[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 535-537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              ON THE CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE PHILIP MARTINEZ

  Mr. LEAHY. I commend the Majority Leader and our Assistant Majority 
Leader for bringing the confirmation of Judge Martinez of Texas to a 
successful conclusion today. I also want to thank Senator Durbin for 
having chaired the hearing in December that laid the groundwork for the 
confirmation of Judge Martinez and four other federal judges.
  At the Committee meeting at which we considered the nomination of 
Judge Martinez, I inserted in the Record a letter I had recently 
received from Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas strongly endorsing 
him. Congressman Reyes noted that the court

[[Page 536]]

to which Judge Martinez is nominated is facing a criminal caseload of 
over 2,000 cases with a single active judge in the El Paso region 
personally trying to manage over 1,100 criminal cases. I say to 
Congressman Reyes and Judge Briones, help should be on the way very 
soon in the person of Judge Martinez.
  It was not so long ago, when the Senate was under Republican control, 
that it took 943 days to confirm Judge Hilda Tagle to the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She was first 
nominated in August 1995, but not confirmed until March 1998. When the 
final vote came, she was confirmed by unanimous consent and without a 
single negative vote, after having been stalled for almost three years.
  I recall that the nomination of Michael Schattman to a vacancy on the 
Northern District of Texas never got a hearing and was never acted 
upon, while his nomination languished for over two years. I recall just 
two years ago when Ricardo Morado, who had served as Mayor of San 
Benito, Texas, and was nominated for a vacancy in the Southern District 
of Texas, never got a hearing and was never acted upon.
  These are district court nominations that could have helped solve 
problems in the trial courts if acted upon by the Senate over the last 
several years. In addition to these nominees, the Republican-led Senate 
failed to provide a hearing and failed to take action on the 
nominations of Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno to the same emergency 
vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over the last four years.
  In contrast, we are moving expeditiously to consider and confirm 
Judge Martinez, who was nominated in October, received his ABA peer 
review in November, participated in a hearing in early December, was 
reported by the Committee on December 13 and is today being confirmed. 
In addition, Randy Crane, a nominee to a vacancy on the Southern 
District of Texas District Court will be having a confirmation hearing 
in the near future.
  Just as we have worked hard since July and paid attention to the 
needs of the district courts in Montana, Kentucky, Kansas and Alabama, 
whose Chief Judges wrote asking for prompt attention to serious 
problems, we are responding to the needs of our courts throughout the 
country.
  The first two confirmations to the district courts last summer were 
Judge Cebull and Judge Haddon to the District Court in Montana. The 
Chief Judge of that court had written to us asking for our immediate 
attention and help because he had no active associate judge in that 
district. We responded. Working with Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, 
a Democrat and a Republican, the two nominees were included in our very 
first hearing, which held the day after Committee members were 
assigned. They were both confirmed the following week, on July 20, 
2001.
  Similarly, we heard from the Chief Judge of the District Court for 
the Eastern District of Kentucky. We responded by holding hearings for 
three judicial nominees to vacancies in that Court and proceeded to 
confirm two so quickly that they had to delay being sworn in to wind 
down their legal practices.
  Likewise, when we heard from the Chief Judge of the District Court 
for Kansas, we responded. We moved expeditiously to hold a hearing, 
report and confirm Judge Robinson to alleviate the emergency situation 
that the Chief Judge indicated existed in Topeka.
  Yesterday, as the Senate confirmed the second district court judge 
for courts in Alabama since November, we learned from Senator Sessions 
that the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Alabama had written to 
him to urge action in filling the vacancy in that court and noted that 
he was the only active judge left.
  Similarly, today we provide relief to the district courts in Texas.
  I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.
  With today's confirmation, the Senate has confirmed four additional 
judges since returning late last month. The Senate will have confirmed 
32 judges since the change in majority last summer. One-quarter of the 
judges confirmed have been for judicial emergency vacancies, eight so 
far. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to work with home State 
Senators to send nominees for an additional 15 judicial emergency 
vacancies and 31 federal trial court vacancies.
  Of course, I have yet to chair the Judiciary Committee for a full 
year; it has been barely six months. But the confirmations we have 
achieved in those six months are already comparable to the year totals 
for 1997, 1999 and 2000 and almost twice as many as a Republican 
majority in the Senate allowed to be confirmed in 1996.
  The 1996 session was the second year of the last Republican 
chairmanship. In that 1996 session, only 17 judges were confirmed all 
year and none were confirmed to the Court of Appeals--none. I expect 
and intend to work hard on additional judicial nominations through this 
session and to exceed the total from the 1996 session of only 17 
confirmations. In that 1996 session, the fourth judicial confirmation 
did not occur until April. By contrast, we will have confirmed four 
additional judges by the middle of the first full week in session this 
year.
  The Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the session on our 
second day in session, January 24, for Judge Michael Melloy, a nominee 
to the 8th Circuit from Iowa, and district court nominees from Arizona, 
Iowa, Texas, Louisiana and the District of Columbia, a total of six 
judicial nominations.
  I have set another hearing on the nomination of Judge Charles 
Pickering for the 5th Circuit for this Thursday, February 7, 2002.
  I am working to hold another confirmation hearing for judicial 
nominations, as well, before the end of February, even though it is a 
short month with a week's recess.
  I noted on January 25 in my statement to the Senate that we inherited 
a frayed process and are working hard to repair the damage of the last 
several years. I have already laid out a constructive program of 
suggestions that would help in that effort and help return the 
confirmation process to one that is a cooperative, bipartisan effort. I 
have included suggestions for the White House, that it work with 
Democrats as well as Republicans, that it encourage rather than 
forestall the use of bipartisan selection commissions, that it consider 
carefully the views of home State Senators.
  This past summer, by the time I became chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, federal court vacancies already topped 100 and were rising 
to 111. Since July, we have worked hard and the Senate has been 
diligent in considering and confirming 32 judges, thereby beginning the 
process of lowering the vacancies on our federal courts. Since I became 
Chairman, 26 additional vacancies have arisen. Still, we have been able 
to outpace this high level of attrition and lower the vacancies to 
under 100.
  During the last six and one-half years when a Republican majority 
controlled the process, the vacancies rose from 65 to over 100, an 
increase of almost 60 percent. By contrast, we are now working to keep 
these numbers moving in the right directions.
  Our Majority Leader, with the help of the Assistant Majority Leader, 
is clearing the calendar of judicial nominations and the Senate has 
proceeded to vote on every one of them. This is one of the reforms that 
signals a return to normalcy for the Senate, which had gotten away from 
such practices over the past six years. Since the change in majority, 
judicial nominees have not been held on the calendar for months and 
months or held over without action or returned to the President without 
action.
  I have observed that to make real progress will take the cooperation 
of the White House. The most progress can be made most quickly if the 
White House would begin working with home State Senators to identify 
fair-minded, nonideological, consensus nominees to fill these court 
vacancies. One of the reasons that the Committee was able

[[Page 537]]

to work as quickly as it has and the Senate has been able to confirm 32 
judges in the last few months is because those nominations were 
strongly supported as consensus nominees.
  I have heard of too many situations in too many States involving too 
many reasonable and moderate home State Senators in which the White 
House has demonstrated no willingness to work with home State Senators 
to fill judicial vacancies cooperatively. As we move forward, I urge 
the White House to show greater inclusiveness and flexibility and to 
help make this a truly bipartisan enterprise. Logjams exist in a number 
of settings.
  To make real progress, repair the damage that has been done over 
previous years, and build bridges toward a more cooperative process, 
there is much that the White House could do to work more cooperatively 
with all home State Senators, including Democratic Senators.
  Of course, more than two-thirds of the federal court vacancies 
continue to be on the district courts. The Administration has been slow 
to make nominations to the vacancies on the federal trial courts. In 
the last five months of last year, the Senate confirmed a higher 
percentage of the President's trial court nominees, 22 out of 36, than 
a Republican majority had allowed the Senate to confirm in the first 
session of either of the last two Congresses with a Democratic 
President. Last year the President did not make nominations to almost 
80 percent of the current trial court vacancies. As we began this 
session, 55 out of 69 vacancies were without a nominee.
  In late January, the White House finally sent nominations for another 
24 of those trial court vacancies. After the Committee receives the 
indication that the nominees have the support of their home State 
Senators and after the Committee has received ABA peer reviews, these 
recent nominations will then be eligible to be included in Committee 
hearings. Because the White House shifted the time at which the ABA 
does its evaluation of nominees to the post-nomination period, these 24 
nominees are unlikely to have completed files ready for evaluation 
until after the Easter recess. Even then, over two and one-half dozen 
of the federal trial court vacancies, 31, may still be without eligible 
nominees.
  We have accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. 
We have worked harder and faster than previously on judicial 
nominations, despite the unprecedented difficulties being faced by the 
nation and the Senate. I am encouraged that this confirmation today was 
not delayed by extended, unexplained, anonymous holds on the Senate 
Executive Calendar, the type of hold that characterized so much of the 
previous six and one-half years. Majority Leader Daschle has moved 
swiftly on judicial nominees reported to the calendar.
  I thank all Senators who have helped in our efforts and assisted in 
the hard work to review and consider the dozens of judicial nominations 
we have reported and confirmed. I thank, in particular, the Senators 
who serve on the Judiciary Committee for their helpful action since 
this summer. As our action today demonstrates, again, we are moving 
ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have strong 
bipartisan support.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from New York, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________