[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3588-S3590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

    SENATE RESOLUTION 327--PROVIDING FOR A PROTOCOL FOR NONPARTISAN 
                   CONFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 327

       Whereas, judicial nominations have long been the subject of 
     controversy and delay in the United States Senate;
       Whereas, in the past the controversy over judicial nominees 
     has occurred when different political parties control the 
     White House and the Senate;
       Whereas, in the current Congress, even though the White 
     House and the Senate are controlled by the same party, the 
     controversy over judicial nominees continues and has reached 
     a crisis point;

[[Page S3589]]

       Whereas, during the current Administration there have for 
     the first time been Senate filibusters of nominees to the 
     U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal;
       Whereas, the White House has made recess appointments of 
     two of these filibustered nominees;
       Whereas, the minority party has taken the position that 
     further Senate confirmations of the President's judicial 
     nominees would be blocked unless the White House gives 
     assurances that it will no longer make such recess 
     appointments.
       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. PROTOCOL FOR NONPARTISAN CONFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL 
                   NOMINEES.

       (a) Timetables.--
       (1) Committee timetables.--The Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, in collaboration with the Ranking Member, 
     shall--
       (A) establish a timetable for hearings for nominees to the 
     United States district courts, courts of appeal, and Supreme 
     Court, to occur within 30 days after the names of such 
     nominees have been submitted to the Senate by the President; 
     and
       (B) establish a timetable for action by the full Committee 
     to occur within 30 days after the hearings, and for reporting 
     out nominees to the full Senate.
       (2) Senate timetables.--The Majority Leader shall establish 
     a timetable for action by the full Senate to occur within 30 
     days after the Committee on the Judiciary has reported out 
     the nominations.
       (b) Extension of Timetables.--
       (1) Committee extensions.--The Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, with notice to the Ranking Member, may extend 
     by a period not to exceed 30 days, the time for action by the 
     Committee for cause, such as the need for more investigation 
     or additional hearings.
       (2) Senate extensions.--
       (A) In general.--The Majority Leader, with notice to the 
     Minority Leader, may extend by a period not to exceed 30 
     days, the time for floor action for cause, such as the need 
     for more investigation or additional hearings.
       (B) Recess period.--Any day of a recess period of the 
     Senate shall not be included in the extension period 
     described under subparagraph (A).

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to submit a 
resolution providing for a protocol for the nonpartisan confirmation of 
judicial nominees. We have come to a crisis situation in the Senate on 
the confirmation of Federal judges. This has been a highly 
controversial subject since the beginning of the Republic. There have 
been controversies from time to time, pitched debates in the Senate 
Chamber, nominees confirmed and some nominees rejected.
  The current controversies focused significantly in the last 2 years 
of President Reagan's Presidency when the Democrats won control of the 
Senate in the 1986 elections. For the last 2 years of President 
Reagan's tenure, the Presidential appointments were slowed down. The 
same thing happened during the 4 years of President George Herbert 
Walker Bush. When President Clinton was elected, and we had a Democrat 
in the White House, when we Republicans gained control of the Senate in 
the 1994 elections, President Clinton's nominations were slowed down. 
Pretty much a tit-for-tat situation.
  Now that we have had both the Presidency and the Senate under 
Republican stewardship, the controversy has reached a new level where 
for the first time in the history of the Republic, court of appeals 
nominees have been filibustered. The responsibility of the President 
has been to use his constitutional authority for interim appointments. 
Those two interim appointments have been roundly criticized by the 
Democrats.
  And the position has been stated on the other side of the aisle that 
there will be no more confirmations of Federal judges until there is a 
commitment, an indication, or some statement, or some understanding 
that the interim appointments will no longer be made.
  My State of Pennsylvania is very severely impacted by this 
controversy. We have a nomination pending before the Senate of a 
distinguished Federal judge, Judge Van Antwerpen, who is ready for 
confirmation. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is badly 
understaffed. We have some five nominees for the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania awaiting confirmation. 
There again, the courts are in need of the services of these 
prospective Federal judges.
  The resolution, which I am submitting today, is a protocol which 
would call for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee 30 days after a 
President submits a nomination; 30 days later, a vote by the committee; 
30 days after that, floor action in the Senate; 30 days after that, a 
decision on the outcome.
  It is true there would not be the opportunity for filibuster, but the 
Republic has survived for more than 200 years before the filibuster was 
used. There was one illustration where there was a filibuster for a 
Supreme Court nominee, but that is really irrelevant to the kinds of 
controversies we have now, or the situation we are in at the present 
time.
  Beyond my State of Pennsylvania, there are other States, other 
circuits, having judicial crises, and we ought to take the Federal 
judicial nominating confirmation process out of the politicization 
course, and we ought to try to work this through.
  It may be that, in August, when there is some uncertainty as to who 
will occupy the White House and which party will control the Senate, 
that some accommodation can be reached. But right now litigants are 
being denied the prompt disposition of their cases. It is a well-known 
maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. It is my hope that we 
could find an accommodation somewhere here to do the people's business.
  It is well known that partisanship is at a very high level in the 
Congress today--in the House of Representatives, where there is a 
narrow margin for the Republicans; and the partisanship here in the 
Senate, where there is a 51-49 majority for the Republicans.
  But we ought to establish a protocol. We ought to establish a 
procedure. The protocol I am proposing is not in concrete. I am 
prepared to discuss it to find ways of working it out.
  I had thought of putting in a provision that if it was a party line 
vote in the Judiciary Committee, even though there was not a majority 
in favor of sending a nominee to the floor, but a party line vote, that 
it come to the floor. I have decided to omit that.
  I had thought about putting a provision in that if the Supreme Court 
nominee did not have a majority, the nominee would come to the floor in 
any event. And I have omitted that.
  Twice in the past 14 years, nominees have come to the floor of the 
Senate for the Supreme Court of the United States without having a 
majority vote in the Judiciary Committee. But both times--one a 5-to-8 
vote, the nominee came to the floor; another time, on a 7-7 tie, there 
was a 13-1 vote to send the nominee to the floor. And I have decided, 
in the interest of avoiding a controversy, to omit that.
  But I ask my colleagues to review this resolution for a protocol and 
to see if we cannot find some way to confirm Federal judges without 
figuring out whose ox is being gored.
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 328--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 
  CONTINUED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY FIDEL CASTRO AND THE 
                           GOVERNMENT OF CUBA

  Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Allen) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations:

                              S. Res. 328

       Whereas, one year ago, in March 2003, Fidel Castro and the 
     Government of Cuba led a nationwide campaign to arrest and 
     jail dozens of prominent democracy activists and critics of 
     the repressive regime in Cuba;
       Whereas credible nongovernmental observers report that the 
     imprisoned democracy activists include--
       (1) Osvaldo Alfonso Valdes, sentenced for 18 years;
       (2) Librado Linares Garcia, sentenced for 20 years;
       (3) Raul Rivero Castaneda, sentenced for 20 years;
       (4) Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, sentenced for 20 years;
       (5) Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, sentenced for 26 years;
       (6) Mijail Barzaga Lugo, sentenced for 15 years;
       (7) Oscar Elias Biscet, sentenced for 25 years;
       (8) Margarito Broche Espinosa, sentenced for 25 years;
       (9) Dr. Marcelo Cana Rodriguez, sentenced for 18 years;
       (10) Roberto de Miranda Hernandez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (11) Carmelo Diaz Fernandez, sentenced for 18 years;
       (12) Eduardo Diaz Fleitas, sentenced for 21 years;
       (13) Antonio Diaz Sanchez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (14) Alfredo Dominguez Batista, sentenced for 14 years;

[[Page S3590]]

       (15) Oscar Espinosa Chepe, sentenced for 20 years;
       (16) Alfredo Felipe Fuentes, sentenced for 26 years;
       (17) Efren Fernandez Fernandez, sentenced for 12 years;
       (18) Adolfo Fernandez Sainz, sentenced for 15 years;
       (19) Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, sentenced for 25 years;
       (20) Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, sentenced for 28 years;
       (21) Orlando Fundora Alvarez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (22) Prospero Gainza Aguero, sentenced for 25 years;
       (23) Miguel Galban Gutierrez, sentenced for 26 years;
       (24) Julio Cesar Galvez Rodriguez, sentenced for 15 years;
       (25) Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, sentenced for 24 years;
       (26) Edel Jose Garcia Diaz, sentenced for 16 years;
       (27) Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso, sentenced for 20 years;
       (28) Diosdado Gonzalez Marrero, sentenced for 20 years;
       (29) Lester Gonzalez Penton, sentenced for 20 years;
       (30) Alejandro Gonzalez Raga, sentenced for 14 years;
       (31) Jorge Luis Gonzalez Tanquero, sentenced for 20 years;
       (32) Leonel Grave de Peralta Almenares, sentenced for 20 
     years;
       (33) Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, sentenced for 25 years;
       (34) Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, sentenced for 25 years;
       (35) Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, sentenced for 20 years;
       (36) Regis Iglesias Ramirez, sentenced for 18 years;
       (37) Jose Ubaldo Izquierdo Hernandez, sentenced for 16 
     years;
       (38) Reinaldo Labrada Pena, sentenced for 6 years;
       (39) Nelson Alberto Aguiar Ramirez, sentenced for 13 years;
       (40) Marcelo Lopez Banobre, sentenced for 15 years;
       (41) Jose Miguel Martinez Hernandez, sentenced for 13 
     years;
       (42) Hector Maseda Gutierrez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (43) Mario Enrique Mayo Hernandez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (44) Dr. Luis Milan Fernandez, sentenced for 13 years;
       (45) Nelson Moline Espino, sentenced for 20 years;
       (46) Angel Juan Moya Acosta, sentenced for 20 years;
       (47) Jesus Mustafa Felipe, sentenced for 25 years;
       (48) Felix Navarro Rodriguez, sentenced for 25 years;
       (49) Jorge Olivera Castillo, sentenced for 18 years;
       (50) Pablo Pacheco Avila, sentenced for 20 years;
       (51) Hector Palacios Ruiz, sentenced for 25 years;
       (52) Arturo Perez de Alejo Rodriguez, sentenced for 20 
     years;
       (53) Omar Pernet Hernandez, sentenced for 25 years;
       (54) Horacio Julio Pina Borrego, sentenced for 20 years;
       (55) Fabio Prieto Llorente, sentenced for 20 years;
       (56) Alfredo Pulido Lopez, sentenced for 14 years;
       (57) Jose Gabriel Ramon Castillo, sentenced for 20 years;
       (58) Arnaldo Ramos Lauzerique, sentenced for 18 years;
       (59) Blas Giraldo Reyes Rodriguez, sentenced for 25 years;
       (60) Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos, sentenced for 25 years;
       (61) Alexis Rodriguez Fernandez, sentenced for 15 years;
       (62) Omar Rodriguez Saludes, sentenced for 27 years;
       (63) Pedro Arguelles Moran, sentenced for 20 years;
       (64) Omar Ruiz Hernandez, sentenced for 18 years;
       (65) Claro Sanchez Albtarriba, sentenced for 15 years;
       (66) Ariel Sigler Amaya, sentenced for 20 years;
       (67) Guido Sigler Amaya, sentenced for 20 years;
       (68) Ricardo Enrique Silva Gual, sentenced for 10 years;
       (69) Fidel Suarez Cruz, sentenced for 20 years;
       (70) Manuel Ubals Gonzalez, sentenced for 20 years;
       (71) Julio Antonio Valdes Guevara, sentenced for 20 years;
       (72) Miguel Valdes Tamayo, sentenced for 15 years;
       (73) Hector Raul Valle Hernandez, sentenced for 12 years;
       (74) Manuel Vazquez Portal, sentenced for 18 years; and
       (75) Antonio Augusto Villarreal Acosta, sentenced for 15 
     years;
       Whereas the imprisoned political opponents of Castro 
     include librarians, journalists, poets, and others who have 
     supported the Varela Project, which seeks to bring free 
     speech, open elections, and democracy to Cuba;
       Whereas Fidel Castro seized the opportunity to expand his 
     brutal oppression of the people of Cuba while the attention 
     of the United States and other nations around the world was 
     focused on the war in Iraq;
       Whereas the failure to condemn the Government of Cuba's 
     continued political repression of democracy activists will 
     further undermine the opportunity for freedom on the island; 
     and
       Whereas the international community missed an opportunity 
     to speak against such brutal repression in a meaningful 
     manner during the 59th Session of the United Nations 
     Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 
     March 17, 2003, through April 23, 2003: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) reaffirms--
       (A) Senate Resolution 272, 107th Congress, unanimously 
     agreed to June 10, 2002, calling for, among other things, 
     amnesty for all political prisoners in Cuba;
       (B) Senate Resolution 97, 108th Congress, unanimously 
     agreed to April 7, 2003, condemning the crackdown on 
     democracy activists in Cuba; and
       (C) Senate Resolution 62, 108th Congress, unanimously 
     agreed to June 27, 2003, calling upon the Organization of 
     American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 
     the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the 
     European Union, and human rights activists throughout the 
     world to take certain actions in regard to the human rights 
     situation in Cuba;
       (2) calls on the Government of Cuba to immediately release 
     individuals imprisoned for political purposes;
       (3) praises the bravery of those Cubans who, because they 
     practiced free speech and signed the Varela Project petition, 
     have been targeted in this most recent government crackdown;
       (4) calls on foreign governments to--
       (A) increase the pressure on the Government of Cuba to 
     improve its record on human rights in Cuba; and
       (B) invite civil society leaders and democracy activists in 
     Cuba to official events;
       (5) calls upon the 60th Session of the United Nations 
     Commission on Human Rights in Geneva from March 15, 2004, to 
     April 23, 2004, to--
       (A) condemn Cuba for its human rights abuses; and
       (B) demand that inspectors from the International 
     Commission of the Red Cross be allowed to visit and inspect 
     the conditions of prisons to assess for the international 
     community the extent of human rights abuses and the current 
     situation in Cuba; and
       (6) urges the President to direct United States 
     Representatives at the 60th Session of the Commission on 
     Human Rights to make the strong condemnation of the human 
     rights situation in Cuba a top priority.

                          ____________________