[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9682-S9683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about 
comments that have been made, both on the floor and off the floor, with 
regard to the job that the distinguished Senator from Utah, the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, has been doing in 
regard to judicial nominations. I rise today to commend my colleague 
for the outstanding work he has done in regard to these nominations.
  Make no mistake about it, this is tough work. No one who has not had 
the opportunity to watch this from a close point of view, to see it up 
close and personal, really has any idea what kind of effort Senator 
Hatch has made to make sure nominees who come to this floor have been 
examined very closely and very carefully. It is proper; it is correct 
that this be done. No one can do a better job at this than Senator 
Orrin Hatch. I have watched him, day after day, in his examination and 
his staff's examination and work on people who have been nominated to 
the judicial bench. I must say he does a tremendous job.
  Senate consideration of judicial nominations is always difficult. It 
is always contentious. That is just the nature of the business. Yet in 
this Congress, under the guidance of Chairman Hatch, the Senate has 
confirmed 69 Federal judicial nominations--69, for those who offer 
criticism. Mr. President, 35 of these nominees have been confirmed 
earlier this year, and we have just confirmed 4 more. Yet not only has 
the chairman been criticized for nominees who are still pending in the 
Judiciary Committee, he has even been criticized for nominees who have 
already been confirmed; that is, nominees who are now serving, today, 
this very day, as Federal judges. Chairman Hatch has been criticized 
for not moving those nominees fast enough. I strongly disagree. I 
believe the chairman has done an outstanding job, a fine job. I wanted 
to come to the floor this afternoon to say that.
  I would like to talk about the confirmation process for a moment 
because, again, I think many times people really don't understand what 
this process entails--or at least what it entails when the chairman is 
doing a good job. I think an explanation of the process may help those 
who are listening to the debate today understand why some of the delays 
in confirmation of judicial nominees occur.
  The President has very broad discretion, as we know, to nominate 
whomever he chooses for Federal judicial vacancies. The Senate, in its 
role, has a constitutional duty to offer its ``advice and consent'' on 
judicial nominations. Each Senator, of course, has his or her own 
criteria for offering this advice and this consent on these lifetime 
appointments.
  The Judiciary Committee, though, is where many of the initial 
concerns about nominees are raised and arise. Often these concerns 
arise before a hearing is even scheduled. Judicial nominees are 
required to respond to a very lengthy and a very detailed questionnaire 
from the Judiciary Committee. They must submit copies of every document 
they have ever published, any writing they have ever published, and 
provide copies of every speech they have ever given. If they have 
previously served as a judge, they must provide information regarding 
opinions they authored.
  There are various background checks conducted on each nominee. 
Sometimes outside individuals or organizations provide the committee 
with information about a nominee. Sometimes that information from 
outside groups comes very early in the process. But sometimes, quite 
candidly, it comes later on. Each time it comes in, the committee, 
committee staff, and ultimately the chairman must review that 
information.

  All of this information is, of course, available to every member of 
the Judiciary Committee and must be thoroughly reviewed before the 
nominee is granted a hearing by the committee. If questions about a 
nominee's background or qualifications arise, further inquiry may be 
necessary. The chairman will schedule a hearing for a nominee only 
after thorough review of a nominee's preliminary information. At the 
hearing, a nominee has an opportunity to respond to any remaining 
concerns about his or her record. But even after a hearing, sometimes 
followup questions are necessary to properly examine issues regarding 
the nominee's qualifications. Obviously, this is a long process, as it 
should be--as it must be. After all, these are lifetime appointments. 
These judges will have a tremendous impact on how our laws are 
interpreted and enforced.
  Some nominees, of course, have clear records of achievement and 
superb qualifications. These nominees often move through the committee 
and to the Senate floor very quickly. Other nominees have records that 
are really not quite so clear. These nominees take more time for 
additional investigation and careful consideration. If a nominee is 
nominated late in a Congress, and that nominee has questions raised 
about his or her background or qualifications, it is more likely that 
his nomination will not be considered by the Senate.

[[Page S9683]]

  If nominees were only considered in the order they were nominated, 
the process would, of course, grind to a halt. We have heard some 
comments about that. Some people have argued this is a queuing up 
process; we just queue up whoever is next in line; they should go next 
on the Senate floor. But we know that cannot happen. If nominees were 
only considered in the order they were nominated, the process would 
grind to a halt as more qualified nominees would back up behind 
questionable nominees.
  I believe, if it were not for Orrin Hatch's efforts, there would have 
been far fewer judges confirmed during this session of the Congress. 
But I am also sure that if Orrin Hatch had not been chairman, other 
questionable nominations would have been made. Because of this man's 
integrity, because of this man's honesty, because of this man's proven 
track record, and because he takes his job so seriously, I am convinced 
that certain nominations this White House might have considered making 
simply were never made and were never submitted.
  I commend Senator Hatch for his efforts in moving the nominees along, 
but also for his efforts in doing a thorough and complete job. I am 
very proud to have Orrin Hatch as chairman of this committee. We are 
very honored to have him serve in that capacity.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed as in morning business for up to 7 minutes to discuss digital 
mammography.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________