[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23938-23942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR


                     NOMINATION OF RONNIE L. WHITE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
having arrived, the Senate will now go into executive session and 
proceed to vote on Executive Calendar Nos. 172, 215 and 209 which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of 
Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District 
of Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to ask for the yeas and nays on each nomination with one showing of 
hands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Judge 
Ronnie Lee White, of Missouri, to the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Missouri. We have heard thorough discussions of 
the nominee by the distinguished Senators from Vermont and from 
Missouri. In coming to my decision on this nominee, I have considered 
the fairness of the process under which Judge White has been reviewed, 
the deference due to the President, and the deference due to the 
Senators from the nominee's home State. This is a very difficult case.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have conducted thorough 
hearings and reviewed nominees in a fair and even-handed manner. As a 
result, we have seen a hearings process that does not include personal 
attacks on nominees and that maintains the institutional integrity of 
the Senate. On numerous occasions, even when several of my Republican 
colleagues voted against nominees, I maintained a fair process free 
from personal attacks on nominees. This was the case with Judge White. 
The committee held a fair and objective hearing on Judge White and 
thoroughly reviewed his record.
  In considering any nomination, I believe that the President, in whom 
the Constitution vests the nominations power, is due a large degree of 
deference. Even though there are a large number of the President's 
nominees that I would not have nominated had I been President, I have 
supported these nominees in obtaining a floor vote because in my view, 
the Constitution requires substantial deference to the President.
  Of course, the more controversial a nominee is, the longer it takes 
to garner the consensus necessary to move such a nominee out of 
committee. Such is the case with Judge White. I supported Judge White 
coming to the floor on two occasions. In the last vote in committee, no 
fewer than six of my Republican colleagues voted against reporting 
Judge White to the floor. At that point, however, I gave the President 
the deference of allowing a vote on his nominee and voted to report 
Judge White.
  I must say that I am deeply disappointed by the unjust accusations 
from some that this body intentionally delays nominees, such as Judge 
White, based on their race. As the administration is well aware, it is 
not a nominee's race or gender that slows the process down, but rather 
the controversial nature of a nominee based on his or her record.
  Indeed, nominees such as Charles Wilson, Victor Marrero, and Carlos 
Murguia, minority nominees, and Marryanne Trump Barry, Marsha Pechman, 
and Karen Schrier, female nominees, had broad support and moved quickly 
through the committee and were confirmed easily on the floor. And, 
although the committee does not keep race and gender statistics, a 
brief review of the committee's record so far this session shows that a 
large proportion of the nominees reported to the floor and confirmed 
consists of minorities and women. I categorically reject the allegation 
that race or gender, as opposed to substantive controversy, has ever 
played any role whatsoever in slowing down any nominee during my tenure 
as chairman.
  After a fair and thorough review in committee and after paying the 
deference to the President to obtain a

[[Page 23939]]

vote on the floor, I consider the position of a nominee's home State 
Senators. These Senators are in a unique position to evaluate whether a 
nominee instills the confidence in the people of a State necessary to 
be a successful Federal judge in that State. This is especially true 
for a district judge nominee whose jurisdiction, if confirmed, would be 
wholly limited to that particular State. Thus, there has developed a 
general custom and practice of my giving weight to the Senators from a 
nominee's home State.
  There have been several instances where--notwithstanding some serious 
reservations on my part--I voted to confirm district court nominees 
because the Senators from the nominees home State showed strong, and in 
some cases, bipartisan support. The nominations of Keith Ellison, Allen 
Pepper, Anne Aiken, Susan Mollway, and Margaret Morrow are examples of 
where I supported contested district court nominees and relied on the 
view of the home-State Senators in reaching my decision.
  While I have harbored great concerns on the White nomination, I 
withheld my final decision until I had the benefit of the view of my 
colleagues from Missouri. I was under the impression that one of my 
colleagues might actually support the nomination, so I felt that the 
process should move forward--and it did.
  Since the committee reported Judge White to the floor of the Senate, 
however, both of the Senators from Missouri have announced their 
opposition to confirming Judge White. Also, since the committee 
reported this nominee to the floor, the law enforcement community of 
Missouri has indicated serious concerns, and in some cases, open 
opposition to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. And indeed, I have 
been informed that the National Sheriffs Association opposes this 
nomination. Opposition is mounting and it would perhaps be preferable 
to hold another hearing on the nomination. But if we must move forward 
today, it is clear to me that Judge White lacks the home-State support 
that I feel is necessary for a candidate to the Federal district court 
in that State.
  For me, this case has been a struggle. On the one hand, Judge White 
is a fine man and the President is due a fair amount of deference. On 
the other hand, we are faced with the extremely unusual case in which 
both home State Senators, after having reviewed the record, are 
opposing this nomination on the floor.
  Of course, had the President worked more closely with the two 
Senators from Missouri and then nominated a less problematic candidate, 
we would not be in this predicament. But the President did not.
  When a nominee has a record of supporting controversial legal 
positions that call into question his, or her, respect for the rule of 
law, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. When the President has not adequately consulted with the 
Senate, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. And when both home State Senators of a nominee oppose as 
nominee on the floor of the Senate, it is almost impossible to vote for 
the confirmation of that nominee.
  Regretfully, such is the case with Judge White. Judge White has 
written some controversial opinions, especially on death penalty cases 
that have caused some to question his commitment to upholding the rule 
of law. The President has not garnered broad support for Judge White. 
And both Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond oppose this nomination. It 
would have been better for all parties concerned--the President, the 
Senate, the people of Missouri, and Judge White, had we been able to 
reach this decision earlier. But I cannot rewrite the past.
  After a painstaking review of the record and thorough consultation 
with the nominee's home State Senators, I deeply regret that I must 
vote against the nomination of Judge White. This is in no way a 
reflection of Judge White personally. He is a fine man. Instead, my 
decision is based on the very unusual circumstances in which the 
President has placed this body. I must defer to my colleagues from 
Missouri with respect to a nominee whose jurisdiction, if confirmed, 
would be wholly limited to that State.
  I call on the President to nominate another candidate for the Eastern 
District of Missouri. He should do so, however, only after properly 
consulting with both Missouri Senators and thus respecting the 
constitutional advice and consent duties that this body performs in 
confirming a nominee who will serve as a Federal judge for life.
  Mr. BOND. After discussing this difficult decision with Missouri 
constituents, the Missouri legal community, and the Missouri law 
enforcement community, I have determined that Ronnie White is not the 
appropriate candidate to serve in a lifetime capacity as a U.S. 
district judge for eastern Missouri.
  When a nominee has a record of supporting controversial legal 
positions that call into question his, or her, respect for the rule of 
law, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. When the President has not adequately consulted with the 
Senate, it takes longer to gain the consensus necessary to move the 
nominee. And when both home State Senators of a nominee oppose as 
nominee on the floor of the Senate, it is almost impossible to vote for 
the confirmation of that nominee.
  Regretfully, such is the case with Judge White. Judge White has 
written some controversial opinions, especially on death penalty cases 
that have caused some to question his commitment to upholding the rule 
of law. The President has not garnered broad support for Judge White. 
And both Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond oppose this nomination. It 
would have been better for all parties concerned--the President, the 
Senate, the people of Missouri, and Judge White, had we been able to 
reach this decision earlier. But I cannot rewrite the past.
  After a painstaking review of the record and thorough consultation 
with the nominee's home State Senators, I deeply regret that I must 
vote against the nomination of Judge White. This is in no way a 
reflection of Judge White personally. He is a fine man. Instead, my 
decision is based on the very unusual circumstances in which the 
President has placed this body. I must defer to my colleagues from 
Missouri with respect to a nominee whose jurisdiction, if confirmed, 
would be wholly limited to that State.
  I call on the President to nominate another candidate for the Eastern 
District of Missouri. He should do so, however, only after properly 
consulting with both Missouri Senators and thus respecting the 
constitutional advice and consent duties that this body performs in 
confirming a nominee who will serve as a Federal judge for life.
  Mr. BOND. After discussing this difficult decision with Missouri 
constituents, the Missouri legal community, and the Missouri law 
enforcement community, I have determined that Ronnie White is not the 
appropriate candidate to serve in a lifetime capacity as a U.S. 
district judge for eastern Missouri.
  The Missouri law enforcement community, whose views I deeply respect, 
has expressed grave reservations about Judge White's nomination to the 
Federal bench. They have indicated to me their concern that Judge White 
might use the power of the bench to compromise the strength of law 
enforcement efforts in Missouri.
  Given the concerns raised by those in Missouri's law enforcement 
community, who put their lives on the line on a daily basis, and those 
in Missouri's legal community, who are charged with protecting our 
system of jurisprudence, I am compelled to vote against Judge White's 
confirmation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am opposed to the 
nominations of Raymond Fisher to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit and Ronnie White to the Eastern District of Missouri.
  Our judicial system is supposed to protect the innocent and ensure 
justice, which is what it has done for the most part for over 200 
years. However, there have been glaring exceptions: the Dred Scott 
decision, which ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights 
which anyone was bound to respect, and Roe versus Wade, which

[[Page 23940]]

similarly ruled that an entire class of people, the unborn, are not 
human beings and therefore are undeserving of any legal protection.
  Both decisions, made by our Nation's highest court, violated two key 
constitutional provisions for huge segments of the population. Dred 
Scott, which legally legitimized slavery, deprived nearly the entire 
black population of the right to liberty, while Roe has taken away the 
right to life of 35 million unborn children since 1973. Both created 
rights, the right to own slaves and the right to an abortion, that were 
not in the Constitution. Of course, both are morally and legally wrong. 
Sadly, only Dred has been overturned, by the 13th and 14th amendments. 
Congress and the courts have yet to reverse Roe.
  The only requirement, the only standard that I have for any judicial 
nominees is that they not view ``justice'' as the majorities did in 
Dred Scott and Roe, and that they uphold the standards and timeless 
principles so clearly stated in our Constitution.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that Mr. White and Mr. Fisher meet 
those critical standards. During the committee hearings, Mr. Fisher 
fully indicated to me that he would uphold the constitutional and moral 
travesties of Roe and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Mr. White has 
also given answers which strongly suggest that he believes Roe was 
correctly decided by the Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. White's 
dubious actions as chairman of a Missouri House committee when a pro-
life bill was before it further proves that he would enthusiastically 
enforce the pro-abortion judicial decree of Roe versus Wade.
  The Framers of our Constitution believed we are endowed by our 
Creator with certain unalienable rights. Roe not only violates the 5th 
and 14th amendments, it violates the first and most fundamental right 
that we have as human beings and no court, liberal or conservative, can 
take away that right.
  As a U.S. Senator, I recognize the awesome responsibility that we 
have to confirm, or deny, judicial nominees. I recognize the solemn 
obligation that we have to make sure that our Federal courts are filled 
only with judges who uphold and abide by the transcendent ideals 
explicitly stated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 
judges we confirm or deny will be among the greatest and far-reaching 
of our legacies, and I for one do not ever want my legacy to be that I 
confirmed pro-abortion judges to our Nation's courts.
  This is why I will not support the nominations of Mr. White and Mr. 
Fisher. I will not support any judges who deny the undeniable 
connection that must exist, in a free and just civilization, between 
humanity and personhood. Our judges should be the very embodiment of 
justice. How can we then approve of those who will deny justice to most 
defenseless and innocent of us all?
  But, further, I would add that these nominees propose a more general 
concern in that they are liberal activists. In the case of Justice 
White, who now serves on the Supreme Court in Missouri, he has 
demonstrated that he is an activist, and has a political slant to his 
opinions in favor of criminal defendants and against prosecutors. It is 
my belief that judges should interpret the law, and not impose their 
own political viewpoints.
  He is strongly opposed by the law enforcement community in Missouri, 
and was directly opposed by the Missouri Association of Police Chiefs 
due to his activist record.
  Senator Ashcroft spoke in more detail about Justice White's activist 
record. Coming from the same State, Senator Ashcroft is in an even 
better position to comment on Justice White's record. But, he laid out 
a very disturbing record of judicial activism in Justice White's 
career, particularly on law and order matters, and I simply do not 
think that this is the kind of person we need on the U.S. District 
Court.
  With regard to Mr. Fisher, this is a critical slot because of the 
nature of the Ninth Circuit. This circuit has gained such a bad 
reputation for its liberal opinions that it has been referred to as a 
``rogue'' circuit. It is controlled by an extreme liberal element and 
it is important that our appointments to this circuit be people who can 
restore at least some level of constitutional scrutiny.
  In the case of Mr. Fisher, this clearly will not be the case. He is 
not a judge, and therefore, there is not the kind of judicial paper 
trail that we have with Justice White. However, he has a long record of 
liberal political activism for causes that run contrary to the 
Constitution. If he is willing to thwart the Constitution in his 
political activism, what makes us think he will uphold it in his 
judicial opinions. He took an active role in supporting the passage of 
proposition 15 in California regarding registration of handguns. This 
kind of hostility to the second amendment will not make matters any 
better on the Ninth Circuit. He very actively supported employment 
benefits for homosexual partners, and I found him to be very evasive in 
his responses to questions during the Committee hearings. Given the 
importance of this circuit and its demonstrated bias toward the left, 
this nominee, who himself is a liberal activist, is not the right 
person to help restore some constitutionality to this circuit.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to vote against these two judges. We 
have sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution. This is never 
more critical than when we exercise our advise and consent role for 
judicial nominees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, to be United 
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      (Rollcall Vote No. 307 Ex.)

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The nomination was rejected.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have to say this with my colleagues 
present. When the full history of Senate treatment of the nomination of 
Justice Ronnie White is understood, when the switches and politics that 
drove the Republican side of the aisle are known, the people of 
Missouri and the people of the United States will have to judge whether 
the Senate was unfair to this

[[Page 23941]]

fine man and whether their votes served the interests of justice and 
the Federal courts.
  I am hoping--and every Senator will have to ask himself or herself 
this question--the United States has not reverted to a time in its 
history when there was a color test on nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I use leader time for 1 minute in response.
  With regard to nominations, judicial or otherwise, I am sure the 
Senate would never use any basis for a vote other than the 
qualifications and the record of the nominee. And just so the record 
will be complete, as a matter of fact, of the 19 nominees who have been 
confirmed this year, 4 of them have been women, 1 of them African 
American, and 3 of them have been Hispanic. Their records and the kind 
of judges these men and women would make are the only things that have 
been a factor with the Senate and are the only things that should ever 
be a factor.
  I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to express how saddened I am by 
the party-line vote against Judge Ronnie White today. I had sincerely 
hoped that today would mark the beginning of a bipartisan attempt to 
clear the backlog of federal judicial nominees and begin to fill the 
vacancies that are rampant throughout the federal judiciary. I was 
mistaken. Instead, we got a party-line vote against a qualified 
minority judge coupled with a continued refusal to schedule votes on 
other qualified minority and women nominees.
  Judge White is eminently qualified to sit on the federal bench. He is 
a distinguished jurist and the first African-American to serve on the 
Missouri Supreme Court. Prior to his service on Missouri's Supreme 
Court, Judge White served as a State Representative to the Missouri 
Legislature, where he chaired the Judiciary Committee. In his law 
practice, which he continued during his service as a legislator, White 
handled a variety of civil and criminal matters for mostly low income 
individuals. His nomination received the support of the St. Louis 
Metropolitan Police Department, the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, and the 
National Bar Association. He is a fine man who has given his life to 
public service and he deserved better than what he got from this 
Senate. He deserved better than to be kept waiting 27 months for a 
vote, and then to be used as a political pawn.
  This vote wasn't about the death penalty. This vote wasn't about law 
and order. This vote was about the unfair treatment of minority 
judicial nominees. This vote tells minority judicial candidates ``do 
not apply.'' And if you do, you will wait and wait, with no guarantee 
of fairness.
  Judge Marsha Berzon, for instance, has been kept waiting more than 20 
months for a vote. Judge Richard Paez has been waiting more than 44 
months. These nominees deserve a vote. While I am totally dismayed by 
what happened here today with respect to Judge White's nomination, the 
Senate today functioned, albeit in a partisan, political manner.
  As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: ``The Senate is surely 
under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the 
necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' An 
up-or-down vote, that is all we ask for Berzon and Paez. And, after 
years of waiting, they deserve at least that much. The Republican 
majority should not be allowed to cherry-pick among nominees, allowing 
some to be confirmed in weeks, while letting other nominations languish 
for years. Accordingly, I vow today, that we Democrats just will not 
allow Paez and Berzon to be forgotten.
  As I have in the past, I will again move to proceed to the 
nominations of Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon, and I intend to take this 
action again and again should unnamed Senators continue to block a 
vote. Particularly after today's vote, I must say, I find it simply 
baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial 
nomination. Today's actions prove that we all understand that we have a 
constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee--a vote 
against that nominee. What the Constitution does not contemplate is for 
one or two Senators to grind a nomination to a halt on the basis of a 
``secret'' hold. This cowardly, obstructionist tactic is an anathema to 
the traditions of the Senate. Thus, today, I implore, one more time, 
every Senator to follow Senator Leahy's advice, and treat every nominee 
``with dignity and dispatch.'' Lift your holds, and let the Senate vote 
on every nomination.
  The business of judges is the simple but overwhelmingly important 
business of providing equal justice to the poor and to the rich. 
Accordingly, the consequences of this confirmation process are awesome. 
It is time that we all take it more seriously and it is time that we 
schedule votes on every nominee on the Calendar--including Judge Paez 
and Marsha Berzon. All we are asking of our Republican colleagues is to 
give these nominees the vote--and hopefully the fair consideration--
they deserve. We will press this issue every day and at every 
opportunity until they get that vote.
  Today is a dark day for the Senate. We have voted down a fully-
qualified nominee but I hope we can do better in the future and that we 
can move forward on the Paez and Berzon nominations in a fair and non-
partisan manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will report the next nomination, 
Calendar No. 215.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Brian Theadore Stewart, 
of Utah, to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Brian Theadore Stewart, of Utah, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of Utah? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 308 Ex.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Boxer
     Feingold
     Johnson
     Mikulski
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Baucus
     Mack
       
  The nomination was confirmed.


                    nomination of raymond c. fisher

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will report the next 
nomination.
  The legislative assistant read the nomination of Raymond C. Fisher, 
of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Raymond C. Fisher, of California, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 23942]]


  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 309 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Baucus
     Mack
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Ray Fisher on his 
Senate confirmation. I will miss Ray and Nancy here in Washington, but 
know that the Ninth Circuit will greatly benefit from his service 
there.
  Finally, I congratulate Ted Stewart on his confirmation and Senators 
Hatch and Bennett, who have worked hard to get him confirmed 
expeditiously. I trust that Mr. Stewart will honor the commitments that 
he made to the Judiciary Committee to avoid even the appearance of 
impropriety on matters on which he has worked while in State 
government.
  I said on the Senate floor last night that this body's recent 
treatment of women and minority judicial nominees is a badge of shame. 
I feel that we added to that shame with today's vote of Justice Ronnie 
White.
  In their report entitled ``Justice Held Hostage,'' the bipartisan 
Task Force on Federal Judicial Selection from Citizens for Independent 
Courts, co-chaired by Mickey Edwards and Lloyd Cutler, substantiated 
through their independent analysis what I have been saying for some 
time: Women and minority judicial nominations are treated differently 
by this Senate and take longer, are less likely to be voted on and less 
likely to be confirmed.
  Judge Richard Paez has been stalled for 44 months, and the nomination 
of Marsha Berzon has been pending for 20 months. Other nominees are 
confirmed in 2 months.
  Anonymous Republican Senators continue their secret holds on the Paez 
and Berzon nominations. The Republican majority refuses to vote on 
those nominations. In fairness, after almost 2 years and almost 4 
years, Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez are entitled to a Senate 
vote on their nominations. Vote them up or vote them down, but vote. 
That is what I have been saying, that is what the Chief Justice 
challenged the Republican Senate to do back in January 1998.
  I can assure you that there is no Democratic Senator with a hold on 
Judge Paez or Marsha Berzon. I can assure you that every Democratic 
Senator is willing to go forward with votes on Judge Paez and Marsha 
Berzon now, without delay.
  Last Friday, Senator Lott committed to trying to ``find a way'' to 
have these nominations considered by the Senate. I want to help him do 
that.

                          ____________________