[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.