On October 3, 2000, I said:

       It is clear who is playing politics with judgeships.
       The Republican leadership of the Senate is playing the most 
     bold-faced politics. It is not alleged these nominees are not 
     qualified; it is simply they were nominated by a Democratic 
     President. That is all.

  I have not heard one person on the Republican side tell me that 
Bonnie Campbell is not qualified to be a circuit judge.
  Then during the month of October 2000, I brought up Bonnie Campbell's 
nomination seven times on the floor. I asked unanimous consent to go to 
it on the executive calendar, and seven times the Republican majority 
objected.
  My friend from Utah has talked about the Democrats' double standard. 
My first instinct is to call that laughable, but in reality, it is 
outrageous because so many extremely well-qualified Clinton nominees 
not only never got an up-or-down vote on the floor, they never got a 
vote on committee. In many cases, they didn't even get a hearing.
  I mentioned this a week or so ago. My friend from Utah said Bonnie 
Campbell's nomination came too late in the last year of the last 
administration. Well, I know for a fact two of Senator Kyl's district 
judges were nominated after Bonnie Campbell was nominated, and they 
were confirmed on October 3, 2000. In fact, I have a list of all the 
Clinton judicial nominees who were never allowed a vote. There were 79 
who were not confirmed--31 circuit, 48 district. Fifty-nine were never 
even allowed a vote. Allen Snyder, DC Circuit, never given a vote by 
Republicans; Elena Kagen, DC Circuit, never given a vote by 
Republicans; Robert Cindrich, Third Circuit, never given a vote by 
Republicans. I will not read the whole list. There are 59 of them. But 
obviously one of those is Bonnie Campbell.
  As long as Mr. Estrada is going to be here, I will keep reminding 
people of what they did to someone eminently well qualified who 
answered all the questions, was open to giving any writings, documents, 
or whatever anyone had asked of her. Yet she was stopped and wasn't 
even given a vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of all the 
judicial nominees who were not confirmed that President Clinton 
nominated, with a list of how many were never even given a vote.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

SEVENTY-NINE CLINTON JUDICIAL NOMINEES NOT CONFIRMED IN CONGRESS FIRST 
                               NOMINATED

(31 Circuit/48 District--59 of These Never Allowed Votes by Republican-
                           Controlled Senate)

     91 circuit court nominees (22 blocked from getting vote or 
     being confirmed)
       Merrick Garland, D.C. Circuit.
       Allen Snyder, D.C. Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Elena Kagen, D.C. Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Robert Cindrich, 3rd Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Stephen Orlofsky, 3rd Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Robert Raymar, 3rd Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       James Beatty, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Andre Davis, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Elizabeth Gibson, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Roger Gregory, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/confirmed '01.
       J. Rich Leonard, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       James Wynn, 4th Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans/
     not confirmed.
       H. Alston Johnson, 5th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Enrique Moreno, 5th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Jorge Rangel, 5th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Eric Clay, 6th Circuit.
       Kent Markus, 6th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Kathleen McCree Lewis, 6th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Helene White, 6th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Bonnie Campbell, 8th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit.
       James Duffy, 9th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       William Fletcher, 9th Circuit.
       Barry Goode, 9th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Ronald Gould, 9th Circuit.
       Margaret McKeown, 9th Circuit.
       Richard Paez, 9th Circuit.
       Christine Arguello, 10th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       James Lyons, 10th Circuit, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Timothy Dyk, Fed. Circuit.
       Arthur Gajarsa, Fed. Circuit.
       (Helene White waited more than 1,500 days, never to be 
     allowed a hearing or a vote.)
       (Richard Paez waited more than 1,500 days to be confirmed.)


   48 District Court nominees (37 blocked from getting vote or being 
                               confirmed)

       Steven Achelpohl, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Ann Aiken, District Court.
       Richard Anderson, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Joseph Bataillon, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Steven Bell, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       John Bingler, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       David Cercone, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/confirmed '02.
       Patricia Coan, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Jeffrey Colman, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Valerie Couch, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Legrome Davis, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/ confirmed '02.
       Rhonda Fields, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       S. David Fineman, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Robert Freedberg, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Dolly Gee, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.

[[Page S2997]]

       Melvin Hall, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       William Hibbler, District Court.
       Faith Hochberg, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Marian Johnston, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Richard Lazzara, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       J. Rich Leonard, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Stephen Lieberman, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Matthew Kennelly, District Court.
       James Klein, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       John Lim, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Harry Litman, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Frank McCarthy, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Donald Middlebrooks, District Court.
       Jeffrey Miller, District Court.
       Margaret Morrow, District Court.
       Sue Myerscough, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Lynette Norton, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Susan Oki Mollway, District Court.
       Virginia Phillips, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Robert Pratt, District Court.
       Linda Riegle, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Anabelle Rodriguez, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Michael Schattman, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Gary Sebelius, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Kenneth Simon, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Christina Snyder, District Court.
       Clarence Sundram, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Hilda Tagle, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Thomas Thrash, District Court.
       Cheryl Wattley, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Wenona Whitfield, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.
       Ronnie White, not confirmed by floor vote.
       Frederic Woocher, District Court, never given a vote by 
     Republicans/not confirmed.

  Mr. HARKIN. I want to address briefly the issue of whether or not 
this is anti-Hispanic, something like that. I keep hearing this talk 
that Democrats are going to be accused of being against Hispanics. 
Again, we do have to point out some history.
  Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel, and Christine Arguello were all 
nominated to the circuit courts by President Clinton, but were never 
afforded a hearing or vote in the Judiciary Committee under 
Republicans. My colleague from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, was quoted in the 
Dallas Morning News of January 31 of this year:

       If we deny Mr. Estrada the position on the DC circuit, it 
     would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic 
     Americans everywhere.

  Well, let's take a look at the reality and the record. There are more 
than 1,000 local, State, or Federal judges of Hispanic heritage. Yet 
President Bush has nominated only one Hispanic to any of the 42 vacant 
appellate positions. This administration has failed to nominate a 
single Hispanic judge for any of the circuits covering Texas, 
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, New York, New Jersey, or 
Puerto Rico, where there are sizable minorities of Hispanic Americans. 
In contrast, President Clinton nominated 11 Latinos to these circuit 
courts and 21 to the district courts--quite a difference.
  Again, my friend from Utah said on February 12:

       What gets me is, we are in the middle of a filibuster of a 
     Federal judge when the Constitution says we should give 
     advice and consent, not advice and obstruction, not advice 
     and filibuster, not advice and unfairness.

  Again, I wish I would have heard that when Bonnie Campbell had come 
up before the committee. As long as Mr. Estrada is here, I will 
continue, as I have today and as I have in the past, to bring up the 
issue of Bonnie Campbell because obviously it remains a dark mark on 
the Senate, one that was held up simply for purely partisan political 
reasons and nothing else.