[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15986-15991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry I was not on the Senate floor to 
hear Chairman Hatch earlier this afternoon. I was attending an 
important confirmation hearing and chairing a meeting of the bipartisan 
Internet Caucus. I spoke to the issue of judicial nominations last 
Friday and say, again, with 60 current and longstanding vacancies 
within the federal judiciary, and seven more on the horizon, we cannot 
afford to stop or slow down the little progress we are making.
  Our hearing today included three nominees moved forward to fill 
positions on the District Court of Arizona that have all been declared 
judicial emergencies. Each of the nominees was nominated last Friday. 
They are now having their hearing, they look forward to being voted out 
of committee on Thursday and approved by the Senate before the week is 
out--within one week of nomination. This demonstrates what we can do 
when we want to take action. All the talk about needing six months or 
more to process and review nominees is just that--talk. If all goes 
according to schedule, these nominees will be in and out of the Senate 
in less than one week.
  We could do that with a number of nominees. Instead, this is a Senate 
that has kept highly-qualified nominees, such as Richard Paez and 
Marsha Berzon, waiting for years before they get a vote. There is just 
no reason to have a qualified nominee like Judge Helene White of 
Michigan held hostage for over 42 months without a hearing.
  I am disappointed to have seen another hearing come and go without 
even one nominee to fill one of the many vacancies to the Courts of 
Appeals around the country. I was encouraged to hear Senator Lott 
recently say that he continues to urge the Judiciary Committee to make 
progress on judicial nominations. The Majority Leader said: ``There are 
a number of nominations that have had hearings, nominations that are 
ready for a vote and other nominations that have been pending for quite 
some time and that should be considered.'' He went on to note that the 
groups of judges he expects us to report to the Senate will include 
``not only district judges but circuit judges.'' Unfortunately, the 
Committee has not honored the Majority Leader's representations and was 
only willing to consider a few District Court nominees at today's 
hearing. Pending before the Committee are a dozen nominees to the 
Federal Courts of Appeals who are awaiting a hearing--12 nominees, not 
one of which the Republican Majority saw fit to include in this 
hearing. Left off the agenda are Judge Helene White of Michigan, who is 
now the longest pending judicial nomination at over 42 months without 
even a hearing; Barry Goode, whose nomination to the Ninth Circuit was 
the subject of Senator Feinstein's statements at our Committee meeting 
last Thursday and who has been pending for over two years; as well as a 
number of qualified minority nominees whom I have been speaking about 
throughout the year, including Kathleen McCree Lewis of Michigan, 
Enrique Moreno of Texas and Roger Gregory of Virginia.
  I noted for the Senate last Friday that there continue to be multiple 
vacancies on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and District of 
Columbia Circuits. With 20 vacancies, our appellate courts have nearly 
half of the total judicial emergency vacancies in the federal court 
system. I know how fond our Chairman is of percentages, so I note that 
the vacancy rate for our Courts of Appeals is more than 11 percent 
nationwide. Of course that vacancy rate does not begin to take into 
account the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference 
to

[[Page 15987]]

handle their increased workloads. If we added the 11 additional 
appellate judges being requested, the vacancy rate would be 16 percent. 
By comparison, the vacancy rate at the end of the Bush Administration, 
even after a Democratic Majority had acted in 1990 to add 11 new 
judgeships for the Courts of Appeals, was only 11 percent. Even though 
the Congress has not approved a single new Circuit Court position 
within the federal judiciary since 1990, the Republican Senate has by 
design lost ground in filling vacancies on our appellate courts.
  At our first Judiciary Committee 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.
  Yet only five nominees to the appellate courts around the country 
have had nomination hearings this year and only three of those five 
have been reported by the Committee to the Senate and confirmed--only 
three all year. The Committee included no Court of Appeals nominees at 
the hearings on April 27 and July 12, and there are no Court of Appeals 
nominee at the hearing today. The Committee has yet to report the 
nomination of Allen Snyder to the District of Columbia Circuit, 
although his hearing was 11 weeks ago, or the nomination of Bonnie 
Campbell to the Eighth Circuit, although her hearing was eight weeks 
ago. The Republican candidate for President talks about final Senate 
action on nominations within 60 days and we cannot get the Committee to 
report some nominations within 60 days of their hearing.
  There is no good reason to have a qualified nominee such as Judge 
Helene White of Michigan held hostage for over 42 months without a 
hearing--42 months, and she has not even gotten a hearing. We had two 
men who were nominated last Friday, and they had a hearing today. They 
will probably be confirmed this week. Helene White has been held 
hostage for over 42 months without a hearing. She is the record holder 
for judicial nominees who have had to wait for a hearing--and her wait 
continues. It is insulting to the people of Michigan, insulting to the 
court, and insulting to her. The people of Michigan deserve a vote up 
or down on this outstanding lawyer and Judge from Michigan.
  Now why do I keep mentioning this? I keep mentioning it because, 
frankly, we are doing a poor job in confirming judges. I compare this 
to the last year of President Bush's term. We had a Democratic majority 
in the Senate. We confirmed twice as many judges then as this Senate is 
confirming now with a Republican majority and a Democratic President. 
Something was said the other day that, well, the Democrats are in the 
minority, and that is probably why they complain so. Well, heavens, I 
would be happy to have the complaints of the Republicans when they were 
in the minority. The Democrats moved twice as many judges for a 
Republican President as Republicans are moving for a Democratic 
President. It is a simple fact.
  The soon-to-be presidential nominee of the Republican Party has 
said--and I agree with him--that this is wrong, the Senate ought to 
vote these people up or down in 60 days. Of course, we could do that. 
There is a concern that has been expressed--and rightly so--that so 
many nominees are held without any vote. Nobody votes against them, but 
nobody gets an opportunity to vote for them; they just sit there. And 
even though the criticism stings, the fact is that, on average, women 
and minorities take longer to go through this Senate than white males 
do. Some women, some minorities have gone through very quickly, but 
most have taken longer.
  I said earlier that I do not see any sense of bias or sexism in our 
chairman. I have known him for over 20 years, and I have never heard 
him make a biased remark or a sexist remark during that whole time. But 
something is happening, somewhere they are being held up. It is wrong. 
One of the things that most Republicans and Democrats ought to be able 
to agree on is what Governor Bush said: Do it and vote them up or down 
in 60 days. Let's make a decision.
  Some of these people got held up for 2 or 3 or 4 years. When they 
finally got a vote, they passed overwhelmingly. But for 2 or 3 or 4 
years they were humiliated, caused to dangle, have their law practices 
fall apart, have people question what was going on. Why? Because one or 
two Senators thought they should be held up. Well, let those one or two 
Senators vote against them. We are paid to vote yes or no, not maybe. I 
do not know whether it is because they are women, because they are 
Hispanic, because they are too liberal, or too conservative, too 
active, not active enough, that people don't want them to be confirmed. 
Let them vote against them.
  I argued, when we had a very distinguished African American justice 
of a State supreme court, that we ought to let him at least have a 
vote. We had a vote after 2 years and, on a party line vote, he was 
voted down. Every single Republican voted against him, and every single 
Democrat voted for him, even though he had the highest rating of the 
American Bar Association, even though he was a justice of his state's 
highest court, and even though he was one of the most outstanding 
nominees either of a Democratic or Republican President to come before 
the Senate. At least he had a vote. I think the vote was wrong; he 
should have been confirmed. But at least he had a vote.
  I also worry about are all these people who are not even given a 
vote.
  Senator Hatch compared this year's confirmation total against totals 
from other Presidential election years. The only year to which this can 
be favorably compared is 1996 when the Republican majority in the 
Senate refused to confirm even a single appellate court judge to the 
Federal bench. The total that year was zero. That is hardly a 
comparison in which to take pride. I say let us compare 1992, in which 
there was a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican 
President. We confirmed 11 court of appeals nominees during that 
Republican President's last year in office--11 court of appeals 
nominees, and 66 judges in all. In fact, we went out in October of that 
year. We were having hearings in September. We were having people 
confirmed in October.
  So do not come here and say the Democrats are not well grounded in 
complaining about what is happening. We established the way 
nonpartisanship can work in confirming judges. We did it for Republican 
Presidents. Obviously, it is not being done for a Democratic President. 
What we did in 1992, between July 24 and October 8, was the Senate 
confirmed 32 judicial nominees. We ought to try to do the same here, 
basically, from now until about the time we go out. Again, the last 
time that happened at the end of a President's term, the Democrats 
helped get 32 judges through during that period of 10 weeks at the end 
of the Congress. Well, we ought to do the same here. The Republicans 
ought to be willing to do the same thing.
  In fact, in 1992 the Committee held 15 hearings--twice as many as 
this Committee has found time to hold this year. Late that year, we met 
on July 29, August 4, August 11, and September 24, and all of the 
nominees who had hearings then were eventually confirmed before 
adjournment. 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 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 10

[[Page 15988]]

weeks of the 1992 session, between July 24 and October 8, 1992, the 
Senate confirmed 32 judicial nominations. I will work with the 
Republican Majority to try 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 continue to urge the Senate to meet its 
responsibilities to all nominees, including women and minorities. That 
these highly qualified nominees are being needlessly delayed is most 
regrettable. The President spoke to this situation earlier this month 
in his appearance before the NAACP. 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.
  The Arizona vacancies are each judicial emergency vacancies. Two were 
authorized in appropriations legislation last year when the Republicans 
Majority continued its refusal to consider a bill to meet the judicial 
Conference's recommendation for 72 additional judges around the 
country. All we were able to authorize were a few judgeships in 
Arizona, Florida and Nevada. That points out one of the reasons that 
the comparisons that Chairman Hatch is seeking to draw to the vacancy 
rates at the end of the Bush Administration are incorrect. During 
President Reagan's Administration and again during the Bush 
Administration, Congress added a significant number of new judgeships. 
The so-called vacancy rate that Senator Hatch is so fond of citing at 
the end of the Bush Administration is highly inflated by the addition 
of 85 new judgeships in 1990 and by the addition of 87 new judgeships 
in 1984, of which many where yet to be filled. By contrast the 
vacancies currently plaguing the federal courts are longstanding and in 
spite of Republican intransigence against authorizing additional 
judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference since 1996. If those 
additional judgeships were taken into account, the vacancy rate today 
would be over 13 percent with over 120 vacancies--hardly a comparison 
that the Republican majority would want to make, but that would be 
comparing comparable figures.
  In addition, even running the gauntlet and getting a confirmation 
hearing does not automatically guarantee someone a vote before the 
current Judiciary Committee. Bonnie Campbell, nominated by the 
President on March 2, 2000, has completed the nomination and hearing 
process and is strongly supported by Senator Grassley and Senator 
Harkin from her home state. But her name continues to be left off the 
agenda at our executive meetings for the last several weeks. She is a 
former Iowa Attorney General and former high ranking Justice Department 
official who has worked extensively on domestic violence and crime 
victims matters. Allen Snyder is another well-respected and highly-
qualified nominee who got a hearing but no Committee vote. He was 
nominated on September 22, 1999, received the highest rating from the 
ABA, enjoys the full support of his home state Senators, and had his 
hearing on May 10, 2000. There are and have been many others.
  I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all 
nominees, including women and minorities. That highly-qualified 
nominees are being needlessly delayed is most regrettable. The Senate 
should join with the President to confirm well-qualified, diverse and 
fair-minded nominees to fulfill the needs of the federal courts around 
the country.
  More than two years ago Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned that 
``vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without 
eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been associated 
with the federal judiciary.'' The New York Times reported last year how 
the crushing workload in the federal appellate courts has led to what 
it calls a ``two-tier system'' for appeals, skipping oral arguments in 
more and more cases. Law clerks and attorney staff are being used more 
and more extensively in the determination of cases as backlogs grow. 
Bureaucratic imperatives seem to be replacing the judicial deliberation 
needed for the fair administration of justice. These are not the ways 
to continue the high quality of decisionmaking for which our federal 
courts are admired or to engender confidence in our justice system.
  When the President and the Chief Justice spoke out, the Senate 
briefly got about its business of considering judicial nominations last 
year. Unfortunately, last year the Republican majority returned to the 
stalling tactics of 1996 and 1997 and judicial vacancies are again 
growing in both number and duration. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote at 
the end of 1997: ``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.'' The Senate is not defeating 
judicial nominations in up or down votes on their qualifications but 
refusing to consider them and killing them through inaction.
  During Republican control it has taken two-year periods for the 
Senate to match the one-year total of 101 judges confirmed in 1994, 
when we were on course to end the vacancies gap. Nominees like Judge 
Helene White, Barry Goode, Judge Legrome Davis, and J. Rich Leonard, 
deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch--not delayed for two 
and three years. We are still seeing outstanding nominees nitpicked and 
delayed to the point that good women and men are being deterred from 
seeking to serve as federal judges. Nominees practicing law see their 
work put on hold while they await the outcome of their nominations. 
Their families cannot plan. They are left to twist in the wind. All of 
this despite the fact that, by all objective accounts and studies, the 
judges that President Clinton has appointed have been a moderate group, 
rendering moderate decisions, and certainly including far fewer 
ideologues than were nominated during the Reagan Administration.
  Federal law enforcement relies on judges to hear criminal cases, and 
individuals and businesses pay taxes to exercise their right to resolve 
civil disputes in the federal courts. As workloads continue to grow and 
vacancies are perpetuated, the remaining judges are being overwhelmed 
and the work of the federal judiciary is suffering.
  Our independent federal judiciary sets us apart from virtually all 
others in the world. Every nation that in this century has moved toward 
democracy has sent observers to the United States in their efforts to 
emulate our judiciary. Those fostering this slowdown of the 
confirmation process and other attacks on the judiciary are risking 
harm to institutions that protect our personal freedoms and 
independence.
  What progress we started making two years ago has been lost and the 
Senate is again failing even to keep up with normal attrition. Far from 
closing the vacancies gap, the number of current vacancies has grown 
from 57, when Congress recessed last year, to 60. Since some like to 
speak in terms of percentage, I should note that the judicial vacancy 
rate now stands at over seven percent of the federal judiciary (60/
852). If one considers the 63 additional judges recommended by the 
judicial conference, the vacancies rate would be over 13 percent (123/
915).
  What is most significant about the recent trend of judicial vacancies 
and vacancy rates is that the vacancies that existed in 1993 (after the 
creation of 85 new judgeships in 1990) had been cut almost in half in 
1994, when the rate was reduced to 7.4% with 63 vacancies at the end of 
the 103rd Congress. We continued to make progress even into 1995. In 
fact, the vacancy rate was lowered to 5.8% after the 1995 session, and 
before the partisan attack on federal judges began in earnest in 1996 
and 1997.
  Progress in the reduction of judicial vacancies was reversed in 1996, 
when Congress adjourned leaving 64 vacancies, and in 1997, when 
Congress adjourned leaving 80 vacancies and a 9.5% rate. No one was 
happier than I that the Senate was able to make progress in 1998 toward 
reducing the vacancy rate. I praised Senator Hatch for his effort. 
Unfortunately, the vacancies are now growing again.

[[Page 15989]]

  Let me also set the record straight, yet again, on the erroneous but 
oft-repeated argument that ``the Clinton Administration is on record as 
having stated that a vacancy rate just over 7% is virtual full-
employment of the judiciary.'' That is not true.
  The statement can only be alluded to an October 1994 press release. 
That press release cannot be construed or even fairly misconstrued in 
this manner. That press release was pointing out at the end of the 
103rd Congress that if the Senate proceeded to confirm the 14 nominees 
then on the Senate calendar, it would have reduced the judicial vacancy 
rate to 4.7%, which the press release then proceeded to compare to a 
favorable unemployment rate of under 5%.
  This was not a statement of administration position or even a policy 
statement but a poorly designed press release that included an ill-
conceived comment. Job vacancy rates and unemployment rates are not 
comparable. Unemployment rates are measures of people who do not have 
jobs not of federal offices vacant without an appointed office holder.
  When I learned that some Republicans had for partisan purposes seized 
upon this press release, taken it out of context, ignored what the 
press release actually said and were manipulating it into a 
misstatement of Clinton administration policy, I asked the Attorney 
General, in 1997, whether there was any level or percentage of judicial 
vacancies that the administration considered acceptable or equal to 
``full employment.''
  The Department responded:

       There is no level or percentage of vacancies that justifies 
     a slow down in the Senate on the confirmation of nominees for 
     judicial positions. While the Department did once, in the 
     fall of 1994, characterize a 4.7 percent vacancy rate in the 
     federal judiciary as the equivalent of the Department of 
     Labor `full employment' standard, that characterization was 
     intended simply to emphasize the hard work and productivity 
     of the Administration and the Senate in reducing the 
     extraordinary number of vacancies in the federal Article III 
     judiciary in 1993 and 1994. Of course, there is a certain 
     small vacancy rate, due to retirements and deaths and the 
     time required by the appointment process, that will always 
     exist. The current vacancy rate is 11.3 percent. It did reach 
     12 percent this past summer. The President and the Senate 
     should continually be working diligently to fill vacancies as 
     they arise, and should always strive to reach 100 percent 
     capacity for the federal bench.

  At no time has the Clinton administration stated that it believes 
that 7 percent vacancies on the federal bench is acceptable or a 
virtually full federal bench. Only Republicans have expressed that 
opinion. As the Justice Department noted two years ago in response to 
an inquiry on this very questions, the Senate should be ``working 
diligently to fill vacancies as they arise, and should always strive to 
reach 100 percent capacity for the federal bench.''
  Indeed, I informed the Senate of these facts in a statement in the 
Congressional Record on July 7, 1998, so that there would be no future 
misunderstanding or misstatement of the record. Nonetheless, in spite 
of the facts and in spite of my July 1998 statement, these misleading 
statements continue to be repeated.
  The Senate should get about the business of voting on the 
confirmation of the scores of judicial nominations that have been 
delayed with justification for too long. We must redouble our efforts 
to work with the President to end the longstanding vacancies that 
plague the federal courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our 
constitutional responsibility. It should not be shirked.
  I am sorry that Senator Hatch feels that he is being attacked from 
all sides. I regret that some on his side of the aisle and other 
critics have sought to prevent him from doing his duty. I have gone out 
of my way to compliment the Chairman when praise was warranted and to 
keep my criticism from becoming personal.
  With respect to the Senate's treatment of nominees who are women or 
minorities, I remain vigilant. I have said that I do not regard Senator 
Hatch as a biased person. I have also been outspoken in my concern 
about the manner in which we are failing to consider qualified minority 
and women nominees over the last four years. From Margaret Morrow and 
Margaret McKeown and Sonia Sotomayor, through Richard Paez and Marsha 
Berzon, and including Judge James Beatty, Judge James Wynn, Roger 
Gregory, Enrique Moreno and all the other qualified women and minority 
nominees who have been delayed and opposed over the last four years, I 
have spoken out. The Senate may never remove the blot that occurred 
last October when the Republican Senators emerged from a Republican 
Caucus to vote lockstep against Justice Ronnie White to be a Federal 
District Court Judge in Missouri.
  The United States Senate is the scene where some 50 years ago, in 
October 1949, the Senate confirmed President Truman's nomination of 
William Henry Hastie to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the 
first Senate confirmation of an African American to our federal 
district courts and courts of appeal. This Senate is also where some 30 
years ago the Senate confirmed President Johnson's nomination of 
Thurgood Marshall to the United States Supreme Court.
  And this is where last October, the Senate wrongfully rejected 
President Clinton's nomination of Justice Ronnie White. That vote made 
me doubt seriously whether this Senate, serving at the end of a half 
century of progress, would have voted to confirm Judge Hastie or 
Justice Marshall.
  On October 5, 1999, the Senate Republicans voted in lockstep to 
reject the nomination of Justice Ronnie White to the federal court in 
Missouri--a nomination that had been waiting 27 months for a vote. For 
the first time in almost 50 years a nominee to a federal district court 
was defeated by the United States Senate. There was no Senate debate 
that day on the nomination. There was no open discussion--just that 
which took place behind the closed doors of the Republican caucus lunch 
that led to the party-line vote.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican Senate has on a number of 
occasions delayed consideration of too many women and minority 
nominees. The treatment of Judge Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon are 
examples from earlier this year. Both of these nominees were eventually 
confirmed this past March by wide margins.
  I have been calling for the Senate to work to ensure that all 
nominees are given fair treatment, including a fair vote for the many 
minority and women candidates who remain pending. According to the 
report released last September by the Task Force on Judicial Selection 
of Citizens for Independent Courts, the time it has been taking for the 
Senate to consider nominees has grown significantly and during the 
105th Congress, minorities and women nominees took significantly longer 
to gain Senate consideration than white male nominees: 60 days longer 
for non-whites, and 65 days longer for women than men. The study 
verified that the time to confirm female nominees was now significantly 
longer than that to confirm male nominees--a difference that has defied 
logical explanation. They recommend that ``the responsible officials 
address this matter to assure that candidates for judgeships are not 
treated differently based on their gender.''
  On July 13, 2000, President Clinton spoke before the NAACP Convention 
in Baltimore and lamented the fact that the Senate has been slow to act 
on his judicial nominees who are women and minorities. He said: ``The 
quality of justice suffers when highly-qualified women and minority 
candidates, fully vested, fully supported by the American Bar 
Association, are denied the opportunity to serve for partisan political 
reasons.'' He went on to say: ``The face of injustice is not 
compassion; it is indifference, or worse. For the integrity of the 
courts and the strength of our Constitution, I ask the Republicans to 
give these people a vote. Vote them down if you don't want them on.'' I 
agree with the President.
  The Senate should be moving forward to consider the nominations of 
Judge James Wynn, Jr. and Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit. When 
confirmed, Judge Wynn and Mr. Gregory will be

[[Page 15990]]

the first African-Americans to serve on the Fourth Circuit and will 
each fill a judicial emergency vacancy. Fifty years has passed since 
the confirmation of Judge Hastie to the Third Circuit and still there 
has never been an African-American on the Fourth Circuit. The 
nomination of Judge James A. Beatty, Jr., was previously sent to us by 
President Clinton in 1995. That nomination was never considered by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate and was returned to President 
Clinton without action at the end of 1998. It is time for the Senate to 
act on a qualified African-American nominee to the Fourth Circuit. 
President Clinton spoke powerfully about these matters last week. We 
should respond not by misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what he 
said, but by taking action on this well-qualified nominees.
  In addition, the Senate should act favorably on the nominations of 
Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis to the Sixth Circuit, 
Bonnie Campbell to the Eighth Circuit, and Enrique Moreno to the Fifth 
Circuit. Mr. Moreno succeeded to the nomination of Jorge Rangel on 
which the Senate refused to act last Congress. These are well-qualified 
nominees who will add to the capabilities and diversity of those 
courts. In fact, the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared that a 
judicial emergency exists on that court, caused by the number of 
judicial vacancies, the lack of Senate action on pending nominations, 
and the overwhelming workload.
  I am disappointed that the Committee has not reported the nomination 
of Bonnie Campbell to the Eighth Circuit. She completed the nomination 
and hearing process two months ago and is strongly supported by Senator 
Grassley and Senator Harkin from her home state. She will make an 
outstanding judge.
  Filling these vacancies with qualified nominees is the concern of all 
Americans. The Senate should treat minority and women and all nominees 
fairly and proceed to consider them without delay.
  I think it was unfortunate that the chairman tried to assign blame 
for the Senate's lack of progress on a number of legislative items. I 
disagree with that assessment. He knows, as I do, that the Democratic 
leader made a proposal that would have moved the H-1B legislation and 
allowed votes on the humanitarian immigration issues. The Republicans 
refused Senator Daschle's offer. We all know the Democrats have not 
opposed the religious liberty bill Senator Kennedy helped develop. We 
all know we have been pressing for reauthorization of the Violence 
Against Women's Act for many months. It is not fair to suggest 
Democrats are holding that up.
  I will give you one other example. I am getting calls from police 
organizations, and I see the distinguished assistant minority leader, 
the Senator from Nevada, who served as a police officer. He will 
understand this. I am getting calls from police organizations all over 
the country.
  They ask me: Why hasn't the Campbell-Leahy bill to provide more 
bulletproof vests passed? Why hasn't it gone through the Senate? I tell 
my friend from Nevada what I told them. I said: My friend from Nevada, 
who is the Democratic whip, has checked, as I have, with every single 
Democrat, and every single Democrat is willing to pass it this minute 
by unanimous consent. We said that to the Republican leader.
  We were told there was an objection on the Republican side. My 
goodness. Have we gotten so partisan that a bill sponsored by the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, by myself and the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, a 
bill to provide bulletproof vests--cosponsored by the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, as well--that a bill to provide 
bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers is being stalled by 
Republican objections? That is wrong.
  If that bill were allowed to come to the floor for a vote, I am 
willing to bet--in fact, I know because we have already checked--that 
every Democratic Senator would vote for it. But I am also willing to 
bet that virtually every Republican Senator would vote for it. This is 
not a Democrat or Republican bill. In fact, Senator Campbell and I have 
specifically worked to make sure it is not a partisan bill.
  So I tell my friends from law enforcement: Please call the other side 
of the aisle. I am convinced that a majority of Republicans support it, 
but somebody on the Republican side is holding it up. The Democrats are 
willing to pass it immediately.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows we were working toward 
a bankruptcy bill until the Republicans decided to end bipartisan 
discussion and negotiate among themselves and not negotiate with the 
Democrats.
  He knows we should have passed the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act 
weeks, if not months, ago. I tell the business community that 
continuously asks me that every single Democrat is willing to move 
forward with it. It has been stalled on the Republican side.
  In fact, let me take a bill involving the two of us. The Hatch-Leahy 
juvenile crime bill passed the Senate in May of 1999. Again, I ask my 
friend from Nevada: As I recall, that passed with 73 votes, Democrats 
and Republicans, the majority of both parties. It passed the Senate 
with 73 votes.
  My friend from Utah is the chair of the House-Senate conference. But 
we haven't convened in almost a year. It is a bill that should have 
been enacted last year. But we will not even have a conference. 
Seventy-three Senators voted for that bill--73. We can't get the 
conference to meet on it and the Senate controls the conference.
  These are a lot of items, such as the H-1B legislation, the religious 
liberty bill, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, the 
bulletproof vest bill, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, the 
Hatch-Leahy juvenile crime bill, the bankruptcy bill. These are things 
that can move forward. But there seems to be no movement from the other 
side.
  I will continue to try to find ways to work with the distinguished 
chairman, my friend from the Judiciary Committee, to make progress. I 
point out that we worked together on civil asset forfeiture reform, and 
it passed. We worked together on intellectual property and antitrust 
matters. Those measures pass with a majority of Republicans and 
Democrats joining us. But now we find legislation on the bulletproof 
vest bill, which most of us agree on, that we cannot get passed. We 
find nominations on which we cannot get a vote--even when the soon to 
be Republican nominee for the Presidency, Governor Bush, said we ought 
to vote them up or down within 60 days. We can't get votes on them. 
Some stay stalled for months and years by humiliating delay.
  I have spoken about how humiliating it must be to somebody who is 
nominated for a judgeship--the pinnacle of their legal career. They get 
nominated. The American Bar and others looked at them, and said: This 
is an outstanding person, an outstanding lawyer, and they would be a 
terrific jurist. Usually we get inundated with letters from lawyers--
Republicans and Democrats alike--who say they know this man or woman 
and he or she would make a superb judge. The FBI and others do the 
background check --as thorough as you can imagine, such that most 
people in private life would never be able to put up with it. Their 
privacy is just shredded. They come back and say: This is an 
outstanding person.
  If they are in private practice, they are congratulated by their 
partners in their firm. They say how wonderful it is. They realize, of 
course, that the nominee can't take on any more new cases because no 
one wants conflicts of interest. They kind of suggest as soon as they 
have this party that the nominee can sort of move out so the rest of 
the law firm can go forward.
  The nominees wait and wait and wait and wait. Nobody is against them, 
but they can't get a hearing. They can't get a vote. Then, if the 
public pressure grows enough, if they are in a high profile, they may 
get a hearing. Then if the pressure continues, they may get a Committee 
vote. And then, if the pressure really builds and the Democratic leader 
and the Democratic caucus insist, they may get a Senate vote on

[[Page 15991]]

confirmation. When they get voted, they get confirmed--with the 
exception of Justice White--by 90 to 10, or 95 to 5, and many times 
unanimously. But their lives has been put on hold for 2 or 3 years. 
Their authority as a judge has been diminished because of that. It is 
humiliating to them.
  Frankly, it is humiliating to the Senate. It is beneath this great 
body. I have served here for over 25 years. I can't think of any 
greater honor that could come to me than to have the people of Vermont 
allow me to serve here. I should put on my tombstone, other than 
husband and father, that I was a United States Senator.
  I have always thought of this Senate as the conscience of the Nation. 
We are not handling the conscience of this Nation very well.
  We have a responsibility to uphold the judiciary. If we allow it to 
be tattered, if we allow it to be shredded, if we allow it to be 
humiliated, how can a democracy of a quarter of a billion people uphold 
our laws? How can the country have respect both for the laws and the 
courts that administer them, if we in the Senate, the most powerful 
legislative body in this country, don't show that same respect? If we 
diminish that, it will be an example to be followed by the rest of the 
people in this country.
  There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving here at 
any given time to represent a quarter of a billion Americans. Sometimes 
we should think more of that responsibility than partisan politics.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from Vermont leaves, let me 
say a few things. In this body, we tend not to give the accolades to 
our fellow Senators that we should. I want the Senator from Vermont to 
know how the entire Democratic caucus supports and follows the lead of 
this man on matters related to the judiciary. He has done an 
outstanding job leading the Democratic conference through this wide-
ranging jurisdictional authority of the Judiciary Committee.
  We are very proud of the work that Pat Leahy does. The people of 
Vermont should know that, first of all, he is always looking after the 
people of Vermont. I am from a State 3,000 miles away from Vermont, the 
State of Nevada. People in Nevada should, every day, be thankful for 
the work the Senator does, not only for the State of Vermont but for 
the country.
  I want the Record to be spread with the fact that we in the minority 
are so grateful for the work the Senator from Vermont does for our 
country. The statement made today certainly outlines many of the 
problems we are having in the Senate, none of which are caused by the 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I must 
admit, in my 25 years, nobody has handled the job as whip the way the 
Senator has. In having the Senator as an ally on the floor, I come well 
armed, indeed.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________