[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13946-13947]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS IN THE 106TH CONGRESS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am concerned at the continuing lack of 
any real, strong effort to confirm Federal judges this year compared to 
the situation in the last year of President Bush's term in office with 
a Democratic controlled Senate. We confirmed 66 judges--actually 
confirmed judges and had hearings right through September. Now we have 
very, very few hearings.
  While I am glad to see the Judiciary Committee moving forward with a 
few of the many qualified judicial nominees to fill the scores of 
vacancies that continue to plague our Federal courts, I am disappointed 
that there were no nominees to the Court of Appeals included at this 
hearing. I have said since the beginning of this year that the American 
people should measure our progress by our treatment of the many 
qualified nominees, including outstanding women and minorities, to the 
Court of Appeals around the country. The committee and the Senate are 
falling well short of the mark.
  With 21 vacancies on the Federal appellate courts across the country, 
and nearly half of the total judicial emergency vacancies in the 
Federal courts system in our appellate courts, our

[[Page 13947]]

courts of appeals are being denied the resources that they need. Their 
ability to administer justice for the American people is being hurt. 
There continue to be multiple vacancies on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 
Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits. The vacancy rate for 
our courts of appeals is more than 11 percent nationwide--and that does 
not begin to take into account the additional judgeships requested by 
the Judicial Conference to handle their increased workloads. If we 
added the 11 additional appellate judges being requested, the vacancy 
rate would be 16 percent. Still, not a single qualified candidate for 
one of these vacancies on our Federal appellate courts is being heard 
today.
  At our first executive business meeting of the year, I noted the 
opportunity we had to make bipartisan strides toward easing the vacancy 
crisis in our nation's Federal courts. I believed that a confirmation 
total of 65 by the end of the year was achievable if we made the 
effort, exhibited the commitment, and did the work that was needed to 
be done. I urged that we proceed promptly with confirmations of a 
number of outstanding nominations to the court of appeals, including 
qualified minority and women candidates. Unfortunately, that is not 
what has happened.
  Just as there was no appellate court nominee included in the April 
confirmation hearing, there is no appellate court nominee included 
today. Indeed, this committee has not reported a nomination to a court 
of appeals vacancy since April 12, and it has reported only two all 
year. The committee has yet to report the nomination of Allen Snyder to 
the District of Columbia Circuit, although his hearing was 8 weeks ago; 
the nomination of Bonnie Campbell to the Eighth Circuit, although her 
hearing was 6 weeks ago; or the nomination of Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, 
although her hearing was 4 weeks ago. Left waiting for a hearing are a 
number of outstanding nominees, including Judge Helene White for a 
judicial emergency vacancy in the Sixth Circuit; Judge James Wynn, Jr., 
for a judicial emergency vacancy in the Fourth Circuit; Kathleen McCree 
Lewis, another outstanding nominee to the multiple vacancies on the 
Sixth Circuit; Enrique Moreno, for a judicial emergency vacancy in the 
Fifth Circuit; Elena Kagan, to one of the multiple vacancies on the 
District of Columbia Circuit; and Roger L. Gregory, an outstanding 
nominee to another judicial emergency vacancy in the Fourth Circuit.
  I deeply regret that the Senate adjourned last November and left the 
Fifth Circuit to deal with the crisis in the Federal administration of 
justice in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi without the resources that 
it desperately needs. It is a situation that I wished we had confronted 
by expediting consideration of nominations to that court last year. I 
still hope that the Senate will consider them this year to help that 
circuit.
  I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all 
nominees, including women and minorities. That all of these highly 
qualified nominees are being needlessly delayed is most regrettable. 
The Senate should join with the President to confirm these well-
qualified, diverse and fair-minded nominees to fulfill the needs of the 
Federal courts around the country.
  During the committee's business meeting on June 27, Chairman Hatch 
noted that the Senate has confirmed seven nominees to the courts of 
appeals this year--as if we had done our job and need do no more. What 
he failed to note is that all seven were holdovers who had been 
nominated in prior years. Five of the seven were reported to the Senate 
for action before this year, and two had to be reported twice before 
the Senate would vote on them. The Senate took more than 49 months to 
confirm Judge Richard Paez, who was nominated back in January 1996, and 
more than 26 months to confirm Marsha Berzon, who was nominated in 
January 1998. Tim Dyk, who was nominated in April 1998, was confirmed 
after more than two years. This is hardly a record of prompt action of 
which anyone can be proud.
  Chairman Hatch then compared this year's total against totals from 
other presidential election years. The only year to which this can be 
favorably compared was 1996 when the Republican majority in the Senate 
refused to confirm even a single appellate court judge to the Federal 
bench. Again, that is hardly a comparison in which to take pride. Let 
us compare to the year 1992, in which a Democratic majority in the 
Senate confirmed 11 Court of Appeals nominees during a Republican 
President's last year in office among the 66 judicial confirmations for 
the year. That year, the committee held three hearings in July, two in 
August, and a final hearing for judicial nominees in September. The 
seven judicial nominees included in the September 24 hearing were all 
confirmed before adjournment that year--including a court of appeals 
nominee. We have a long way to go before we can think about resting on 
any laurels.
  Having begun so slowly in the first half of this year, we have much 
more to do before the Senate takes its final action on judicial 
nominees this year. We should be considering 20 to 30 more judges this 
year, including at least another half dozen for the court of appeals. 
We cannot afford to follow the ``Thurmond Rule'' and stop acting on 
these nominees now in anticipation of the presidential election in 
November. We must use all the time until adjournment to remedy the 
vacancies that have been perpetuated on the courts to the detriment of 
the American people and the administration of justice. That should be a 
top priority for the Senate for the rest of this year. In the last 
three months in session in 1992, between July 12 and October 8, 1992, 
the Senate confirmed 32 judicial nominations. I will work with Chairman 
Hatch to match that record.
  One of our most important constitutional responsibilities as United 
States Senators is to advise and consent on the scores of judicial 
nominations sent to us to fill the vacancies on the federal courts 
around the country. I look forward to our next confirmation hearing and 
to the inclusion of qualified candidates for some of the many vacancies 
on our Federal Court of Appeals.

                          ____________________