Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in light of the continuing criticism of Republicans about the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, I am making my statement from September 5, 2002, on that vote a part of the Record. I would also like to respond to the misleading suggestion that the Senate Judiciary Committee has never defeated a nominee who received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. In fact, in the prior six and one-half years of Republican control of the Senate the nominations of more than a dozen judicial candidates with unanimous well qualified ratings were defeated in the Committee through the decision of Republicans to block them from receiving hearings and votes on their nominations. More than three dozen others received partial ratings of ``well qualified'' and ``qualified.'' More than 50 of President Clinton's judicial nominees never received Committee votes, despite their ratings. The truth is that Republicans defeated dozens of judicial nominees with well-qualified ratings, not in the light of day with a democratic vote, but in the dark of night through secret, anonymous holds or other tactics. Here are some of the Clinton nominees with unanimous well qualified or partial well qualified ratings who never received a Senate Judiciary Committee vote and whose nominations ended in Committee: Alston Johnson, Fifth Circuit, James Duffy, Ninth Circuit, Kathleen McCree- Lewis, Sixth Circuit, Enrique Moreno, Fifth Circuit, Judge James Lyons, Tenth Circuit, Allen Snyder, D.C. Circuit, Judge Robert Cindrich, Third Circuit, Judge Stephen Orlofsky, Third Circuit, James Beatty, Fourth Circuit, Frederic Woocher, Central District of California, Richard Anderson, District of Montana, Jeffrey Coleman, Northern District of Illinois, John Bingler, Western District of Pennsylvania, Elena Kagan, D.C. Circuit, Elizabeth Gibson, Fourth Circuit, Lynette Norton, Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome Davis, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Richard Leonard, Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge Linda Reigle, District of Nevada, Gary Sebelius, District of Kansas, Judge David Cercone, Western District of Pennsylvania, Patricia Coan, District of Colorado, Stephen Achelpohl, District of Nebraska, Judge Jorge Rangel, Fifth Circuit, Ronald Gould, Ninth Circuit, and Robert Freedburg, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This is just a partial list. Of course some of President Clinton's judicial nominees who received hearings and Committee votes had also received well-qualified ratings, but that did not stop Republicans from voting against them and trying to defeat their nominations. For example, some of the same Republicans who now claim it is unprecedented to defeat a nominee with a well- qualified rating voted against several Clinton nominees with that same rating, either in Committee, on the floor or both. The following nominees with well qualified ratings were subject of Republican efforts to defeat their nominations, despite the rating that Republicans now cling to like a impermeable shield against criticism: Judge Rosemary Barkett, Eleventh Circuit, Judge Merrick Garland, D.C. Circuit, Judge William Fletcher, Ninth Circuit, Judge Ray Fisher, Ninth Circuit, Judge Marsha Berzon, Ninth Circuit, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Second Circuit, Judge Margaret McKeown, Ninth Circuit, Judge Richard Paez, Ninth Circuit, Judge Margaret Morrow, Central District of California, Judge Gerald Lynch, Southern District of New York, and Mary McLaughlin, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Republicans tried mightily to defeat these nominations. In fact, some of these nominees were asked about their ABA membership, as if being active in the Nation's largest bar association were somehow disqualifying. Republicans almost defeated some of these nominations. For example, Judge Paez was voted out of committee with barely a majority, and he received 39 Republican votes against his nomination despite his partial well-qualified rating. Judge Fletcher, who had a unanimous well-qualified rating, received negative votes in Committee from some of the same Republicans now complaining about negative votes on the nomination of Justice Owen, and Judge Fletcher's nomination received 41 Republican votes against his confirmation. Thus, what Republicans are really complaining about is not that a nominee who received a well- qualified rating was defeated, but that one of their nominees was defeated, regardless of her ABA rating. That is understandable. What is not understandable is their effort to distort the facts and the history of defeat of numerous other nominees of President Clinton who had the same rating as Justice Owen. Those ratings were no obstacle back then to Republican efforts to defeat those nominations, either through blocking hearings and votes or through attempts to defeat nominations in the Committee and on the floor. It was not due to lack of effort on their part that a nominee with a well-qualified rating was not actually voted down on their watch. In fact, dozens were defeated in far less public ways, but their nominations failed, nonetheless, and were returned to the President without confirmation. Additionally, I would like to respond to the notion that the vote against Justice Owen was somehow ``anti-woman.'' Such a claim, as that made by Attorney General Ashcroft, is absurd. I recall that when John Ashcroft was in the Senate he voted against the confirmation of at least 11 judicial nominees of President Clinton and almost half of them are women who now sit on the federal bench. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been far fairer to this President's judicial nominees, including the women he has nominated to the federal bench. Since the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee 14 months ago, 17 women nominated to the Federal bench by President Bush have been given a hearing and reported out of committee. Sixteen have already been confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate. Four of these women were nominated to the Circuit Courts and were some of the first nominees in years to receive hearings, after the anonymous holds and obstruction during the period of Republican control of the Senate. Ten of those women nominees with records of fairness as lower federal courts or State court judges have been voted out of the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee, including former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Joan Lancaster. Justice Owen's record, in contrast, was not one of fairness and adherence to precedent. Instead, time after time, Justice Owen's written opinions demonstrated her willingness to substitute her policy preferences for those of the Texas legislature and her determination to distort precedent. Even her fellow judges criticized her approach. These issues are discussed in more detail in my full Judiciary Committee statement that follows: Statement of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on September 5, 2002 on the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered a number of the President's nominees, including Priscilla Owen to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Reena Raggi to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. These two nominees were the 80th and 81st judicial nominees voted on by the Committee in less than 15 months, and the 16th and 17th circuit court nominees voted on by the committee in that time. This committee has worked diligently since the change in majority last summer to consider more than 250 of the President's nominees. During our first year in the majority, we have held twice as many hearings for President Bush's Courts of Appeals nominees as were held in the first year of the Reagan Administration, when the Senate was controlled by Republicans, and five times as many as in the first year of the Clinton Administration, when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Under Democratic leadership, this committee has also voted on more judicial nominees, 79 so far, than in any of the six and one- half years of Republican control that preceded the change in majority. We have already voted on twice as many circuit court nominees, 15, as the Republican majority averaged in the years they were in control. In fact, this last year we voted on more judicial nominees than were voted on in 1999 and 2000 combined and on more circuit court nominees than Republicans voted on in 1996 and 1997 combined. We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees were treated. By many measures the Committee has achieved almost twice as much this last year as Republicans averaged during their years in control. In the six and one-half year period of Republican control before the change in majority last summer, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled from 16 to 33 and overall vacancies rose from 63 to 110. We have reversed those trends, even though 43 vacancies have arisen since the changeover last year. I have taken a number of actions to seek a cooperative and constructive working relationship with all Senators on both sides of the aisle and with the White House in order to make the confirmation process more orderly, less antagonistic, and more productive. Not all of my efforts have been successful and very few of my suggestions to the Administration have yielded results, but I have continued to make these efforts in the best interests of the country, the Senate and this committee. I am proud of the work the Committee has done since the change in the majority. I am proud of the way we have considered nominees fairly and expeditiously. The circuit court nominees voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee today are two very different examples of the types of nominees sent to the Senate by this President. Judge Reena Raggi was appointed to the trial court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. She has a solid record of accomplishment in both the private and public sectors. She received the strong bipartisan support of two Democratic Senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and of the New York legal community. We have every reason to believe that she will serve with distinction on the Second Circuit as a fair and impartial judge. She is a conservative Republican. In sharp contrast is the record of the other circuit court nominee we considered today: Justice Priscilla Owen, a nominee whose record is too extreme even in the context of the very conservative Texas Supreme Court. Justice Owen has been nominated to fill a vacancy that has existed since January, 1997. In the intervening five years, President Clinton nominated Judge Jorge Rangel, a distinguished Hispanic attorney from Corpus Christi, to fill that vacancy. Despite his qualifications, and his unanimous rating of Well Qualified by the ABA, Judge Rangel never received a hearing from the Committee, and his nomination was returned to the President without Senate action at the end of 1998, after a fruitless wait of 15 months. On September 16, 1999, President Clinton nominated Enrique Moreno, another outstanding Hispanic attorney, to fill that same vacancy. Mr. Moreno did not receive a hearing on his nomination either, for more than 17 months. President Bush withdrew the nomination of Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit and later sent Justice Owen's name in its place. It was not until May of this year, at a hearing before Senator Schumer, that this committee heard from any of President Clinton's three unsuccessful nominees to the 5th Circuit. This May Mr. Moreno and Mr. Rangel testified along with a number of other Clinton nominees about their treatment by the Republican majority. Thus, Justice Owen is the third nominee to this vacancy and the first to be accorded a hearing before the Committee. In fact, when the Committee held its hearing on the nomination of Judge Edith Clement to the Fifth Circuit last fall, it was the first hearing on a Fifth Circuit nominee in seven years. By contrast, Justice Owen is the third nomination to the Fifth Circuit on which this committee has held a hearing in less than one year. In spite of the treatment by the former Republican majority of so many moderate judicial nominees of the previous President, we proceeded this July, as I said that we would, with a hearing on Justice Owen. Justice Owen is one among 16 Texas nominees who have been considered by this Committee since I became Chairman. So far, five District Court judges, four United State Attorneys, three United States Marshals, and three executive branch appointees from Texas have moved swiftly through the Judiciary Committee. When Justice Owen was initially nominated, the President changed the confirmation process from that used by Republican and Democratic Presidents for more than 50 years. That resulted in her ABA peer review not being received until later in the summer. As a result of a Republican objection to the Democratic leadership's request to retain all judicial nominations pending before the Senate through the August recess, the initial nomination of Justice Owen was required by Senate rules to be returned to the President without action. The Committee nonetheless took the unprecedented action of proceeding during the August recess to hold two hearings involving judicial nominations, including a nominee to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In my efforts to accommodate a number of Republican Senators, including the Republican Leader, this Committee's ranking member, and at least four other Republican members of this Committee, I have scheduled hearings for nominees out of the order in which they were received. This has been a longstanding practice of the Committee. It is also a fact that less controversial nominations are easier to consider and are, by and large, able to be scheduled sooner than more controversial nominations. This is especially important in the circumstances that existed last summer at the time of the change in majority. At that time we faced what Republicans have now admitted had become a vacancies crisis. From January 1995 when the Republican majority assumed control of the confirmation process in the Senate until the shift in majority last summer, vacancies rose from 65 to 110 and vacancies on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled from 16 to 33. I thought it important to make as much progress as quickly as we could in the time available to us last year, and we did. Evaluating the record of a nominee whose record raises questions as serious as those about Justice Owen simply takes longer. The responsibility to advice and consent on the President's nominees is one that I take seriously and that this committee takes seriously. Justice Owen's nomination to the Court of Appeals has been given a fair hearing and a fair process before this Committee. I thank all Members of the Committee for their fairness. Those who have had concerns have raised them and have heard the nominee's responses, in private meetings, at her public hearing and in written follow-up questions. I would particularly like to commend Senator Feinstein for her evenhandedness in chairing the hearing for Justice Owen. It was a long day, in which nearly every Senator who is a member of this Committee came to question Justice Owen, and Senator Feinstein handled it with patience and fairness. I am proud that Democrats and most Republicans have kept to the merits of this nomination, and have not chosen to vilify, castigate, unfairly characterize and condemn without basis Senators working conscientiously to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. To those who will take this occasion to engage in name-calling or accusations of political posturing, I can only express my disappointment. The constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to the President's life tenure judicial nominees is not an occasion to rubber stamp. The nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen presents a number of areas of serious concern to me. The first area of concern to me is Justice Owen's extremism even among a conservative Supreme Court of Texas. The conservative Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court has gone out of its way to criticize Justice Owen and the dissents she joined in ways that are highly unusual and that highlight her ends-oriented activism. A number of Texas Supreme Court Justices have pointed out how far from the language of statute she has strayed in her attempts to push the law beyond what the legislature intended. One example is the majority opinion in Weiner v. Wasson, 900 S.W.2d 316, Tex. 1995. In this case, Justice Owen wrote a dissent advocating a ruling against a medical malpractice plaintiff injured while he was still a minor. The issue was the constitutionality of a State law requiring minors to file medical malpractice actions before reaching the age of majority, or risk being outside the statute of limitations. Of interest is the majority's discussion of the importance of abiding by a prior Texas Supreme Court decision unanimously striking down a previous version of the statute. In what reads as a lecture to the dissent, then-Justice John Cornyn, the current Texas Attorney General and Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, explains on behalf of the majority: Generally, we adhere to our precedents for reasons of efficiency, fairness, and legitimacy. First, if we did not follow our own decisions, no issue could ever be considered resolved. The potential volume of speculative relitigation under such circumstances alone ought to persuade us that stare decisis is a sound policy. Secondly, we should give due consideration to the settled expectations of litigants like Emmanuel Wasson, who have justifiably relied on the principles articulated in [the previous case]. . . . Finally, under our form of government, the legitimacy of the judiciary rests in large part upon a stable and predictable decisionmaking process that differs dramatically from that properly employed by the political branches of government. Id. at 12-13. (Citations omitted.) According to the conservative majority on the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen went out of her way to ignore precedent and would have ruled for the defendants. The conservative Republican majority followed precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. In Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, 34 S.W. 3d 559 (Tex. 2000), Justice Owen wrote another dissent which drew fire from a conservative Republican majority, this time for her disregard for legislative language. In a challenge by a teacher who did not receive reappointment to her position, the majority found that the school board had exceeded its authority when it disregarded the Texas Education Code and tried to overrule a hearing examiner's decision on the matter. Justice Owen's dissent advocated for an interpretation contrary to the language of the applicable statute. The majority, which included Alberto Gonzales and two other appointees of then-Governor Bush, was quite explicit about its view that Justice Owen's position disregarded the law: The dissenting opinion misconceives the hearing examiner's role in the . . . process by stating that the hearing examiner `refused' to make findings on the evidence the Board relies on to support its additional findings. As we explained above, nothing in the statute requires the hearing examiner to make findings on matters of which he is unpersuaded. . . . Id. at 25-26. The majority also noted that: The dissenting opinion's misconception of the hearing examiner's role stems from its disregard of the procedural elements the Legislature established in subchapter F to ensure that the hearing-examiner process is fair and efficient for both teachers and school boards. The Legislature maintained local control by giving school boards alone the option to choose the hearing-examiner process in nonrenewal proceedings. . . . By resolving conflicts in disputed evidence, ignoring credibility issues, and essentially stepping into the shoes of the factfinder to reach a specific result, the dissenting opinion not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme than that argued for by the board. . . .'' Id. at 28. Collins v. Ison-Newsome, 73 S.W.3d 178, is yet another case where a dissent, joined by Justice Owen, was roundly criticized by the Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court. The Court cogently stated the legal basis for its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to decide the matter before it, and as in other opinions where Justice Owen was in dissent, took time to explicitly criticize the dissent's positions as contrary to the clear letter of the law. At issue was whether the Supreme Court had the proper ``conflicts jurisdiction'' to hear the interlocutory appeal of school officials being sued for defamation. The majority explained that it did not because published lower court decisions do not create the necessary conflict between themselves. The arguments put forth by the dissent, in which Justice Owen joined, offended the majority, and they made their views known, writing: The dissenting opinion agrees that ``because this is an interlocutory appeal . . . this Court's jurisdiction is limited,'' but then argues for the exact opposite proposition . . . This argument defies the Legislature's clear and express limits on our jurisdiction. . . . The author of the dissenting opinion has written previously that we should take a broader approach to the conflicts-jurisdiction standard. But a majority of the Court continues to abide by the Legislature's clear limits on our interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction. Id. at 182. They continue: [T]he dissenting opinion's reading of Government Code sec. 22.225(c) conflates conflicts jurisdiction with dissent jurisdiction, thereby erasing any distinction between these two separate bases for jurisdiction. The Legislature identified them as distinct bases for jurisdiction in sections 22.001(a)(1) and (a)(2), and section 22.225(c) refers specifically to the two separate provisions of section 22.001(a) providing for conflicts and dissent jurisdiction. . . . [W]e cannot simply ignore the legislative limits on our jurisdiction, and not even Petitioners argue that we should do so on this basis. Id. at 183. Again, Justice Owen joined a dissent that the Republican majority described as defiant of legislative intent and in disregard of legislatively drawn limits. Some of the most striking examples of criticism of Justice Owen's writings, or the dissents and concurrences she joins, come in a series of parental notification cases heard in 2000. They include: In re Jane Doe 1, where the majority included an extremely unusual section explaining its view of the proper role of judges, admonishing the dissent joined by Justice Owen for going beyond its duty to interpret the law in an attempt to fashion policy. Giving a pointed critique of the dissenters, the majority explained that, ``In reaching the decision to grant Jane Doe's application, we have put aside our personal viewpoints and endeavored to do our job as judges--that is, to interpret and apply the Legislature's will as it has been expressed in the statute.'' 19 S.W.3d 346. In a separate concurrence, Justice Alberto Gonzales wrote that to the construe law as the dissent did, ``would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' In re Jane Doe 3, Justice Enoch writes specifically to rebuke Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters for misconstruing the legislature's definition of the sort of abuse that may occur when parents are notified of a minor's intent to have an abortion, saying, ``abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second guessed.'' In one case that is perhaps the exception that proves the rule, Justice Owen wrote a majority that was bitterly criticized by the dissent for its activism. In In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W. 3d 328, (Tex. 2001), Justice Owen wrote a majority opinion finding that the city did not have to give the Austin American-Statesman a report prepared by a consulting expert in connection with pending and anticipated litigation because such information was expressly made confidential under other law, namely the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The dissent is extremely critical of Justice Owen's opinion, citing the Texas law's strong preference for disclosure and liberal construction. Accusing her of activism, Justice Abbott, joined by Chief Justice Phillips and Justice Baker, notes that the legislature, ``expressly identified eighteen categories of information that are 'public information' and that must be disclosed upon request . . . [sec. (a)] The Legislature attempted to safeguard its policy of open records by adding subsection (b), which limits courts' encroachment on its legislatively established policy decisions.'' Id. at 338. The dissent further protests: [b]ut if this Court has the power to broaden by judicial rule the categories of information that are `confidential under other law,' then subsection (b) is eviscerated from the statute. By determining what information falls outside subsection (a)'s scope, this Court may evade the mandates of subsection (b) and order information withheld whenever it sees fit. This not only contradicts the spirit and language of subsection (b), it guts it. Id. Finally, the opinion concluded by asserting that Justice Owen's interpretation, ``abandons strict construction and rewrites the statute to eliminate subsection (b)'s restrictions.'' Id. at 343. These examples, together with the unusually harsh language directed at Justice Owen's position by the majority in the Doe cases, show a judge out of step with the conservative Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court, a majority not afraid to explain the danger of her activist views. Ends-Oriented Judicial Activism Showing Bias Against Consumers, Victims, Individuals.--I am also greatly concerned about Justice Owen's record of ends-oriented decision making as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court. As one reads case after case, particularly those in which she was the sole dissenter or dissented with the extreme right wing of the Court, her pattern of activism becomes clear. Her legal views in so many cases involving statutory interpretation simply cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of the statute, the legislative intent, or the majority's interpretation, leading to the conclusion that she sets out to justify some pre-conceived idea of what the law ought to mean. This is not an appropriate way for a judge to make decisions. This is a judge whose record reflects that she is willing and sometimes eager to make law from the bench. Justice Owen's activism and extremism is noteworthy in a variety of cases, including those dealing with business interests, malpractice, access to public information, employment discrimination and Texas Supreme Court jurisdiction, in which she writes against individual plaintiffs time and time again, in seeming contradiction of the law as written. One of the cases where this trend is evident is FM Properties v. City of Austin, 22 S.W. 3d 868 (Tex. 1998). I asked Justice Owen about this 1998 environmental case at her hearing. In her dissent from a 6-3 ruling, in which Justice Alberto Gonzales was among the majority, Justice Owen showed her willingness to rule in favor of large private landowners against the clear public interest in maintaining a fair regulatory process and clean water. Her dissent, which the majority characterized as, ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric,'' was an attempt to favor big landowners. In this case, the Texas Supreme Court found that a section of the Texas Water Code allowing certain private owners of large tracts of land to create ``water quality zones,'' and write their own water quality regulations and plans, violated the Texas Constitution because it improperly delegated legislative power to private entities. The Court found that the Water Code section gave the private landowners, ``legislative duties and powers, the exercise of which may adversely affect public interests, including the constitutionally-protected public interest in water quality.'' Id. at 876-77. The Court also found that certain aspects of the Code and the factors surrounding its implementation weighed against the delegation of power, including the lack of meaningful government review, the lack of adequate representation of citizens affected by the private owners' actions, the breadth of the delegation, and the big landowners' obvious interest in maximizing their own profits and minimizing their own costs. The majority offered a strong opinion, detailing its legal reasoning and explaining the dangers of offering too much legislative power to private entities. By contrast, in her dissent, Justice Owen argued that, ``[w]hile the Constitution certainly permits the Legislature to enact laws that preserve and conserve the State's natural resources, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Legislature to exercise that power in any particular manner,'' ignoring entirely the possibility of an unconstitutional delegation of power. Id. at 889. Her view strongly favored large business interests to the clear detriment of the public interest, and against the persuasive legal arguments of a majority of the Court. When I asked her about this case at her hearing, I found her answer perplexing. In a way that she did not argue in her written dissent, at her hearing Justice Owen attempted to cast the FM Properties case not as, ``a fight between and City of Austin and big business, but in all honesty, . . . really a fight about . . . the State of Texas versus the City of Austin.'' Transcript at 69. In the written dissent however, she began by stating the, ``importance of this case to private property rights and the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches . . .'', and went on to decry the Court's decision as one that, ``will impair all manner of property rights.'' 22 S.W. 3d at 889. At the time she wrote her dissent, Justice Owen was certainly clear about the meaning of this case--property rights for corporations. Another case that concerned me is the case of GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 990 S.W.2d 605, where Justice Owen wrote in favor of GTE in a lawsuit by employees for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The rest of the Court held that three employees subjected to what the majority characterized as ``constant humiliating and abusive behavior of their supervisor'' were entitled to the jury verdict in their favor. Despite the Court's recitation of an exhaustive list of sickening behavior by the supervisor, and its clear application of Texas law to those facts, Justice Owen wrote a concurring opinion to explain her difference of opinion on the key legal issue in the case--whether the behavior in evidence met the legal standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Justice Owen contended that the conduct was not, as the standard requires, ``so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency . . .'' Id. at 621. The majority opinion shows Justice Owen's concurrence advocating an inexplicable point of view that ignores the facts in evidence in order to reach a predetermined outcome in the corporation's favor. At her hearing, in answer to Senator Edwards' questions about this case, Justice Owen again gave an explanation not to be found in her written views. She told him that she agreed with the majority's holding, and wrote separately only to make sure that future litigants would not be confused and think that out of context, any one of the outrages suffered by the plaintiffs would not support a judgment. Looking again at her dissent, I do not see why, if that was what she truly intended, she did not say so in language plain enough to be understood, or why she thought it necessary to write and say it in the first place. It is a somewhat curious distinction to make--to advocate that in a tort case a judge should write a separate concurrence to explain which part of the plaintiff's case, standing alone, would not support a finding of liability. Neither her written concurrence, nor her answers in explanation after the fact, is satisfactory explanation of her position in this case. In City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W. 3d 351 (Tex. 2000), Justice Owen dissented from a majority opinion and, again, it is difficult to justify her views other than as based on a desire to reach a particular outcome. The majority upheld a decision giving the newspaper access to a document outlining the reasons why the city's finance director was going to be fired. Justice Owen made two arguments: that because the document was considered a draft it was not subject to disclosure, and that the document was exempt from disclosure because it was part of policy making. Both of these exceptions were so large as to swallow the rule requiring disclosure. The majority rightly points out that if Justice Owen's views prevailed, almost any document could be labeled draft to shield it from public view. Moreover, to call a personnel decision a part of policy making is such an expansive interpretation it would leave little that would not be ``policy''. Quantum Chemical v. Toennies, 47 S.W. 3d 473 (Tex. 2001), is another troubling case where Justice Owen joined a dissent advocating an activist interpretation of a clearly written statute. In this age discrimination suit brought under the Texas civil rights statute, the relevant parts of which were modeled on Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act (and its amendments), the appeal to the Texas Supreme Court centered on the standard of causation necessary for a finding for the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued, and the five justices in the majority agreed, that the plain meaning of the statute must be followed, and that the plaintiff could prove an unlawful employment practice by showing that discrimination was ``a motivating factor.'' The employer corporation argued, and Justices Hecht and Owen agreed, that the plain meaning could be discarded in favor of a more tortured and unnecessary reading of the statute, and that the plaintiff must show that discrimination was ``the motivating factor,'' in order to recover damages. The portion of Title VII on which the majority relies for its interpretation was part of Congress's 1991 fix to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in the Price Waterhouse case, which held that an employer could avoid liability if the plaintiff could not show discrimination was ``the'' motivating factor. Congress's fix, in Section 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, does not specify whether the motivating factor standard applies to both sorts of discrimination cases, the so-called ``mixed motive'' cases as well as the ``pretext'' cases. The Texas majority concluded that they must rely on the plain language of the statute as amended, which could not be any clearer that under Title VII discrimination can be shown to be ``a'' motivating factor. Justice Owen joined Justice Hecht in claiming that federal case law is clear (in favor of their view), and opted for a reading of the statute that would turn it into its polar opposite, forcing plaintiffs into just the situation legislators were trying to avoid. This example of Justice Owen's desire to change the law from the bench, instead of interpret it, fits President Bush's definition of activism to a ``T''. Justice Owen has also demonstrated her tendency toward ends-oriented decision making quite clearly in a series of dissents and concurrences in cases involving a Texas law providing for a judicial bypass of parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. The most striking example is Justice Owen's expression of disagreement with the majority's decision on key legal issues in Doe 1. She strongly disagreed with the majority's holding on what a minor would have to show in order to establish that she was, as the statute requires, ``sufficiently well informed'' to make the decision on her own. While the conservative Republican majority laid out a well- reasoned test for this element of the law, based on the plain meaning of the statute and well-cited case law, Justice Owen inserted elements found in neither authority. Specifically, Justice Owen insisted that the majority's requirement that the minor be ``aware of the emotional and psychological aspects of undergoing an abortion'' was not sufficient and that among other requirements with no basis in the law, she, ``would require . . . [that the minor] should . . . indicate to the court that she is aware of and has considered that there are philosophic, social, moral, and religious arguments that can be brought to bear when considering abortion.'' In re Doe 1, 19 S.W. 3d 249, 256 (Tex. 2000) In her written concurrence, Justice Owen indicated, through legal citation, that support for this proposition could be found in a particular page of the Supreme Court's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, when one looks at that portion of the Casey decision, one finds no mention of requiring a minor to acknowledge religious or moral arguments. The passage talks instead about the ability of a State to, ``enact rules and regulations designed to encourage her to know that there are philosophic and social arguments of great weight that can be brought to bear,'' Casey at 872. Justice Owen's reliance on this portion of a United States Supreme Court opinion to rewrite Texas law was simply wrong. As she did in answer to questions about a couple of other cases at her hearing, Justice Owen tried to explain away this problem with an after the fact justification. She told Senator Cantwell that the reference to religion was not to be found in Casey after all, but in another U.S. Supreme Court case, H.L. v. Matheson. She explained that in, ``Matheson they talk about that for some people it raises profound moral and religious concerns, and they're talking about the desirability or the State's interest in these kinds of considerations in making an informed decision.'' Transcript at 172. But again, on reading Matheson, one sees that the only mention of religion comes in a quotation meant to explain why the parents of the minor are due notification, not about the contours of what the government may require someone to prove to show she was fully well informed. Her reliance on Matheson for her proposed rewrite of the law is just as faulty as her reliance on Casey. Neither one supports her reading of the law. She simply tries a little bit of legal smoke and mirrors to make it appear as if they did. This is the sort of ends-oriented decision making that destroys the belief of a citizen in a fair legal system. And most troubling of all was her indicating to Senator Feinstein that she still views her dissents in the Doe cases as the proper reading and construction of the Texas statute. Last May, President Bush said that his standard for judging judicial nominees would be that they ``share a commitment to follow and apply the law, not to make law from the bench.'' Priscilla Owen's record, as I have described it today, does not qualify her under that standard for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. The President has often spoken of judicial activism without acknowledging that ends-oriented decision making can come easily to ideological conservative nominees. In the case of Priscilla Owen, we see a perfect example of such an approach to the law, and I cannot support it. As I said earlier, when the President sends us a nominee who raises concerns over qualifications or integrity or who has a misunderstanding of the appropriate role of a federal judge, I will make my concerns known. This is one of those times. In his selection of Priscilla Owen for the Fifth Circuit, the President and his advisors are trying to do to the Fifth Circuit what they did to the Texas Supreme Court. Plucked from a law firm by political consultant Karl Rove, Justice Owen ran as a conservative, pro-business candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, and she received ample support from the business community. She fulfilled her promise, becoming the most conservative judge on a conservative court, standing out for her ends-oriented, extremist decision making. Now, on a bigger stage, the President and Mr. Rove want a repeat performance: sending Justice Owen to a court one step below the Supreme Court of the United States, attempting to skew its decisions out of step with the mainstream. Before and after he took office, President Bush said he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider, yet he has sent the Senate several nominees who divide the Senate and the American people. Over the last 14 months, the Judiciary Committee has exceeded the pace of recent years in approving more than six dozen of the President's judicial nominees-- most of them, conservative Republicans. The Senate by now has confirmed 73 of them. This committee and the Senate have made the judgment that those nominees will fulfill their duties to act fairly and impartially. I urge the President to choose nominees who fit that profile, not the profile of Justice Owen. The oath taken by Federal judges affirms their commitment to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' No one who enters a federal courtroom should have to wonder whether he or she will be fairly heard by the judge. Justice Priscilla Owen's record shows me that she has not fulfilled that commitment on the Supreme Court of Texas, and I cannot vote to confirm her for this appointment to one of the highest courts in the land.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Thirty-eight. I thank the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Florida represents a State the length of which, if it went in the other direction, it would go across time zones. Incidentally, people may see the success stories on one or two television programs, where there might have been one last year or last month or last week, but the Department of Justice estimates the number of children taken by strangers annually is between 3,000 and 4,000. That is terrible. This plan originated in Arlington, TX, after the murder of 9-year-old Amber Hagerman. We will help coordinate. We will make sure the local, State, and Federal officials can work together. But not only that, private citizens will be involved because they will hear from State broadcasters or from law enforcement people. I don't know of anybody who hears of a missing child who would not want to help. And this will make that possible. So it will help kidnap victims. It will also preserve the flexibility of the States because States are different in how they want to implement it. It is disturbing to see on TV or in the newspapers photo after photo of missing children from every corner of the Nation. As the father of three children, as well as a grandfather of one grandson, with another grandchild on the way, I know that an abducted child is a parent's or grandparent's worst nightmare. Unfortunately, it appears this nightmare is happening all too often. Indeed, the Justice Department estimates that the number of children taken by strangers annually is between 3,000 and 4,000. These parents and grandparents, as well as the precious children, deserve the assistance of the American people and helping hand of the Congress. By coordinating their efforts, law enforcement emergency management and transportation agencies, radio and television stations, and cable systems have worked to develop an innovative early warning system to help find abducted children by broadcasting information--including descriptions and pictures of the missing child, the suspected abductor, a suspected vehicle, and any other information available and valuable to identifying the child and suspect--to the public as speedily as possible. The AMBER Alert system's popularity has raced across the United States. Since the original AMBER Plan was established in 1996, 55 modified versions have been adopted at local, regional, and statewide levels. Eighteen States have already implemented statewide plans. It is also a proven success--to date the AMBER Plan has been credited with recovering 30 children. This bipartisan legislation will authorize the Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to appoint a Justice Department National AMBER Alert coordinator to oversee the Alert's communication network for abducted children. The AMBER Alert Coordinator will work with the States, broadcasters, and law enforcement agencies to set up AMBER plans, serve as a point of contact to supplement existing AMBER plans, and facilitate regional coordination of AMBER alerts. It also directs the AMBER Alert coordinator, in conjunction with the FCC, local broadcasters, and local law enforcement agencies, to establish voluntary guidelines for minimum standards in determining the criteria for AMBER alerts and for the dissemination of those alerts. As a result, our bipartisan bill helps kidnap victors while preserving flexibility for States in implementing the alert system. Because developing and enhancing the AMBER alert system is a costly endeavor for States to take on alone, our bipartisan bill establishes two Federal grant programs to share the burden. First, the bill creates a Federal grant program, under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation for statewide notification and communications systems, including electronic message boards and road signs, along highways for the recovery of abducted children. Second, the bill establishes a grant program managed by the Attorney General for the support of AMBER alert communications plans with law enforcement agencies and others in the community. Our Nation's children, parents and grandchildren deserve our help to stop the disturbing trend of children abductions. I am gratified the Senate has passed the AMBER Alert National Network Act, and I hope the House and the President will act expeditiously on this important piece of legislation to ensure that our communications systems help rescue abducted children from their kidnapers and return them safely to their families. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who have joined on this measure. I yield the floor and thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his courtesy in allowing me to speak. But I hope he will note, in honoring that, I tried to wear a suit as close in color to his as possible.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Texas for her kind remarks, but I was simply able to expedite the very good work that she and the distinguished Senator from California have done. I note that what has happened here is an idea which has come from the Senator from Texas and the Senator from California, who have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. Actually, this is a nonpartisan issue. They are both parents. The Senator from Texas knows how much I admire her work as a parent, as I do the Senator from California. Whether or not you are a parent, the most terrifying experience is for a child to be suddenly missing, especially if foul play is involved. I am not talking about a child getting lost on the way home from school who is going to show up an hour later because all the neighbors are out looking for that child or a child who stayed too long at a friend's house and forgot to call and then calls a frantic parent 45 minutes or an hour later and says, ``Gee, I forgot to tell you I was at Johnny's or Susie's house,'' or something like that. This comes into play in a case where, much as you hate to suspect there may be foul play, there may well be. If you can return one child--one child--to the parents, look at what you have done. If you can return hundreds, which is the potential with this legislation, look how much more you have done. It is the case where you have big States, such as those of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from California. They come from very large States: large graphically, large in population. I come from a very small State: small in geography, small in population. But if you can tie in my part of the country--the northeastern part--we go from very small States, such as mine, to the bordering States of New York and Massachusetts, which are much larger States in population. It is the whole northeastern corridor, but somebody can drive through those States in half the time it takes to drive, for example, across the State of Texas or the length of the State of California. So we have to be able to coordinate. I think that is why so many came together on this: Senators Hatch, Biden, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Kyl, Sessions--and I think you have 34 cosponsors.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for that time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am sure it was inadvertent that when the distinguished Senator from Utah was talking about the editorials against the nominee, Priscilla Owen, he said there were only three against. I refer, for example, to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and I will quote from it and then put the whole editorial in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that articles in opposition to her be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. In part, this article says: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has held hearings on 82 Bush judicial nominations, 80 of which have been approved by the committee. Most of those nominees have been pro-life conservatives whose performance on the bench the committee still judged to be fair and professional. For example, last week the committee unanimously reported on President Bush's choice of Federal District Judge Reena Raggi of New York for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Parenthetically, I might add that Judge Raggi was originally appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican who promised to appoint only judges who satisfied his litmus test. The American people appreciate balanced judging, and thanks to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they're getting it. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, with another minute to be given to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, there was a suggestion made--I am sure inadvertent--by the distinguished Senator from Utah that it was unprecedented to see a nominee with a well-qualified rating be voted against. Actually, the Senator from Utah has voted against such a person, like Judge Rosemary Barkett of Florida, as have a number of others. But then there were a whole lot of others who we can say were not voted against? Why? Because they were never allowed to have a vote during Republican control of the Senate. This is a partial list of nominees who never had a vote, but they had the highest rating possible: H. Alston Johnson from the Fifth Circuit was never given a hearing by the Republicans; James Duffy from the Ninth Circuit was never given a hearing; Kathleen McCree Lewis from the Sixth Circuit was never given a hearing or a vote; Judge James Lyons, from the Tenth Circuit, was never given a vote or a hearing; Allen Snyder, from DC, had a hearing but no vote; Judge Robert Cindrich, from the Third Circuit, was never given a hearing or a vote; Judge Stephen Orlofsky, from the Third Circuit, was never given a hearing or a vote; Judge Andre Davis, from the Fourth Circuit, was never given a hearing or a vote; and Enrique Moreno, of the Fifth Circuit, was never given a hearing and never given a vote. These are people with the highest possible rating from the ABA. Republicans can say they never voted against them. Why? Because they were never brought up and never given a vote. If they had been given a vote, they would have known where they stood. My good friend from Utah, perhaps inadvertently, thought I was comparing a time when he was not chairman. I do compare a time when he was chairman. I will take the first 15 months that he was chairman with a Democratic President. The Democratic President nominees got 14 hearings in 15 months; the Republican President nominees, under my chairmanship, got 23 hearings. Nominees who received hearings under Republicans were 67; under the Democrats with a Republican President, 84. Nominees confirmed, 56; in the same period of time, it was 74 with us. Nominees voted on in committee: They allowed 61 during that 15 months. We have had votes on 82 of this President's judicial nominees. It is nice to say nominations are not being handled fairly. The fact is, if we used the Republican precedent as a mark of fairness, we would not have to do anything else for the rest of the year because we are way beyond what they did. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last year when the Republicans controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee, they did not hold one hearing on President Bush's nominees. We have done 82.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I do believe that Judge Kenneth Marra will be confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. I have heard of no opposition. This is a judge who got strong bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which usually guarantees a confirmation on the floor. When that happens, the Democratic-led Senate will confirm its 74th judicial nomination made by President George W. Bush. This will also be the 25th judicial emergency vacancy that we have filled since I became chairman last summer, and the 18th since the beginning of this year. The confirmation of Judge Marra will bring additional resources to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Marra was nominated to fill a new position Congress created by statute to address the large caseload, particularly the immigration and criminal cases, facing the Federal court in Florida. He is one of three Federal judicial nominations on the Senate Calendar for action. I recall during the past administration, the Clinton administration, we all worked very hard in cooperation with Senator Graham and Senator Mack to ensure that the Federal court in Florida had its vacancies filled promptly with consensus nominees. Due to the bipartisan cooperation between one Democrat Senator and one Republican Senator and a Democratic President, the Senate was able to confirm 22 judicial nominees from Florida, including 3 nominees to the Eleventh Circuit. But it is unfortunate that this tradition of cooperation, coordination, and consultation has not continued with the current administration. By my recollection, it was only the nomination of Judge Rosemary Barkett of the Florida Supreme Court to the Eleventh Circuit that generated any significant controversy or opposition. I do recall that she was strongly opposed by a number of Republican Senators because they did not agree with her judicial philosophy. Those voting against her included Senators Hatch, Grassley, McConnell, Specter, and Thurmond, as well as Senators Lott, Nickles, and Hutchison of Texas. They have an absolute right to do that, of course. I respect that right. Judge Barkett received the highest rating of the ABA, ``well qualified,'' and yet 36 Republicans voted against her confirmation, even though she had the strong bipartisan support of her home State Senators. Recent claims by some that it is unprecedented to vote against a judicial nominee with a ``well qualified'' rating and to vote against her based on her judicial philosophy thus ring hollow. Unfortunately, that is not the way the administration has dealt with Senators Graham and Nelson now. But it is a tribute to Senator Graham and Senator Nelson that we have made the progress we have had. They could very easily have exercised their right as Senators and refused to accept the nominees of President Bush. Of course, they would go no further under the blue-slip policy that both Republicans and Democrats strongly support. But they have been more than gracious in their willingness to support these nominees. That is why they have gone through. This Democratic-led Senate has expeditiously moved President Bush's judicial nominees. We have worked hard to provide bipartisan support for the White House's nominations in spite of an almost unprecedented lack of willingness on the part of the White House to work with us. In fact, I have been here 26 years: During the terms of President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Clinton, and now President George W. Bush. This administration is the least willing of any White House during all that time--Republican or Democrat--to work with the Senate on judicial nominations. But even without that cooperation, even with the unprecedented lack of cooperation, we are making progress. I would like to discuss the progress we have made. This chart shows what has happened in the 15 months the Democrats have controlled the Senate. Contrast that to the Republicans' first 15 months when they controlled the Senate. In less than 15 months of Democratic control of the committee, we have held more hearings for more nominees, voted on more nominees in committee, and confirmed more nominees than the Republicans did in their first 15 months of control of the committee in 1995 and 1996. We have confirmed more of President George W. Bush's Federal trial court nominees in less than 15 months than were confirmed in the first 2 years of his father's Presidency. In fact, we confirmed more in the first 15 months than the Republicans were willing to confirm in their last 30 months. I mention this because there seems to be some idea that somehow the Democratic-led Senate is holding up judges. I think most of the Presidents with whom I have served would have been delighted to have had a Senate as cooperative as we have been. Let me repeat that. In 15 months, Democrats have done more on judicial confirmations than Republicans did in 30 months. They, on the other side, do not want to compare our record of accomplishment in evaluating judicial nominees with theirs in their prior 6\1/2\ years of control. They do not want to own up to their delay and defeat through inaction of scores of judicial nominees during the last administration. All too often the only defense of their record we hear is the claim that President Clinton ultimately appointed 377 judicial nominees, 5 fewer than President Reagan. This statement overlooks the fact that the Republicans only allowed 245 of President Clinton's judicial nominees to be confirmed. That averages, incidentally, to about 38 confirmations per year during their 6\1/2\ years of control. We confirmed 74 judicial nominees in less than 15 months, including 13 to the circuit courts. I believe we have reported 80 out of the Judiciary Committee. I mention this because of the persistence of the myth of inaction in face of such in the face of such a clear record of progress by Democrats. After a while, if someone keeps distorting the facts, if someone keeps stating things that are not true, people actually come to believe it is true. I am reminded of what Adlai Stevenson once said. I will quote him: I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends . . . that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them. The truth is, of course, as these charts show, that we have a pretty good record of accomplishment despite the lack of cooperation from the administration. With today's vote, the Democratic-led Senate will confirm its 74th judge--exceeding the number of circuit and district court nominees confirmed in the last 30 months of Republican control of the Senate. We have done more than Republicans did, and we have done it in less than half the time. We have confirmed more of this President's nominees, both circuit and district court nominees, in less than 15 months, than were confirmed in the comparable 15 months of the first term of former President Reagan, the first President Bush, and President Clinton. Let's take a look at what has happened in the first 15 months. With today's vote, the Democratic-led Senate has confirmed 74 of this Republican President's judicial nominees in less than 15 months. Under President Reagan--and incidently, I might point out, he had a Senate of his own party--there were 54 confirmation in the first 15 months. Under George H. W. Bush, there were 23; for the first 15 months of President Clinton, 45. Incidentally, that is with a Senate under the control of his own party. And now, in 15 months, under President George W. Bush, we have had 74 judicial confirmations--74. By any standard you want, here is a case where a different party than the President has controlled the Senate, and we have done more than was done for President Reagan when his own party controlled the Senate, for President Bush when another party controlled the Senate, for President Clinton when we, the Democrats, controlled the Senate. It shows we can move and will move, and we have been doing that notwithstanding the fact that there has been less cooperation from the White House than I have seen with either Democratic or Republican Presidents in 26 years in the Senate. It is unfortunate. President Bush will probably get a record number of his judges through at the current pace of confirmations. But I have to think how much better it could be done with less rancor and with even a modicum of cooperation. We have acted fairly and expeditiously notwithstanding the fact that Democrats have felt very concerned that for year after year after year after year in many of the circuit courts of this country, Republicans refused to even hold hearings for the nominees, even though they had the highest ratings of the American Bar Association. They would not even hold hearings, to say nothing about having a vote. Then when the Republicans came in, suddenly there was an emergency; they had to fill the vacancies in those circuits. Their obstruction created the problem. But notwithstanding that, in many of those cases where Democrats were not allowed to even have a hearing year after year after year, we have in the last 15 months moved forward with hearings and votes, and positive votes, on the vast majority of his judicial nominees. I have no idea what political game is being played at the White House. I know the people are very nice. Judge Gonzalez is a very nice, very polite person. He is charming to be with. But the cooperation is not there. The President is very nice, very charming. But the cooperation is not there. We could do far better if they would just pick up the phone and call the last three people from the last three Republican administrations--they do not even have to call a Democratic administration--and see how well this could be done. As the distinguished ranking member, my good friend from Utah, knows, I went down several times and worked with the Clinton White House so they could have cooperation with, and they did cooperate with, Republican Senators in moving through judges. I would hope that with that precedent in mind, some might do the same. Democrats have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees to ensure bipartisan cooperation and greater fairness. For example, we have ended the practice of secretive, anonymous holds that plagued the period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold any nominee from his or her home state, his or her own circuit or any part of the country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We have returned to the Democratic tradition of regularly holding hearings, every few weeks, rather than going for months without a single hearing. In fact, we have held 23 judicial nominations hearings in our first 13 months, an average of almost two per month. In contrast, during the six and one-half years of Republican control, they went 30 months without holding a single judicial nominations hearing. By holding 23 hearings for 84 of this President's judicial nominees, we have held hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20 of the last 22 years during the Reagan, first Bush, and Clinton Administrations. As this chart shows, we have held more hearings for President Bush's judicial nominees in less than 15 months than were held in 15 months for any of the past three Presidents. In the first 15 months of the first term of President Reagan, 17 judicial nominations hearings were held. In the first 15 months of President George H.W. Bush's term, 11 hearings were held. And, in the first 15 months of President Clinton's first term, 14 judicial nominations hearings were held. In contrast, we have held 23 hearings in less than 15 months. That is almost as many as were held in the first 15 months of the terms of the first President Bush and President Clinton combined. We have more than exceeded the number of hearings held in the last 30 months of Republican control of the Senate, when they held only 15 hearings. While some complain that a handful of circuit court nominees have not yet had hearings, they fail to acknowledge that Democrats have held hearings for more of President Bush's circuit court nominees, 18, than in any of the six and one-half years in which the Republicans controlled the Committee before the change in majority last summer. Republicans have utterly failed to acknowledge this fairness and progress under the Democratic majority. The myth of obstruction of judicial nominees fits their political strategy better than the truth. The years of Republican inaction on a number of circuit court vacancies has made it possible for Democrats to have several ``firsts,'' or astounding accomplishments in addressing judicial vacancies. For example, we held the first hearing for a nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost five years (that is more than one full presidential term) and confirmed her, even though three of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit never received a hearing or a vote. We held the first hearing on a Fifth Circuit nominee in seven years (including the entire period of Republican control of the Senate) and confirmed her last year, while three of President Clinton's Fifth Circuit nominees never received hearings or votes on their nominations. We held the first hearing on a Tenth Circuit nominee in six years, and we have confirmed two of President Bush's nominees to the Tenth Circuit, while two of President Clinton's nominees to that circuit never received hearings or votes. We held the first hearing for a Fourth Circuit nominee in three years, for Judge Roger Gregory, and the first hearing for an African American nominee to that court in United States history, even though Judge Gregory and four other nominees to that circuit (including three other African Americans) never received hearings or votes during Republican control of the Senate. These are just a few examples of the historic accomplishments of the Democratic- led Senate which debunk Republican myths that Democrats caused the vacancy crisis, are delaying judicial appointments or have been retaliating for years of obstruction on circuit court vacancies by Republicans. There were only 16 circuit court vacancies when Republicans took over the Senate in January 1995. Unfortunately, from January 1995 until Republicans relinquished control and allowed the Judiciary Committee to be reorganized in the summer of 2001, circuit court vacancies more than doubled from 16 to 33. Republicans executed a partisan political strategy to hold vacancies open on the circuits for a Republican president to fill. It would certainly have been easier and less work for Democrats to retaliate for the unfair treatment of the last President's circuit court nominees. We did not. We have been, and will continue to be, more fair than the Republican majority was to President Clinton's judicial nominees. Here is another chart that shows that more of President Bush's judicial nominees have been given committee votes than the nominees of prior presidents. Unlike my Republican predecessor, I have scheduled hearings and votes on district and circuit court nominees whom I do not support. The Judiciary Committee has voted on 82 judicial nominees and favorably reported 80. In less than 15 months, we have voted on more of President Bush's district and circuit court nominees than were voted on in the first 15 months of any of the past three Presidents. Moreover, we have voted on more nominees in less than 15 months than were voted on in the first 15 months of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush combined, or Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton combined. We have even voted on more nominees in less than 15 months than were voted on in the last 30 months of Republican control of the Senate, when 73 nominees were voted on by the Committee. Because we have moved quickly and responsibly, the number of vacancies is not at the 153 mark it would be had we taken no action. Vacancies have been reduced to 79 and are headed in the right direction. On July 10, 2001, with the reorganization of the Senate, we began with 110 vacancies. When Republican gained control of the Senate in 1995 the federal judicial vacancies numbered 65. The vacancies increased during their six and one-half years to more than 110. Under the Democratic majority, by contrast, the number of vacancies is being significantly reduced. Despite the large number of additional vacancies that have arisen in the past year, with the 61 district court confirmations we have as of today, we have reduced district court vacancies to 50, almost to the level it was at when Republicans took over the Senate in 1995. In fact, when we adjourned for the August recess we had given hearings to 91 percent of this President's judicial nominees who had completed their paperwork and who had the consent of both of their home-State Senators. That is, 84 of the 92 judicial nominees with completed files had received hearings. When we held our most recent hearing on August 1, we had given hearings to 66 district court nominees and we had run out of district court nominees with completed paperwork and home-State consent. Only two district court nominees were eligible for that hearing. This is because the White House changed the process of allowing the ABA to begin its evaluation prior to nomination. This change has cost the federal judiciary the chance over the last year to have 12 to 15 more district court nominees on the bench and hearing cases, because now the ABA can only begin its evaluation once the nomination is submitted to the Senate. The ABA also must wait until the Administration provides the Senate with the nominee's public questionnaire, and lately the nominees' documents have been arriving on a delayed basis, as well. Indeed, many of the two dozen nominations most recently received will likely not get hearings before adjournment this year in large measure because the White House unilaterally changed the process for consideration and has built additional delays into it. In January I had proposed a simple procedural adjustment to allow the ABA evaluation to begin at the same time as the FBI investigation, as was the practice in past Republican and Democratic Administrations over 50 years. Had this proposal been accepted, I am confident there would be more than a dozen fewer vacancies in the federal courts. Instead, our efforts to increase cooperation with the White House have been rebuffed. We continue to get the least cooperation from any White House I can recall during my nearly three decades in the Senate. Yet, even with such lack of cooperation from the White House, the Senate has set an impressive rate of confirming judicial nominees. Here is another chart that shows how Democrats have dramatically reduced the time between nomination and confirmation of circuit court nominees. Since the Democrats assumed the majority last July, the average time to confirm circuit court nominees has been drastically reduced to 147 days, from a high during the most recent years of Republican control of 374 days. We have reduced the average time from nomination to confirmation to two-and-a-half times less than the average time to confirmation during Republican control during the 106th and 105th Congresses when it took an average of 374 and 314 days, respectively, to confirm President Clinton's circuit court nominees. The Judiciary Committee has reported two more circuit court nominees favorably to the Senate. We have held hearings on 18 circuit court nominees and the Judiciary Committee has already voted on 17 of those 18 nominees. In spite of the obstacles the White House has put in the way of their own nominees through their lack of consultation and cooperation, we have been able to have a productive year while restoring fairness to the judicial confirmation process. I regret that the White House has chosen the strident path that it has with respect to judicial nominations, especially to the circuit courts. As several Senators noted last week, the Administration does not have carte blanche to insist on an ideological takeover of the Courts of Appeals with activist ultra-conservative nominees intended to tip the balance in circuits around the country. The total number of district and circuit court confirmations now stands at 74, and there remain a few weeks left in this session. So while we have been working hard and productive, the Judiciary Committee and the Senate have not become a rubber stamp. I am proud of the efforts of the Senate to restore fairness to the judicial confirmation process over this time. The Senate Judiciary Committee is working hard to schedule hearings and votes on additional judicial nominees, but it takes time to deal with a mess of the magnitude we inherited. I think we have done well by the federal courts and the American people, and we will continue to do our best to ensure that all Americans have access to federal judges who are unbiased, fair-minded individuals with appropriate judicial temperament and who are committed to upholding the Constitution and following precedent. When the President sends judicial candidates who embody these principles, they will move quickly, but when he sends controversial nominees whose records demonstrate that they lack these qualities and whose records are lacking we will take the time needed to evaluate their merits and to vote them up or down. I would like to thank the Members of the Judiciary Committee who have labored long and hard to evaluate the records of the individuals chosen by this President for lifetime seats on the federal courts. The decisions we make after reviewing their records will last well beyond the term of this President and will affect the lives of the individuals whose cases will be heard by these judges and maybe millions of others affected by the precedents of these decisions of these judges. Before anyone takes for granted how fairly Democrats have treated this President's judicial nominees, receiving up or down votes, they should take a look at how poorly judicial nominees were treated during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate. In all, several dozen judicial nominees of President Clinton never received a hearing or a vote. When confronted with this, Republicans often lament that about 50 of the first President Bush's judicial nominees did not get a hearing before the end of the session in Congress in 1992. What they consistently fail to mention about this, however, is quite revealing. That year, the Senate confirmed more of President George H.W. Bush's judicial nominees than in any year of his presidency. He had 66 judicial nominees confirmed that year, but the Senate simply could not get to the other 53 nominees he submitted in response to the creation of dozens of new judgeships. So, even though some of his nominees were returned, the Senate confirmed a substantial number, 66, of his judicial nominees in the 10 months they were in session that year, which was an election year, by the way. Perhaps coincidentally, 66 is the highest number of judicial confirmations in one year that Republicans ever allowed President Clinton to reach. They averaged 38 judicial confirmations per year. In the last two years of the Clinton Administration, Republicans allowed only 33 and 39 judges to be confirmed, respectively in 1999 and 2000. President George H.W. Bush had 66 confirmations in his last year of office, an election year. In President Clinton's last year in office only 39 judges were confirmed, during Republicans control. In 1996, Republican allowed only 17 judges to be confirmed, none to the circuit courts. In those two election years combined Republicans allowed only 56 confirmations. In 1992, an election year, Chairman Biden pushed through 66 confirmations. Unlike Democrats in 1992, Republicans cannot honestly claim that they moved a substantial number through but could not get to them all. Confirming only 39 judicial nominees in 2000 and returning more than that, 41, in that year alone, simply does not compare with what happened in 1992 when Democrats worked hard to move through 66 of the first President Bush's judicial nominees in the space of 10 months. If 66 was such an easy number to reach, why did Republicans reach that level only once in six years of control? The answer is easy. They did not want to do so. I think Republicans wanted to ensure that they never treated President Clinton better than the best year of former President Bush (his last year) and they wanted to ensure that President Clinton did not beat President Reagan's number of confirmations, as a matter of partisan pride. Had Republicans kept up the pace of confirmation set by Democrats in the first President Bush's last year and the first two years of the Clinton Administration, President Clinton would have appointed substantially more than the 377 judges who were ultimately confirmed in his two terms as president, and the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee would not have begun last July with 110 vacancies. Ironically, perhaps, Democrats have been so fair to President George W. Bush, despite the past unfairness of Republicans, that if we continue at the current pace of confirmation and vacancies continue to arise at the same rate, then Bush will appoint 227 judges by the end of his term. If he were elected to a second term, at the current pace, he would amass 454 judicial confirmations, dramatically more than President Reagan, who Senator Hatch often calls the all-time champ. This, too, demonstrates how fair Democrats have been. Perhaps some may say we have been foolishly fair, given how Democrats were treated in the past. We have exceeded the pace set in 1992, 1993 and 1994, with 74 confirmations to date in little more than a year. In fact, when we adjourned for the August recess we had given hearings to 91 percent of this President's judicial nominees who had completed their paperwork and who had the consent of both of their home-State Senators. That is, 84 of the 92 judicial nominees with completed files had received hearings. Any way you look at the numbers, raw numbers or percentages, comparisons with the prior six years of Republican control or with prior Congresses and Republican presidents, the Democrats have done more in less time. We have been more fair by far. Yet we have been unfairly labeled as obstructionist because we have not been able to have hearings for every single judicial nominee in the short period we have been in the majority. This President still has over two years left in his term. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, first, on a personal basis, earlier, at the opening of the session, it was noted that yesterday was Grandparents Day. I send my best to all those who are grandparents. The Presiding Officer, of course, is far too young to know the joys of that time in our lives. She does have the joy of two of the most beautiful children anybody has seen in the Senate family. But there will be a day when the other will come. The ranking member and I have the joy of being grandparents. So I wish all grandparents the best and also extend special wishes to one growing, shameless Leahy. After that outrageous usurpation of the podium, Madam President, probably, if my wife is watching, she is probably beginning to wonder if I took too much time off in August.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent regarding the time of the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that was originally set to be half an hour evenly divided, that we still have that half hour evenly divided, and the vote then begin after the expiration of that time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. In less than 15 months the Judiciary Committee has favorably reported 80 judicial nominees and voted not to report 2. Four conservative, Republican women have already been reported and three have been confirmed by the Senate: Sharon Prost to the Federal Circuit; Edith Brown Clement to the 5th Circuit, who was the first nominee to the 5th Circuit to get a hearing in seven years, since 1994; Julia Smith Gibbons to the 6th Circuit, who was the first nominee to the 6th Circuit to get a hearing in almost 5 years; and today the Committee voted unanimously to report Judge Reena Raggi, who is nominated to a vacancy on the 2d Circuit. In addition, approximately a dozen more conservative, Republican women have already been confirmed to the Federal District Courts, including: Karen Caldwell, E.D. KY; Laurie Smith Camp, D.C. NE; Karon Bowdre, N.D. AL; Julie Robinson, D.C. KS; Marcia Krieger, D.C. CO; Callie Granade, S.D. AL; Cindy Jorgenson, D.C. AZ; Joan Lancaster, D.C. MN; Cynthia Rufe, E.D. PA; Joy Flowers Conti, W.D. PA; and Amy St. Eve, N.D. IL. I appreciate that the Administration and Republicans are disappointed with the outcome of the vote on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. I want to accord other Senators respect and, in these circumstances, some leeway in their comments--even as those comments are directed personally at me and other Senators on the Judiciary Committee. In response to their protestations, as if there were anything improper in the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen, I note that the salient difference between the vote on Justice Owen and the six and one-half years that preceded the change in majority is that Justice Owen was given a thorough and fair hearing, the Committee had a public, open and extensive debate and the nomination was then voted upon in public session. That was not true for more than a dozen nominees to vacancies on our Courts of Appeals over the last several years--several of which were left pending without a hearing or a vote for months and years. Here are just a few of those circuit court nominees with ``Well Qualified'' peer review ratings from the ABA that the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee never accorded a vote: James Duffy, nominated to the Ninth Circuit; Kathleen McCree-Lewis, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Enrique Moreno, nominated to the Fifth Circuit; James Lyons, nominated to the Tenth Circuit; and Robert Cindrich, nominated to the Third Circuit. Others, like Allen Snyder, nominated to the DC Circuit, were given a hearing but was never given a Committee vote, up or down. These and scores of other nominees of the past President were defeated by the Republican decision to deny them Committee votes. Republicans' preferred method for ``defeating'' more than 50 circuit and district court nominees rated ``highly qualified'' and ``qualified'' by the ABA and those with significant professional credentials was to deny them hearings and, for some who had hearings, to deny them Committee consideration. To those Senators who are now contending that the ideology and possible activism of judicial nominees should have no place in Senators' consideration, I ask them to start by reviewing their own records of opposition to President Clinton's nominees, including their own votes against nominees professionally qualified. Those who voted against Margaret McKeown, Marsha Berzon, Sonia Sotomayor, Rosemary Barkett and Merrick Garland, Ray Fisher, Richard Paez, William Fletcher and Timothy Dyk to the Courts of Appeals, as well as those who held up any vote on Allen Snyder, Bonnie Campbell and the others, could ask themselves what standards they applied in so doing. The same question can be asked with respect to those who opposed and voted against Margaret Morrow, Gerry Lynch, Mary McLaughlin, Ronnie White, Ann Aiken and those who held up any consideration of Clarence Sundram or Fred Woocher and the scores of nominees never allowed a hearing. I do not wish to embarrass other Senators, but I am struck by how the statements I have heard today are wholly inconsistent with votes and actions in the years in which they were delaying, opposing and voting against the moderate judicial nominations of a President on another political party. I raise this consideration not as a matter of tit for tat, for we have assiduously avoided payback, but because it is Republicans who are trying to change their history and pretend that they did not oppose nominees based on what they perceived to be the ideological outlook of the nominees. I am reluctant to quote my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are saying something very different now than they said in the prior six years when they were blocking judicial nominees, but in light of the attacks on the Committee, some context is necessary to understand the hollowness of the charge that Committee members acted unfairly, inappropriately or in some unprecedented fashion in their consideration of the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen. For example, in 1996, one Republican said that he ``led the fight to oppose the confirmation of [two judges] because their judicial records indicated that they would be activists who would legislate from the bench.'' While we may differ on whether a judge's record evidences judicial activism, Republicans can hardly now be saying that such inquiry is inappropriate. Another Republican Senator argued in 2000 in defense of his record of stalling Senate consideration of judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee that having ``strong qualifications and personal attributes,'' being ``fine lawyers [who] are technically competent'' was not the test. He said then: ``My concern is with their judicial philosophies and their likely activism on the court. . . . Judicial activism is a fundamental challenge to our system of government, and it represents a danger that requires constant vigilance.'' He went on to say that the Senate should not defer to the President ``if there is a problem with a series of decisions or positions [judicial nominees] have taken.'' Another Republican Senator said in 1998 that the Republicans were ``not abusing our advise and consent power. As a matter of fact, I don't think we have been aggressive enough in utilizing it to ensure that the nominees to the Federal Bench are mainstream nominees.'' Yet another Republican said in 1994: ``My decision on a judicial nominee's fitness is based on my evaluation of three criteria: character, competence and judicial philosophy--that is, how the nominee views the duty of the court and its scope of authority.'' There are numerous other examples, of course, but these suffice to make the point. I ask that my full statement in opposition to the nomination of Justice Owen from the Judiciary Committee consideration be included in the Record at the end of these remarks. It focuses on the merits of the nomination, as did Senator Feinstein, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine. A few of the statements in the two- hour debate before the Committee were not helpful to a reasoned debate, but by and large the Committee debate was on the merits. That followed an extensive hearing, that lasted six hours, which Senator Feinstein chaired fairly and patiently. A thorough hearing and a fair vote is what Justice Owen's nomination received from the Committee. The name-calling, threats, tactics of intimidation and retaliation are not helpful to the process. Holding up important legislative initiatives is harmful. Holding up ``the comma bill'' and threatening Democrats that they will be barred from Air Force One are silly. Today the Senator Judiciary Committee reported a conservative Republican nominee to the Senate for a vacancy on a Court of Appeals. This nominee, Judge Reena Raggi, was first appointed by President Reagan and she came before the Committee with strong bipartisan support and without the divisive controversy that accompanies so many of President Bush's circuit court nominees. Judge Raggi was reported out unanimously today. Indeed, since the change in majority less than 15 months ago, the Committee has worked hard to report 80 judicial nominees to the Senate. They include a number of very conservative judges. I have made suggestions to the White House for improving the nominations and confirmations processes but those suggestions continue to be rebuffed. I wish the White House would work with us rather than stridently insist on seeking to skew the federal courts ideologically.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate is confirming Terrence McVerry to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He is the 73rd judicial nominee of President George W. Bush to be confirmed by the Senate since July 20 last year. With today's vote, the Democratic-led Senate has already exceeded the number of circuit and district court nominees confirmed in the last 30 months of Republican control of the Senate, when 72 judges were confirmed in those 2\1/2\ years. Democrats have done more than Republicans did in less than half the time. It is revealing that Republicans, with all of their misleading statistics, consistently fail to compare their actual results during their most recent period of control of the Senate with the progress we have made since the shift in the Senate majority. They do not want to compare their own record over the prior 6\1/2\ years with our record of accomplishment in evaluating judicial nominees. They do not want to own up to their delay and inaction on scores of judicial nominees during the last administration. During the period of Republican control of the Senate, judicial vacancies rose from 63 to 110. Since the change in majority, the Democratic Senate has worked hard to help fill 73 of those vacancies. All too often the only claim that we hear about the Republican record is that President Clinton ultimately appointed 377 judges, five fewer than President Reagan. Our Republican critics try to obscure the fact that only 245 of those district and circuit court judges were confirmed in the 6\1/2\ years that the Republican majority controlled the pace of Senate hearings and consideration. That averages only 38 confirmations per year. Over an 8-year period that would have yielded 304 confirmations. In fact, the Republican majority over the last 6 years of the Clinton administration produced on average only 58 percent of the confirmations achieved during the first 2 years of that administration. As of today, the Democratic majority in the Senate has acted to confirm 73 judges, including 13 nominees to the circuit courts. We have proceeded to almost double the confirmation rates of the former Republican majority. We have done more in less than 15 months then they achieved in their last 30 months in the majority. The reason Republicans do not want to talk about their record and compare apples to apples is because this truth does not fit comfortably with the myth of obstruction by Democrats that they have been working so hard to disseminate for their own partisan purposes. This situation reminds me of a quote by Adlai Stevenson, who said ``I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends . . . that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.'' Unfortunately, the persistence of the myth of inaction in the face of such a clear record of progress on judicial vacancies by Democrats makes me worry that Republicans are following the cynical observation that a lie told often enough becomes viewed as the truth. I am confident that Americans understand that Democrats have been fairer to this President's judicial nominees than Republicans were to his predecessor's nominees. Today's vote is another example. The Senate has acted quickly on this nomination to the District Court in Pennsylvania. Mr. McVerry was nominated in January, received his ABA peer review in March, participated in a hearing in June, and he was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July. The Judiciary Committee has held hearings for 10 district court nominees from Pennsylvania and the Senate has confirmed nine of them in just five months. There is no State in the Union that has had more Federal judicial nominees confirmed by this Senate than Pennsylvania. I think that the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole have done well by Pennsylvania. This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate, particularly regarding nominees in the western half of the State. Despite the best efforts and diligence of my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home State, there were seven nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a hearing or a vote. A good example of the contrast between the way the Democrats and Republicans have treated judicial nominees is the case of Judge Legrome Davis, a well qualified and uncontroversial judicial nominee. He was first nominated to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by President Clinton on July 30, 1998. The Republican-controlled Senate took no action on his nomination and it was returned to the President at the end of 1998. On January 26, 1999, President Clinton renominated Judge Davis for the same vacancy. The Senate again failed to hold a hearing for Judge Davis and his nomination was returned after two more years. Under Republican leadership, Judge Davis' nomination languished before the Committee for 868 days without a hearing. Unfortunately, Judge Davis was subjected to the kind of inappropriate partisan rancor that befell so many other nominees to the district courts in Pennsylvania during the Republican control of the Senate. This year, the Democratic-led Senate moved expeditiously to consider Judge Davis, and he was confirmed promptly, five weeks after receiving his ABA peer review, without a single negative vote. The saga of Judge Davis recalls for us so many nominees from the period of January 1995 through July 10, 2001, who never received a hearing or a vote and who were the subject of secret, anonymous holds by Republicans for reasons that were never explained. The hearing we had earlier this year for Judge Joy Conti was the very first hearing on a nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 1994, despite President Clinton's qualified nominees to that court. It is shocking to me that this was the first hearing on a nominee to that court in eight full years. No nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania received a hearing during the entire period that Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton Administration. One of the nominees to the Western District, Lynette Norton, waited for almost 1,000 days, and she was never given a hearing. Unfortunately, Ms. Norton died earlier this year, having never fulfilled her dream of serving on the Federal bench. With the confirmation of Judge Conti, we confirmed the first nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania since October of 1994. Despite this history of poor treatment of President Clinton's nominees, the Democratic-led Senate continues to move forward fairly and expeditiously. Terry McVerry is the most recent example of our willingness to proceed in spite of recent Republican obstructionism. Democrats have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees. For example, we have ended the practice of secretive, anonymous holds that plagued the period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold any nominee from his or her home State, his or her own circuit or any part of the country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We have returned to the Democratic tradition of regularly holding hearings, every few weeks, rather than going for months without a single hearing. In fact, we have held 23 judicial nominations hearings in our first 12 and one-half months, an average of almost two per month. In contrast, during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, during each of 30 months they did not hold a nominations hearing on a single judicial nominee. By holding 23 hearings for 84 of this President's judicial nominees, we have held hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20 of the last 22 years during the Reagan, first Bush, and Clinton administrations. The opposition party would rather not refer to these facts, which debunk Republican myths about who caused the vacancy crisis and delayed judicial appointments. When the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized after the change in Senate majority, there were 110 judicial vacancies. That included 33 circuit court vacancies, twice the number that existed when Republicans took over the Judiciary Committee in 1995. During the past 13 and one- half months, another 43 vacancies have arisen, largely due to retirements of past Republican appointees to the courts. If Democrats had, in fact, obstructed judicial nominees, as Republicans so often claim, there would now be 153 vacancies in our Federal courts, not the 80 that currently remain. We have tried to do our best to address the judicial vacancies problem. We have been able to consider district court nominees more quickly because they have been generally less controversial and ideological than this President's choices for the circuit courts. Not all of the district court nominees we have considered, however, have been without controversy. One of the nominees on whom we have proceeded received a majority ``Not Qualified'' peer review rating from the ABA due to his relative inexperience. Five other district court nominees have received some ``Not Qualified'' votes during the ABA peer reviews. This is despite the fact that the ABA's rating now come after the President has given his imprimatur to the candidate and peers may be chilled from candidly sharing their concerns. A number of President Bush's district court nominees to lifetime seats on the Federal bench have also been unusually young and have been practicing law for a little more than a decade. Some of them have views with which we strongly disagree. Several of this President's judicial nominees seem to have earned their nominations as members of the Federalist Society. Others have records demonstrating that they are pro-life and will actively undercut women's right to choose. Some have already gone on to issue decisions against the privacy rights of women. Many of this President's district court nominees have been very active in Republican and conservative politics or causes. Still other nominees have been intimately involved in partisan politics or played key roles in Republican fundraising. Today, the Senate is confirming a person whose spouse is employed as the treasurer of Senator Santorum's election campaign. The Federal district courts matter. They are the courts of first resort, the trial courts where individuals' claims are tried or dismissed. Not everyone can afford the costs of appealing a trial court ruling. Additionally, circuit courts traditionally give great deference to the findings of the lower court that examined the claims and observed witnesses first hand, rather than making new factual findings based on a cold record. Of course, matters of law are reviewed by the circuit courts, and their rulings can have a substantial impact on the development of the law, especially with a Supreme Court that hears fewer than 100 cases per year. Because we have moved quickly and responsibly on consensus nominees, the number of vacancies is not at the 153 mark it would be at with no action, but is down to 80. On July 10, 2001, with the reorganization of the Senate, we began with 110 vacancies, 77 of which were on the district courts. Despite the large number of additional vacancies that have arisen in the past year, with the 60 district court confirmations we have had as of today, we have reduced district court vacancies to 51. That is almost to the level it was at when Republicans took over the Senate in 1995. The opposition party dismisses this achievement in a backhanded way, but it is one of the most significant things we have accomplished for the sake of the Federal courts and for litigants in the Federal courts. It has not been easy to process that many district court nominees in little more than one year. We have confirmed more of this President's district court nominees over the past year than in any of the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control. Indeed, we have achieved more district court confirmations in the last 13 months than Republicans accomplished in all of 1999 and 2000 combined and more than were confirmed during the last 30 months of Republican majority control of the Senate. We have had hearings for more of this President's district court nominees than in any year of the Reagan Administration, and he had 6 years of a Senate majority of his own party. Indeed, we have confirmed more of President George W. Bush's district court nominees in these past 13 plus months than were confirmed in any year of his father's presidency and more than were confirmed during his father's first two full years combined. In contrast to how fairly we have treated this President's Federal court nominees, consider how poorly nominees were treated during the prior 6\1/2\ years of Republican control of the Senate. Some district court nominees waited years and never received a hearing. For example, nine district court nominees from Pennsylvania alone never got hearings, including then Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court Judge Legrome Davis, who was subsequently re-nominated by President Bush and confirmed earlier this year. Four district court nominees from California were never given a hearing by Republicans despite the full support of their home-State Senators. These are just a few examples of Republican obstruction of judicial nominees. In all, more than three dozen of President Clinton's district court nominees never received hearings or votes by Republicans. Several others received hearings but never were given votes by the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee. These included six district court nominees, such as Fred Woocher, a California district court nominee and Clarence Sundram from New York. Still others waited hundreds and hundreds of days to be confirmed, such as Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the District Court in Hawaii, whose nomination languished for 913 days before she was confirmed, and Judge Margaret Morrow of the District Court for the Central District of California who waited almost 2 years, 643 days, to be confirmed. Let us not forget Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White who was delayed twice only to be defeated on the Senate floor, in a sneak attack. Judge White had waited 801 days only to be defeated through character assassination on the floor of the Senate. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked, many in the dark of night through secretive, anonymous holds. When confronted with their record Republicans often refer to all nominees not getting hearings in 1992. That year, the Senate confirmed more of President George H.W. Bush's judicial nominees than in any year of his presidency and confirmed more judges than in any year in which the Republican majority controlled consideration of President Clinton's nominees. In 1992, 66 judges were confirmed. So, even though some nominations were returned, the Senate in 1992 worked hard to confirm a substantial number, 66, of new judges in the 10 months they were in session during that presidential election year. By contrast, in 1996 when the Republicans were in the Senate majority only 17 judges were confirmed all year and none for the vacancies on the courts of appeals. In 2000, the Republican majority in the Senate confirmed only 39 judges. When the Senate is working hard to confirm judges, as it was in 1992 and since last summer, it may be understandable that not all nominees can be considered. When, as was the case during the Republican majority, the Senate is averaging only 38 confirmations a year and going months and months without a single hearing, the circumstances are quite different. The Republican majority in their 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate ensured that they never treated President Clinton's judicial nominees better than the best year of former President Bush's Administration--just as they made sure that President Clinton's total number of judges appointed never reached that of President Reagan. By contrast, the Democratic majority has reversed the downward spiral and has treated this President's nominees more fairly than the Republican majority treated those of the last President. We have also been confirming this President's judicial nominees at a record pace. Rather than continue the Republican pace of 38 confirmations a year, we have worked hard to do better. We have been so fair to President George W. Bush, despite the past unfairness of Republicans, that if we continue at the current pace of confirmations, President Bush will appoint 227 judges by the end of his term. If this President were to serve two terms like Presidents Reagan and Clinton, he would amass 454 judicial appointments, dramatically shattering President Reagan's all-time record of 382. Some may say we have been foolishly fair, given how Republican treated the nominees of the last Democratic President. But this, too, demonstrates how fair the Democratic Senate majority has been these last 13\1/2\ months. When we adjourned for the August recess we had given hearings to 91 percent of this President's judicial nominees who had completed their paperwork and who had the support of both of their home-State Senators. That is, 84 of the 92 judicial nominees with completed files had received hearings. Indeed, when we held our last nomination hearing on August 1, we had given hearings to 66 district court nominees and we had run out of district court nominees with completed paperwork and home-State support. Only two district court nominees were eligible for that hearing. This is because the White House changed the process of allowing the ABA to begin its work prior to formal nomination. This unilateral change by the White House has already cost the federal judiciary the chance to have 12 to 15 more district court nominees on the bench and hearing cases these past 13 months. Many more of the two dozen pending nominees may not receive an ABA evaluation in time to be considered by the Senate this year. On average, the ABA reviews of district court nominees have been received 59 days from the date of nomination. With the recent delays that we have experienced in the time nominees are taking to complete the Committee questionnaire and the changeover in personnel at the ABA, that time may continue to expand in the few weeks remaining to us before the recess in October this year. Thus, even as the White House professes to blame the Senate for not making progress on even more nominees, it continues to do all it can to delay the process due to its unilateral approach. In January I had proposed a simple procedural fix to allow the ABA evaluation to begin at the same time as the FBI investigation, as was the practice in past Republican and Democratic administrations for 50 years. Then the ABA could be in position to submit its evaluation immediately following the nomination. Had this proposal been accepted, I am confident there would be more than a dozen fewer vacancies in the Federal courts. Instead our efforts to increase cooperation with the White House have been rebuffed. We continue to get the least cooperation from any White House I can recall during my nearly three decades in the Senate. In spite of the obstacles they have put in the way of their own nominees through their lack of consultation and cooperation, we have been able to have a record-breaking year restoring fairness to the judicial confirmation process. We have been rewarded with nearly constant criticism from the administration and its allies. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales dismisses our accomplishments with a terse, one-sentence acknowledgement that Democrats have ``made progress in holding hearings and votes on district court nominees.'' With today's vote, we have already confirmed 60 new Federal trial court judges. That is more than were confirmed in 21 of the past 23 years. We have confirmed more district court nominees in these past 13\1/2\ months than were ever confirmed by the Republican majority during their prior 6\1/2\ years of control of the Senate. For example, in 1995, the year the Republicans took over the Senate, President Clinton nominated 68 district court candidates, but the Republican controlled Senate held hearings for and confirmed only 45 of those nominees. Republicans would call that 66 percent. In 1996, Republicans confirmed only 17 of the district court nominations pending and, of course no nominees to the circuit courts. That was 50 percent of the district court nominees. In 1997, Republicans allowed only 50 percent of the pending district court nominees to be confirmed. In 1998, they hit their high mark in considering district court nominees and allowed 77 percent to be confirmed. In 1999, they were back down to allowing the confirmation of slightly over half, 58 percent, of the district court nominees to be confirmed. Finally, in 2000, again Republicans allowed only little more than half, or 56 percent, of the pending district court nominees to be confirmed. In contrast, we have already had hearings for 100 percent of those district court nominees who were eligible for a hearing. We have had hearings for 66 district court nominees, voted 64 of them out of committee and, as of today, 60 of them have been confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate. I would like to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee who have labored long and hard to evaluate the records of the individuals chosen by this President for lifetime appointments to the Federal courts. The decisions we make after reviewing their records will last well beyond the term of this President and will affect the lives of the individuals whose cases will be heard by these judges and maybe millions of others affected by the precedents of the decisions of these judges. While the opposition party seeks to attribute the vacancy crisis in the Federal courts to the Democrats, who only recently became the majority party in the Senate, I remain hopeful that the American people will discover the truth behind such partisan accusations. Republicans are trying to take advantage of the vacancies they hoarded while waiting for a Republican President with an ideological approach to judicial nominations. Democrats are trying to clean up the vacancies mess that the Republican majority created. I am proud of the efforts of the Senate to restore fairness to the judicial confirmation process. The Senate Judiciary Committee is working hard to schedule hearings and votes on the few remaining judicial nominees, but it takes time to deal with a mess of the magnitude we inherited. I think we have done well by the Federal courts and the American people, and we will continue to do our best to ensure that all Americans have access to federal judges who are unbiased, fair-minded individuals with appropriate judicial temperament and who are committed to upholding the Constitution and following precedent. When the President sends judicial candidates who embody these principles, we have tried to move quickly. When he sends controversial nominees whose records demonstrate that they lack these qualities and whose records are lacking, we will necessarily take more time to evaluate their merits.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee moved expeditiously to consider Judge Henry Autrey despite the poor treatment of President Clinton's nominees in the same circumstances. I mention this because this vacancy is special. It is a vacancy to which Justice Ronnie White should have been confirmed. But in October of 1999, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, marched from a closed-door meeting to vote lockstep against Justice Ronnie White, the first African American Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, after his nomination to the District Court had been kept waiting for 2 years--2 years here in the Senate; actually kept on the Executive Calendar pending for 9 months. I mention this because, with all the unfair criticism of Majority Leader Daschle, who has been moving judges through at a much faster pace than was done prior to him becoming majority leader, I just want to contrast the difference between that action and the one on this nomination, where we are going to confirm Judge Autrey to the Federal bench in Missouri. It shows, also, Senator Carnahan showed far more grace in helping us move this nominee forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I believe that sets sort of a record for the last 5 or 6 years, in any event. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues have the sprint-for-the- airport look in their eye, trying to get home. I am willing to sacrifice my time and spend the next month, the month of August, in Vermont, close to my constituents, onerous as that may seem. I would be perfectly willing to accept voice votes on each of these seven judges, but I would just ask my friends: Please, don't issue a press release tomorrow saying that we only voted on one judge today. We have already voted on one. I will take voice votes on the others.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell the distinguished majority leader, the only concern I have had about having rollcall votes is, a couple times we have taken a group of these and had voice votes, with seven, eight going through, and the next day my good friends on the other side of the aisle and the White House have had a press release saying we have not had a single judge voted on in weeks in the Senate. I think they only notice it if there is a rollcall vote. I ask my friend, the majority leader, if we do these 7, am I correct that would mean we will have confirmed 72 judges in less than 13 months?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield any time we have.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my statement on July 30, 2002, on the nomination of D. Brooks Smith, located on pages S7553-S7558, that three letters be printed in the Record. The letters are: resolution from the City Council of Philadelphia; Monroe Freedman, Professor of Legal Ethics, Hofstra University and; Stephen Gillers, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, New York University.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks a little more than one year after the reorganization of the Senate Judiciary Committee following the change in majority last year. The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee has had an impressive year of fairly and promptly considering President Bush's nominees. In addition to the dozens of high-ranking Justice Department officials for whom we held hearings and our work in connection with almost 200 Executive Branch nominees the Committee reported, we have had a noteworthy record year with respect to judicial nominees. With the lifting of a Republican hold on nominations we have been able to move forward this week to confirm 15 more judicial nominees--4 circuit court nominees and 11 district court nominees. The Democratic- led Senate has now confirmed 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees. This interim total of 72 judges far outdistances any Republican total for any of the preceding six years. Moreover, this is more judges than were confirmed under Republican control during all of 1999, 2000 and the first six months of 2001 combined. Thus, in less than 13 months we have done more than the Republicans did in 30 months! And we did so while reforming the process to ensure bipartisan cooperation and greater fairness. The Senate has now confirmed 13 of President Bush's circuit court nominees--which is almost twice as the average during the prior six and one-half years of Republican control when they averaged seven circuit court confirmations per year. This is more circuit court nominees than were confirmed in two years combined, during all of 1996 and 1997, of the prior years of Republican control. In this, our first year, we held 23 hearings for 84 of the President's nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals and District Courts. That is more hearings for more of this President' s district and circuit court nominees than were ever held in any of the six and one-half years that preceded the change in majority last summer. It is more hearings for more circuit and district court nominees than in 20 of the last 22 years. In particular, we held more hearings for more of President Bush's circuit court nominees, 18, than in any of the six and one-half years in which the Republicans controlled the Committee before the change in majority last summer. For that matter, we held twice as many hearings for courts of appeals nominees than were held in the first year of the Reagan Administration when the Senate was controlled by Republicans and five times more than in the first year of the Clinton Administration when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. That total of 18 hearings for circuit court nominees is also twice what the Republican majority averaged when it was in control of the process. Those are the facts. Under Democratic leadership, the Judiciary Committee voted on more judicial nominees, 79, than in any of the six and one-half years of Republican control that preceded the change in majority. We voted on twice as many circuit court nominees, 15, than the Republican majority averaged in the years they were in control. In fact, this last year we voted on more nominees than were voted on in 1999 and 2000 combined and on more circuit court nominees than the Republicans allowed votes on during 1996 and 1997 combined. We have achieved what we said we would by treating President Bush's nominees more fairly and more expeditiously than President Clinton's nominees had been treated. By many measures the Committee has achieved twice as much this last year as Republicans averaged during their years in control, and, by some measures, has done so in less than half the time. I commend and thank the Majority Leader and Assistant Majority Leader for their patience and determination in achieving movement on judicial nominees on the Senate floor. The Administration's obstructionism stalled Senate floor actions on nominations for more than two months, while the Administration failed to fulfill its responsibility to work with the Senate in the naming of members of bipartisan boards and commissions. But just last Friday we resumed voting on judicial nominations and confirmed 15 judicial nominees in the last week once Senator McCain's hold was lifted. Four of these nominees were confirmed to the Federal Courts of Appeals, including the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost five years, the first nominee to the Ninth Circuit in two years, and the first nominee to the Third Circuit in almost two and a half years and the third nominee that we have confirmed to the Eighth Circuit. With these confirmations, we have addressed long-standing vacancies on circuit courts caused by Republican obstruction on President Clinton's nominees. We held the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit nominee in seven years, the first hearings for Sixth Circuit nominees in almost five years, the first hearing for a Tenth Circuit nominee in six years, and the first hearings for Fourth Circuit nominees in three years. We have also now confirmed 59 of the President's district court nominees, twice as many as the Republican average for the past six and one-half years. Contrast the 59 Federal trial court judges confirmed by the Democratic Senate in just a little more than a year with the Republican average, during their past six and one-half years of control, of confirming only 31 Federal trial court judges a year. The Senate has confirmed more Federal trial court judges than were confirmed in 19 of the past 21 years and almost twice as many as the Republican average from their six and one-half years of control. With this week's confirmations, the Democratic-led Senate has confirmed the 10th Federal judge for Pennsylvania. In addition, we confirmed our fifth judge to the District Courts in Texas, and our fifth judge to the Federal courts in the Eleventh Circuit. Our treatment of these nominees as well as a number of others, including the nominees confirmed today for the District Courts in Missouri, stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of nominees by the Republican majority. We have reformed the process for considering judicial nominees. For example, we have ended the practice of anonymous holds that plagued the period of Republican control, when any Republican Senator could hold any nominee from his home state, his own circuit or any part of the country for any reason, or no reason, without any accountability. We have returned to the Democratic tradition of holding regular hearings, every few weeks, rather than going for period of as long as six months without a single hearing. It would certainly have been easier and less work to retaliate for the unfair treatment of the last President's judicial nominees. We did not. We have been, and will continue to be, more fair than the Republican majority was to President Clinton's judicial nominees. More than 50 of Clinton's nominees never got a vote, many languished for months and years before their nominations were returned without a hearing or other action by the Senate. Others waited years--not just a year, but up to more than four years. Some never were accorded a hearing, some were finally confirmed after years of delay. Those who now seek to pretend that the Democratic majority in the Senate caused a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts are ignoring the facts. Under Republicans, court vacancies rose from 63 in January 1995 to 110 in July 2001, when the Committee reorganized. During Republican control before the reorganization of the Committee, vacancies on the Courts of Appeals more than doubled, increasing from 16 to 33. That is what we inherited. But in one year of Democratic control, and despite 45 additional vacancies caused largely by the retirements of many past Republican appointees, we have reduced the number of district and circuit court vacancies. Vacancies continue to exist on the Court of Appeals, in particular, because a Republican Senate majority was not willing to hold hearings or vote on more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's circuit nominees in 1999 and 2000, and was not willing to confirm a single circuit judge during the entire 1996 session. Republicans caused the circuit vacancy crisis, and it has taken a tremendous effort to evaluate and have hearings for 18 circuit court nominees in our first year. In the meantime, Republicans have been unfairly critical that not every nominee has yet had a hearing or been confirmed. Rather than commend our efforts to do twice as much as they, their criticism is that we have yet to conclude consideration of everyone simultaneously. In less than 13 months we have already confirmed 13 of President Bush's nominees to the Courts of Appeals, and one more is awaiting a vote by the full Senate. They confirmed 46 circuit court nominees in 76 months. Without the benefit of presidential consultation of the Senate before nomination--as Republicans did in recent past years, without having had the luxury of taking two, three and sometimes four years before voting on a nominee, we have already achieved a confirmation rate of over 40 percent in our first year. With some cooperation in the fall from the Administration and from the Republican minority, we can improve on that confirmation rate before the end of the year. It already tops the Republican's record in 1997 and far exceeds the Republicans' record in 1999 when their own confirmation rate for circuit court nominees was 28 percent. It constantly amazes me that our Republican critics run away from their record on judicial nominees, without admitting any error or wrongdoing or regrets of course, and seek to hold us to a much higher standard than they achieved. For example, they seek to compare what we have been able to do in less than 13 months with what other Congresses did over two years. They seek to make comparisons without recognizing that in the current situation we have a Republican President nominating an extreme group of nominees without consulting with Senators, as opposed to other situations in which Presidents and Senate majorities of the same party consulted and worked closely together. A good example of this double standard is the Republican critics' use of ``confirmation rates for Court of Appeals nominees.'' Remember that in 1996 the Republican majority's confirmation percentage for Court of Appeals nominees was zero--not a single confirmation of a single Court of Appeals judge all year. In 1999, President Clinton sent the Senate 25 nominations to the Courts of Appeals. Of those six were renominations of people on whom the Senate had failed to take action dating back to 1996, 1997 and 1998. Of the 25 nominations to the Courts of Appeals by President Clinton, the Republican majority in the Senate would allow only seven to be confirmed by the end of the year, for a confirmation rate of 28 percent. We have already achieved a confirmation rate of 40 percent in our first year. No judicial nominees should be rubber-stamped by the Senate, not even a President's first few choices. All nominees for these lifetime positions merit careful review by the Senate. When a President is using ideological criterion to select nominees, it is fair for the Senate to consider it, as well. Federalist Society credentials are not a substitute for fairness, moderation or judicial temperament. When a President is intent on packing the courts and stacking the deck on outcomes, consideration of balance and how ideological and activist nominees will affect a court are valid considerations. What the President and his advisors acknowledge they are doing is nominating ideologically conservative judicial nominees to stack the 5th, 6th, and D.C. Circuits with judicial activists of their choice. I have tried to work with the White House on judicial nominations. I have gone out of my way to encourage them to work in a bipartisan way with the Senate, like past Presidents, but in all too many instances they have chosen to bypass bipartisanship. I have encouraged them to include the ABA in the process earlier, like past Presidents, but they have refused to do so even though their decision adds to the length of time nominations must be pending before the Senate before they can be considered. This past January, I again called on the President to stop playing politics with judicial nominations and act in a bipartisan manner. In June, I sent a detailed letter to the President on these issues. My efforts to help the White House improve the judicial nominations process have been rejected. I would like to improve the process and speed up the filling of judicial vacancies with qualified, fair-minded judges. Advice and consent does not mean giving the President carte blanche to pack the courts. The ingenious system of checks and balances in our Constitution does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream, and whose decisions would further divide our nation. We have worked hard to balance these competing concerns over the past year: how to address the vacancy crisis we inherited while also not being a rubberstamp and abdicating our responsibilities to provide a democratic check on the President's choices for lifetime appointment to the federal courts. These are the only lifetime appointments in our system of government, and they matter a great deal to our future. We have moved quickly, but responsibly, to fill judicial vacancies with qualified nominees we hope will not be activists. In our first year we confirmed 72 judges and reported 79 judicial nominees. Partisans ignore these facts. The facts are that we are reporting President Bush's nominees at a faster pace than the nominees of prior presidents, including those who worked closely with a Senate majority of the same political party. We have accomplished all this during a period of tremendous tumult and crisis. The Judiciary Committee noticed the first hearing on judicial nominations within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate, and held that hearing on the day after the Committee was assigned new members. We held unprecedented hearings during the August recess last year and proceeded with a hearing two days after the 9-11 attacks and shortly after the anthrax attack. Today, we held our 23rd hearing for judicial nominees. We are doing our best to address the vacancy crisis we inherited. The Democratic majority in the Senate has worked hard since the change in majority last summer. We have a record of achievement and of fairness to be proud of at the recess of this session. I thank the members who have worked cooperatively with me to make progress in so many areas over the last year.