NOMINATIONS UP HERE; DOESN'T SEEK OUR ADVICE. AND THEN WE'RE
           ASKING TO CONSENT. BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
           MADE TO ME PRIVATELY AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE READ
           PUBLICLY, IT SEEMS AS IF THE SENATE SHOULD BE A RUBBER STAMP,
           THAT WE SHOULD JUST APPROVE EVERY JUDGE THAT COMES DOWN THE
           LINE AND NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THE ADVISE AND CONSENT ROLE.
           WELL, THAT'S NOT THE WAY I READ THE CONSTITUTION. I THINK
           THAT'S WRONG. I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE

           CONSTITUTION TO REVIEW THESE JUDGES VERY CAREFULLY. AND I HAVE
           CERTAINLY VOTED FOR MORE THAN MY SHARE OF JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
           THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS PUT FORTH. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
           THE TWO NOMINEES BEFORE US IN TERMS OF THEIR LEGAL OPINIONS --
           AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE; WE'RE NOT TALKING
           ABOUT ANY OTHER PERSONAL MATTERS OTHER THAN THEIR LEGAL
           OPINIONS -- I THINK THEY'RE ACTIVIST JUDGES. I THINK THEY'RE
           OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM OF AMERICAN THOUGHT. AND I DON'T THINK
           EITHER ONE SHOULD BE PUT ON THE COURT. AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS

           THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL JUDGES. AND I WAS CRITICIZED BY SOME FOR
           FILIBUSTERING, SAYING THAT -- QUOTE, UNQUOTE -- THERE WAS NEVER
           A -- WE'RE DOWN A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT HERE OF FILIBUSTERING
           JUDGES. THE FILIBUSTER IS OVER. WE'RE NOW ON THE JUDGES, AND SO
           THE FILIBUSTER IS A NONISSUE. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
           FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE HAS A PURPOSE. IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY TO
           DELAY FOR THE SAKE OF DELAY. IT'S TO GET INFORMATION. IT'S TO
           TAKE THE TIME TO DEBATE AND TO FIND OUT ABOUT WHAT A JUDGE'S

           THOUGHTS ARE AND HOW HE OR SHE MIGHT ACT ON THE COURT ONCE
           THEY'RE PLACED ON THE COURT. AND I WAS TOLD BY SOME OF MY
           COLLEAGUES YESTERDAY THAT WE'RE GOING -- QUOTE, UNQUOTE -- DOWN
           A DANGEROUS PATH TO DEBATE THESE JUDGES AND SLOW THEM DOWN,
           WHETHER THROUGH FILIBUSTER OR THROUGH DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF
           THE SENATE. THINK YOU'LL FIND THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE WHO WILL
           SPEAK HERE IN THIS ROUGHLY THREE HOURS I HAVE ON MY SIDE --
           HAVE ON OUR SIDE UNDER MY CONTROL, AND THAT'S SAID. I THINK WE
           SHOULD AIR THESE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. AND AS FAR AS THE ISSUE

           OF GOING DOWN A TRAIL AND A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT WE'VE
           SOMEHOW NEVER GONE BEFORE, AS I POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, AND I
           WANT TO REITERATE IT THIS MORNING, SINCE 196813 JUDGES HAVE
           BEEN FILIBUSTERED BY BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, APPOINTED BY
           PRESIDENTS IN BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, STARTING IN 1968 WITH ABE
           FORDICE AND COMING ALL THE WAY FORTH WITH THESE TWO JUDGES
           TODAY. THIS IS NOT A NEW PATH TO ARGUE AND TO DISCUSS
           INFORMATION ABOUT THESE JUDGES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR.

           PRESIDENT, CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST SAT IN YOUR CHAIR
           ABOUT A YEAR AGO FINISHING UP THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF
           PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. AND WHEN WILLIAM REHNQUIST
           WAS NOMINATED TO THE COURT, HE WAS FILIBUSTERED TWICE. TWICE.
           AND THEN AFTER HE GOT ON THE COURT, HE WAS FILIBUSTERED AGAIN
           WHILE BEING ON THE COURT -- WHILE ON THE COURT AND ASKED TO
           BECOME THE CHIEF JUSTICE. AND IN THAT FILIBUSTER -- AND THE
           DEBATE IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THINGS THAT HAD HAPPENED TO

           HIM PRIOR TO HIM COMING OR THE COURT WERE REGURGITATED BACK,
           BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED ON WILLIAM REHNQUIST. I DON'T WANT TO
           HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT I'M GOING DOWN SOME TRAIL BY FILIBUSTERING
           THIS JUDGES. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE, AND I RESENT ANY ARGUMENT
           TO THE CONTRARY, BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. BUT LET'S TALK A
           LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT, WHERE THESE TWO JUDGES ARE
           ABOUT TO GO. LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THIS IS GOING TO

           BE A TOUGH VOTE TO WIN. I KNOW THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
           THE FIGHT SHOULDN'T BE MADE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL JUDGED IN HERE
           AS UNITED STATES SENATORS BASED ONGOING WHAT-- --BASED ON WHAT
           WE DO, WHAT WE SAY, HOW WE ACT. HISTORY WILL JUDGE US, AS THEY
           JUDGE THE GREAT SENATORS OF ALL TIME, SUCH AS CLAY, CALHOUN AND
           WEBSTER, WHO DEBATED THE GREAT ISSUES BEFORE AND DURING THE
           CIVIL WAR. YOU'RE JUDGED ON WHAT POSITIONS YOU TAKE. MAYBE
           HISTORY PROVES YOU'RE RIGHT. MAYBE HISTORY PROVES YOUR WRONG.

           BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO MAKE THAT VOTE, YOU DON'T HAVE
           ANYPLACE TO HIDE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT AND YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE
           CONSEQUENCES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I DO WHAT I DO WITH THE BEST
           INFORMATION I HAVE. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE RESEARCHED
           BOTH OF THESE JUDGES VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. I'VE LOOKED AT THE
           NINTH CIRCUIT VERY, VERY CAREFULLY, AND I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS
           ABOUT TWO VERY CONTROVERSIAL JUDGES BEING PLACED IN A VERY
           
           CONTROVERSIAL CIRCUIT COURT: THE NINTH. THIS IS A REN GATE
           CIRCUIT COURT THAT'S OUT-- --RENEGADE CIRCUIT COURT. IT'S BEEN

           REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT 90% OF THE TIME. I THINK IT'S
           IMPORTANT TO LET THAT SINK IN. 90% OF THE DECISIONS THAT THIS
           NINTH CIRCUIT HAS MADE HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE U.S. SUPREME
           COURT. I JUST WANT TO REPEAT SOME OF THOSE STATISTICS. IN 19 --
           FROM 1999 TO NOW SEVEN OF SEVEN -- 100% -- OF THEIR CASES HAVE
           BEEN REVERS. 100%. IN 1998 TO 1999, 13 OF 18 WERE REVERSED --

           72%. IN 1997 TO 1998, 14 OF 17, OR 82%. WE CAN GO ON AND ON.
           1996 TO 1997, 27 OF 28 CASES THAT THIS COURT LAID DOWN -- GAVE
           A DECISION ON WERE OVERTURNED. OVERTURNED -- 96% OF THEM. 1995
           TO 1996, 10 OF 12 -- 83%. ON AND ON AND ON. THE AVERAGE, 90% OF
           THE CASES IN THE PAST SIX YEARS. 84 REVERSALS IN THE LAST 98
           CASES. THAT'S AN ABYSMAL RECORD, TO PUT IT MILDLY. THE NINTH

           CIRCUIT IS ROUTINELY ISSUING ACTIVISTOPINIONS ILE THE SUPREME
           COURT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CORRECT SOME OF THESE ABUSES, THE REPORT
           IS -- THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTIBUSINESS,
           PROCRIMINAL DECISIONS WHICH DISTORT LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AND
           DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
           SOME OF THE MORE OUTRAGEOUS OPINIONS INCLUDE CREATING THE RIGHT
           TO DIE, BLOCKING AN ABORTION PARENTAL CONSENTS LAW AND A SLEW

           OF OBSTRUCTIONIST DEATH PENALTY DECISIONS. I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES
           UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU HEAR THE TERRIBLE STORIES ABOUT PRISONERS
           GETTING OUT AFTER FIVE YEARS, OR PEOPLE COMMITTING TERRIBLE
           CRIMES AND NEVER GOING TO JAIL OR GETTING PAR DONNED OR GETTING
           LENIENT SENTENCES, THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. THIS HAPPENS
           BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WE PUT ON THE COURT. AND WE ARE HERE AS
           UNITED STATES SENATORS TO ADVISE AND CONSENT OR NOT CONSENT ON
           THE BASIS OF THESE NOMINEES. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU READ IN THE

           PAPER THAT SOME JUDGE LET SOME CRIMINAL OUT, AND THE GUY
           COMMITTED THE CRIME AGAIN AND AGAIN?
           THEN HE GOT OUT AGAIN AND DID IT AGAIN. IT GOES ON AND ON.
           STALKING, RAPE, MURDER, ROBBERY, ARMED ROBBERY, ASSAULT, OVER
           AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME. AND WE SIT
           AROUND OUR LIVING ROOMS AT NIGHT, WE WATCH TELEVISION, WE TALK
           TO EACH
           
           OTHER AND ASK: WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?
           WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE JUDGES?
           I SAY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHEN YOU HAVE JUDGES LIKE THIS WHO
           ARE THIS FAR LEFT OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM, SURELY THERE ARE

           JUDGES SOMEWHERE OUT OF THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF JUDGES
           THAT ARE ALL OVER AMERICA ON THE VARIOUS COURTS FROM THE
           DISTRICT -- ON THE DISTRICT COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT
           SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW WE CAN'T FIND SOMEBODY TO SERVE ON THE
           CIRCUIT COURT WHO IS NOT THIS CONTROVERSIAL. THAT'S THE BOTTOM
           LINE. THAT'S WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. THAT'S WHY I'M DOWN
           HERE ON THE FLOOR. THAT'S WHY, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW I'M GOING TO
           LOSE, I WANT THIS CASE MADE. AND THAT'S WHY I'VE ASKED FOR THE
           TIME TO DO IT. SO AGAIN, THE SENATE, AND PARTICULARLY

           REPUBLICAN SENATORS FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATES, ARE ON
           RECORD IN FAVOR OF SPLITTING THIS COURT, IT'S SO CONTROVERSIAL,
           MAKING IT INTO TWO. THERE WAS A COMMISSION CALLED THE WHITE
           COMMISSION THAT RECOMMENDED A SUBSTANTIAL OVERHAUL OF THE
           CIRCUIT'S PROCEDURES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. IT FOUND
           THE CIRCUIT HAD SO MANY JUDGES THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO MONITOR
           EACH OTHER'S DECISIONS AND THEY RARELY HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK
           TOGETHER. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. THE NINTH CIRCUIT COVERS 38%

           OF THE COUNTRY, TWICE AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER. IT COVERS 50
           MILLION PEOPLE, MORE THAN 20 MILLION THAN ANY OTHER CIRCUITS.
           IT HAS THE MOST FILINGS IN THE COUNTRY, NOT SURPRISINGLY.
           PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS ALREADY APPOINTED TEN JUDGES TO THE
           CIRCUIT, AND DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES COMPROMISE -- COMPRISE 15 OF
           THE 22 SLOTS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. THERE IS NO NEED TO PUT MORE
           CONTROVERSIAL NOMINEES ON THE COURT FROM A LAME-DUCK PRESIDENT.
           PAEZ AND BERZON HAVE ATTRACTED SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION BOTH

           WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE SENATE. BOTH WERE REPORTED OUT OF THE
           JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY A 10-8 VOTE. THAT'S AT PRETTY NARROW
           VOTE. NEITHER WOULD MOVE THE CIRCUIT TO THE MAINSTREAM. IN
           FACT, THEY ARE ACTIVIST JUDGES. IN PAEZ'S CASE, THE U.S.
           CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS OFFICIALLY OPPOSED TO THE PAEZ
           NOMINATION PRINCIPALLY DUE TO HIS DECISION IN THE UNICAL CASE
           IN 1997 ALLOWING U.S. COMPANIES TO BE SUED FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS
           ABUSES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. THINK ABOUT THAT. HOW WOULD YOU

           LIKE TO BE A U.S. COMPANY AND BE SUED FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS
           VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?
           THAT'S THE WAY PAEZ RULED. THE LETTER NOTES THE CHAMBER'S
           SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT A JUDGE PURSUING A FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA
           IN THIS FASHION AND ARGUES -- QUOTE -- "IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
           CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION IN THE U.S. AND WORLD MARKETS."
           THE JUDICIAL SELECTION MONITORING PROJECT AT FREE CONGRESS
           FOUNDATION CIRCULATED A LETTER SIGNED BY OVER 300 GRASS ROOTS

           ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSING THIS NOMINATION. IT HIGHLIGHTS PAEZ'S
           1995 INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS REGARDING BALLOT INITIATIVES ON THE
           BELIEF THAT HE IS AN ACTIVIST JUDGE AND HIS LACK OF JUDICIAL
           TEM PROGRAM. ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPLAUDED HIS
           NOMINATION AS A WELCOME CHANGE AFTER ALL THE PRO-LAW
           ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE WE'VE SEEN APPOINTED TO THE STATE AND
           FEDERAL COURTS. THINK ABOUT THAT STATEMENT BY THE UCLU. NO
           MATTER HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE UCLU. LET ME REPEAT THAT

           STATEMENT. "THIS NOMINATION IS -- QUOTE -- "A WELCOME CHANGE
           AFTER ALL OF THE PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE. "-- --PEOPLE" THAT
           WE'VE APPOINTED TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. WHAT DOES THAT
           TELL YOU ABOUT THIS GUY?
           I'M TELLING YOU, MY COLLEAGUES, I REALLY WISH THAT WE WOULD
           STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING. EVEN "THE WASHINGTON

           POST" -- NOT EXACTLY A BASTION OF CONSERVATIVE -- STATED ON
           OCTOBER 29, 1999, IN AN EDITORIAL, "THAT REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION
           TO PAEZ IS NOT ENTIRELY FRIVOLOUS." IT ARGUED THATHIS BOLT HALL
           SPEECH WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT A PRINCE PALD CONSERVATIVE
           COULD SUSPECT BRACED ON JUDGE PAEZ'S COMMENTS THAT HE MIGHT BE
           SYMPATHETIC TO SUCH LIBERAL ACTIVIST THINKING AND WOULD BE MORE
           GENERALLY A LIBERAL ACTIVIST ON THE BENCH." THAT'S "THE
           WASHINGTON POST"'S NICE WAY OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS GUY MIGHT

           NOT BE THAT GOOD AFTER ALL. THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE OUT HERE.
           YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE FRAMEWORK. A LIBERAL, ACTIVIST COURT
           THAT HAS BEEN OVERTURNED 90% OF THE TIME, THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
           AND NOW WE PUT A JUDGE ON THERE WHO IS BEING LAUDED -- LAUDED
           -- AS A WELCOME CHANGE AFTER ALL THE PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE
           WE PUT ON THE COURT. SO MY COLLEAGUES AND, AND LET ME SAY TO
           THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHEN YOU HEAR STORIES ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING

           OUT OF JAIL OR NOT GOING TO JAIL OR COMMITTING CRIMES OVER AND
           OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, OH, THOSE LIBERAL
           JUDGES, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THOSE LIBERAL JUDGES, ASK
           YOUR SENATORS WHAT THEY DID ABOUT LIBERAL JUDGES WHEN THEY CAME
           HERE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE, BEFORE WE PUT THEM ON THE
           COURT. THAT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. DO YOU SUPPORT PEOPLE THAT
           ARE LAUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT?
           MAYBE YOU A OUGHT ASK THEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. IN

           BERZON'S CASE, THE BERZON NOMINATION WAS DESCRIBED BY THE
           NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE AS -- QUOTE -- "THE WORST
           JUDICIAL NOMINATION PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS EVER MADE." SHE'S
           BEEN AN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AFL-CIO SINCE 1987,
           HAS REPRESENTED UNIONS IN THE AUTOMOBILE, STEEL, ELECTRICAL,
           GARMENT, TEACHERS AND OTHER SECTORS BOTH IN A DAY-TO-DAY
           CAPACITY. AND AMONG THE POSITIONS SHE HAS ESPOUSED WHICH COURTS
           HAVE REJECTED, ONE, STATE BARS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE COMPULSORY

           DUES OF OBJECTING MEMBERS FOR LOBBYING. THAT'S THE WAY SHE
           RULED. SO, YOU'RE FORCED AS A MEMBER OF A UNION TO GIVE DUES
           AND YOU'RE FORCED TO ALLOW THOSE DUES TO BE USED FOR LOBBYING
           FOR SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS I WANT
           MY JOB, SO I PAY MY UNION DUES. AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY RUB MY
           NOSE INTO IT FURTHER BY SAYING, NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE
           GOING TO SPEND MONEY LOBBYING FOR SOMETHING YOU DISAPPROVE OF.

           AND SHE RULED YES, SHE WOULD DO THAT. SECONDLY, UNIONS SHOULD
           BE ABLE TO PROHIBIT MEMBERS FROM RESIGNING DURING A STRIKE.
           SOMEBODY GOES ON STRIKE. THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO PERHAPS DO
           SOMETHING ELSE, RESIGN FOR WHATEVER REASON. HOW ABOUT IF IT'S
           THEIR HEALTH?
           SHE'S PROHIBITING THEM FROM RESIGNING DURING A STRIKE. WHAT'S
           THAT MEAN?
           IF SOMEBODY HAS A HEART ATTACK, THEY CAN'T QUIT?
{END: 2000/03/09 TIME: 10-00 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}