MR. AKAKA -- Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After being rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002, and after being re-nominated and successfully filibustered by the full Senate in the 108th Congress, Justice Owen has been nominated yet again to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In my opinion Justice Owen has not demonstrated her fitness for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. More importantly, her own colleagues on the conservative Texas State Supreme Court have described her dissents as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric." In another case, the majority stated that Justice Owen's dissenting opinion, "...not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme." However, I won't dwell too long on Justice Owen's record. It speaks for itself, and as I mentioned earlier, we have given much time and thought to this nomination. Much has already been said in opposition to her nomination. Instead, I will spend some time on the majority's plan in this chamber to subvert the minority's right to extended debate.
I have spent the past few weeks listening to the debate over 7 nominees who were not confirmed in the 108th Congress and have been renominated to the federal bench by President Bush. We are nearing the end of a debate that may forever change the very nature of how this great institution operates: by a delicate balance of the majority's ability to set the agenda and the protection of the minority's rights. One thing is clear to me, this discussion about the minority's right to extended debate is not getting us any closer to enacting much-needed legislation to assist our constituents.
Outside of Washington, D.C., on a day-to-day basis our constituents face many challenges: escalating health care costs, record high gas prices, and mounting debt that will be handed down to our children and grandchildren. Despite these day-to-day challenges, the majority party continues to put 7 judicial nominations at the top of its agenda.
Let it be clear to those following this debate. This discussion is over the fact that the Senate has passed only 95 percent of President Bush's nominees, not 100 percent. I take my responsibilities as a United States Senator very seriously. I am to provide the President with my advice and consent regarding the individuals he nominates for a lifetime position to the federal judiciary. Let me say that again: a lifetime position on the federal judiciary. Many have asked why the Democrats are so vigorously defending the rights of the minority in this case? Why do we need to preserve the tradition of extended debate with regard to judicial nominations?
Mr. President, the reason why we are taking a stand against these nominees is because once they gain the Senate's advice and consent, nominees are free to decide thousands of key cases that affect millions of Americans on a day-to-day basis. If there are any objections we may have to a judicial nominee's lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary, this is the time for each Senator to voice that opposition. Unlike legislation, which may be amended and refined over time, judges on the federal bench sit for a lifetime appointment with little recourse for correction or change. The only chance we as Senators have to voice our positions on their appointments is now.
From civil rights to personal privacy, from environmental protections to a corporation's financial matters; these nominees will affect public policy for decades to come. In fact, I dare say that we would be remiss in our Constitutional duties if we did not object to those nominees with whom we find unfit for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. It troubles me that the Senate has focused so much in the past few weeks discussing the fact that we have not acted on 7 of 218 of the President's nominees to the federal judiciary.
We're talking about 7 individuals, 7 individuals who have jobs, while 1.2 million people are without jobs since President Bush took office; 7 individuals who most likely have health insurance, while 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. We should be talking about jobs and access to health care. We should be focusing on the need to increase funding to ensure that veterans, especially those returning from the Global War on Terror, have access to quality health care and benefits. We should be looking at energy legislation that will address the vital energy needs of our nation. In short, we should be doing what the American people sent us to Washington to do; to govern, not engage in an effort to ensure that this President has a 100 percent success rate for his judicial nominations.
If we want to start talking about legislation that is important to us as individual Senators, we could be talking about federal recognition for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians, an issue of extreme importance to my constituents in Hawaii. We could be talking about ending mutual fund abuses for investors or promoting financial and economic literacy for our youth and adults alike. We could be talking about how to fund the promises we extended when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act which has been severely underfunded since its enactment.
Instead, over these past few weeks out of 218 judicial nominations approved we focus on the 7 that Democrats have opposed. Despite confirming 208 nominations for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, there are those in this body who seek to subvert the rights of the minority for the sole purpose of ensuring that instead of a 95 percent success rate, the President has a 100 percent success rate with respect to his judicial nominations. This action will serve to deny me my ability to truly provide my advice and consent on individuals nominated to serve in the judiciary that our predecessors have preserved. It is sad that we have come to this point. During my tenure in the Senate, we have been able to work in a bipartisan manner to achieve our goals.
Some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle argue that this is the first time a filibuster has been used for a judicial nominee. Mr. President, Republicans have openly filibustered a number of nominees on the floor of the Senate, 5 of whom were circuit court nominees. As we have heard multiple times during this debate, during President Clinton's two terms, close to 60 of his nominees were held in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and never brought to the Senate floor. Never given the same up-or-down vote Republicans today say every Republican nominated judge deserves.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they have never engaged in efforts to block a judicial nomination. I want to share with my colleagues a situation I encountered during the 104th and 105th Congresses. An individual from Hawaii was nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. This was a nominee strongly supported by both Senators from Hawaii. This nominee had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was reported favorably. However, this is where the process stopped for a period of two-and-a-half years.
A colleague from another state placed a hold on this nominee for over 30 months before allowing us to confirm this nomination. In effect, a Senator from a state thousands of miles from Hawaii blocked a district court nominee that the senior Senator from Hawaii and I supported. This colleague is a former Attorney General of the United States, and happens to be a good friend of mine. I found this situation to be so unusual, that a colleague from another state would place a hold on a district court nominee from my state when both Hawaii Senators strongly supported the nomination. I raise this issue to dispute the notion that this is the first time a nomination has been blocked, after the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination to the Senate for consideration.
I could also speak about the nomination of Justice James Duffy to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A fine nominee, described by his peers as the "best of the best," he had strong support from Senator Inouye and me to fill Hawaii's slot on the Ninth Circuit. Yet, Justice Duffy never received a hearing in the Senate, which had a Republican majority at the time. Seven hundred and ninety-one days without a hearing, Mr. President. I should mention that Hawaii now benefits from James Duffy's service on the Hawaii State Supreme Court, who was appointed with bipartisan support.
Justice Duffy is one of the well-qualified and talented men and women nominated during the Clinton Administration, individuals with bipartisan and home-state support, whose nominations were never acted on by the Senate. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to hold hearings for nominees they did not agree with, effectively blocking the Senate's consideration of President Clinton's nominees. Colleagues, let's look at the substance and not the rhetoric.
The last person I'll mention is Richard Clifton, who is now serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Mr. Clifton was nominated after President Bush withdrew Justice Duffy's nomination. Richard Clifton served as the Hawaii State Republican Party Counsel. While I don't necessarily agree with all of his views, I supported his nomination, because I have confidence in his ability to appropriately apply the law. He was confirmed within a year of his nomination.
Mr. President, since President Bush took office, we have been working in a bipartisan manner with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fill the vacancies on the federal judiciary, creating the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, there are 45 vacancies on the federal bench. This is a decrease in total vacancies from 97 when this President first took office. Mr. President, let's return to urgent legislation which will truly help our constituents -- jobs, access to health care, education, the minimum wage, and helping the poor.
In a Senate where the divide between the majority and minority is held by a handful of votes, and that division reflects the viewpoint of the American body politic at-large, it is imperative that we work together to resolve the many issues that are important to our constituents. When it comes to judicial nominations, the confirmation of 208 judges clearly shows that we, in the minority, are doing what we can to work with the majority in upholding our constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations. I can only hope we achieve a success rate of 95 percent in enacting legislation addressing funding for education, access to health care, increases to the minimum wage, benefits and services for our veterans, and economic and financial literacy to enable individuals and families to make sound decisions in their lives.
Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.
