Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in a quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to thank all of those responsible for helping in the steering of the confirmation of these four nominees-- Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. I also would like to make a quick comment about my colleague, Senator Grassley, who observed earlier that even though I rank fifth on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley ranks second, I was able to secure these nominees; whereas, the nominee very important to Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin has not been considered. I want to make it clear that seniority had nothing to do with it. Senator Grassley has worked long and hard on behalf of the nominee that Senator Harkin has spoken about, Bonnie Campbell, former attorney general of Iowa. I worked very hard on behalf of these nominees. But to make it clear, the nominees from Arizona were President Clinton's nominees. I worked with my colleague in the House, Ed Pastor, a Democrat, in helping to ensure that these nominees could be considered in this session of the Congress; that we could have the Senate Judiciary Committee approve the nominations, and send them to the floor for consideration. It was still laid over over the August recess. Notwithstanding all of that, we were able to get it done. But in the case of Bonnie Campbell, she is a circuit court nominee. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have an agreement that they will support each other's nominees when the other party is in power. In this case, the Democratic President makes a nominee, and Senator Harkin is supportive and Senator Grassley is also supportive. He certainly has been supportive. I want the Record to be clear--I am sure Senator Harkin would concur in this--that Senator Grassley has been a very strong advocate for Bonnie Campbell. I think the circumstances that permitted us to confirm these other four nominees--one from Illinois and three from Arizona --didn't have anything to do with the seniority on the committee or it wouldn't have been possible for the Arizona judges to have been confirmed by the Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I will conclude. Some of the best things we have done have been in a bipartisan way--some of the things Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch have worked on in particular, things that Senator Feinstein and I have worked on in particular. I certainly look forward to getting together with Senator Leahy after the election to see how we begin next year, assuming I am returned to this body. I conclude with a quick comment about the need to fill this position in Arizona. In 1999, Congress created nine new Federal district court judgeships--four for Florida, two for Nevada, and three for Arizona. The Nevada positions and three of four in Florida have been confirmed, but none has been confirmed yet for Arizona. That is why this is such an important matter as we conclude our business this year. These nominees are needed to handle the ever-increasing caseload in Arizona, and here is an illustration of that caseload. Our criminal felony caseload has increased 60 percent in the last 3 years. The district of Arizona ranks second in total weighted filings for a judge among the Nation's 94 districts, by the way, twice the national average--901 compared to the national average of 472. We are fourth in weighted felony filings per judgeship. Felony filings per judgeship weighted are 236 percent above the national average. So you can see, Mr. President, why this burgeoning amount of work in Arizona requires that we fill these positions. We have 19 Indian reservations and 21 tribes which produces a steady stream of U.S. jurisdiction cases which are not found in most other States. Because we are on the border, we have a lot of illegal immigration and drug smuggling cases. And Arizona is one of the fastest growing States in terms of population. It is pretty easy to see how a State such as Arizona can get into a position where it has to fill these positions. I am very pleased that at this point, just before the Senate concludes its business for the year, we are able to fill these three positions in Arizona, as well as the Illinois position. I am delighted my colleague from Vermont will be urging his colleagues on the Democratic side to support all four nominations. I have certainly done the same on our side of the aisle. I think it will send a very good signal of that very kind of bipartisanship Senator Leahy was talking about if all of these nominees receive our unanimous support. I reserve the remainder of whatever time is remaining on my side. Mr. President, it is my understanding that any quorum call time will be attributed to both sides equally; is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate those remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It is probably a good segue for me to try to explain what has been going on here because colleagues who may be watching or people who are not in the Senate may be wondering what all of the discussion has been about when there are four specific nominees who President Clinton has nominated for Federal district judgeships and they are ostensibly being considered by the Senate and I have heard no discussion about the four. So I am going to discuss the four very briefly. The problem, as you have heard, is that many on the other side of the aisle are unhappy with the fact that other nominees have not been considered this year. You have heard all the discussion about that. You have heard Senator Hatch on our side explain why that is so. But there has been great displeasure on the other side because, in their view, not all the nominees they would have liked to have considered were considered. The four nominees who are before us today are the only four the Senate can consider. They are the only nominees who have gone all the way through the process from nomination, ABA clearance, FBI clearance, hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and then the Judiciary Committee having acted upon them to send them to the floor of the Senate. These are the only four on whom the Senate can act. I am pleased that, today, we will have the opportunity to do that. All four of these nominees were pending in July. The majority leader made a request of the minority to consider the four nominees. That request was denied, however. So these four nominees had to be held over the August recess. Obviously, on our side we would have much preferred that the four confirmations could have occurred because of the need to fill these vacancies for the District in Arizona--which I will refer to in just a moment--but to which Senator Leahy referred. He acknowledges we have a significant need in Arizona to fill these positions. But there was objection on his side to their consideration. So when we came back in September, the majority leader again asked the minority leader for concurrence to bring these four nominees to the floor for a vote. Again, that was denied by the Democratic side. People might ask: Why would Democrats be objecting to President Clinton's nominees? The reason has nothing to do with their merits. As Senator Leahy pointed out, undoubtedly all four of these nominees will be confirmed because they are all four very well qualified. The reason has to do with the politics of this Chamber. Because some Democrats were concerned that not all of their people had been yet considered, they were going to hold up nominees they perceived to be important to me and to Senator Fitzgerald from Illinois, the home State of the four nominees here before us. But the fact is, these people are needed to serve the people of the United States of America. They were nominees of President Clinton. So the bottom line is that it is now time for the nominations to be considered by the full Senate. We need to get over the politics. We need to get on with doing the people's business and confirm these four well-qualified individuals. I am pleased that both the majority and minority have now made that possible and that in a few minutes we will be able to vote for all of these candidates. The first three candidates should have been discussed this morning. I know they were not. Instead, we had the discussion that you have heard. But those four nominees, as Senator Hatch mentioned, are Michael Reagan from Illinois, about whom you will hear a little more in a moment from Senator Fitzgerald; Mary Murguia, a very well qualified assistant U.S. attorney from Arizona who, by the way, if confirmed, will be the first Latina to serve as a Federal district court judge from Arizona; and the Honorable Susan Bolton, a very distinguished Superior Court judge in Arizona. All three of those candidates I deem to be well qualified. I chaired the hearing. I can certainly attest to the fact that the two from Arizona have the highest qualifications. That leaves the fourth who is being considered separately here for reasons I will discuss in just a moment, but he is James Teilborg. Since I think it is appropriate when we are going to vote on somebody to actually have a little discussion about the individual, I am pleased to present a couple of minutes on his background here. He was born and raised on a farm in southern Colorado and was State President of the Colorado Future Farmers of America. He married his wife, Connie, 37 years ago. They have two sons, Andy and Jay, and three granddaughters. He and I attended the University of Arizona College of Law beginning in 1964. That is where I first met Jim Teilborg. I have known him ever since, and we have been close friends. So I can attest not only to his qualifications as a fine lawyer but also as a fine individual. He served in active duty U.S. Air Force to attend Navigator School. He is a retired colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve after 31 years in the National Guard and Reserve service. He was a member of the National Guard for 7 years, a navigator on the C-97 and KC-97 aircraft and, by the way, has been 23 years admissions counselor for the U.S. Air Force Academy. I would also note for the entire time I have been with the U.S. Congress, Jim Teilborg has chaired my service academy committee, a huge job of interviewing all the individuals who would like to attend one of our military service academies: interviewing them, making recommendations to me, and then for me to the academies. As a result of his exemplary service, I must say we have a much higher than average rate of acceptance by the service academies--because of Jim Teilborg's fine service. He was a founder of the law firm of Teilborg, Sanders & Parks, the 12th largest law firm in Arizona. His practice focused on the areas of aviation, professional negligence, product liability, and complex tort litigation. The Presiding Officer will appreciate, as a pilot himself, that, of course, Jim Teilborg is an accomplished pilot as well. He is a 33-year veteran trial lawyer. He was President of the Maricopa County Bar Association, and was a member of the board of directors. He was the lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, a distinguished position for a member of the bar, and has served as chairman of the Maricopa County Bar Association Medical/Legal Liaison Committee, and also served as chairman of the Special State Bar Disciplinary Administrative Defense Counsel. He is a Member of the International Association of Defense Counsel board of directors and was its president in 1981; and, a very prestigious honor, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. This is the pinnacle for anybody who really wants to call himself a trial lawyer. In the latest edition of ``The Best Lawyers of America,'' of course, he is included. Jim Teilborg is one of those rare individuals who has practiced law for all of this time, made no enemies that I know of, but a lot of friends in the practice of law as a very competent litigator, a fine individual, and one who, as we found when we interviewed people in Arizona about his potential nomination, had unanimous support among judges and lawyers for service on the Federal district court. I cannot think of anyone who would be more suited for the position because of his background, because of his judicial temperament, and because of his philosophy of always treating people fairly and his love for the law. It is personally a great honor for me and a pleasure to recommend James Teilborg to my colleagues. That is probably the last you will hear about Jim Teilborg. Nobody is going to argue against him as an individual, I am sure. Of course, none has so far. I am hopeful that the political disagreement we have had over other nominees will not spill over into a negative vote on Jim Teilborg. There is only one reason he has been set apart from the other nominees, and that is that he happens to be a Republican. Of course, I have supported nearly 97 percent of President Clinton's nominees during the time I have been in the Senate, and I daresay virtually all of them have been Democrats. One cannot base a vote on partisan reasons in this body. I was very pleased to hear Senator Leahy say he would urge the support for Jim Teilborg, as well as committing that support himself. While we on both sides of the aisle have voted against candidates for reasons having to do with the merits of that individual candidate, I do not know of any time I have seen a colleague vote against a nominee in protest of something someone else had done. That would be wrong. A protest vote having nothing to do with the individual would be wrong. If the Senator from Vermont will still stay on the floor one more moment, I will quote him because I want him to know how much I agree with this important statement of his. He said: We should be the conscience of the Nation. On some occasions, we have been, but we tarnish the conscience of this great Nation if we establish the precedents of partisanship and rancor that go against all precedents and set the Senate on a course of meanness and smallness. The Senator from Vermont was, I think, very accurate not only in what he predicted would be the consequence of the precedent we would set if we acted in that degree of smallness, but also I think expressed the view all of us share that our decisions should be based upon the merits, however we see them--maybe differently--but never voting on an individual because of the actions of someone else, to make a protest about some other point. I appreciate his comments, and I commend to all of his colleagues the statement he has made here with respect to Jim Teilborg.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the leader, that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3146 is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 3. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin final remarks on the H- 1B visa legislation under the previous order.

Mr. KYL. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for the weekly party conferences to meet from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill, H.R. 2392, an act to amend the Small Business Act to extend the authorization for the Small Business Innovation Research program, and for other purposes.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House, with a further amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Committee on Indian Affairs reports S. 1840, a bill to provide for the transfer of public lands to certain California Indian tribes, it then be referred to the Energy Committee for a period not to exceed 7 calendar days. I further ask consent that if S. 1840 is not reported prior to the 7 days, the bill then be discharged from the Energy Committee and placed on the calendar.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin closing remarks on the H-1B visa bill at 9:30 a.m. Following 30 minutes of debate, the Senate will proceed to vote on the bill. The Senate will then proceed to executive session with several hours of debate on judges and up to four votes could occur after 2 p.m.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the conference report to H.R. 4733 provides $1 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a comprehensive Hopi-Western Navajo water development study. This funding was added to the bill at my request, and I would like to take this opportunity to detail the reason why I consider this to be a very important undertaking. Efforts have been ongoing for several years to settle the various water rights claims of the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes and other water users in the Little Colorado River watershed of Northern Arizona. Numerous proposals have been advanced in an effort to settle these water-rights claims, including identifying alternative sources of water, means of delivery and points of usage to help provide a reliable source of good-quality water to satisfy the present and future demands of Indian communities on these reservations. Cost estimates for the various existing proposals run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, the majority of which would likely be borne by the Federal Government. This study is needed to identify the most cost-effective projects that will serve to meet these objectives. I have asked the Bureau to hire an outside contractor to complete this study to ensure that a fresh and objective analysis of existing studies and data is conducted. In addition, using a private contractor will enable the Bureau to complete the study in a timely manner without requiring the Bureau to divert personnel needed to accomplish other vital priorities. The study should be complete and submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as possible but no later than April 1, 2002. I also want to assure the parties that this study is intended to be used to facilitate this settlement, and cannot be used for any other purpose in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Idaho, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the reason I wanted to exchange places with you for a moment was to commend you on the statement you just made from the floor regarding our Nation's energy policy. Related to that, of course, is the work of the Department of Energy on other matters, including our nuclear facilities, on which you reported with respect to the Baker-Hamilton report. I appreciate that report as well. Back to the energy policy, I have not heard as good a statement of the overall problem in this country as the Presiding Officer just presented: The fact that in each of the different components of the national energy potential, we have developed policies or, in some cases, failed to develop policies, all of which combine to result in a lack of capacity to provide the fuels to create the energy which our society is going to continue to demand more and more. When we put it all together, as the Presiding Officer did, it becomes very clear that there is no integration of policy; that the Departments of Government that, in effect, have a veto over the development of these resources prevail, so that there is no capacity to literally have an energy policy that produces the fuel with which we can produce the energy. An administration that had a policy would coordinate the activities of each of these Departments of Government--the EPA, the Interior Department, the Energy Department, and all of the others mentioned. But that has not been done. Instead, each has been allowed, as the Presiding Officer pointed out, to develop their own policy for their own reasons. The net result is to diminish the capacity of the United States to produce the fuel to produce the energy we need. I think his explanation that we are likely to see an even higher price because of the concentration now into one area--natural gas--is also something that is bound to come true. But I doubt people are thinking that far ahead at this moment. The last thing I would like to say is about the comments in relation to ANWR. I would like to expand on that a little bit because I get so many letters and calls from constituents of mine in Arizona who are very concerned about the protection of our environment, as am I. They have heard: If we were to allow exploration of oil in this area, it would destroy the environment. I write back to them and say: Look, I have been there. Now, granted not very many of our constituents can afford to go up north of the Arctic Circle a couple hundred miles. You have to work to get there. You have to have some people who know what they are doing to get you there and show you around. But when you have been there, you realize that the exploration that we have been talking about is in no way degrading of the environment. When you go there, the first thing you see is that in the other place where we have developed the oil potential--it is an area not much larger than this Senate Chamber--they have been able to put all of the wells--I think there are 10 of them; two rows of 5, or that is roughly the correct number--those wells go down about 10,000 feet, and then they go out about 10,000 or 15,000 feet in all directions, so that, unlike the typical view that Americans have of oil wells scattered over the environment, they are all concentrated in one little place, in an artificially built area out into the water. So it does not degrade the coastal areas at all. It is all focused in one place. It is totally environmentally contained. There is absolutely no pollution. There is no degradation of the environment. There is no impact on animals. There is no environmental damage from this. The pipeline is already there. It is undercapacity. So it is a perfect way to use our Nation's resource for the benefit of the American people. When this wildlife refuge was created, an area was carved out for oil exploration. This was not supposed to be part of the wilderness. We flew over that area. As far as the eye can see for an hour, there is nothing but snow and ice--nothing. There are no trees. There are no animals. There are no mountains. There is nothing but snow and ice. You finally get to the little place where they would allow the exploration. There is a little Eskimo village there where you can land. You go to the village, and the people say: When are you going to bring the oil exploration for our village? Because they are the ones who would benefit from it. It is not part of the wildlife refuge. When you say: What is the environmental impact of this? They say there is none. For almost all of the year, what you see is this snow and ice. For a little bit of the year--a few weeks in the summer--there is a little bit of moss and grass there where some caribou will come to graze and calve. The reason the caribou herds have about quadrupled in size in the area where the oil exploration has occurred is because there is some habitation in that area. And, of course, the caribou are a lot like cows; They like people just fine. They are willing to come right up to the area of habitation and have their little calves. But the wolves do not like people, so the wolves do not prey on them as much, and they don't eat as many of the calves. Therefore the herd is able to grow. So the only environmental impact anyone has figured out is we have helped the caribou herds expand. This is an area where we can explore for oil without doing any environmental damage. We need the resources, as the Presiding Officer pointed out. I commend the Presiding Officer for his expertise in this area, for his ability to put it all together in a very understandable way, and for urging this administration to get on with the development of a true energy policy. Does the Senator from Idaho want to speak now?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I would like to take a few minutes to describe the importance of the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance. The goal of the Alliance is to promote and assist the establishment of drug-free workplace programs and provide comprehensive drug-free workplace services to American businesses. As you know, drug abuse is prevalent in the American workplace. One in 12 employees uses illegal drugs. Equally troubling is that drug and alcohol abusers file about 5 times as many workers compensation claims as non-abusers, and 47 percent of all industrial accidents in the United States are related to drugs and/ or alcohol. The Alliance will not only serve as a valuable resource to businesses, but also to the many organizations across the country devoted to drug free workplaces. Two such organizations in my state, Arizonans for a Drug-Free Workplace and Drugs Don't Work, would greatly benefit from working with the Alliance.

Mr. KYL. Once again I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury and General Government Subcommittee, Senator Campbell, regarding the importance of the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, 1 year ago, 11 terrorists dedicated to the violent pursuit of Puerto Rican independence walked out of prison thanks to a clemency grant by President Clinton. Two more of these terrorists will be released in coming years. They were all members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), which has claimed responsibility for 130 bombings in the United States, killing 6 Americans and wounding 84 others. It is incomprehensible to me that those responsible for such deadly violence are living in freedom today, while their victims and their families are still suffering. As we reflect on the decision of the President 1 year ago to ignore this suffering for his personal gain, I believe it's important to put a human face on the deplorable acts these terrorists committed. I'd like to quote from the testimony of a few victims who lived through some of the 130 bombings these FALN terrorists committed: Bill Newhall, FALN victim: On January 24th [1975], I was having lunch with two colleagues, Charlie Murray and Frank Connor and three clients, Jim Gezork, Alex Berger and Dave Urskind. We were seated at a table overlooking Broad Street, about to return to work when a bomb, placed in a doorway next to our table, detonated, destroying our corner with shrapnel and debris. Jim, Alex, and Frank died terrible deaths, barely recognizable to their families. Another man, Harold Sherburne, who was upstairs at the time of the blast, was also killed. Charlie, David and I suffered multiple wounds, many of them from shrapnel. More than fifty other people sustained injuries as well. . . . It is impossible to adequately describe the effects of this savagery on the injured and dead as well as their families. This bombing, a terrorist act against unarmed and unsuspecting civilians and its lethal results were followed by many more . . . NYPD Detective Rocco Pascarella, FALN victim: FALN bombs were placed at locations where it was likely that innocent people would be killed or injured. About two weeks prior to December 31, 1982 I had been assigned to the Police Headquarters security detail. . . . It was 9:30 p.m. when my colleagues and I heard a tremendous explosion. At first we thought it was fireworks. But soon after, we were told a bomb had exploded at 26 Federal Plaza which is two blocks from police headquarters. I was directed by my sergeant to search the perimeter of the headquarters building for anything suspicious that might be a bomb. As I approached the rear unused entrance to the building I noticed a lot of debris. As I turned to search, the bomb went off. . . . I suffered the loss of one leg below the knee, severe scarring of my other leg, the loss of hearing in one ear, and the loss of my eyesight to the extent that I am no longer able to drive. I was in the hospital for two months. I underwent six operations for my leg and ears and received over 40 stitches to my face, ears and mouth. I spent a year going through rehabilitation to learn to walk again with my artificial leg and injured right leg. Because of my injuries I have been unable to return to active duty in the police force. I am on an extended medical leave. The pain and trauma of these disabling injuries were multiplied by the suffering it caused my family. Special Agent (Ret.) Donald R. Wofford, FBI: [O]n Wednesday, 12/11/74 . . . an anonymous Hispanic female notified the NYPD that a dead body was located in a building at 336 East 110th Street, Manhattan. A radio car was dispatched and when the investigating patrolman pushed upon an outside door to an abandoned five story tenement located at this address, the explosion occurred, seriously injuring the officer, and ultimately resulting in the loss of his eye. Special Agent (Ret.) Richard S. Hahn, FBI: Between June, 1975 and November, 1979, the FALN claimed credit for nineteen bombing and six incendiary attacks in the Chicago area. These included bomb targets such as the woman's washroom in a hotel restaurant, (9/76), the bombing of the city-county building, (6/77), and Sears Tower (10/75). Madam President, I don't know how the President of the United States can just ignore the pain and suffering of these innocent Americans. I can't comprehend how we can say that America is tough on terrorism, and will not tolerate such violence, while our nation's leader grants clemency to those who commit these horrendous acts. And I don't understand how his Vice-President can remain silent on this grievous decision as he attempts to earn the trust of the American people. It's been a year since President Clinton granted clemency to convicted terrorists and the Senate and the American people are still searching for the answers to these questions.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an important matter. As I begin, I am reminded of a statement my mother used to make. Actually, I recall my grandmother making this statement. The statement is to ``cut off your nose to spite your face.'' I have found out that actually that phrase can be traced back to the late 1700s, when our Constitution was created. It essentially means doing something senseless, frequently out of spite, and which frequently ends up hurting the actor. The idea is that you are not happy with your face so you are going to cut off your nose. We all understand that that doesn't exactly solve the problem and, in the end, creates a bigger problem than the one with which you started. That phrase is applicable to something our friends of the minority are doing with respect to Federal judges. We have heard and have been subjected to a weekly dose of expressions of disappointment by members of the minority that the Senate has not confirmed more of President Clinton's judicial nominees. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee recently had to respond to that criticism because it had escalated to such a point that it demanded a response. In fact, not only were members of the Judiciary Committee being critical of the Republican chairman and the Republican Senate for not confirming more judges, but the President and Members of the House of Representatives chimed in with very, as Senator Hatch called it, ``reckless and unfounded'' accusations. For example, one Democratic House Member was quoted as saying that the Senate: . . . has made the judiciary an exclusive club that closes the door to women and minorities. . . . Its determinations have been made on the basis of racism and sexism, plain and simple. Other Democrats have argued that there is a judicial vacancy crisis and that ``scores of vacancies continue to plague our Federal courts.'' That is a statement of a prominent member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the face of comments such as this, Senator Hatch had to respond, and respond he did. He pointed out that the claims are false, both the claims of the inordinate number of judges being held, allegedly, and also the charge of racism. The Senate considers judicial nominees on the basis of merit, regardless of race or gender. As Chairman Hatch pointed out, minority and female nominees are confirmed in nearly identical proportion to their white male counterparts. The Republican Senate is confirming nominees at a reasonable rate, about the same rate as has occurred in the past. From statistics I have from the Judiciary Committee, there are currently 64 vacancies out of the 852-member Federal judiciary, which yields a vacancy rates of about 7.5 percent. A good comparison is the year 1994--by the way, at the end of a Democratically-controlled, the 103rd Congress--when there were 63 judicial vacancies, 1 less, yielding a vacancy rate of 7.4 percent. By comparison, at the end of the Bush administration, when Democrats controlled the Senate, the vacancy rate stood at 12 percent. It is possible to find statistics to prove about anything, but the fact is, as the chairman of the committee pointed out, this Congress is confirming judges of the Clinton administration at about the same rate as past Congresses, and certainly the vacancy rate is not as bad as it had been at previous times. The important point is that Democrats, members of the minority, who are critical of Republicans for not confirming the nominees, need to be careful of this charge because it is they who are now refusing to confirm President Clinton's nominees to the Federal district court. There are currently four nominees who are ready to be brought to the full Senate floor for confirmation. Indeed, all four of these nominees were presented to the minority for their approval. There is no objection on the Republican side. The minority leader, speaking for Members of the Senate minority, objected to the Senate's consideration of confirmation of these four Clinton nominees to the Federal district court, the only four candidates on whom the Senate can vote. None of the other nominees has gone through the committee and is therefore ready for us to act. These are the four nominees currently on the Executive Calendar: Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton, Mary Murguia, James Teilborg, and Michael Reagan. The first three are nominees from Arizona. They were all nominated on July 21, 2000, by President Clinton. Michael Reagan of Illinois is the other nominee. He was nominated on May 12, 2000. I chaired the hearing for these four nominees on July 25, 2000. They are all qualified nominees. I recommended them all to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Indeed, they were approved by the Judiciary Committee on July 27, 2000, and sent to the floor for consideration. They were supposed to be confirmed before the August recess. When an unrelated negotiation between Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle broke down and reached an impasse, floor action on these nominees was postponed until this month, when we returned from the August recess. That is when the minority leader rejected the majority leader's request that these four be considered by the full Senate. It doesn't matter to me whether they are confirmed by unanimous consent or by a vote, but in any event, these are the four on whom we can act. They ought to be acted on, and I believe all should be approved. With respect to the three in Arizona in particular, I note that last year Congress created nine new Federal district court judgeships--four for Florida, three for Arizona, and two for Nevada. There was a very specific reason for this action. There is a huge caseload in these three States. The judges are falling further and further behind, primarily in the State of Arizona; I believe also in Florida. This is due to the number of criminal prosecutions for illegal drugs, alien smuggling, and related cases. All of the new judgeships for Nevada have been confirmed, and three of the four judgeships for Florida have been confirmed. None of the judgeships for Arizona has been confirmed. It is important that these nominees of President Clinton be confirmed by the Senate. They are critical to handling the caseload in the State of Arizona. Here is where the old phrase of my mother and grandmother comes into play: cutting off your nose to spite your face. Because some of the members of the minority party wish we could confirm even more judges, they are holding up the confirmation of these judges. There is nothing against the qualifications of any of the four. It is just that if they can't have everything their way, then, by golly, nobody is going to get anything. It is President Clinton who has nominated these four candidates. It is not somebody from Arizona, though Democratic Congressman Ed Pastor and Senator McCain and I strongly support these three nominees. One, Mary Murguia, is a career Federal prosecutor. She is currently at the U.S. Department of Justice as the executive director of the Attorneys General Association. She would be, incidentally, the first Latino ever to be confirmed for the U.S. district court from the State of Arizona. Jim Teilborg is a lifelong trial attorney with enormous experience in courts and would--I think everyone recognizes--make a tremendous Federal judge. Judge Susan Bolton is one of the most respected members of the Arizona Superior Court, the trial court at the State court level, one of the most respected judges in the entire State. In fact, I have received comments from many lawyers who have said: We think your three nominees from Arizona are fantastic. We just wish Judge Bolton didn't have to leave because she is so important to the judiciary at the State level. Judge Michael Regan from Illinois, likewise, has very high qualifications. The point is this: These are Clinton administration nominees. They are needed to fill important vacancies in the Federal district court. Members of the minority have complained incessantly all year long that we need more judges and that the Senate needs to confirm the President's nominees, and they complain when the Senate has taken more time than they thought was warranted to confirm these judges. So the Senate Judiciary Committee acts to put these judges before the full Senate, and what happens? Members of the minority object. They won't let the Senate even vote on these four nominees. That is what I call cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is obstruction tactics; it is dealmaking at its worst. This is what people object to when they look at the Federal Government. It doesn't treat these individuals as human beings whose lives and careers are on hold. Incidentally, it has happened before. This is not the first time members of the minority have held up the nomination of a Democratic nominee by the Democratic President. In 1997, Democrats blocked the nomination of Barry Silverman to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He had to wait until the following year to be confirmed. Again, there was a dustup over a nominee from Illinois, as I recall, and the point was: If we can't get everything we want, you are not going to get anything you want. It is not only me and not only the people of Arizona; it is also the will of the President of the United States that is being thwarted. It is not as if partisan politics were involved with respect to the people being nominated because they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. In fact, obviously, the majority are Democrats. So you have a Democratic President nominating mostly Democratic candidates for the court, and the Democratic minority is holding them up. One of our distinguished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, recently said on the floor, ``We cannot afford to stop or slow down judicial nominations.'' I agree with Senator Leahy on this point. I hope that he and Senator Daschle and the other Senators who have an interest in this important subject will continue to support the confirmations of judges as long as we can and at least support the confirmations of those who the Senate can act on because they are the only ones who have been cleared to this point and, in any event, will recognize the irony in their criticism on the Senate floor for not confirming judges, when it is their action and their action alone that is preventing the confirmations of these four nominations to the Federal district bench. It is time for action. I hope my colleagues will quickly clear these four nominees for confirmation.