[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9897-S9898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE JAMES GARDNER

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with last night's votes on two district 
court nominees, including Judge James Gardner to the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Senate has 
confirmed its 79th and 80th new judges since the change in majority 
last summer. In less than 15 months, we have confirmed more judges than 
the Republican majority confirmed in its final 30 months in the 
majority. We have been more than twice as productive as they were and 
Republicans are nonetheless complaining that we have not worked three 
or four times as fast as they did to fill vacancies that their inaction 
perpetuated. Similarly, in less than 15 months of Democratic control of 
the Judiciary Committee, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than 
Republicans did in the first 2 full years they controlled the Senate in 
1995 and 1996, combined, and we have confirmed more judges than 
Republicans allowed to be confirmed in 1999 and 2000 combined. We have 
been more fair and more expeditious regarding judicial nominations than 
Republicans were during their prior 6\1/2\ years of control of the 
Senate.
  Last night's vote is another example. The Senate has acted quickly on 
this nomination to the District Court in Pennsylvania. Judge Gardner 
was nominated at the end of April, received an ABA peer review in July, 
participated in a hearing in August, was reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in September, and was confirmed last night. The 
Judiciary Committee has held hearings for 11 district court nominees 
from Pennsylvania and the Senate has now confirmed all 11 of them in 
just 6 months.
  In addition, a Third Circuit nominee, Judge Brooks Smith of 
Pennsylvania, was also confirmed, although not without controversy 
based on his record. With the confirmation of 12 judges from 
Pennsylvania, there is no State that has had more Federal judicial 
nominees confirmed by this Senate than Pennsylvania. 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 the senior Senator 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 were never 
given 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 2 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 in just 84 days. 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.
  In contrast, the hearing we had earlier this year for Judge Conti was 
the very first hearing on a nominee to the Western District of 
Pennsylvania since 1994, despite President Clinton's qualified 
nominees. It is shocking to me that this was the first hearing on a 
nominee to that court in 8 full years. No nominee to the Western 
District of Pennsylvania received a hearing during the entire period 
that Republicans controlled the Senate in the Clinton administration. 
In fact, one of the many nominees to the Western District, Lynette 
Norton, waited for almost 1,000 days, and she was never given the 
courtesy of a hearing or a vote. Unfortunately, Ms. Norton died earlier 
this year, having never fulfilled her dream of serving on the Federal 
bench. With the confirmation of Judge Conti earlier this year, we 
confirmed the first nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania 
since October 1994.
  Despite this history of poor treatment of President Clinton's 
nominees, the Democratic-led Senate continues to move forward fairly 
and expeditiously. 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 25 judicial nominations hearings in the past 15 months, 
and we plan to hold our 26th judicial nomination hearing this coming 
Monday. We have held a confirmation hearing for judicial nominees every 
month since the Judiciary Committee was reorganized in July 2001, 
including two hearings during the August recess in 2001. In contrast, 
during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican control, there were 30 months in 
which Republicans held no hearings on judicial nominees.
  By already holding 25 hearings for 96 of this President's judicial 
nominees in just 15 months, 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.
  While some complain that a handful of circuit court nominees have not 
yet

[[Page S9898]]

had hearings, they fail to acknowledge that Democrats have held 
hearings for more of President Bush's circuit court nominees, 20, than 
in any of the 6\1/2\ years in which the Republicans controlled the 
Committee before the change in majority last summer. This is more 
nominees than received hearings in either of the first 2 years of the 
Clinton administration when the White House and the Senate were 
controlled by the same party. The fact that Democrats have treated 
this Republican President just as fairly as Democrats treated a 
President of their own party with regard to hearings for circuit court 
nominees is remarkable. Republicans have utterly failed to acknowledge 
this fairness. The myth of Democratic obstruction of judicial nominees 
fits the partisan Republican 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'' 
in addressing judicial vacancies. For example, we held the first 
hearing for a nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost 5 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. One of those Clinton nominees waited more 
than 1,500 days and never received a hearing or a vote, up or down, by 
the Committee.
  We held the first hearing on a Fifth Circuit nominee in 7 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 also held the first hearing on a Tenth Circuit nominee in 6 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.
  With last night's confirmation of Judge Gardner, the 12th judicial 
nominee from Pennsylvania to be confirmed in just 15 months, in 
addition to the other 79 judicial nominees confirmed in this short 
period, the Democratic-led Senate has had a record-breaking year of 
progress and fairness in the judicial confirmation process.

                          ____________________