The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NOMINATION OF G. PATRICK MURPHY, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S3028-S3031 on April 2, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NOMINATION OF G. PATRICK MURPHY, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of G. Patrick Murphy, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of two outstanding judicial nominees from my state of Illinois, G. Patrick Murphy and Michael P. McCuskey.
It is therefore appropriate that I also say a few words about a matter of critical importance: the exceptionally large number of judicial vacancies in our federal court system.
Currently, there are 83 vacancies in the federal judiciary. This accounts for approximately one out of every ten federal judges. Thirty of the vacancies have been in existence for 18 months or longer and are therefore regarded as ``judicial emergencies.''
Illinois presently has seven vacant judgeships. One of these, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, dates back to November of 1992. Another, in the Central District, dates back to October of 1994. Two of the nominees for these vacancies are awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee and two will be confirmed today by the full Senate. In the Southern District, the chief judge went for more than a year without having time to hear a single civil case because his criminal docket was so full. In the Central District, major civil trials have had to be postponed because of the shortage of judges. Commenting on the imminent retirement of a third judge in his district, Marvin Aspen, the chief judge of the Northern District, recently told the Chicago Sun-Times that ``if Congress does not move quickly . . . in a short time we could have a serious backlog.'' Last week, Judge Aspen called the number of judicial vacancies nationwide
``an unprecedented scandal.'' The chief judge of the Southern District, Phil Gilbert, says that they are currently managing to get the job done, but they ``badly'' need additional judges. Michael Mihm of the Central District says that they are also continuing to function, but they are definitely feeling the pinch. They have had to delay at least one major civil trial, and are increasingly dependent on visiting judges. Litigants are often forced to travel long distances to get their day in court.
The situation in the Southern and Central Districts of Illinois is dire. There are four judgeships in the Southern District, and 2 of them are vacant, a vacancy rate of 50%, which is much higher than the nationwide rate of 10% vacancies. The Central District numbers are exactly the same. The Southern District vacancy is one of the oldest in the country. As of today, 1,972 days have passed without a judge in that seat. And the Central District seat has been vacant for 1,275 days.
Today, two Illinois nominees for those districts will be confirmed by the full Senate. These nominees, Mike McCuskey and Pat Murphy, have been pending on the floor for 147 days. There is no question of their qualifications; both were unanimously recommended by the Judiciary Committee in November.
Mike McCuskey was born in Peoria, and has served as a state court judge for the last nine years. Prior to attending law school, he taught high school history, and coached baseball. He worked his way through law school as a security guard. Judge McCuskey has a reputation as an outstanding jurist, fair, firm and thorough. He is also known for his community service, such as reading to grade school children and emceeing senior citizen activities at the County Fair.
Pat Murphy was born in Marion, Illinois. He enlisted in the Marines at the age of 17, and spent his 18th birthday in Vietnam. Upon returning to Illinois, he attended college and law school with the help of the GI Bill. After both of his parents died, he helped raise his four younger siblings, although, as he puts it, they all raised each other. Mr. Murphy has extensive legal experience, with over 100 jury trials and 200 bench trials under his belt. The first year he was eligible, he was elected to the prestigious American College of Trial Attorneys. He has a sterling reputation among all who have worked with him or against him. He is also known for his generosity to veterans, giving pro bono representation to any veteran who asks for help.
As both of these nominees have languished on the Senate calendar, the delay has taken its toll on their personal lives. Several weeks ago, Judge McCuskey was forced to choose between his home and his current state court job. Last year he signed a housing contract, which was finalized in March. Since he entered the contract, the rules of residency for a state court judge changed. This confirmation vote comes just in time for him. He can now move into his new house without worrying about losing his state court judgeship. If this confirmation vote did not come today, he would have been forced to default on his contract. Pat Murphy is a solo practitioner. He has been unable to predict his ability to continue to represent clients. Yet, he has had to make a living over the last one hundred and fifty days.
Consideration of these nominees has been long overdue, and I am so pleased that they will finally be confirmed by the full Senate. Both of these men are highly qualified and will be a credit to the federal judiciary. Moreover, the vacancies they fill will help resolve a crisis in Illinois--a crisis that is evident throughout our nation.
As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his 1997 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, ``Vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been associated with the federal judiciary.'' The Chief Justice placed much of the blame squarely on the Senate. He said, ``Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote. The Senate confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 36 in 1997, well under the 101 judges it confirmed during 1994.''
By failing to move expeditiously on judicial nominations, the majority party in the Senate is failing to live up to its responsibilities to the American people. President Clinton has made 134 judicial nominations during the 105th Congress, but the Senate has confirmed only 51 of these individuals. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized earlier this year, ``If Republicans don't like the choices, let the Senate debate them and vote them down. Doing nothing, as the Senate has done lately, is cowardly and cynical.''
Worse yet, it is affecting the quality of justice in the United States. The increase in the number of judicial vacancies in combination with the growth in criminal and civil filings has created a huge backlog of federal cases. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, since 1990, the number of cases filed in courts of appeals has increased by 21 percent and those filed in district courts have grown by 24 percent. There was a five percent increase in the criminal caseload in 1997. This resulted in the largest federal criminal caseload in 60 years.
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the number of active cases pending for at least three years rose 20 percent from 1995 to 1996. In 1997, Federal courts handled a record number of cases. Bankruptcy filings jumped more than 50 %, civil and appellate cases increased for the fourth consecutive year, and criminal caseloads were more crowded than at any time in the last 60 years. According to the most recent data provided by the Department of Justice, there are more than 16,000 federal cases that are more than three years old.
Time magazine wrote last year that ``some Republicans have as much as declared war on [President] Clinton's choices, parsing every phrase they've written for evidence of what they call judicial activism.'' This has discouraged qualified candidates from subjecting themselves to the confirmation process. For instance, last September, Justice Richard P. Goldenhersch of the Illinois Court of Appeals, withdrew his name from consideration for a federal judgeship, stating that, because of the ``poisoned atmosphere of the confirmation process, my nomination would be pending for an indefinite period of time.'' He stated that the protracted nature of the process was ``particularly unfair to the people of the Southern District of Illinois, who deserve a fully staffed court ready to hear their cases.''
In condemning President Clinton's judicial nominations, one of my Republican colleagues described the judicial branch last year as being full of ``renegade judges, [who are] a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite.'' And in explaining why the confirmation of a California appeals court judge had been delayed for two years, a senior member of the Republican majority stated, ``If you want to blame somebody for the slowness of approving judges to the Ninth Circuit, blame the Clinton and Carter appointees who have been ignoring the law and are true examples of activist judging.''
The President's record of judicial appointments belies any assertion that he has sought to stack the federal judiciary with the types of judges referred to by my colleagues. The New York Times commented last year that what ``may be most notable about Clinton's judicial appointments may be reluctance to fill the court with liberal judges.'' The Times noted that a statistical analysis by three scholars
``confirms the notion that the ideology of Clinton's appointees falls somewhere between the conservatives selected by [Presidents] Bush and Reagan and the liberals chosen by President Carter.'' The Times quoted an author of the study, Professor Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, as stating that Clinton's appointments were ``decidedly less liberal than other modern Democratic presidents.'' Professor Songer stated that, from an ideological standpoint, President Clinton's judges were most similar to judges selected by President Ford.
Republican members of the Senate thus cannot claim that they are safeguarding the judiciary from liberal jurists. Indeed, it is they who, in the words of Time magazine, are currently engaged in ``what has become a more partisan and ideological examination of all judicial nominees.'' As my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, stated last September, the ``continuing attack on the judicial branch [by Republican Members of Congress], the slowdown in the processing of the scores of good women and men the President has nominated to fill vacancies on the Federal courts around the country, and widespread threats of impeachment [against federal judges] are all part of a partisan ideological effort to intimidate the judiciary.''
Mr. President, Chief Justice Rehnquist has called the independence of the judiciary ``the crown jewel of our system of government.'' Our courts are revered around the globe precisely because of their ability to administer justice impartially and without regard to the prevailing political climate. Republicans in Congress are seeking to undermine judicial independence and freedom of action. A key element of their strategy has been to put a choke hold on the process of confirming nominees sent by President Clinton. This state of affairs must not be allowed to continue. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has stated, ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or down.'' Let the Senate heed the words of the Chief Justice and commit itself to enabling the federal judiciary to be, as the Supreme Court pediments proclaim, the guardian of our liberty and the guarantor of equal justice under the law.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to congratulate Senator Durbin and Senator Moseley-Braun on finally, at long last, achieving a vote on the nominations of Patrick Murphy and Judge Michael McCuskey. The Senators from Illinois have had to labor long and hard just to reach this point. I know that Senator Durbin did everything that he could think of to bring to the attention of the Republican leadership the need to consider and confirm these two judicial nominees who have been languishing on the Senate calendar without action for the last six months. I, too, have spoken about the plight of the Federal courts in the Southern and Central Districts of Illinois more often over the last several weeks and months than I would like to remember.
We thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, for his efforts on behalf of these nominees and on behalf of achieving a vote. And I thank the Majority Leader for finally scheduling this vote and for working through whatever problems existed on the Republican side of the aisle that have delayed these nominations from early November to the end of the last session and for the first three months of this new session.
It is long past time for the Senate to consider the nominations of Patrick Murphy and Judge Michael McCuskey. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported these two nominations to the full Senate on November 6, 1997--almost six months ago. Their confirmations are desperately needed to help end the vacancy crisis in the Federal District Courts of Illinois.
Pat Murphy is an outstanding judicial nominee. A decorated Marine, he has practiced law in the State of Illinois for 20 years as a trial lawyer and tried about 250 cases to verdict or judgment as sole counsel. During his legal career, Mr. Murphy has made an extensive commitment to pro bono service--dedicating approximately 20 percent of his working time to representing disadvantaged clients in his community.
Judge Michael McCuskey is also an outstanding judicial nominee. Judge McCuskey served as a Public Defender for Marshall County in Lacon, Illinois, for 8 years and has served as a State court judge for several years, first on the bench in the 10th Judicial Circuit and then on the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois. The American Bar Association recognized his stellar qualifications by giving Judge McCuskey its highest rating of well-qualified for this nomination.
The mounting backlogs of civil and criminal cases in the dozens of emergency districts, like the Southern and Central Districts of Illinois, are growing more critical by the day. Indeed, in the Southern District of Illinois, where Pat Murphy will serve when confirmed, Chief Judge Gilbert has reported that his docket has been so burdened with criminal cases that he went a year without trying a civil case.
The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called judicial vacancies ``the most immediate problem we face in the federal judiciary.'' There is no justification for the Senate's delay in considering these two fine nominees for Districts suffering from judicial emergency vacancies.
I have urged those who have been stalling the consideration of the President's judicial nominations to reconsider and to work with us to have the Judiciary Committee and the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility. Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of justice. Courts cannot try cases, incarcerate the guilty or resolve civil disputes without judges.
Last week the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified that the persisting vacancies on that Court require him to certify an emergency situation and to begin canceling hearings and proceeding with only one Second Circuit Judge on certain 3-judge appellate panels. There is a nominee for the Second Circuit on the Senate calendar awaiting Senate consideration, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
I came to the Senate floor last week to plead with the Republican leadership to proceed to consideration of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit. I renew that plea today and urge a vote on this nomination before the Senate adjourns for a 2-week recess. We should not go on recess while the Second Circuit needs action on nominees to alleviate a crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of G. Patrick Murphy, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois?
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
YEAS--98
AbrahamAkakaAllardAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBreauxBrownbackBryanBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeClelandCoatsCochranCollinsConradCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEnziFeingoldFeinsteinFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHagel HarkinHatchHollingsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesReedReidRobbRobertsRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondTorricelliWarnerWellstoneWyden
NAYS--1
Faircloth
NOT VOTING--1
Helms
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nomination was confirmed.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
