[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20397-20412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL J. REAGAN, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT 
 JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS; SUSAN RITCHIE BOLTON, OF 
ARIZONA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; MARY H. 
  MURGUIA, OF ARIZONA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
                                ARIZONA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session and proceed to the consideration en bloc of 
Executive Calendar Nos. 652, 654, and 655, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of Michael J. 
Reagan, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern 
District of Illinois;
  Susan Ritchie Bolton, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the 
District of Arizona;
  Mary H. Murguia, of Arizona, to be U.S. District Judge for the 
District of Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are here today in the crunch of end-of-
session business to debate and take time on four noncontroversial 
judicial nominees. This debate today was demanded by Senate Democrats 
who, ironically, have stood in the way of these nominations made by 
President Clinton, their own President. These are Clinton nominees the 
Democrats are holding up, Clinton nominees whom Democrats are insisting 
we take precious time to debate.
  For the past few years, Senate Democrats have threatened shutdowns, 
claimed the existence of a so-called judicial vacancy crisis, and 
complained of race and sex bias in order to push through President 
Clinton's judicial nominees. These allegations are false.
  First, there is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis. consider, 
for example, the Clinton administration's statements on this issue. At 
the end of the 1994 Senate session, the Clinton administration in a 
press release entitled ``Record Number of Federal Judges Confirmed'' 
took credit for having achieved a low vacancy rate. At that time, there 
were 63 vacancies and a 7.4 percent vacancy rate. The Clinton 
administration's press release declared: ``This is equivalent to `full 
employment' in the . . . federal judiciary.'' Today, there are 67 
vacancies--after the votes today there will be only 63 vacancies, the 
same as in the 1994. Instead of declaring the judiciary fully employed 
as they did in 1994. Democrats claim that there is a vacancy crisis.
  In fact, the Senate has confirmed President Clinton's nominees at 
almost

[[Page 20398]]

the same rate as it confirmed those of Presidents Reagan and Bush. 
President Reagan appointed 382 Article III judges. Thus far, the Senate 
has confirmed 373 of President Clinton's nominees and, after the votes 
today, will have confirmed four more. During President Reagan's two 
terms, the Senate confirmed an average of 191 judges. During President 
Bush's one term, the Senate confirmed 193 judges. After these four 
judges are confirmed today, the Senate will have confirmed an average 
of 189 judges during each of President Clinton's two terms.
  Second, there has not been a confirmation slowdown this year. 
Comparing like to like, this year should be compared to prior election 
years during times of divided government. In 1988, the Democrat-
controlled Senate confirmed 41 Reagan judicial nominees. After these 
four nominees are confirmed today, the Republican Senate this year will 
have confirmed 39 of President Clinton's nominees--a nearly identical 
number.
  In May, at a Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Biden, the former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``I have told everyone, and 
I want to tell the press, if the Republican Party lets through more 
than 30 judges this year, I will buy you all dinner.'' When he said 
this, Senator Biden apparently believed that the confirmation this year 
of more than 30 judges would be fair. Well Senator Biden owes some 
people some dinners, maybe everybody in the press. After the votes 
today, the Senate this year will have confirmed 39 judicial nominees.
  The 1992 election year requires a bit more analysis.
  The Democrat-controlled Senate did confirm 64 Bush nominees that 
year, but this high number was due to the fact that Congress had 
recently created 85 new judgeships. Examining the percentage of 
nominees confirmed shows that compared to 1992, there is no slowdown 
this year. In 1992, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed 33 of 73 
individuals nominated that year--or 45 percent. This year, the Senate 
will confirm 25 of 44 individuals nominated in 2000--or 57 percent. 
Those who cite the 1992 high of 64 confirmations as evidence of an 
election-year slowdown do not mention these details. Nor do they 
mention that despite those 64 confirmations, the Democrat-controlled 
Senate left vacant 115 judgeships when President Bush left office--
nearly double the current number of vacancies.
  Senate Democrats often cite Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1997 remarks as 
evidence of a Republican slowdown. Referring to the 82 vacancies then 
existing, the Chief Justice said: ``Vacancies cannot remain at such 
high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice that 
traditionally has been associated with the federal Judiciary.'' 
Senators who cite this statement, however, do not also cite the Chief 
Justice's similar statement in 1993, when the Democrats controlled both 
the White House and the Senate: ``There is perhaps no issue more 
important to the judiciary right now than this serious judicial vacancy 
problem.'' As the head of the judicial branch, the Chief Justice has 
continued to maintain pressure on the President and Senate to speedily 
confirm judges. He has not singled out the Republican Senate, however. 
Selective use of his statements to imply that he has is inappropriate.
  The Chief Justice made additional comments in 1997, which also 
undermine the claim of a vacancy crisis. After calling attention to the 
existing vacancies, he wrote: ``Fortunately for the Judiciary, a 
dependable corps of senior judges has contributed significantly to 
easing the impact of unfilled judgeships.'' The 67 current vacancies, 
in other words, are not truly vacant. There are 363 senior judges 
presently serving in the federal judiciary. Although these judges' 
seats are technically counted as vacant, they continue to hear cases at 
reduced workload. Assuming that they maintain a 25 percent workload 
(the minimum required by law), the true number of vacancies is less 
than zero.
  Third, allegations of race or sex bias in the confirmation process 
are absolutely false. Just this month, for example, President Clinton 
issued a statement alleging bias by the Senate. He said: ``The quality 
of justice suffers when highly qualified women and minority candidates 
are denied an opportunity to serve in the judiciary.'' The White House, 
though, also issued a statement boasting of the high number of women 
and minorities that Clinton has appointed to the federal courts: ``The 
President's record of appointing women and minority judges is unmatched 
by any President in history. Almost half of President Clinton's 
judicial appointees have been women or minorities.'' The Senate, 
obviously, confirmed this record number of women and minorities. That 
is hardly evidence of systemic bias--or any bias at all.
  Last November, Senator Joseph Biden, former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, stated:

       There has been argumentation occasionally made . . . that 
     [the Judiciary] Committee . . . has been reluctant to move on 
     certain people based upon gender or ethnicity or race. . . . 
     [T]here is absolutely no distinction made [on these grounds]. 
     . . . [W]hether or not [a nominee moves] has not a single 
     thing to do with gender or race. . . . I realize I will get 
     political heat for saying that, but it happens to be true.

  I personally appreciated Senator Biden's comments on that, while 
others were trying to play politics with these issues. He knows how 
difficult it is under the circumstances to please both sides on these 
matters. The chairman takes pain from both sides on these matters. 
There is no question there are some on our side who have wanted to slow 
down this process, and others on the other side have wanted to speed up 
the process. The important thing is that we do a good process. That is 
what we have tried to do.
  The statistics confirm Senator Biden's position. Data comparing the 
median time required for Senate action on male versus female and 
minority versus non-minority nominees shows only minor differences. 
During President Bush's final two years in office, the Democrat-
controlled Senate took 16 days longer to confirm female nominees 
compared with males. This differential decreased to only 4 days when 
Republicans gained control of the Senate in 1994. During the subsequent 
105th and 106th Congresses, it increased.
  The data concerning minority nominees likewise shows no clear trend. 
When Republicans gained control in 1994, it took 28 days longer to 
confirm minority nominees as compared to non-minority nominees. This 
difference decreased markedly during the 105th Congress so that 
minorities were confirmed 10 days faster than non-minorities. The 
present 106th Congress is taking only 11 days longer to confirm a 
minority nominees than it is to confirm non-minority nominees.
  These minor differences are a matter of happenstance. They show no 
clear trend. And even if there were actual differences, a differential 
of a week or two is insignificant compared to the average time that it 
takes to select and confirm a nominee. On average, the Clinton White 
House spends an average of 315 days to select a nominee while the 
Senate requires an average of 144 days to confirm.
  Under my stewardship, the Judiciary Committee has considered 
President Clinton's judicial nominees more carefully than the 
Democratic Senate did in 1993 and 1994. Some individuals confirmed by 
the Senate then likely would not clear the committee today. The 
Senate's power of advice and consent, after all, is not a rubber stamp.
  But there is no evidence of bias or of a confirmation slowdown. 
Senate Democrats claim that Republicans have politicized the 
confirmation process. Republicans, though, have not levied false 
charges or used petty parliamentary games.
  In conclusion, it always is the case that some nominations die at the 
end of the Congress. In 1992, when Democrats controlled the Senate, 
Congress adjourned without having acted on 53 Bush nominations. 
Currently there are only 38 Clinton nominations that are pending before 
the Judiciary Committee.
  It is not the end of the line for nominees that do not get confirmed 
this year. Republican nominees who failed to get confirmed have bone on 
to great

[[Page 20399]]

careers, both in public service and the private sector. Senator Jeff 
Sessions, Governor Frank Keating, Washington attorney John Roberts, and 
law professor Lillian BeVier are just a few examples. Lillian BeVier 
and a number of other women are prime examples of those who were denied 
the opportunity of being on the court for one reason or another back in 
those days.
  I bitterly resent anybody trying to play politics with this issue. I 
stand ready to defend our position on the Judiciary Committee, and I 
look forward to confirming these last four nominees today. And, of 
course, once we have done that, we will have matched what was done back 
in 1994, when the President said we had a full judiciary, with a 
vacancy of 7.4 percent.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that under the unanimous consent 
request, I have 10 minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have spoken with the staff of Senator 
Leahy and, if I go beyond 10 minutes, I ask that the additional time be 
taken from that allocated to Senator Leahy.
  I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership and friendship on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. We have our differences. When I served on the 
committee, we had some profound differences, but I respect him very 
much, and I respect the job he does.
  I thank Senator Hatch personally for the kind attention which he has 
given to the vacancies in my home State of Illinois. I am happy to 
report that with the nomination and confirmation of Michael Reagan, we 
will have a full complement of Federal judges in our State, which will 
make the workload more manageable all across the State. So I thank 
Senator Hatch and also Senator Fitzgerald. We have been working for the 
last 2 years, on a very bipartisan basis, toward approving these 
nominees to have come before the Senate.
  Before I address the nomination of Michael Reagan, I would like to 
address a larger issue which involves not only the Senate Judiciary 
Committee but the entire Senate, the Congress, and the people of this 
country because this week marks the opening of the Supreme Court's new 
term. It is a good moment to reflect on the role of the Supreme Court, 
its past, and its future.
  This brief statement that I present to you represents some of the 
concerns I have about the Supreme Court, the role it is playing, and 
the impact of the Presidential election on the future of that Court.
  One of the most interesting books ever written about America was 
written by a French tourist by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville. He 
came to the United States 165 years ago, traveling around different 
cities and making observations about this American character. This was 
a brand new nation. De Tocqueville wrote in his famous work his 
observations and took them back to Europe.
  One might think that a book such as that would be lost in history. It 
turns out that de Tocqueville's observations were so impressive that 
165 years later we still turn to this book, and I think it is nothing 
short of amazing that his observations turn out to be valid today. De 
Tocqueville made an observation about America and about all of the 
important political questions in our country which sooner or later turn 
out to be judicial questions. This wasn't a criticism. Quite the 
contrary. De Tocqueville admired the innovations in the American 
judiciary that granted the courts the independence and clarity of 
function that were found nowhere else in the world. De Tocqueville 
believed these observations would mean that America's judicial system 
would hear, and act on, the most important issues of the day. He 
couldn't have been more correct.
  Think about the ``big issues''. The issues that the American people 
have cared about--argued about--most deeply. The issues that spark the 
most debate--and the most passion. Sooner or later, the battle over 
these issues comes before the highest court in the land. Slavery. Child 
labor. Worker safety. Monopolies. Unionization. Freedom of the press. 
Capital punishment. Segregation. Environmental protection. Voting 
rights. A woman's right to choose.
  The battle always comes to the Supreme Court; always comes before the 
nine justices who are Constitutionally granted enormous 
responsibilities, and enormous power.
  In just the past year, the Supreme Court has offered important 
rulings on abortion, school prayer, gay rights, aid to parochial 
schools, pornography, Miranda rights, violence against women, parental 
rights--just to name a few. Not all of these decisions have turned out 
as I would have hoped.
  For instance, take the case of U.S. vs. Morrison. The Supreme Court 
struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that gave 
victims of rape and domestic violence the right to sue their attackers 
in federal court. Congress passed this law to give women an additional 
means of pursuing justice when they are the victims of assault. We 
passed this law because the States themselves did not always adequately 
pursue rapists and assailants. And the States acknowledged this!
  Thirty-six States had entered this suit on behalf of the woman who 
had been victimized. They wanted victims of violence against women to 
retain the right to bring their attackers to court. But the Supreme 
Court, in a narrow vote, decided otherwise. The vote . . . five to 
four.
  But this close margin is not unusual on our highest court--it is 
becoming commonplace. Rarely has the Supreme Court been so narrowly 
divided for such a long period of time. The replacement of just one 
judge could drastically change the dynamic of the Court for decades to 
come.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas--the Court's 
most conservative members--tend to vote together on hot button social 
and political issues such as affirmative action and school prayer. 
Centrist conservatives, Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, usually join 
them. The dissent is often written by the more liberal justices--
Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. Both Ginsberg and Breyer are 
Clinton appointments.
  Many of the Supreme Courts decisions have been made on the basis of a 
single vote. Partial birth abortion--five to four. Age discrimination--
five to four. Gay rights--five to four. Warantless police searches--
five to four. The federal role in death penalty cases--five to four.
  These are not mere academic cases. These are decisions that change 
people's lives. We all hope that the Supreme Court will act wisely and 
fairly. But we also all know--history and human nature tell us so--that 
this is not always the case.
  We learned in school about the Dred Scott case. Mr. Scott had lived 
in my home state of Illinois--where slavery was banned--and sued for 
his freedom on the basis that he had already lived as a free man, and 
had the right to continue to do so. The Supreme Court infamously 
disagreed, finding that Mr. Scott was nothing more than property--``to 
be Used in Subserviency to the Interests, the Convenience, or the Will, 
of His Owner'', a man ``Without Social, Civil, or Political Rights.'' 
The decisions of the Supreme Court--and at times, the opinion of just 
one Justice--can make the difference between having, or losing, a 
cherished right.
  Perhaps that is the reason that my colleague, the senior Senator from 
Utah, is of the opinion that a President's power to make nominations to 
the Supreme Court and to the federal bench is--and this is a quote--``. 
. .the single most important issue of this next election.''
  I think he's right. The next President may have the opportunity to 
make two or three appointments to the Supreme Court. He may even 
appoint the next Chief Justice.
  In the first two hundred years since the signing of the Constitution, 
the Supreme Court invalidated 128 laws that had been passed by 
Congress. About one law every two years, on average. Since 1995, 
however, the Court has struck down 21 laws, more than four per year. 
This is an unprecedented assertion of judicial power.

[[Page 20400]]

  Will the next President try to use the appointment process to further 
shift the balance of power between the branches of government?
  Will the next President of the United States use a litmus test to 
``pack'' the Supreme Court with Justices--Justices whose minds were 
already made up on important issues?
  That is what the far right, members of the Federalist Society, want. 
They want to turn back the hands of the clock.
  So I'm inclined to agree with the distinguished Senator from Utah. 
This is, indeed, one of the most important issues of the Presidential 
campaign.
  Imagine a Supreme Court with three Antonin Scalia's--three Clarence 
Thomases--three radically conservative Justices bent on greatly 
restricting the authority of the federal government. The philosophical 
balance of the Court would shift dramatically. One by one the 
protections that have been built up over the past thirty five years 
could fall.
  If you read the history of the Supreme Court, you will note that up 
until the time Franklin Roosevelt was President, it was an extremely 
conservative and somewhat lackluster Court. The Court started to change 
during Roosevelt's Presidency, and beyond. Republican and Democratic 
Presidents thereafter appointed more activist judges who looked at the 
problems facing America. One by one, the protections which we built up 
over that period of time would be in jeopardy.
  Protection of the rights of minorities, women, and the handicapped; 
protection of voting rights, civil rights, worker rights, reproductive 
rights; protection of the environment; protection from gun violence; 
and protection of our fundamental freedoms as Americans. One by one, a 
different court could challenge each of these protections.
  No longer could the federal government require background checks for 
gun purchases, rein in polluters, or protect the persecuted.
  I hope all Americans will give some thought to the type of Supreme 
Court they feel can best serve the American people. I hope they give it 
some thought before they go out and vote in November.
  In addition to who will be appointed, it's also critical to realize 
who is not being appointed.
  More than any previous president, President Clinton has succeeded in 
diversifying the bench. Nevertheless, women and minorities are still 
underrepresented in our Federal courts. It isn't as if some Members of 
Congress have not tried to address this disparity. But as hard as we 
try to diversify the bench, we have not been able to produce the record 
of success that we would like to show.
  I wonder how one of the great Justices ever to serve on the Supreme 
Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall, would have reflected on the treatment 
of a nominee, Ronnie White for the Federal District Court in Missouri. 
He is a member of Missouri Supreme Court. He is African American. He 
was judged qualified and reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
Then he was rejected on the Senate floor by a party-line vote. Some 
labeled him a ``judicial activist.'' They produced some excuses or 
reasons for not confirming him, and he was defeated--one of the few 
times in modern memory that a judge made it to the floor and lost on a 
recorded vote.
  I wonder how Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first black Justice 
appointed to the Supreme Court 33 years ago, would observe and reflect 
on what happened to Ronnie White.
  I think Justice Marshall would have viewed the current state of 
judicial nominations differently than the Federalist Society. This 
conservative group has over 25,000 members plus scores of affiliates, 
including former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr; Supreme Court 
Justices Thomas and Scalia; and University of Chicago's Richard Epstein 
and Frank Easterbrook, also a federal appellate judge.
  And their numbers are growing. The Federalist Society has chapters in 
140 out of the 182 accredited law schools. The campus chapter at the 
University of Illinois College of Law is very active.
  I don't have to tell you about the Society's ``originalist'' approach 
to the Constitution. Justice Scalia's and Justice Thomas's opinions 
clearly reflect their point of view.
  I don't have to tell you the Federalist Society has been instrumental 
in influencing the law. They have helped to weaken or rolled back 
statutes on civil rights and affirmative action; voting rights; women's 
right's and abortion rights; workers' rights; prisoners' rights; and 
the rights of consumers, the handicapped and the elderly.
  Martin Luther King., Jr., once said, ``The moment is always right to 
do what is right.''
  I think the moment is right to hold the tobacco industry responsible 
for the costs incurred by the federal government for the medical 
treatment of individuals made ill by their deadly products.
  I think the moment is right to hold the gun industry accountable for 
the irresponsible design, manufacture, distribution and marketing of 
their lethal weapons.
  The moment is right to ensure that HMOs and health insurance 
companies can be held accountable for their wrongdoing that results in 
the injury or death of American citizens.
  The moment may be right to elect a President who will appoint 
Justices who reflect that point of view and will protect our civil 
liberties.
  I think the moment is right to remove barriers to the bench so that 
every citizen--whether man, woman, or whatever ethnic, racial, or 
religious background--can be adequately represented on our court.
  I will say a word on behalf of my nominee who is before the Senate, 
Michael Reagan, the judicial nominee for the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Illinois. Senator Fitzgerald and I reached an 
agreement about the selection of these nominees. Michael Reagan is the 
product of this agreement.
  Michael Reagan possesses all the qualities necessary to make a 
tremendous contribution to the federal bench.
  He has strong bipartisan support, as well as, the support of several 
respected judges, leaders, and organizations including: the National 
Sheriffs' Association; the Honorable Moses Harrison II, Chief Justice, 
Illinois Supreme Court; The Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory, Bishop of 
the Diocese of Belleville; the Illinois Federation of Teachers; and the 
Illinois Pharmacists Association.
  They have all written letters supporting Michael Reagan's nomination 
to fill the Southern District of Illinois' judicial vacancy.
  Michael Reagan is a full-time public servant who wears several hats. 
In addition to his private practice, Mr. Reagan serves as a 
Commissioner of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission 
of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Mr. Reagan has held this position 
since 1995 and is responsible for supervising the attorney registration 
and disciplinary system in Illinois, a very important assignment.
  In addition, Mr. Reagan serves as Assistant Public Defender in St. 
Clair County, Illinois. In this capacity, he represents indigent 
criminal defendants charged with major felonies. Mr. Reagan has served 
as an Assistant Public Defender since 1996.
  Mr. Reagan also serves as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff in St. Clair, a 
fully commissioned law enforcement position that he has held for the 
past three years. His background as a police officer certainly 
qualified him in that capacity. As an Honorary Deputy Sheriff, Mr. 
Reagan has full arrest powers and is subject to be called to duty in 
the event of an emergency.
  Mr. Reagan began his career in public service as a police officer 
after graduating with a Bachelor's of Science degree from Bradley 
University in 1976, his law degree from St. Louis University in 1980.
  Although Mr. Reagan holds many notable positions, the most important 
roles he plays are that of husband and father. Mr. Reagan has been 
married to Elaine Catherine Edgar since 1976. They have four boys. I 
have met them all; they are great kids.

[[Page 20401]]

  The Reagans will soon be celebrating their 25th anniversary. It is a 
great family.
  I am pleased that the Senate will have this opportunity to vote for 
Michael Reagan. He possesses a rare combination of intelligence, 
practical experience, temperament, and devotion to public service that 
makes for a great Federal judge. I look forward to his service on the 
Federal bench.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues to 
express my outrage at the treatment of judicial nominees this year. I 
do so with the same preface as my distinguished friend from Illinois, 
in saying that I have a good working and personal relationship with the 
chairman of the committee, but the failure to confirm the nominees at 
this time is an outrage.
  I would like to focus my remarks on our efforts to fill one of the 
vacancies on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has fifteen seats. Five of those 
seats are currently vacant.
  We have one seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that has been 
vacant for a decade--longer than any other vacancy in the nation.
  Filling this vacancy has been deemed a ``judicial emergency'' by the 
U.S. Judicial Conference.
  On June 30, the President of the United States nominated Roger 
Gregory, a distinguished lawyer from Virginia, to fill this vacancy. 
Mr. Gregory graduated summa cum laude from Virginia State University 
and received his J.D. from the University of Michigan. He has an 
extensive federal practice, is an accomplished attorney, and was 
described by Commonwealth Magazine as one of Virginia's ``Top 25 Best 
and Brightest.'' And he has bipartisan support. Senators John Warner 
and Arlen Specter have also written to the Judiciary Committee to seek 
a hearing for Mr. Gregory.
  Despite the well-documented need for another judge on this court, and 
despite Mr. Gregory's stellar qualifications, the Judiciary Committee 
has stubbornly refused to even grant Mr. Gregory the courtesy of a 
hearing. In failing to provide Mr. Gregory with a hearing, the 
Judiciary Committee is abdicating its Constitutional responsibility and 
is effectively standing in the courthouse door to block this 
nomination.
  Article II of the United States Constitution makes clear that the 
President is to nominate and the Senate is to provide advice and 
consent on the nomination. It is difficult for the Senate to provide 
advice or give its consent if it won't even allow the nominee to be 
heard. Many excuses have been offered for why this nominee won't be 
granted a hearing. One convenient excuse is that this is a presidential 
election year.
  There is nothing in Article II of the United States Constitution, 
however, that suspends its provisions every four years. We have a 
constitutional obligation to render our advice and, if appropriate, 
grant our consent or, if not appropriate, decline to grant our consent. 
But we cannot just throw up our hands and declare that this provision 
of the Constitution is rendered meaningless during presidential 
election years.
  The supposed logic that underlies this excuse is that the nominee may 
not reflect the judicial philosophy of the next Administration. But how 
can we even question the nominee's judicial philosophy if we never hear 
from him. So even this excuse argues in favor of granting the nominee a 
hearing.
  The most recent excuse for failing to act on Mr. Gregory's nomination 
is that five years ago a gentleman from North Carolina was nominated 
for this seat, and so the argument goes this seat now ``belongs'' to 
North Carolina. But five years before that, when this seat and three 
others were created, a Virginian was arguably nominated to fill this 
seat--but the Senate only acted to fill the other three seats and this 
one has been vacant ever since.
  More importantly, however, seats on Courts of Appeal don't ``belong'' 
to any state. As I have already noted, there are only ten judges 
currently sitting in the Fourth Circuit. Four of these ten judges are 
filling seats that were previously filled by a candidate judge and then 
from another state. Finally, it's a little hard for the senior Senator 
from North Carolina to complain that the seat belongs to North Carolina 
when he is the one who has been blocking a North Carolinian from 
filling the seat.
  Rather than hide behind excuses, the Senate Judiciary Committee ought 
to seize the opportunity to right a historical wrong. The Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals has the largest percentage of African-
Americans in the nation. Yet, the Fourth Circuit has never been 
integrated. In fact, it is the only Circuit in the country that has 
never in history had minority representation. If we were to confirm 
Roger Gregory--who is African-American--we could knock down yet another 
barrier that has existed for far too long.
  In my view, courts should better reflect the people over whom they 
pass judgment. We still have time, if only we have the will to act. In 
1992, when there was a Republican in the White House and the Democrats 
ran the Senate, we confirmed 6 Circuit Court judges later than July: 3 
in August 2, in September 1, in October. In fact, its instructive to 
look at the one nominee who was confirmed in October of 1992. Timothy 
K. Lewis was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on 
September 17. The Judiciary Committee gave him a hearing on September 
24. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 7, and 
confirmed by the Senate on October 8.
  Roger Gregory is an outstanding nominee. Rather than standing in the 
courthouse door, we ought to throw the door open and desegregate the 
Fourth Circuit. We ought to end this judicial and moral emergency and 
we ought to do it now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve any time remaining for 
those covered under the unanimous consent order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair, in his capacity as a 
Senator from Wyoming, suggests the absence of a quorum with time to be 
allocated equally between the sides.
  Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate today will vote on the 
confirmation of a number of judicial nominees. I not only have no 
problem with that, I very much favor it. These nominees deserve a vote. 
The districts in which they will serve surely deserve to have their 
nominations acted upon. I believe the Nation, as a whole, deserves to 
have these nominees, and other nominees awaiting hearings and votes 
acted on by this Senate as well.
  The Judiciary Committee held hearings for three of the nominees and 
approved those nominations less than a week after the nominations were 
received. Other nominees wait in vain for years just for a hearing. 
That strikes me as being an arbitrary and inexplicable system, unfair 
to nominees awaiting hearings, awaiting votes, and unfair to the 
districts or the circuits in which they would serve if confirmed. I 
believe it is also unfair--perhaps this is most important of all--to 
the people who await justice in their courts.
  Two Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit have been waiting 
unsuccessfully for a hearing for more than 3\1/2\ years and 1 year 
respectively. Two women, highly qualified, nominated from Michigan for 
the Sixth Circuit where there is a severe shortage of judges and an 
enormous caseload that sits there pending, while they have been waiting 
for more than 3\1/2\ years and 1 year respectively.
  Judge Helene White, who is a court of appeals judge in Michigan, was 
first nominated in January of 1997. Her nomination to the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals has never been acted upon. She has never been granted 
a hearing.
  Kathleen McCree Lewis was nominated to the Sixth Circuit over a year 
ago. It has been pending before the Judiciary Committee for over a 
year. No hearing, no action.

[[Page 20402]]

  These are two judicial nominees from my home State of Michigan. 
Despite there being no objection that I know of to their nominations, 
and in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, they have been kept 
in limbo without even a hearing for 3\1/2\ years and 1 year 
respectively. I believe that is truly unconscionable. In the history of 
the Senate, no nominee has waited as long as Judge White for a 
confirmation hearing. The seat that she has been nominated for has been 
vacant for 5\1/2\ years. It is considered a ``judicial emergency'' by 
the Judicial Conference of the United States.
  There is no apparent reason for the denial of hearings for these two 
nominees. No one has questioned their qualifications for the bench. No 
one that I know of objects to their candidacies. It is well known Judge 
White and Ms. Lewis are both talented, hard-working nominees.
  Each are highly respected for their records which show them to be 
women of integrity and fairness. Judge White has had a distinguished 
career. She was a trial judge for 10 years on the Wayne County Circuit 
Court bench and in 1992 was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals 
where she has served ever since. She also serves on the board of 
directors of the Michigan Legal Services and the board of governors of 
the American Jewish Committee.
  Kathleen McCree Lewis is a distinguished appellate practitioner at 
the Detroit law firm of Dykema Gossett, one of the most prestigious law 
firms in our State. She also served as a commissioner on the Detroit 
Civil Service Commission and on the Civic Center Commission. She has 
argued dozens of cases and is a respected appellate lawyer in the very 
circuit to which she has been nominated. She also happens to be the 
daughter of the late Wade McCree, a highly respected judge who served 
on the Sixth Circuit, and was a former Solicitor General of the United 
States. If confirmed, Kathleen McCree Lewis will be the first African 
American woman ever to serve on the Sixth Circuit.
  Gov. George Bush has said that the Senate should act on nominees 
within 60 days. That deadline passed years ago for Judge White and for 
Kathleen McCree Lewis. According to Governor Bush:

       The Constitution empowers the President to nominate 
     officers of the United States, with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate.

  Then he said:

       That is clear-cut, straightforward language. It does not 
     empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal 
     of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation.

  To keep these nominees pending for so long without hearings is unfair 
to the nominees, particularly where there is no known objection and 
where there is no explanation for the refusal to grant hearings.
  Even more important, it is unfair to the citizens served by the 
court. There is a large backlog of cases in the Sixth Circuit which is 
a serious concern for not just Michigan but for all the States that are 
served by that court. Over one-fourth of the judgeships on the Sixth 
Circuit are currently vacant, and that is among the highest vacancy 
rate of any circuit court in the country.
  Judge Gilbert Merritt, who recently served as chief judge of the 
Sixth Circuit, wrote in a March 20 letter to Chairman Hatch: The court 
is ``hurting badly and will not be able to keep up with its workload 
due to the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has acted on none 
of the nominations to our court.''
  Judge Merritt went on to say the following--and this is the former 
chief judge who still sits on the court. This is what Judge Merritt 
said:

       Our court should not be treated in this fashion. The 
     public's business should not be treated this way. The 
     litigants in the Federal courts should not be treated this 
     way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated 
     this way. The situation in our court is rapidly deteriorating 
     due to the fact that 25 percent of the judgeships are vacant. 
     Each active judge of our court is now participating in 
     deciding more than 550 cases a year--a caseload that is 
     excessive by any standard. In addition, we will have almost 
     200 death penalty cases that will be facing us before the end 
     of the next year.
       The Founding Fathers certainly intended the Senate 
     ``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate 
     and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the 
     Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain 
     silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider any 
     vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, 
     understaffed and unable to properly carry out their 
     responsibilities for years.

  That is Judge Merritt's letter. In addition to that, the Judiciary 
Committee chairman, Senator Hatch, received a letter from 14 former 
presidents of the State bar of Michigan. These include, by the way, 
Democrats and Republicans. That letter pleads for action relative to 
the situation on the Sixth Circuit.
  The Michigan bar presidents wrote in their letter to Senator Hatch 
that the state of affairs on the Sixth Circuit has ``serious adverse 
effects on the bar and the administration of justice for our clients. 
We urge you to promptly schedule hearings for, and to pass to the 
Senate floor for a vote, the nominations of Judge Helene White and 
Kathleen McCree Lewis.''
  In the last few months, there have also been several articles and 
editorials in papers around Michigan calling on the Senate to confirm 
the court of appeals nominees for Michigan.
  An editorial in the Detroit Free Press said:

       The Senate's delay in considering President Clinton's 
     nominations to the [Sixth Circuit] court is unfair to 
     Michigan, to the nominees, and to anyone whose future might 
     be affected by a decision of this court.

  An editorial in the Observer and Eccentric newspapers urged the 
Judiciary Committee and its members to ``give two thoughtful and well-
respected Michigan lawyers the courtesy of timely hearings on their 
nominations to the Federal judiciary that is currently hamstrung in 
carrying out its work.''
  An editorial in the Detroit News described the failure to act on 
Sixth Circuit nominees as ``the sort of die-hard intransigence that 
should be out of bounds.''
  And a Jewish News editorial called the stall a ``travesty of 
justice.''
  If Senators have concerns about something in the records of these 
Michigan candidates--and no one has raised anything to that effect--
then Senators should air their concerns in a committee hearing and then 
let the committee vote. It is unfair to Michigan, it is unfair to the 
citizens who use this court to keep these judicial nominees endlessly 
in limbo, despite the absence of any objection that I know of to their 
nominations and with no explanation forthcoming whatsoever.
  A number of us have spent many hours over the last few years trying 
to get hearings for these Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nominees from 
Michigan, and yet two well-qualified candidates, each deserving a 
hearing and a Senate vote, have been left in limbo with no explanation, 
no stated objection.
  What we are doing today in approving these four nominees, it seems to 
me, is surely our function, totally appropriate, and I believe and hope 
the nominees will be confirmed.
  As we do this, we should also focus on nominees pending in the 
Judiciary Committee, awaiting hearings or awaiting a vote by the 
committee after a hearing, who are left there no matter how long they 
have been waiting, sometimes, again, years in the case of Helene White 
and Barry Goode. We have others who have been waiting since April of 
last year, June of last year, August of last year, September of last 
year. I think we can do better than that. We should rise above that 
kind of nonaction on the part of our Judiciary Committee.
  No plea from me or from others who have worked with me on these 
nominations has produced hearings, despite the editorials, despite the 
letters from the bar associations and from Judge Merritt. Despite all 
these efforts, we have received just silence and statements about 
waiting a little longer or ``we'll see'' or ``we'll try.''
  We should be better than that. The Constitution wants us to be better 
than that. I will vote to confirm these nominees whose nominations, in 
many cases, were sent to the Senate, heard by the Judiciary Committee, 
and approved by the Judiciary Committee in less than a week. At the 
same time, I will be thinking of the vacancies that exist on the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals that have remained unfilled for

[[Page 20403]]

years, where there is a judicial emergency, an enormous backlog, and 
where, despite all the pleas from the bar association, the Sixth 
Circuit, from indeed the Chief Justice of the United States, to vote on 
confirmations, we have these two well-qualified women from Michigan 
sitting there, awaiting a hearing, endlessly in limbo, nothing but 
silence, no explanation as to why their hearings are refused, no 
objection being noted or stated to their nominations, only two well-
qualified women left in limbo and in silence.
  We can do better. We should do better. I hope we find a way some day 
to do better.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letters 
and editorials.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             U.S. Court of Appeals


                                        for the Sixth Circuit,

                                    Nashville, TN, March 20, 2000.

     Re: Vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: Several years ago during the period 
     that I was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the United 
     States Judicial Conference, we met from time to time, and you 
     were always concerned that the Senate Judiciary Committee do 
     its duty in filling the vacancies on the various Courts of 
     Appeals. I write now to you to request that the Judiciary 
     Committee bring up for a hearing and a vote nominations to 
     the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I was taken aback to see an alleged statement of Senator 
     Mike DeWine from Ohio that no vote would be taken for a 
     nomination to fill the vacancy currently existing from Ohio. 
     Senator DeWine was quoted as saying that due to partisan 
     considerations there would be no more hearings or votes on 
     vacancies for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope that 
     this was not an accurate quote.
       The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals now has four vacancies. 
     Twenty-five per cent of the seats on the Sixth Circuit are 
     vacant. The Court is hurting badly and will not be able to 
     keep up with its work load due to the fact that the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee has acted on none of the nominations to 
     our Court. One of the vacancies is five years old and no vote 
     has ever been taken. One is two years old. We have lost many 
     years of judge time because of the vacancies.
       By the time the next President is inaugurated, there will 
     be six vacancies on the Court of Appeals. Almost half of the 
     Court will be vacant and will remain so for most of 2001 due 
     to the exigencies of the nomination process. Although the 
     President has nominated candidates, the Senate has refused to 
     take a vote on any of them.
       Our Court should not be treated in this fashion. The 
     public's business should not be treated this way. The 
     litigants in the federal courts should not be treated this 
     way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated 
     this way. The situation in our Court is rapidly deteriorating 
     due to the fact that 25% of the judgeships are vacant. Each 
     active judge of our Court is now participating in deciding 
     more than 550 cases a year--a case load that is excessive by 
     any standard. In addition, we have almost 200 death penalty 
     cases that will be facing us before the end of next year. I 
     presently have six pending before me right now and many more 
     in the pipeline. Although the death cases are very time 
     consuming (the records often run to 5000 pages), we are under 
     very short deadlines imposed by Congress for acting on these 
     cases. Under present circumstances, we will be unable to meet 
     these deadlines. Unlike the Supreme Court, we have no 
     discretionary jurisdiction and must hear every case.
       The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate 
     ``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate 
     and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the 
     Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain 
     silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and 
     vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, 
     understaffed and unable properly to carry out their 
     responsibilities for years.
       You and other members of the Senate have appeared before 
     the Judicial Conference and other judges' groups many times 
     and said that you care about the federal courts. I hope that 
     you will now act to help us on the Sixth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. We need your help and the help of the two Senators 
     from Ohio, the two Senators from Tennessee, the two Senators 
     from Kentucky, and the Senators from Michigan.
           Sincerely,
     Gilbert S. Merritt.
                                  ____

                                                     July 7, 2000.
     Re: Vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Hatch and Leahy: Recently, the former and 
     current presidents of the Ohio State Bar wrote Senators 
     DeWine and Voinovich a letter expressing their deep concern 
     over the present situation in the Court of Appeals for the 
     Sixth Circuit. With four of the sixteen seats vacant, the 
     circuit is in a state of judiciary emergency. Former Chief 
     Judge Gilbert Merritt has said:
       ``Our Court should not be treated in this fashion. The 
     public's business should not be treated this way. The 
     litigants in the federal courts should not be treated this 
     way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated 
     this way.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate 
     ``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate 
     and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the 
     Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain 
     silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and 
     vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, 
     understaffed and unable to properly to carry out their 
     responsibilities for years.''
       Chief Justice Rehnquist has expressed the same sentiments.
       Presently three Michigan seats remain open. The President 
     has made two nominations. Judge Helene White was nominated in 
     January 1997, and is the longest pending nominee without a 
     hearing by over a year; Kathleen McCree Lewis was nominated 
     in September, 1999. Senator Abraham returned the ``blue 
     slips'' for the nominees in April. Joe Davis, a spokesman for 
     Senator Abraham, was quoted as saying that Senator Abraham 
     wants hearings for these nominees to take place. Still, no 
     hearings have been scheduled.
       As former Michigan Bar Presidents, we agree with our Ohio 
     colleagues that the situation has serious adverse affects on 
     the bar and the administration of justice for our clients. We 
     urge you to promptly schedule hearings for, and to pass to 
     the Senate floor for a vote, the nominations of Judge Helene 
     White and Kathleen McCree Lewis.
           Respectfully,
         Honorable Victoria A. Roberts (1996-1997); Honorable 
           Dennis W. Archer (1984-1985); John A. Krsul (1982-
           1983); George T. Roumell, Jr. (1918-1986); William G. 
           Reamon (1976-1977); Joseph L. Hardig, Jr. (1977-1978); 
           Eugene D. Mossner (1987-1988); Donald Reisig (1988-
           1989); Robert B. Webster (1989-1990); Fred L. Woodworth 
           (1991-1992); George A. Googasian (1992-1993); Jon R. 
           Muth (1994-1995); Thomas G. Kienbaum (1995-1996); and 
           Edmund M. Brady, Jr. (1997-1998).
                                  ____


               [From the Detroit Free Press, May 2, 2000]

     Judges On Hold: Senate hurts Justice by Delaying Confirmations

       The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals now has four vacancies. 
     Twenty-five percent of the seats . . . are vacant. The court 
     is hurting badly and will not be able to keep up with its 
     workload due to the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     has acted on none of the nominations to our court.''
       Those were the words of Judge Gilbert Merritt, former chief 
     judge of the Cincinnati-based circuit, in a letter last month 
     to Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and eight 
     other senators--including Senates Carl Levin and Spencer 
     Abraham of Michigan, one of eight states covered by the 
     circuit.
       Merritt should not be alone in his outrage. The Senate's 
     delay in considering President Bill Clinton's nominations to 
     the court is unfair to Michigan, to the nominees, and to 
     anyone whose future might be affected by a decision of this 
     court.
       The judicial confirmation process has bogged down in mean-
     spirited, petty partisan wrangling between Democrat Clinton 
     and the Republican-controlled Senate, which seems determined 
     to wait out the lame duck and let his nominations wither.
       It's not just the 6th Circuit, either. According to the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee, there are 78 vacancies and 10 
     future vacancies in the federal judiciary. Only seven judges 
     have been confirmed this year. Six nominees are pending on 
     the Senate floor, 39 in committee, one nominee has withdrawn.
       The 6th Circuit vacancies are for seats vacated by Judges 
     Damon J. Keith and Cornelia Kennedy. Michigan Appeals Court 
     Judge Helene White was nominated in January 1997 to fill the 
     Keith vacancy. She has never had even a hearing. Nominee 
     Kathleen McCree Lewis has been waiting since September 1999.
       This is a disgrace that did not have to happen. Abraham 
     sits on the Judiciary Committee and could move these along. 
     Instead, he stalled consideration for three years, claiming 
     the Clinton administration blindsided him with the White 
     nomination.
       It's hard to fathom what that has to do with the efficient, 
     effective administration of justice in reasonable time, with 
     the best interests of citizens in Michigan.
       The federal court system should not be treated this way. 
     Neither should the judges who seek to serve it, nor the 
     citizens it is supposed to serve.

[[Page 20404]]

     
                                  ____
                [From the Michigan Press, June 25, 2000]

        Is the GOP Playing Politics With Judicial Appointments?

                            (By Phil Power)

       ``The presidential appointments process now verges on 
     complete collapse.'' So concludes Paul C. Light, of the 
     Brookings Institution (usually a liberal Washington think 
     tank) and Virginia L. Thomas, of the Heritage Foundation 
     (usually conservative) in a study of the experiences of 435 
     cabinet and sub-cabinet officials who served in the Reagan, 
     Bush and Clinton administrations.
       Some found treatment by the White House appointments people 
     ``an ordeal.''
       Others--35 percent of Reagan administration appointees and 
     57 percent of Clinton's nominees--were held hostage to the 
     politics of the U.S. Senate in waiting for confirmation 
     hearings.
       That's one reason a lot of talented people are not about to 
     consider appointment to top government positions.
       A perfect instance of this general problem concerns the 
     nominations of two Michigan lawyers to fill vacancies on the 
     U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that have been twisting 
     slowly in the wind of the U.S. Senate for far too long.
       Helene White is presently a member of the Michigan Court of 
     Appeals; nominated by President Clinton in January 1997, 
     Judge White has yet to receive a hearing from the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee. Kathleen McCree Lewis, the daughter of 
     former U.S. Solicitor General Wade McCree, is a partner in 
     the Dykema Gossett law firm in Detroit; her nomination has 
     been pending before the Judiciary Committee since September, 
     1999.
       The Sixth Circuit is authorized to have 16 judges. 
     Currently, the Court has four vacancies, one of which goes 
     back for five years. For the Court to operate at 75 percent 
     efficiency means long delays to the litigants and enormous 
     workloads for the remaining judges (each of whom now has a 
     caseload of 550 cases each year). Authorities now consider 
     the number of vacancies in the federal court system to 
     constitute a ``judicial emergency.''
       What's going on here?
       Michigan's Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat and a minority 
     member of the Judiciary Committee, says it's because 
     Republicans in the Senate, hoping to win the presidency this 
     fall, have decided to hold up judicial nominations from the 
     Clinton White House.
       As evidence, he produces a table showing that while the 
     Democrats controlled the Senate during the Bush 
     Administration, a total of 66 federal judges were confirmed.
       However, when the GOP ran the Senate during the first term 
     of the Clinton Administration, 17 judges were confirmed.
       So far in Clinton's second term, the Senate has confirmed 
     only seven judges, with a total of 33 judicial nominees 
     hanging fire before the Judiciary Committee without any 
     hearings scheduled on their nominations. There are at present 
     81 vacancies in the federal judiciary.
       Michigan's other Senator, Spencer Abraham, is also a member 
     of the Judiciary Committee, but as a Republican his party 
     controls the committee.
       I asked Joe Davis, a spokesman for Senator Abraham, how 
     come it's taken three and a half years (in the case of Judge 
     White) and eight months (in the case of lawyer Lewis) just to 
     get the committee to hold hearings on their nominations.
       According to Davis, ``Senator Abraham does not know whether 
     or when hearings will take place. He wants them to take 
     place, though.''
       That's nice. Frankly, I suspect if Senator Abraham really 
     wanted the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on these 
     nominations, he'd find a way to do it PDQ.
       A member of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Gilbert S. Merit, 
     wrote in March a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin 
     Hatch: ``The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the 
     Senate `advise' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, 
     debate and vote up or down.
       They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or 
     factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to 
     give any advice or consider and vote at all, thereby leaving 
     the courts in limbo, under-staffed and unable properly to 
     carry out their responsibilities for years.''
       Senator Abraham is running for reelection this fall.
       He is stressing his performance as an effective senator in 
     his campaign. Somebody should ask him why he can't get his 
     committee to give two able, thoughtful and well respected 
     Michigan lawyers the courtesy of timely hearings on their 
     nominations to the federal judiciary that is currently 
     hamstrung in carrying out its work.
                                  ____


                [From the Detroit News, August 13, 2000]

                        Get Judges Out of Limbo

       Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White got the 
     welcome word that she had been appointed to the federal bench 
     in January 1997.
       That was 43 months, or more than 1,300 days ago. She is 
     still waiting to be approved by the U.S. Senate and take her 
     seat with the Sixth Circuit appeals court in Cincinnati, 
     which covers Michigan and several other states. She now has 
     the distinction of being the longest-delayed judicial nominee 
     in American history.
       Judge White has been caught in the cross-fire between 
     President Bill Clinton and the Republican Senate leadership. 
     So has Detroit attorney Kathleen McRee Lewis, whose 
     nomination to the same court has been held up for nine 
     months.
       The Senate is angry, and justifiably so, at the president 
     for deliberately bypassing the confirmation process and 
     appointing Bill Lann Lee head of the civil rights division of 
     the Justice Department. President Clinton knew that Mr. Lee 
     did not stand a chance of being confirmed because of the his 
     record in backing racial quotas.
       Mr. Clinton got around it by the semi-devious route of 
     making a recess appointment. This has infuriated Senate 
     Majority Leader Trent Lott. In retaliation, he is holding up 
     37 judicial appointments.
       This is exactly the sort of bitter political obstruction 
     that Texas Gov. George W. Bush pledged to end in his 
     convention acceptance speech last week.
       ``I don't have enemies to fight,'' he said. ``I want to 
     change the tone in Washington to one of civility and 
     respect.''
       Senate Republicans should listen to their party's nominee. 
     While their anger is understandable. It is the courts, and by 
     extension those who use the federal courts, who are punished 
     because of the resulting shortage of judges.
       Sen. Lott hasn't even scheduled hearings for these 
     nominations. And the clock is ticking. If no action is taken 
     by Oct. 6, when the Senate adjourns, the nominations will 
     die.
       U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham, the Michigan Republican, 
     initially supported the stall by withholding his approval of 
     the nominations on the grounds that he was not properly 
     consulted by the White House. But he has since been 
     mollified, and he has given his go-ahead. His staff says, 
     however, that he will not push for hearings, which would be 
     within his power as a member of the Judiciary Committee. That 
     is for the Democratic nominators to do, his staff argues.
       Every nominee deserves, at the least, a hearing within a 
     reasonable time frame. Mr. Bush has specifically suggested 60 
     days.
       Certainly, there is ample room for disagreement when the 
     legislative and executive branches of government are in the 
     hands of different parties. But Mr. Lott's pique has outlived 
     any reasonable purpose. [It is the sort of die-hard 
     intransigence that should be out of bounds.]

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be equally 
divided. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand this 
Senator has 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will support consideration by the Senate of these 
nominations to fill district judge vacancies in Arizona and Illinois 
because we are entering a critical stage in the rising number of 
judicial vacancies in our Federal courts. However, in addition to the 
district vacancies, there are 22 vacancies in our Federal appeals 
courts, and pending before the Judiciary Committee are several appeals 
court nominations who are more than qualified to fill those positions. 
That, of course, includes a constituent of mine, Bonnie J. Campbell, 
former attorney general of the State of Iowa and presently the head of 
the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women. Her 
nomination is for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
  These positions should be filled with qualified individuals as soon 
as possible. I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps 
necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these 
important nominations.
  Basically what I have been hearing from the other side of the aisle, 
the Republican leadership, is: This is an election year. Why allow 
circuit nominees a vote on the floor? Hold it up. Maybe Governor Bush 
will win the election and we will control the Senate and the House, and 
we can have a whole new batch of appointees next year.
  That attitude led me to take a look at the history of our judicial 
nominations. Let's go back to a time when there was a mirror image of 
what we have here, when there was a Republican President in the White 
House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. That year would be 1992. 
That year,

[[Page 20405]]

then-President George Bush nominated fourteen circuit court judges. 
From July through October, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed 
nine of those judges. This year, a Democratic President nominated seven 
circuit court judges but with a Republican-controlled Senate, only one 
of these nominees has been confirmed. We have several pending, but we 
see no action. Time is running out. Basically what I have been told is, 
it is over with. They are not going to report any more of these 
nominees out for circuit courts.
  I have also heard the argument that Bonnie Campbell was not nominated 
until this year so we shouldn't expect this nominee to go through. 
Let's take a look at what I am talking about with these charts. This is 
kind of a busy looking chart, but these are the circuit judges 
nominated in 1992 by then-President George Bush. These were all 
nominated in 1992. There were 14 nominated. There were 9 who had 
hearings, 9 who were referred, and 9 who were confirmed, 9 out of 14 
who were nominated that year.
  There was one nominee--Timothy Lewis--who was nominated in September 
of 1992, had his hearing in September of 1992, was referred in October 
of 1992, and confirmed in October of 1992. If the attitude that 
prevails among the Republican leadership today had prevailed in the 
Democrat-controlled Senate in 1992, we would not have confirmed anyone 
after July. This year, we have had none since July.
  In 1992, we had two in September, two in August, and one in October, 
despite the fact that it too was late in an election year. This year we 
have only had one.
  It is clear who is playing politics with judgeships. The Republican 
leadership of the Senate is playing the most baldfaced politics. It is 
not alleged that these nominees are not qualified. It is simply that 
they were nominated by a Democratic President. That is all. I have not 
heard one person on the Republican side tell me that Bonnie Campbell is 
not qualified to be a circuit court judge.
  Some people on the other side may have some differences with her on 
some of her views. I understand that. I have had differences of view 
with judges I have voted to confirm. Why? Because I thought they were 
qualified.
  I thought that if the President nominated them, they had a fair 
hearing, and they were reported out, my only decision was whether or 
not they were qualified--not whether they were ideologically opposed to 
me or to how I feel or what I believe. It has been my observation over 
the last quarter century that oftentimes when judges who have more of a 
liberal bent get appointed to the court, in many cases they come down 
on the more conservative side of cases. And I have seen conservative 
judges appointed to the court come down on the liberal side of cases. 
You never really know how this will come out, but you know whether or 
not people are legitimately qualified to serve on the bench.
  So the arguments made that Bonnie Campbell wasn't nominated until 
this year--well, as I said, in 1992, we had nine circuit court judges 
confirmed that were nominated in that year. A couple of these were 
quite controversial. This year, we have had one confirmed. We have six 
more pending for the circuit courts. I know my colleague from Vermont, 
who is ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, stated this last week 
that when a majority in the Senate starts playing these kinds of games, 
the result is that when the other side becomes the majority they will 
do the same thing. That is too bad for our democratic system of 
government, too bad for the judgeships, and for our third branch of 
Government to have that happen.
  I am not naive enough not to know that there are always politics 
involved in how judges are nominated. I understand that. That is the 
system in which we live. But there comes a point where politics ends 
and responsibility begins. When you have people who have had a hearing, 
who are qualified, yet they won't be reported out for a vote on the 
Senate floor, that is pure politics and that is the height of 
irresponsibility. The Republican leadership is being totally 
irresponsible.
  Of the judges nominated in 1992, every judge who got a hearing--every 
single judge who had a hearing in a Democrat-controlled Congress, when 
a Democrat was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, when the Democrats 
controlled the Judiciary Committee, every person who got a hearing was 
confirmed. Every single one. That is not the case today. Too many 
political games are being played, I am afraid, on the Judiciary 
Committee and on the other side.
  I would like to mention one other judicial example from 1992. Michael 
Melloy was nominated for the district court in April of that year. He 
was a Bush nominee, supported by Senator Grassley. As my colleagues 
know, Senator Grassley and I have a longstanding commitment to support 
the nominations of individuals from Iowa to our courts. Mr. Melloy is 
an example of this. He was nominated April 9, 1992, received his 
hearing on August 4, 1992, reported out of committee on August 12, 
1992, and confirmed by the Senate that very same day in 1992.
  Again, I may have been ideologically opposed to Mr. Melloy. There may 
have been some things he believed in that I didn't, but there was no 
question in my mind that Mr. Melloy was fully qualified to be a Federal 
judge. As long as he was qualified and supported by Senator Grassley 
and the administration, I supported that nominee, even though it was in 
the closing days of 1992.
  Let's look at the current nominees that we have. Three of the four we 
are going to be voting on today were nominated, got hearings, and were 
reported out of the committee within one week. Mr. James Teilborg was 
nominated on July 21, 2000, got his hearing on July 25, and was 
reported out of the committee on July 27. Now he stands to be confirmed 
today. On the other hand, Bonnie Campbell received a hearing by the 
Judiciary Committee in May--more than 2 months before Mr. Teilborg. Yet 
she is not here on the floor. Why is it that Mr. Teilborg can come out 
on the floor today and not Bonnie Campbell? Politics, the rankest form 
of politics.
  The majority is being very inconsistent in their arguments. They say, 
well, Bonnie Campbell was nominated this year, so it is too late. Mr. 
Teilborg was nominated this year--nominated, had a hearing, and was 
reported out all in the same week, and he will be confirmed today. If 
this year was too late for Bonnie Campbell, why wasn't it too late for 
James Teilborg?
  As I said, nobody has come up and said Bonnie Campbell is not 
qualified. I challenge someone to come on the floor and say that. 
Again, if people want to vote against Bonnie Campbell to be a circuit 
court judge, that is the right of each Senator--not only a right, but 
an obligation--if they believe someone is unqualified. We can't do that 
as long as she is bottled up in the committee.
  The Senator from Utah has the power on that committee to report her 
out. I say to my good friend from Utah, who just appeared on the floor, 
the Senator from Utah can report Bonnie Campbell's name out here to the 
floor and we can have a vote on this nominee. That is the way it should 
be done. Nobody has come up to me to say she is not qualified. She is a 
former attorney general of the State of Iowa. Since 1995, she has led 
the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act as the head of 
that office under the Justice Department. She has broad support on both 
sides of the aisle. This is a case where a judicial nominee has the 
support of both the Republican Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the 
Democratic Senator from Iowa, me. Yet she has not been reported out of 
the Judiciary Committee. I say report her out. If people want to vote 
against her or say something about her qualifications, let them.
  I can stand here today and talk about the qualifications of James 
Teilborg, or the other people; but, quite frankly, I am convinced they 
are qualified. I may be opposed to the way they think once in a while, 
but they are qualified. Is the reason Bonnie Campbell is not being 
reported out because somebody on the other side of the aisle doesn't 
like the way she thinks, or because she may have a view on an issue 
contrary to theirs? The rankest form of politics

[[Page 20406]]

is holding up Bonnie Campbell's nomination. We have a backlog of 
nominees and we should vote on her.
  The Violence Against Women Act expires this year. The Office of 
Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice has had only one 
person head it since this bill was first implemented in 1995, and that 
is Bonnie J. Campbell. The reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act was voted on in the House of Representatives last week. If I 
am not mistaken, I think the vote was 415-3. So 415 Members of the 
House voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Now, if the 
only person to ever head that office had done a bad job in enforcing 
that law, had not acted responsibly, had not brought honor and acclaim 
to that office and the administration of that law, do you think that 
415 Members of the House would have voted to reauthorize it? No. They 
would have been on their feet over there, one after the other, talking 
about how terrible this office has been run and how the person 
operating that office had done such a bad job in enforcing the law. Not 
one Member of the House took the floor to so speak.
  The one person to head that office is Bonnie J. Campbell. Not one 
person I have ever run across has said she has done anything less than 
an exemplary job in running that office. Yet the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will not report her name out for action by the full Senate. 
Yet we will get the Violence Against Women Act here and Senator after 
Senator will rush up to speak about how great this law is. I will bet 
you won't hear one Senator get up and say how badly this law has been 
administered by the Office of Violence Against Women in the Department 
of Justice.
  That tells you what an outstanding job Bonnie Campbell has done in 
that office.
  If that is the case, why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee report 
her name out? Politics; pure rank politics. That is what is going on in 
the Judiciary Committee today. I hope it won't be that way if the 
Democrats take charge of the Senate. I am not on the Judiciary 
Committee, but we tend to get in what I call a ``cesspool spiral,'' 
like a whirlpool. One side takes over the majority and begins to stall 
nominations, and then the other side takes over, we keep spiraling down 
further and further to the point where any nominee for a Federal court 
will be held up months and perhaps even years while we await the next 
election. Then our third branch of Government truly becomes a political 
football.
  I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side--I say 
to my friend from Utah--will listen to the words of Texas Governor 
George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges--
once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a 
hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor.
  Bonnie Campbell has been there a lot longer than 60 days and so have 
some of the other judges.
  I say to my friends on the Republican side--you are supporting George 
Bush for President. If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I 
ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don't we act accordingly?
  In this Congress, the judicial nominees who have been confirmed had 
to wait on average 211 days. Governor Bush said they should not wait 
longer than 60 days. This is not getting better; it is getting worse 
around here. It is really a shame.
  Let's look at the percentages. I am told: This is the same today as 
it was before--blah, blah, blah, blah. I hear this all the time--
nothing has changed.
  It has changed dramatically. For example, in the Reagan years, during 
the 98th Congress, the Republicans were in the majority. They had a 
Republican President. We received 22 circuit court nominations, and 14 
were confirmed. This is a Republican President and a Republican 
Senate--22 received, and 14 confirmed, for a 63.6-percent confirmation 
rate.
  Let's look at the 100th Congress. President Reagan was still 
President, but there was a Democratic Senate. Twenty-six circuit court 
judge nominations were received; 17 were confirmed, for a 65.4-percent 
confirmation rate.
  Think about that. Democrats had a higher confirmation rate under 
President Reagan--a very conservative President. We had a higher 
confirmation rate when the Democrats were in charge of the Senate than 
when the Republicans were in charge. We didn't block things when the 
Democrats were in charge.
  Next, the 102d Congress, 1991-1992. President Bush was the Republican 
making nominations and the Democrats were in charge in the Senate. We 
received 31 circuit court nominations. Twenty were confirmed, again, 
for a 64.5-percent confirmation rate--Republican President and a 
Democratic Senate.
  Now we move to the 104th Congress. We had a Democratic President, 
President Clinton, and we had a Republican Senate. Twenty circuit court 
nominations were received; 11 were confirmed. That was a 55-percent 
confirmation rate.
  Now we are in the 106th Congress. We have a Democratic President and 
a Republican Senate. Thirty-one circuit court of appeals nominations 
have been received; 15 have been confirmed, for a 48.4-percent 
confirmation rate.
  I ask my friend--and he is my friend--the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee: How can we live with something like that? How can the 
Judiciary Committee come to this Senate with a straight face and say 
that a 48-percent confirmation rate is what we did in the past, when 
the record is clear? The record is in the 60-percent confirmation rate 
when we had Republican Presidents and a Democratic Senate. Yet today we 
are faced with a 48-percent confirmation rate.
  I have heard from many judges. I have gotten letters from them saying 
that it is time we filled the bench. Cases are backing up. We need to 
get judges on the bench. But I suppose we first have to pay attention 
to the elections.
  This one nominee, Bonnie J. Campbell, should be reported out if for 
no other reason than we need people on the bench who are sensitive to 
what is happening in domestic abuse cases and violence against women.
  In 1998, American women were the victims of 876,000 acts of domestic 
violence. In 5 years--1993 to 1998--domestic violence accounted for 22 
percent of the violent crimes against women. During those same years, 
children under the age of 12 lived in 43 percent of the households 
where this violence occurred. It is generational. The kids see it, they 
grow up, and they become abusive parents themselves.
  In Iowa, and all across America, prosecutors, victim service 
organizations, and law enforcement officers are fighting. But they need 
help. We need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But there 
is more we can do to make sure that we have judges who know what is 
happening from firsthand experience and who can make sure that the law 
is applied fairly and upheld in courts around the country.
  That is why we need someone like Bonnie Campbell on the circuit court 
of appeals. As I said, she is widely supported. She is supported by me 
and by Senator Grassley. She has the support of judges, police 
organizations, women, and domestic violence coalitions. She has strong 
support in the State of Iowa and on both sides of the aisle.
  I ask the chairman of the committee: Why aren't we reporting out 
Bonnie Campbell? Why? Just one simple question: Why? Is there a member 
of the majority who thinks she is not qualified? Let them so state. 
Have specific objections been raised as to her qualifications? If so, 
we ought to know that so they can be addressed. But all we hear is a 
deafening silence from the other side. We are left to assume that the 
reason Bonnie Campbell is being held up is because they are hoping 
their nominee wins the election. That is their right to hope that. They 
can work as hard as they can for him. I don't blame them for that. But 
to hold up a qualified person like Bonnie Campbell who had her hearing 
2 months before Mr. Teilborg had his; yet she is being locked up in the 
committee--all the paperwork is done. Yet politics is holding her up.

[[Page 20407]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of an article that 
appeared in the Des Moines Register the other day regarding the Bonnie 
Campbell nomination and the text of two editorials, one in the Cedar 
Rapids Gazette and one in the Des Moines Register, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Des Moines Register, Oct. 1, 2000]

                Campbell Issue Aids Democrats' Politics

                            (By Jane Norman)

       If Iowa Democrats needed any more reason to be excited and 
     energized about this year's presidential race in the state, 
     they probably have found it in the controversy swirling 
     around the stalled nomination of Iowan Bonnie Campbell in the 
     Republican-controlled U.S. Senate. George W. Bush, hello?
       Campbell, the director of the Violence Against Women office 
     for the U.S. Justice Department, was nominated in March to be 
     Iowa's new appeals-court judge for the 8th Circuit based in 
     St. Louis. She had a spectacularly sedate hearing before the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee in May, but then the nomination 
     process ground to a halt. She's one of 42 judicial nominees 
     pending in the Senate.
       Campbell has had the support not just of Senator Tom 
     Harkin, but also Senator Charles Grassley, even though it 
     must stick in Grassley's craw. Campbell, who ran for governor 
     of Iowa in 1994 and lost, made remarks during her race about 
     Christian conservatives that riled conservative activists, 
     who appealed to Grassley to kill her bid for the bench. 
     That's fair; whatever you think of the merits of their 
     arguments, it's their right to protest something as 
     significant as a lifetime judicial appointment.
       Grassley declined to side with his traditional conservative 
     allies and supported Campbell, saying Democrats did not stand 
     in the way he wanted judicial appointments during the waning 
     days of the Bush presidency. While Grassley predicted that 
     Campbell would fall victim to election-year politics, there's 
     no evidence that he has tried to sabotage her behind the 
     scenes.
       Campbell's nomination hung around all summer, gaining the 
     support of the bar association and the Iowa Police 
     Association. When Congress returned to work in September, 
     Harkin started turning up the heat. During the past week, he 
     has taken to the floor repeatedly to lambaste majority 
     Republicans for holding up the nomination, and he holds forth 
     at length on the Campbell nomination with Iowa reporters.
       This has been a masterful strategy by Harkin, who's become 
     such a surrogate for Vice President Al Gore that Harkin was 
     paired with GOP vice-presidential nominee Dick Cheney on a 
     Fox News show. Campbell's woes only assist Harkin in making 
     the case for a Democratic presidency, over and over again in 
     media outlets across Iowa.
       On Tuesday night, Harkin enlisted the help of Senator Joe 
     Biden, the Delaware Democrat and Judiciary Committee member 
     who's a friend of Campbell. Harkin and Biden formed a mutual 
     admiration society on the floor to praise Campbell, and Biden 
     recalled that he recommended that Campbell be made director 
     of the Violence Against Women office when it was launched.
       Biden insisted it was ``flat malarkey'' that Democrats have 
     held up Republican appointments during the last days of 
     Republican presidencies, and said he pushed through a flock 
     of qualified Texas judges for Senator Phil Gramm in late 
     1992. ``To be fair about it there were three members of our 
     caucus who ripped me a new ear in the caucus for doing 
     this,'' said Biden.
       Harkin said no Republican has ever come to him and 
     explained their opposition to the nomination. ``In fact, 
     Republicans in Iowa ask me why she is being held up,'' said 
     Harkin. ``Mainstream Republicans are asking me that.''
       Biden said it is a ``terrible precedent,'' and that it is 
     hard on Harkin to see someone so ``shabbily treated'' from 
     his home state. You hoped there was a box of tissues close at 
     hand.
       Then, on Thursday, Harkin revealed to reporters that he had 
     been told by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch 
     ``in no uncertain terms'' that the Republican caucus won't 
     budge on the nomination. Harkin said there's not much he can 
     do now other than fume on the floor and ponder holding up 
     Republican priorities.
       All of this cater-wauling gives Harkin, and Iowa Democrats, 
     a huge opportunity to seize a way to criticize Republicans on 
     the selection of judges, an issue where the GOP is somewhat 
     vulnerable, particularly among women and undecided voters.
       Texas Governor Bush does not sit in the Senate, and he is 
     not the one holding up the stop sign. But his party is doing 
     it, ostensibly for his benefit. Is it really wise to have the 
     confirmation of a woman as a judge become a major fuss in a 
     supposedly battleground state in the last month before the 
     presidential election?
       On top of that, many Iowa Democrats are still angry at how 
     Campbell was treated during her race for governor. The 
     prospect that women such as Campbell will be shut out for 
     another four years if Bush is elected president is like a 
     booster shot for get-out-the-vote efforts.
       Harkin said Thursday that he `absolutely' would push 
     Campbell to be nominated again if Gore wins the presidency. 
     For the time being, she serves Democrats' purposes just as 
     well if she never dons black robes.
                                  ____


            [From the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Sept. 26, 2000]

                  Stop Stalling on Judicial Candidate

       In three weeks or less, Congress will adjourn before the 
     2000 elections, and increasingly it appears it will do so 
     before the U.S. Senate brings the nomination of Bonnie 
     Campbell to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 
     up for a vote.
       It's not as if Campbell, the former attorney general of 
     Iowa, is trying to get in at the last minute--unless you 
     consider a six-month wait the last minute. Campbell was 
     nominated to the job by the Clinton Administration in March. 
     She had a hearing in May.
       What's taking so long?
       It seems apparent the Republican-controlled Senate 
     Judiciary Committee is growing content to hold onto this 
     nomination until after the session--and, not coincidentally--
     until after the November election, when they hope to win the 
     White House. That would mean a Republican would more than 
     likely be appointed to the job.
       It is not unusual for political parties to try to run out 
     the clock on nominations in the hope the next election will 
     bring them to power. That does not make it right, and in this 
     case it makes no sense to sit on the Campbell nomination.
       U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is her sponsor and he pointed 
     out a week ago there are 22 vacancies on the federal appeals 
     court. Campbell has the backing of the American Bar 
     Association and the Iowa State Police Association. She also 
     has the backing of U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is 
     also a member of the Judiciary Committee. Traditionally, 
     Grassley and Harkin have backed the other's nominees, and if 
     Campbell's nomination fails, we would hate to see that 
     understanding damaged.
       Frustrated proponents of the Campbell nomination--as well 
     as several other nominations--have been arguing recently that 
     over the last three years, women and minority candidates have 
     had to wait longer to get through the confirmation process 
     than their white male counterparts.
       The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, U.S. Sen. Orrin 
     Hatch, R-Utah, has denied women and minorities are being 
     treated differently in the committee than their white male 
     counterparts. Still, of the 21 candidates for the federal 
     bench who are women or minorities, nine have been waiting for 
     more than a year for a hearing.
       Campbell has a lengthy record in private legal practice. 
     Elected in 1990, she was the first woman to serve as Iowa 
     Attorney General. She was appointed in 1995 to be the 
     director of the Violence Against Women Office in the U.S. 
     Justice Department. Her hearing revealed no good reason why 
     she should be denied this position.
       The Senate leadership should do the right thing in the 
     waning days of this session and let the full Senate vote on 
     Campbell. It should set aside whatever reason it has for 
     stalling and move forward. Let the process work and bring 
     this nomination to the floor for a vote.

  Mr. HARKIN. I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee on the floor. He is a good man. He and I have fought many 
battles together. I like him personally and I respect him. If he would 
like to engage in colloquy, I will. He knows how strongly I feel about 
this nominee, about her qualifications and about the kind of job she 
has done at the Department of Justice. I am sure he knows I will do 
everything that is humanly and senatorially possible to try to get her 
name here. I believe I have a right and an obligation to do that. I 
will, within the confines of what is right and proper in the Senate, 
not violating any rules, do everything I can to try to get her name 
out.
  We will be here this week and we will be here next week. I ask my 
friend from Utah, will we be allowed to have a vote on Bonnie Campbell 
for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will submit a resolution, and after these 
remarks I will spend some time answering my two dear colleagues, 
Senator Robb of Virginia and Senator Harkin from Iowa, to the best of 
my ability.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 364 
are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I must respond to the remarks of Senator 
Robb and Senator Harkin.

[[Page 20408]]

  With regard to the nomination of Roger L. Gregory, the position for 
which Mr. Gregory has been nominated has been vacant since it was 
created in 1990. Before nominating Mr. Gregory, the President had not 
even submitted a name to the Senate for this position in almost 5 
years. Despite the longstanding vacancy of this judgeship, the work of 
the Fourth Circuit has not been adversely affected.
  Moreover, when the President did submit a name to the Senate for 
disposition almost 5 years ago, he submitted the name of a resident of 
North Carolina, J. Rich Leonard. In doing so, the President effectively 
agreed that this seat should be filled by a North Carolinian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's previous time 
consumed on the Olympics will not count against his 7 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for another 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. The President effectively agreed this seat should be 
filled by a North Carolinian. By nominating Roger Gregory, a Virginian, 
for the seat instead of a North Carolinian, the President sought to 
avoid the traditional practice of seeking the ``advice and consent'' of 
the Senators from the State where the judgeship is located about which 
local lawyer should be nominated.
  It is very late in the session to be considering a circuit court 
nomination. Some nominations can move through the confirmation process 
quickly, but only where the White House has dealt with the Senate on 
nominations in good faith. The Arizona nominations we are debating 
today moved through the confirmation process quickly because the White 
House did work closely with Senator Kyl and negotiated in good faith 
over which Arizonans should get these lifetime appointments.
  In contrast, the White House has not dealt with the Senate on 
nominations in good faith. During our August recess, the President 
determined to recess appoint several executive branch officials over 
the express objections of numerous Senators. Furthermore, Democrats 
stood in the way of these four nominees we are debating today, the 
President's nominees, and they threatened to shut down the work of the 
Senate. This is hardly good faith. In fact, it was a Democrat hold--a 
Democrat hold by the minority leader on these four judges who are put 
forth by this President in accordance with an agreement worked out--
that really caused a lot of angst on our side, plus the fact that these 
recess appointments that were made without consultation caused a lot of 
difficulty. Then we have virtually every bill filibustered, even on the 
motion to proceed. As a matter of fact, the H-1B bill, which just 
passed 96-1, had three filibusters on it, from the motion to proceed 
right on up through final passage of 96-1.
  I must respond to some of the things Senator Robb said here this 
morning. He used some pretty incendiary language to imply that the 
Senate majority is biased against Mr. Gregory because he is an African 
American. Senator Robb said we ``are standing in the courthouse door'' 
and are refusing to ``integrate'' the Fourth Circuit. These allegations 
of racial bias are beneath the dignity of a Senator in the U.S. Senate, 
and they are offensive and politically motivated. When Democrats 
blocked the nomination of Lillian BeVier to the Fourth Circuit--which 
is what they did--the first female nominee to the Fourth Circuit, no 
one on our side accused them of gender bias.
  I am sure Roger Gregory is a fine man. I have no doubt about that. I 
have been told that by a number of friends of mine, including former 
Secretary Coleman. But I have informed my colleagues that because of 
the atmosphere that has resulted from the President's refusal to 
consult with the Senators from North Carolina, because of the 
President's recent recess appointments and disregard of commitments he 
had made up here, and disregard of the advice and consent because of 
the petty parliamentary games in which our friends on the other side 
have engaged, Mr. Gregory's nomination is not going to move forward. 
And because this is a North Carolina seat. We would have to have 
somebody nuts, from North Carolina, who would not stand up for a North 
Carolinian in this seat. There is just no question about it. The 
President knew that, having nominated a North Carolinian before.
  I would like to respond to Senator Levin for a few minutes. I don't 
want to go beyond that. There are other things I could say. But I 
bitterly resent anybody trying to play racial politics with judges, 
especially after what we went through in prior administrations.
  It had always been my intention as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee to hold a hearing on judicial nominations during the month of 
September. I planned on doing that. At that hearing I was fully 
prepared to consider the nomination of some of these people, and 
perhaps even Helene White or Kathleen McCree Lewis to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A number of my colleagues were pressing 
very strongly for that. I wanted to try to resolve that if I could.
  However, events conspired to prevent that from happening. First, 
during the August recess, the President determined to recess appoint 
several executive branch nominees over the express objection of 
numerous Senators. He did so notwithstanding the agreement to clear 
such recess appointments with the relevant Senators. We do not have 
much power around here in some ways against a President of the United 
States, but we can demand that he consult with us. These Senators are 
very aggrieved by the way they were treated on these appointments--I 
think rightly so.
  Second, Democrat Senators determined to place holds on the four 
nominations we are debating today and threatened shutdowns of the 
Senate's committee work, going as far as to invoke the 2-hour rule and 
forcing the postponement of scheduled committee hearings, including the 
Wen Ho Lee hearing, which is an important hearing, a bipartisan 
hearing, for both sides to look at.
  Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis have only the White House and 
Senate Democrats to blame for the current situation, I might add, 
because of some of these petty procedural games we have been going 
through around here with filibusters of almost everything that comes 
up, or a threat to bring up all kinds of extraneous amendments if we do 
happen to bring a bill up that needs to be passed.
  It is very late in the session to be considering a circuit court 
nomination. Some nominations can move through the confirmation process 
quickly, but only where the White House has dealt with the Senate, on 
nominations, in good faith. The Arizona nominations we are debating 
today moved through the confirmation process quickly because the White 
House worked closely with Senator Kyl and others, and myself, and 
negotiated in good faith over which Arizonans should get these lifetime 
appointments.
  Everybody knows there is a tremendous need along the southern border 
in Arizona to have these judges. There is a tremendous court docket 
there that needs these judges. Yet they have been delayed for 2 solid 
months almost.
  In contrast, the White House and Senate Democrats have not dealt in 
good faith, given the President's recess appointments in August of 
several executive branch nominees over the express objection of 
numerous Senators and Senate Democrats' efforts to hold up these 
nominees and hold up the work of the Senate.
  With regard to the nomination of Bonnie J. Campbell, in March, Bonnie 
Campbell was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
Circuit. At the urging of Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing for Ms. Campbell in May. It had always been my intention 
for the Judiciary Committee to report Ms. Campbell's nomination. 
However, events conspired to prevent that from happening.
  First, during the August recess, as I have explained, the President 
determined to recess appoint several executive branch nominees over the 
express objection of numerous Senators. He did

[[Page 20409]]

so notwithstanding his agreement to clear such recess appointments with 
the relevant Senators. By the way, this type of an agreement arose out 
of Senator Byrd's objections in earlier Congresses. His objections were 
followed here on the part of people on our side of the aisle, and the 
President agreed to it and then violated that agreement.
  Second, after the August recess, Democrat Senators determined to 
place holds on the four nominations we are debating today, even though 
everybody admits--I think everybody admits --that they are important 
nominations and this arrangement that has been worked out has been 
fair.
  Again, they threatened to shut down the Senate's committee work, 
going as far as to invoke the 2-hour rule and enforce the postponement 
of scheduled committee hearings. And we went through that because of 
pique. For these reasons, Bonnie Campbell's nomination has stalled. Ms. 
Campbell has only the White House and Senate Democrats to blame for the 
current situation.
  I might add, it did not help at all on our side for these petty 
filibusters on everything. It used to be when I got here, there might 
be one or two or three filibusters a year at the very most, and then 
they were on monumental issues that involved a wide disparity of 
belief. It was not every little motion to proceed, every little bill we 
were going to pass, like the one we just passed 96-1. To go through 
three filibuster cloture votes on that bill was beyond belief. But that 
irritated a lot of people. It made it more difficult to get these 
judges through.
  Mr. Harkin, the Senator from Iowa, claimed that his review of history 
led him to believe we are ``playing politics with the judges.'' I 
strongly disagree. In President Reagan's last year, the Democrat-
controlled Senate confirmed 41 nominees. After the votes today, the 
Senate this year will have confirmed 39 nominees. And there have been 
some indications there might be some games played with one of the four 
judges here today. If that is the case, boy, Katie bar the door, after 
what we have been trying to do here.
  The committee worked sincerely to try to get these nominations out, 
and they have been here for quite a while. Finally, few nominees are 
confirmed when the White House and Senate are controlled by different 
political parties. From 1987 to 1992, the Democrat-controlled Senate 
confirmed an average of 46 Reagan and Bush nominees per year. Things 
changed when President Clinton was elected. In 1994, the Democrat-
controlled Senate pushed through 100 Clinton nominees. They could not 
have done that without cooperation from Republicans, but they did that.
  In 1992, at the end of the Bush administration when Democrats 
controlled the Senate, the vacancy rate stood at 11.5 percent. Now at 
the end of the Clinton administration the vacancy rate after the votes 
today will stand at just 7.4 percent.
  Also in 1992, Congress adjourned without having acted on 53 Bush 
nominations, or should I say nominees who were sitting there waiting to 
be confirmed. After the votes today, there will be only 38 Clinton 
nominations that are pending.
  Under both Democrats and Republicans, the Senate historically 
confirms 65 to 70 percent of the President's nominees. In his last 2 
years, President Bush made 176 nominations, and the Democrat-controlled 
Senate confirmed 122 of them, yielding a confirmation rate of 69 
percent. During the last 2 years, President Clinton made 112 
nominations, and after today's votes, the Senate will have confirmed 73 
of them. He has a confirmation rate of almost the same, 65 percent.
  In May, at a Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Biden indicated he 
did not believe we would do even 30 judges this year. He is wrong. We 
will have now done, at the end of the day, 39 judicial nominees 
confirmed by the Senate.
  There has been much debate today about everything but the four 
nominees we ostensibly are debating. I fully support these nominees and 
want to say a few words about them. They are supported by their home 
State Senators--Senators Kyl, McCain, Fitzgerald, and Durbin.
  The nominees we are supposedly debating today are as follows: Susan 
Ritchie Bolton from Arizona: Ms. Bolton has served as judge in the 
Maricopa County Superior Court since 1989. Before that, from 1977-89, 
she worked in private practice at a Phoenix law firm. From 1975-77, she 
clerked for the Hon. Laurance T. Wren of the Arizona Court of Appeals. 
Ms. Bolton received her law degree, with high distinction, from the 
University of Iowa Law School in 1975, and her undergraduate degree, 
with honors, from the University of Iowa in 1973.
  Mary H. Murguia: Since 1998, Ms. Murguia has served in the Executive 
Office of U.S. Attorneys, first as Counsel and then as Director. Before 
that she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of 
Arizona from 1990-98. From 1985-90, she was an Assistant District 
Attorney in Wyandotte Country, Kansas. She received her law degree from 
the University of Kansas Law School in 1985, and her undergraduate 
degree from the University of Kansas in 1982.
  Michael J. Reagan: Mr. Reagan has worked in private practice since 
graduating from law school in 1980; since 1995, he has been a sole 
practitioner at the Law Office of Michael J. Reagan. In addition, he 
has served as an Assistant Public Defender (part time) since 1995. He 
received his law degree from St. Louis University Law School in 1980, 
and his undergraduate degree from Bradley University in 1976.
  James A. Teilborg: Mr. Teilborg has been a partner at the Phoenix law 
firm of Teilborg Sanders & Parks since 1972; before that he was an 
associate at another Phoenix firm from 1967-72. He received his law 
degree from the University of Arizona School of Law in 1966.
  Some have complained the Arizona nominations have moved more quickly 
while others have not. Some nominations can move through the 
confirmation process quickly, there is no question about that, but only 
where the White House has dealt with the Senate on nominations in good 
faith. The Arizona nominations we are debating today moved through the 
confirmation process quickly because the White House worked closely 
with Senator Kyl and negotiated in good faith over which Arizonans 
should get these lifetime appointments.
  All four are Democrats, all four are supported by the President, all 
four came through the appropriate committee--the Judiciary Committee--
and all four will be voted on today, and I expect all four to be 
confirmed unanimously. If there are no politics played, they will be 
confirmed unanimously.
  In contrast, the White House and Senate Democrats have not dealt in 
good faith, given the President's recess appointments in August of 
several executive branch nominees over the express objection of 
numerous Senators and Senate Democrats' efforts to hold up these 
nominees and obstruct the work of the Senate--the filibusters that have 
occurred on almost everything that comes up here and, of course, the 
holds that have been placed on these four nominees who are President 
Clinton's nominees. It does not take long until people on our side know 
there are too many games being played on judicial nominees.
  We have done a good job. President Reagan had the all-time highest 
confirmation of judges during his 8 years. That was 382 judges. By the 
end of the day, when we confirm these 4, President Clinton will have 
the all-time second highest, as far as I know, and that is 377 judges, 
5 fewer than President Reagan. Had we not had all these games played, I 
believe I could have held a hearing in September, which I no longer can 
hold, and we would have confirmed probably enough to draw President 
Clinton equal to President Reagan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been scarcely able to hold back the 
tears listening to my good friend from

[[Page 20410]]

Utah. I am sure he did not mean to mislead the Senate, but those who 
might not know the numbers could be misled, not by any intent on the 
part of the senior Senator from Utah.
  As he has said himself, we will have confirmed fewer than 40 judges 
in the last year of President Clinton's term in office. When the 
Democrats controlled the Senate, in the last year of President Bush's 
term in office, we confirmed 66. In fact, we were holding hearings 
right into September and voting on judges up to the last days of the 
session, confirming judges for President Bush.
  The distinguished Senator from Utah feels perhaps some have suggested 
inappropriately that women, minorities, and others take longer going 
through this body. I point out that the ones who suggested that have 
been independent bipartisan groups outside the Senate.
  I have stated over and over, I have never seen or heard a statement 
expressing--I wonder if the Senator from Utah can stay while I speak; I 
do not want to say this with him off the floor--I have never once heard 
him express either a racist or a sexist remark. He has been a close and 
dear friend of mine for over 20 years. Nor have I ever suggested that 
anybody on the Senate Judiciary Committee has taken a racist or sexist 
position, but I am troubled, as I hope he and others would be troubled, 
by the fact that women and minorities, if they are nominated for 
judgeships, have taken longer to go through this Republican-controlled 
Senate than others if they are allowed to go through at all.
  We talk about Roger Gregory, nominated to the Fourth Circuit. It has 
been suggested this is a seat that is reserved to North Carolina. That 
is not so. As pointed out in the Wall Street Journal in a recent letter 
from the President's Counsel Beth Nolan, this is a vacant seat that has 
not been allocated to the State of North Carolina and is appropriate 
for an appointment from Virginia. The distinguished chairman of the 
committee has said that Senators should work with the White House. In 
this case, two of the most distinguished Members of the Senate--one a 
Republican, one a Democrat, John Warner and Chuck Robb--worked very 
closely with the White House on this Virginia nomination and both 
support the nomination of Roger Gregory.
  Senator Robb strongly urged the White House to appoint Roger Gregory, 
a highly distinguished African American. Senator Warner supports him. 
He has the highest ratings possible from bar associations. But he 
cannot get confirmed by the Senate; he cannot even get a hearing.
  I commend what Senator Robb said on the floor today in support of 
Roger Gregory. I hope all of us will listen to him.
  Likewise, I was struck by the remarks of Senator Durbin of Illinois 
with respect to the Supreme Court and his support for Michael Reagan to 
a district court judgeship in Illinois. Senator Durbin laid out what I 
have also heard from Republicans and Democrats who support Michael 
Reagan for that judgeship. Democrats and Republicans were at hearings 
for him. Democrats and Republicans, ranging across the political 
spectrum, have spoken to me in support of Michael Reagan. He is 
supported by both home state Senators, one a Republican and one a 
Democrat.
  Senator Carl Levin, the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan, 
one of the most respected voices in this body, spoke of his support for 
Judge Helene White to the Sixth Circuit and Kathleen McCree Lewis to 
the Sixth Circuit and how he wished they would be considered. They have 
been held up and blocked by this Senate. Is the chairman saying that 
Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis do not have the support of 
their two Senators from Michigan? If that is the case, we ought to know 
that. I understand that they both have that support. If they don't have 
the support of a home state Senator, then let's say that. Judge Helene 
White and Kathleen McCree Lewis are extraordinarily well-qualified 
women. I wish they would get confirmed.
  Senator Tom Harkin, was an extraordinary advocate for Bonnie 
Campbell. I can't add to what he has said. Senator Harkin spoke 
extremely well about Bonnie Campbell and, of course, Bonnie Campbell 
should be confirmed. Again, going to the test: Did the President work 
with the Senators from that State. Are we saying that the two Senators 
from Iowa do not support Bonnie Campbell? My understanding is both of 
them support her. Why can't she get Committee consideration and a 
Senate vote?
  The Senate will move forward on a number of nominees today: Michael 
Reagan, Susan Ritchie Bolton, Mary Helen Murguia, and James Teilborg. I 
recommend that all four be confirmed by the Senate. It is unfortunate 
that this Republican-controlled Senate, is not willing to do for 
President Bill Clinton what a Democratic-controlled Senate did for 
President George Bush, and move people forward. We can talk about the 
numbers that various Presidents have appointed. Recent Presidents have 
appointed more judges than George Washington did or Thomas Jefferson or 
Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. But we are also a much bigger 
country, and we have a lot more cases and need more judges. In fact, if 
we passed the judgeship bill the distinguished senior Senator from Utah 
and I have introduced, the vacancy rate would be well into the teens 
with over 130 vacancies.
  We have waited 10 years to authorize new judges, even as this country 
has expanded over the years and caseloads have grown. The Judicial 
Conference is asking us to authorize 70 judges. In fact, I strongly 
urge we pass the judgeship bill before the Presidential election while 
no one knows who is going to be elected President, and we are looking 
at what is best for our court system.
  I am glad to see the Senate moving forward on these three nominees. I 
expect they will be approved overwhelmingly. They are all well 
qualified for appointment to the federal courts.
  Three judicial nominees on the Senate calendar have been cleared by 
Democrats for action for some time, including two from Arizona and one 
from Illinois who has been pending the longest of the four.
  There were Senators who wanted to be heard and have a chance to 
debate the lack of hearings and the refusal to give hearings to 
qualified nominees. They have spoken eloquently on behalf of Roger 
Gregory, Bonnie Campbell and Judge Helene White. They are not seeking 
to filibuster these nominations and each has agreed to a reasonable 
time for debate before a vote.
  The Senator from Arizona is right that there has been a problem with 
the nomination of James Teilborg, who happens to be a close personal 
friend of the Senator since their days together back at the University 
of Arizona Law School. Mr. Teilborg was nominated on July 21 and was 
afforded a hearing and was reported by the Judiciary Committee within a 
week.
  The frustration that many Senators feel with the lack of attention 
the Committee has shown long-pending judicial nominees has recently 
boiled over. They wish to be heard; they seek parity and similar 
treatment for nominees they support. I understand their frustration and 
have been urging action for some time. This could all have been easily 
avoided if we were continuing to move judicial nominations like 
Democrats did in 1992, when we held hearings in September and confirmed 
66 judges that presidential election year.
  Michael Reagan, nominated to be a District Court Judge for the 
Southern District of Illinois, is a distinguished private attorney in 
Belleville, Illinois. He graduated from Bradley University in 1976, and 
St. Louis University Law School in 1980. He has been in private 
practice for over 20 years, and has been an adjunct professor of law at 
Belleville Area College and St. Louis University. He also presently 
serves as an Assistant Public Defender in St. Clair County, Illinois. 
He enjoys the support of both of his home state Senators. When other 
nominees to the Illinois federal courts were given hearings and 
confirmed in June, he was held back. He had likewise been nominated in

[[Page 20411]]

early May. He was finally included in a hearing in late July and 
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on July 27. He could 
have been confirmed before the August recess or at any time in 
September. I am glad that time has finally come.
  Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton has presided in the Arizona Superior Court 
for Maricopa County since 1989. She received her undergraduate degree 
and law degree from the University of Iowa. Following law school she 
clerked for the Honorable Laurence T. Wren on the Arizona Court of 
Appeals. She then went into private practice at Shimmel, Hill, Bishop & 
Bruender. She enjoys the support of both of her home state Senators and 
received a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. She 
was nominated on July 21, participated in a confirmation hearing on 
July 25 and was unanimously reported by the Judiciary committee on July 
27. She could have been confirmed before the August recess or at any 
time in September. I am glad the Senate is turning its attention to her 
nomination and am confident that she will be confirmed to fill the 
judicial emergency vacancy for which she was nominated.
  Mary Murguia currently serves as Director of the Executive Office for 
U.S. Attorneys. She also serves as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Arizona. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant District 
Attorney for the Wyandotte County District Attorney's Office. She 
earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Kansas. 
She enjoys the full support of both of her home state Senators. Like 
Judge Bolton, she was nominated on July 21, received a hearing on July 
25 and was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee on July 27. 
She could have been confirmed before the August recess or at any time 
in September. I know that the Senate will now do the right thing and 
confirm her to fill the judicial emergency vacancy for which she was 
nominated.
  I thank the Majority Leader and commend the Democratic Leader for 
scheduling the consideration of these judicial nominations. I wish 
there were many more being considered to fill the 67 current vacancies 
and eight on the horizon. I wish that we were making progress on the 
Hatch-Leahy Federal Judgeship Act of 2000, S. 3071, and authorizing the 
70 judgeships affected by that legislation as requested by the Judicial 
Conference.
  I heard Senator Hatch argue last week that the vacancies on the 
federal judiciary are ``less than zero''. While I marvel at the 
audacity of such argument, it moves us no closing to fulfilling our 
constitutional responsibilities to the federal judiciary. Likewise the 
notion that the refusal by some to waive the Senate's 2-hour rule in 
late September somehow preventing the Committee from holding additional 
confirmation hearings in early September or now is hardly compelling. I 
wish the Committee and the Senate would have followed the model 
established in 1992 and continued holding hearings and reporting 
judicial nominees in August and September. That simply did not happen 
and despite my requests no additional hearings were held. This year we 
held about half as many hearings as in 1992. Despite all of our efforts 
we have been unable to get the Judiciary Committee to consider the 
nominations of Bonnie Campbell or Allen Snyder or Fred Woocher 
following their hearings.
  The debate on judicial nominations over the last several years has 
included too much delay with respect to too many nominations. The most 
prominent current examples of that treatment are Judge Helene White, 
Bonnie Campbell, Roger Gregory, and Enrique Moreno. With respect to 
these nominations, the Senate has for too long refused to do its 
constitutional duty and vote. Nominees deserve to be treated with 
dignity and dispatch--not delayed for two or three or four years. The 
nomination of Judge White has now been pending for over four years, the 
longest pending nomination without a hearing in Senate history.
  Of course it is every Senator's right to vote as he or she sees fit 
on all matters. But I would hope that in the cases of these long-
pending nominations, those who have opposed them will show them the 
courtesy of using this time to discuss with us any concerns they may 
have and to explain the basis for their anonymous holds and the 
Senate's refusals to act.
  It was only a couple of years ago when the Chief Justice of the 
United States chastised this Senate for refusing to vote up or down on 
judicial nominations after a reasonable period for review.
  This Senate continues to reject his wisdom and, in my view, our duty.
  It is my hope the Senate will confirm all four district court 
nominees on the Senate calendar. I know there are Senators who want a 
chance to debate the lack of hearings and the refusal to give hearings 
to qualified nominees. I understand that frustration, and it is 
justifiable, especially as it is not the way the Democrats acted when 
they controlled the Senate with a Republican President.
  The nominee from Illinois should have been confirmed some time ago. 
The nominees from Arizona have zipped through here faster than the 
Republican leadership has allowed most judges to go through. When 
Senators supporting nominations, received months and years before, see 
newer nominees zip through, they are, of course, frustrated.
  The Judiciary Committee has reported only three nominees to the court 
of appeals all year. We have held hearings without even including a 
nominee to the court of appeals. We have denied a committee vote to two 
outstanding nominees who have succeeded in getting hearings; namely, 
Bonnie Campbell and Allen Snyder. You have to understand the 
frustration of Senators and those outside the Senate who know that 
Roger Gregory and Helene White and Bonnie Campbell and Kathleen McCree 
Lewis and others should have been considered by the Judiciary Committee 
and voted on by the Senate.
  On September 14, Senators Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Blanche 
Lincoln, Tom Harkin, and Carl Levin and Representative Carolyn Maloney 
from the other body, highlighted the Senate's failure to act on 
judicial nominations to the Federal bench. They called on the Senate 
leadership to consider qualified women before the Congress adjourned. 
They also discussed the problems of judicial emergencies, the length of 
time it takes women and people of color to be confirmed, and how the 
Federal courts do not currently reflect the diversity of our country. I 
do not recall them or anybody else ascribing motives to those who are 
holding up these people. Rather, they were saying in a diverse country 
such as ours, the Federal court should reflect the diversity of our 
country.
  They focused on the following women who have been waiting more than 
60 days for confirmation: Helene White, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit, has been pending more than 1,360 days; Kathleen McCree 
Lewis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has been pending 
more than 370 days; Bonnie Campbell, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Eighth Circuit, has been pending more than 215 days; Elena Kagen, U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been pending for 
more than 480 days; Lynette Norton, U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Pennsylvania, has been pending more than 890 days; Patricia 
Coan, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, has been 
pending more than 500 days; Dolly Gee, U.S. District Court for the 
Central District of California, has been pending more than 495 days; 
Rhonda Fields, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has 
been pending more than 325 days; and Linda Riegle, U.S. District Court 
for the District of Nevada, has been pending more than 165 days. That 
is why these Senators and this Member of Congress made the statement we 
did.
  Mr. President, am I correct in understanding that under the previous 
order, we are to recess at 12:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of my 
time.

[[Page 20412]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe I also have an hour under another 
part of the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will withhold that and yield the floor.

                          ____________________