[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15973-15974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the last several weeks, I have listened 
as some of my colleagues have, with escalating invective, expressed 
repeatedly their dismay about the manner in which Senate Republicans 
have processed President Clinton's judicial nominees. That some would 
accuse the Senate majority of failing to act in good faith strikes me 
as ironic, given the recent reckless statements made by President 
Clinton and members of the all-Democratic Congressional Black Caucus. I 
already have made my views on their reckless statements known and will 
not repeat them again here.
  Some of my colleagues like to talk about proceeding in good faith, 
but they ignore the fact that there is much legislation with broad, bi-
partisan support that is at a standstill because

[[Page 15974]]

they refuse to let this institution work its will. From bankruptcy 
reform to H-1B legislation to juvenile justice reform to religious 
liberty protection legislation, there are several legislative items 
where the blessings of good faith cooperation have not been bestowed. 
Consider, for example, the fact that a handful of members on the other 
side of the aisle have kept us from simply proceeding to a formal 
conference on the bankruptcy bill. Having poisoned the water 
themselves, they have no ground for complaining that the water is now 
poisoned.
  The more substantive complaints lodged by some of our colleagues have 
taken various forms. Some complain that there is a vacancy crisis in 
the federal courts; that the Senate has not confirmed enough of 
President Clinton's judicial nominees; and that the confirmation record 
of the Republican Senate compares unfavorably to the Democrats' record 
when they controlled this body.
  The claim that there is a vacancy crisis in the federal courts is 
simply wrong. Using the Clinton Administration's own standard, the 
federal judiciary currently is at virtual full employment. Presently 
there are 60 vacancies in the 852-member federal judiciary, yielding a 
vacancy rate of just seven percent. Of these 60 vacancies, the 
President has failed to make a nomination for 27 of them.
  Think about that. Some of my colleagues are complaining about a so-
called vacancy crisis when almost half of the current vacancies don't 
even have a nominee. It is too late to really send additional 
nominations up here because we are in the final few months of the 
Congress and there is no way to get through them with the work we have 
to do in processing judges.
  In 1994, at the end of the Democrat-controlled 103d Congress, there 
were 63 judicial vacancies. That is when the Democrats controlled the 
Senate and President Clinton was President. There were 63 judicial 
vacancies, yielding a vacancy rate of 7.4 percent. At that time, on 
October 12, 1994, the Clinton administration argued in a Department of 
Justice press release that ``[t]his is equivalent to `full employment' 
in the 837-member Federal judiciary.'' If the Federal judiciary was 
fully employed in 1994, when there were 63 vacancies and a 7.4 percent 
vacancy rate, then it certainly is fully employed now when there are 
only 60 vacancies and a 7 percent vacancy rate, even though we have a 
significantly larger judiciary.
  Democrats further complain that the Republican Senate has not 
confirmed enough of President Clinton's judicial nominees. So far this 
year, the Judiciary Committee has held seven hearings for 30 judicial 
nominees. In addition, the Committee is holding a hearing today for 
four additional nominees. This year the Senate has confirmed 35 
nominees, including eight nominees for the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
  With eight court of appeals nominees already confirmed this year, it 
is clear that the Senate and the Judiciary Committee have acted fairly 
with regard to appeals court nominees. In presidential election years, 
the confirmation of appellate court nominees historically has slowed. 
In 1988, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed only seven of 
President Reagan's appellate court nominees; in 1992, the Democrat-
controlled Senate confirmed eleven of President Bush's appellate court 
nominees. This year, the Senate already has confirmed eight circuit 
court nominees--evidence that we are right on track with regard to 
circuit court nominees.
  While some may complain that the Republican Senate has not confirmed 
enough of President Clinton's judicial nominees, conservatives 
criticize us for confirming too many. An editorial in today's 
Washington Times argues that the Republican Senate has confirmed far 
too many federal judges since gaining control of the Senate in 1995. 
This view is typical many reactionary conservatives who, like their 
counterparts on the extreme left, serve in some respects as a check on 
our political system. I plan to respond to this particular editorial in 
a more formal manner, but let me just say this--the notion that our 
Leader is not doing what he believes is best for our country's future 
is absurd.
  The fact that the criticism comes from both sides leads me to believe 
that we probably are carrying out our advice and consent duties as most 
Americans would have us.
  There are some on the political right who complain that we are not 
confirming conservative judges. They forget that we are in the midst of 
a liberal Presidency and that the President's power of nomination is 
more powerful than the Senate's power of advice and consent. I urge 
them to get on the ball and help elect a Republican President who will 
nominate judges that share our conservative judicial philosophy.
  Finally, Democrats contend that things were much better when they 
controlled the Senate. Much better for them perhaps--it certainly was 
not better for many of the nominees of Presidents Reagan and Bush. At 
the end of the Bush administration, for example, the vacancy rate stood 
at nearly 12 percent. By contrast, as the Clinton administration draws 
to a close, the vacancy rate stands at just seven percent. The 
disparity between the vacancy rate at the end of the Bush 
Administration, as compared to the vacancy rate now, illustrates that 
the Republican Senate has, in fact, acted in good faith when it comes 
to President Clinton's nominees.
  The Senate has carried out its advice and consent duties 
appropriately, in a manner that has been fair to all--to the 
President's nominees, to the federal judiciary, and to the American 
people. I stand ready to help Senators Lott and Daschle undertake and 
complete work on the appropriations bills that are before us and on 
other legislation, much of which enjoys broad, bi-partisan support and 
should be acted on this year.
  I am getting sick and tired of my colleagues on the other side just 
stopping everything--even bills that they agree with--to try and make 
the Senate look bad for their own political gain, so that they can take 
control of the Senate after the next election. If I were in their 
shoes, I would want to take control of the Senate honorably, rather 
than dishonorably.
  I repeat, I stand ready to help Senators Lott and Daschle undertake 
and complete work on the appropriations bills before the Senate and on 
other legislation which enjoys broad bipartisan support and should be 
acted on this year.
  It is my hope that the important legislative work of the Senate will 
not be impeded by political gamesmanship over judicial confirmations. I 
particularly resent people indicating that the Senate is not doing its 
duty on judicial confirmations, or that there is some ulterior purpose 
behind what goes on, or that this President isn't being treated fairly, 
because he has been treated fairly. I am getting sick and tired of it 
and will not put up with it anymore.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________