[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 57 (Thursday, April 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2919-S2933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         Post-Petraeus Wrap Up

  Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, Americans were vividly reminded this 
week that, as our Nation struggles to help Iraq on its way to becoming 
a stable country that can defend itself and be an ally in the war on 
terror, we are fortunate to have men like Ambassador Ryan Crocker and 
Gen. David Petraeus representing us in Baghdad. Their commitment, 
determination, and skill in seeing America's interests promoted and 
preserved remind us that public service is a high calling, and that 
good men and women are still answering that call in heroic ways.
  Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus outlined to the Congress and 
the country the complex challenges they confront every day in advancing 
our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. Their patience and 
professionalism in doing so was commendable. And it was an important 
reminder to all of us that the men and women serving in Iraq are well 
led.
  We were reminded this week that less than a year after the 
counterinsurgency plan went into full effect, the security situation in 
Iraq has improved dramatically. Overall violence is down. Civilian 
deaths are down. Sectarian killing is down. Attacks on American forces 
are dramatically down. And, as a result of all this, General Petraeus 
was recently able to recommend to the President that our forces be 
drawn down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by July of 
this year.
  None of us should underestimate the complexity of managing this draw-
down. The logistical challenges involved in transporting soldiers and 
equipment safely and in large numbers are immense, as are the 
operational challenges involved in repositioning the remaining force in 
a way that keeps pressure on al-Qaeida in Iraq while continuing to 
protect the Iraqi people. But neither should we underestimate the 
impact the surge has had in delivering security gains, allowing for a 
responsible drawdown of thousands of U.S. servicemembers, and in 
allowing for the transition of our mission in Iraq, a transition that 
has already begun.
  As part of this ongoing transition, the President announced earlier 
today that he has accepted General Petraeus's recommendation to allow 
for a 45-day period of evaluation and consolidation once the drawdown 
of surge brigades is complete.
  Encouragingly, the President also announced that Admiral Mullen and 
Secretary Gates will now be able to reduce the tour lengths of soldiers 
deploying to Iraq from 15-month to 12-month periods. This change in 
policy will increase the amount of time our soldiers and marines are 
able to spend at home between deployments, a welcome and richly 
deserved acknowledgment of the service and sacrifice of the greatest 
fighting force on Earth.
  As U.S. soldiers and marines return home, they can be proud of the 
work they have done these last months. In addition to a decrease in 
violence, U.S. forces have paved the way for a corresponding increase 
in the size and the scope of the Iraqi Security Forces.
  This so-called ``surge'' of Iraqi Security Forces is three to four 
times larger than our own: the Iraqi Army has ballooned by more than 
100,000 over the last year alone, and its ranks continue to expand. And 
local volunteer forces, the so-called ``Sons of Iraq,'' have swelled to 
nearly 100,000, a key factor in improved security at the provincial 
level. Their integration into the Iraq Security Forces is an important 
next step.
  Young Iraqis are signing up to join local police forces, to protect 
the Iraqi border against incoming foreign fighters, and for special 
operations that will allow the Iraqis to track and kill high value 
terrorist targets on their own.
  These are all encouraging signs. And we are also encouraged by the 
political progress in Iraq. Though significant political benchmarks 
remain unmet, progress on other significant benchmarks that seemed far 
off just a few months ago is underway.
  The Iraqi Government is also beginning to show a new and welcome 
willingness to shoulder more of the financial burden for their own 
security and development. Iraq has committed, for instance, to 
gradually assume the salaries of the Sons of Iraq. And the Iraq C-130 
planes that were used to shuttle forces and supplies to Basra over the 
last 2 weeks were built, of course, right here in America.
  Overall, Iraq now covers three-fourths of the cost of its security 
forces. And we can now realistically expect the Iraqis at some point to 
assume the full cost of their own security.
  On the development side, the Iraqis are also on a path to self-
sufficiency. As of last month, Iraq had purchased more than $2 billion 
of goods and services from the U.S. The most recent Iraqi 
reconstruction budget vastly outspends the United States. And slowly 
but surely, Iraq is approaching total financial control over large 
reconstruction projects.
  As the Iraqis take over more of their own needs, Congress can help 
accelerate their path to independence by passing a supplemental 
appropriations bill that has been on request now for more than a year.
  Our friends on the other side are rightly concerned about military 
readiness. I share their concern. But the best way to ensure the 
military's readiness is not to scrap a plan that has been working in 
Iraq. The best way to ensure readiness is for Congress to quickly 
approve the Defense supplemental, without arbitrary withdrawal dates, 
and without nonsecurity spending. We also need to pass the regular DOD 
appropriations bill.
  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reminded us this week that 
progress in Iraq is fragile and reversible, that much hard work lies 
ahead. We are encouraged by the advances they detailed, but we are also 
sobered by the continuing short- and long-term challenges to our 
interests in the Persian Gulf. We can't lose sight of the need to meet 
these challenges.
  We need to help Iraq defend itself against Iranian-backed special 
groups as part of a broader effort to check Iran's apparent desire to 
dominate the gulf. And, in the best traditions of U.S. foreign policy, 
we must continue to deal with the sad effects that decades of neglect 
by Saddam Hussein have visited on the Iraqi people.
  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were clear about the 
challenges we face. But they outlined a plan for continued progress 
that is backed up by their achievements so far. They, and the Americans 
they are fortunate to lead in Iraq, have brought us a good distance 
from where we were just 1 year ago. And this week they charted a 
realistic course moving forward. Now it is time for the Senate to 
demonstrate the same commitment and professionalism as these two men, 
by giving our forces in the field what they need.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Judge John A. Mendez to the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of California.
  Let me begin by explaining the urgency of filling this judgeship. 
Simply stated, the Eastern District of California is in a crisis. In 
2005 and 2006, the district had the highest number of case filings in 
the Nation. In 2007, the district ranked second out of all 94 Federal 
judicial districts in the number of new cases filed.
  Regrettably, the bench in the Eastern District has been understaffed 
throughout this period of heavy case filings. A temporary judgeship in 
the district expired in 2004 because the Congress failed to extend it. 
As a result, average caseloads in the Eastern District increased by 18 
percent from 2004 through 2006, even as average caseloads nationwide 
declined.
  In this Congress, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 1327, which 
would recreate the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District. The 
bill has already

[[Page S2924]]

passed the Senate and is currently pending in the House. I am also a 
cosponsor of S. 2774, which would create new judgeships to meet the 
needs of California and other States throughout the Nation.
  In addition to creating new judgeships, we clearly need to fill the 
judgeships that already exist in the Eastern District. Judge John 
Mendez is the nominee for a seat that was vacated in June 2007.
  Judge Mendez is a native Californian and is currently a judge on the 
Sacramento County Superior Court. He was born in Oakland and graduated 
with distinction from Stanford University, with a degree in political 
science. He went on to earn a law degree at Harvard Law School.
  After law school he returned to California and worked in private 
practice in San Francisco from 1980 to 1984. From February 1984 through 
July 1986, Judge Mendez served as an assistant U.S. attorney in San 
Jose. He was assigned to the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office and became a specialist in criminal law and procedure.
  In 1986, Judge Mendez moved to Sacramento and returned to private 
practice. He focused on civil litigation and business litigation and 
rose to become a partner at the law firm of Downey, Brand, Seymour & 
Rowher.
  Judge Mendez was appointed as U.S. attorney in San Francisco in 1992, 
the final year of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. He served as U.S. 
attorney for 1 year and was personally involved in major civil 
litigation and a criminal appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, Judge Mendez was of counsel 
to the law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco from 1993 
to 1995. In the summer of 1995 he returned to Sacramento and joined the 
firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn as a shareholder. His practice included 
complex commercial and environmental litigation and white-collar 
criminal defense work, as well as counseling clients on regulatory 
compliance.
  Gov. Gray Davis recognized his potential as a judge in 2001 and 
appointed him to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Judge Mendez was 
elected to retain that position in 2002 and continues to serve as a 
superior court judge today.
  In addition to his service to the State of California, Judge Mendez 
has served the legal profession through leadership positions in the 
Hispanic National Bar Association and the Sacramento Chapter of the 
Federal Bar Association.
  In California we have developed a bipartisan process for selecting 
Federal district court nominees. Under this system a committee of 
lawyers known as the Parsky Commission, which includes Democrats and 
Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President.
  I am proud of this system and pleased to report that Judge Mendez was 
recommended unanimously by the Parsky Commission to be nominated as a 
Federal district judge. By all accounts, he would make an excellent 
addition to the Federal bench in Sacramento.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Mendez.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the 
nomination of Judge Catharina Haynes to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She is a very well-qualified and capable 
nominee to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which hears 
appeals from the Federal District Courts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Texas.
  Judge Haynes has extraordinary academic credentials. She graduated 
first in her class with a degree in psychology from the Florida 
Institute of Technology at age 19, and she then finished second in her 
class at Emory University School of Law at age 22. While in law school, 
she also served on the Emory Law Journal.
  Since graduating from law school, Judge Haynes has compiled a 
distinguished record in private practice and as a State court judge.
  In 1998, Judge Haynes was elected to be a district court judge in 
Dallas, TX. Four years later, she was reelected to that same position. 
While she was running for reelection, the Dallas Morning News endorsed 
her and said of her: ``(She) has energy, intelligence and a strong 
commitment to the law.'' They further added, ``She runs a fair, 
efficient court.''
  While working as a trial court judge, Judge Haynes presided over 190 
jury trials and approximately 100 bench trials. She was able to dispose 
of over 7,000 cases related to a full range of civil topics including 
complex commercial disputes, commercial litigation, insurance issues, 
personal injury, intellectual property matters, and employment 
disputes.
  Having recently concluded her time as a Dallas District Court Judge, 
Judge Haynes returned to private practice at the well-regarded national 
law firm of Baker Botts, LLP, where she is a partner working in the 
litigation department.
  While in private practice Judge Haynes has handled a wide range of 
complicated cases in before both State and Federal court. She has also 
argued cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court to 
which she is nominated.
  Judge Haynes has been heavily involved with the local bar 
associations and has volunteered extensively in the community.
  Judge Haynes has received numerous awards and professional honors, 
including the 2006 State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, 2006 
Florida Tech Alumni Association Outstanding Achievement Award, 2004 
Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, 2003 Dallas 
Women Lawyers Association Outstanding Board Member Award, and 1996 and 
2002 Dallas Bar Association Jo Anna Moreland Outstanding Committee 
Chair Award.
  Her commitment to public service will serve her well on the Fifth 
Circuit and will reflect credit on the Federal judiciary.
  Mr. President, I am pleased the nomination of Catharina Haynes to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is being confirmed 
today by the Senate.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Catharina Haynes to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have carefully reviewed 
Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing record. I asked Judge Haynes 
several questions in writing after her confirmation hearing in 
February. I voted against her nomination in the committee last week, 
and I want to explain to my colleagues my reasons for voting against 
her today.
  Let me begin by saying that I do admire Judge Haynes's commitment to 
public service. She was elected to the bench in 1999 as a judge, 191st 
Judicial District Court, in Dallas County, TX. She was reelected to the 
bench in 2002 and lost her reelection bid in 2006. She now serves as a 
partner at Baker, Botts in Dallas, TX.
  However, no one is entitled to a circuit court judgeship. In the vast 
majority of cases, these courts are the final law of the land for the 
States in their circuit when it comes to interpreting complex Federal 
statutes and our Constitution. These judges have lifetime appointments 
and are second only to Supreme Court Justices in terms of their power 
and authority.
  In reviewing her background, experience, confirmation hearing record, 
and her written responses to additional questions I posed to her, I am 
not convinced that Judge Haynes is qualified for this position.
  I start with the starkest fact about Judge Haynes's record: By her 
own admission, Judge Haynes has never written a single judicial 
opinion. In response to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire asking 
for her opinions as a judge, she stated that she had none. She wrote 
that ``[a]s a state district judge in Texas, I wrote orders (a few with 
explanations), jury charges and findings of fact/conclusions of law, 
but I did not write `published opinions' or `unpublished opinions'.''
  A nominee for circuit court judge should have experience in writing 
substantive judicial opinions. Judge Haynes does not have this 
requisite experience.
  Judge Haynes, by her own admission, has very little experience with 
criminal cases. According to her response to our committee 
questionnaire, she stated that her percentage of practice in civil 
proceedings was 100 percent, and the percentage of her practice in 
criminal proceedings was 0 percent. She also responded that as a judge 
in Dallas

[[Page S2925]]

County, TX, she heard civil cases, and her docket included almost 
exclusively civil cases.
  A nominee for circuit court judge should have broad experience in 
both criminal and civil cases. Her lack of any meaningful criminal law 
experience does not give me confidence that she has a sufficient 
understanding of the criminal justice system and the rights of 
defendants.
  Judge Haynes, by her own admission, did not write opinions. Rather, 
she wrote orders. Given that circuit court judges are often the final 
say on the law of the land in a given circuit--due to the low rate of 
granting certiorari by the Supreme Court--a circuit court judge has an 
unusual amount of authority and decisionmaking power.
  We do not have any meaningful track record on which to judge Judge 
Haynes's views on substantive legal issues such as civil rights, civil 
liberties, worker's rights, reproductive freedom, environmental 
protection, consumers' rights, employees' rights, or separation of 
powers.
  Judge Haynes does not meet my test for Federal judicial nominees 
since she does not have the requisite experience for a Federal 
appellate judge.
  Finally, I want to talk about diversity. The U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and 
Texas, presides over the largest percentage of minority residents, 44 
percent--which includes African-American and Latino citizens--of any of 
the regional circuit courts of appeal in the country outside of 
Washington, DC. Mississippi has the highest African-American 
population--36 percent--of any State in the country. Louisiana has the 
second largest African-American population--32 percent--of any State in 
the country. It is disappointing that none of President Bush's 
nominations to the Federal bench in this circuit were African 
Americans. Only one of the Federal judges that now sits on the Fifth 
Circuit is African American.
  As Chairman Leahy stated at Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing, it 
was the Fifth Circuit judges who took a lead role in tearing down Jim 
Crow society in the South and in implementing the Supreme Court's 
decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Indeed, the best known 
of these judges were four judges called the ``Fifth Circuit Four'' or 
simply ``The Four'' by opponents of civil rights, in a reference to the 
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Burke Marshall, the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Civil Rights Division under President Kennedy, told The 
Nation in a 2004 interview that ``those four [Fifth Circuit] judges, I 
think, have made as much of an imprint on American society and American 
law as any four judges below the Supreme Court have every done on any 
court . . . If it hadn't been for judges like that on the Fifth 
Circuit, I think Brown would have failed in the end.'' The Brown 
decision and its progeny paved the way for equality in transportation, 
employment, and so many other areas in the South. The Fifth Circuit 
decisions on civil rights issues in the 1950s and 1960s affirmed by the 
Supreme Court helped to lay the groundwork for Congress to enact 
national legislation to prohibit discrimination throughout the United 
States, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965.
  Mr. President, I recall the history of the Fifth Circuit because I 
want to impress upon my colleagues the importance of this circuit in 
the history of the country and the importance of this circuit today. We 
are still struggling today to guarantee civil rights to Americans today 
regardless of race. Too many Americans are still disenfranchised and 
unable to vote due to deceptive campaign practices targeted at scaring 
away minority voters. Too many Americans still face employment 
discrimination or unequal pay. Too many Americans are still treated 
differently because of the color of their skin.
  These judges serve for lifetime appointments and will decide some of 
the most fundamental legal and constitutional questions for the Fifth 
Circuit residents in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. I am not 
convinced that Judge Haynes has either the experience or the proven 
track record on protecting civil rights and equal rights under the law 
for this position.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from 
Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour 43 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 99 minutes 53 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is close enough; almost 100.
  Mr. President, today the Senate turns to the consideration of another 
nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--Brian Stacy 
Miller for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Miller currently 
serves as a State appellate judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. He 
previously served as city judge in Holly Grove, AR, was a deputy 
prosecuting attorney for Phillips County, AR, and worked for several 
years in private practice.
  With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more 
representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, 
Judge Miller will be the 88th African-American currently serving on our 
Federal bench and the 74th African-American serving as a district court 
judge.
  I thank Senators Pryor and Lincoln for their consideration of this 
nominee, and I thank Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this 
nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his 
confirmation today.
  Today the Senate also considers another nomination for a lifetime 
appointment to the Federal bench--Stanley Thomas Anderson for the 
Western District of Tennessee. Judge Anderson is currently a magistrate 
judge for the Western District of Tennessee. He previously worked in 
private practice as the founder and owner of Anderson Law Firm in 
Jackson, TN.
  He served as a claims commissioner for the State of Tennessee 
Department of Treasury and as assistant commissioner for the Tennessee 
Department of Transportation. I acknowledge the support of Senators 
Corker and Alexander for this nomination. I congratulate the nominee 
and his family on his confirmation today.
  Another nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench is 
that of James Randal Hall for the Southern District of Georgia. Mr. 
Hall is currently a partner at the Augusta, GA, law firm of Warlick, 
Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.
  He previously worked as corporate vice president and legal counsel 
for Bankers First Corporation and worked in private practice for 
several other Georgia law firms. Mr. Hall held the distinction of 
serving the people of the 22nd District of Georgia as a State senator.
  I acknowledge the support of Senators Chambliss and Isakson and thank 
Senator Feinstein for chairing the hearing on this nomination. I 
congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.
  Then we turn to the consideration of yet another nomination for a 
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench--the nomination of John A. 
Mendez for the Eastern District of California. Judge Mendez currently 
serves as a judge on the Sacramento County Superior Court. He 
previously served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of 
California and worked in private practice.
  With this nomination, we continue our work toward building a more 
representative Federal judiciary. I am pleased that, when confirmed, 
Judge Mendez will be the 58th Hispanic judge currently serving on our 
Federal bench and would become the only currently active Hispanic judge 
in the Eastern District of California.
  I thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their support of this 
nomination. I congratulate the nominee and his family on his 
confirmation today.
  Mr. President, the Senate makes significant progress today by 
confirming yet another appointment to one of our important Federal 
circuit courts as well as four lifetime appointments of Federal 
district court nominations. The circuit court nomination we are 
considering is that of Judge Catharina Haynes of Texas. Her 
confirmation will fill the very last vacancy on the important court of 
appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but it is also a vacancy that has been 
listed as a judicial emergency.

[[Page S2926]]

  I acknowledge the support of Senator Cornyn and his work with me to 
schedule her nomination. Senator Cornyn had the time to sit down and 
explain why she was important and brought her to my attention and 
helped me report it from the Judiciary Committee last week. I imagine 
Judge Haynes' first phone call if confirmed this afternoon, as I 
expect, will be to Senator Cornyn to say thank you.
  Despite the progress we continue to make and will make today, some of 
the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle suggests that judicial 
confirmations is the most pressing and unsatisfied need facing our 
country. Now with an economic recession facing Americans, many would 
say already here, the massive job losses this year, and the home 
mortgage foreclosures and credit, any partisan effort to create an 
issue over judicial confirmations is greatly misplaced, and the 
American people can see through that facade.
  The recent job loss reports from the Department of Labor are 
dramatic. In the first 3 months of this year the U.S. economy lost 
232,000 jobs. March marked the greatest loss of jobs during 1 month in 
at least 5 years. Instead of adding the 100,000 new jobs we would need 
each month to prevent unemployment from rising further, we have 
experienced 3 months in a row of significant job losses. This year 
alone we are already half a million jobs behind where we need to be 
just to stay even and not lose economic ground.
  Yet last week when I convened the Judiciary Committee to make 
progress on bills to help homeowners in bankruptcy and to improve the 
False Claims Act to better target fraud, the priority of the 
Republicans was none of these important legislative issues. Instead, 
they engaged in a back and forth on judicial nominations. This 
administration is apparently more worried about the jobs of a small 
handful of controversial nominees--many, incidentally, who are not 
supported by their home State Senators--than they are about the jobs 
and lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. With that massive loss 
of jobs, the Nation's unemployment rate has risen dramatically to over 
5.1 percent.
  Let's take a look at where we are now. This is what has happened in 
this Presidency. Unemployment has gone up more than 21 percent during 
this Presidency. The price of gas has gone up more than 132 percent 
during the Bush Presidency. The number of uninsured has gone up 11 
percent during the Bush Presidency. The budget deficit has increased 
$590 billion, going from a quarter of a trillion dollar surplus to a 
$354 billion deficit. The trade deficit has gone up 87 percent. All 
these things have gone up during the Bush Presidency. Meanwhile, 
judicial vacancies have gone down 46 percent, from 9.9 percent to 5.3 
percent. And a lot of that, a significant part of that, happened during 
a time when Democrats were in charge.
  Just think about that. Now it costs more than a billion dollars a day 
to pay down the interest on the national debt and the massive cost of 
the disastrous war in Iraq. Think about that, if you hear in your State 
you have a bridge that is somewhat dangerous but they can't afford to 
fix it. Think about that in your State, when you are told that Federal 
dollars to help law enforcement protect Americans from crime is no 
longer there because we have to send the money to the Iraqi police 
force, a police force that cannot account for thousands of the weapons 
that we gave them until some of them end up shooting at Americans. But 
somehow that money has to go to fix up Iraq, and we do not have it to 
fix up America. It has to go to Iraq while we are paying almost $4 a 
gallon for gasoline, and Iraq has a huge budget surplus from $100-a-
barrel oil. They ask us to pay for the reconstruction, and to pay for 
it, we take the money from reconstructing America. That is a billion 
dollars a day, $365 billion this year that could be better spent not on 
Iraq but on priorities such as health care for all Americans, better 
schools, fighting crime, treating diseases at home and abroad.
  In contrast, one of the few numbers going down as the President winds 
down his tenure is that of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies are 
less than half of what they were during the last Democratic 
administration, when the Republican majority in the Senate chose to 
stall consideration of scores of nominees and maintained these 
vacancies, when they pocket filibustered over 60 of President Clinton's 
nominees. They succeeded in doubling the number of circuit court 
vacancies during those years and those vacancies rose to a high of 32 
with the resignations that accompanied the change of administration.
  By contrast, Democrats have helped reduce circuit court vacancies 
across the country to as low as 13 in 2007. That is going to be the 
number of remaining circuit court vacancies today, after the 
confirmation of Judge Haynes. So that is half of what they were at the 
end of the last Democratic administration, when a Republican-led Senate 
was in charge.
  During the last Democratic administration, the Republican chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee argued that the 103 vacancies that then existed 
did not constitute a vacancy crisis. I guess he meant that when you had 
a Democratic President, it was not a crisis. He also argued on numerous 
occasions that 67 vacancies meant full employment on the Federal 
courts, if you had a Democratic President. After today's confirmation, 
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts will list 47 vacancies. That 
is 20 below what Republicans used to deem full employment, below half. 
We have cut in half the vacancy level they felt was appropriate for a 
Democratic administration. In the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary 
Committee during President Bush's first term, we acted faster and more 
favorably on more of this President's judicial nominees than any 17 
months and either of the Republican chairmen who succeeded me.
  During those 17 months the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominations. 
When I reassumed the chairmanship last year, the committee and the 
Senate continued to make progress with the confirmation of 40 more 
lifetime appointments of judges to our Federal courts. That is more 
than were confirmed during any of the 3 preceding years under 
Republican leadership and certainly more than were confirmed in 1996, 
1997, 1999, and 2000. What is the difference? A Democratic-led Senate 
did a lot better for a Republican President than a Republican-led 
Senate did for a Democratic President.
  During this Presidency, while I have served as Judiciary chairman, 
the Senate will have proceeded after today to confirm 145 lifetime 
appointments in only 3 years, compared to 158 during the more than 4 
years of Republican control. When the Senate confirms Judge Haynes 
today--here we are in April--we will have surpassed the total number of 
circuit judges confirmed by Republicans during the entire 1996 session. 
It was easy to do because a Republican majority refused to confirm even 
one of President Clinton's circuit nominees, not one. Indeed, the first 
confirmation of any judge that session didn't even take place until 
July 10, and that was a district court. So we are also 3 months ahead 
of the schedule followed by the Republican leadership during that 
presidential election year.
  Some will undoubtedly repeat the partisan Republican talking point 
that the Senate must confirm 15 circuit judges for Congress to match a 
mythical statistical average of selected years. God love those mythical 
statistical averages. It is sort of like the man who puts one foot in 
boiling water and one foot in a block of ice and says: On average, I am 
pretty darn comfortable.

  Well, it is true that during the last 2 years of this President's 
father's term, with a Democratic-led Senate, we confirmed an 
extraordinary number of circuit nominees: 20. It is true that during 
the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, a Democratic-led Senate 
confirmed 17 circuit court nominees. So what they are saying is, if we 
are going to use an average, we are going to use an average only when 
the Democrats are in charge.
  Maybe it would be different if after we set those high records--
Democrats with a Republican President--that even a little bit of that 
had been reciprocated. Well, it was not. Instead, the Republican-led 
Senate, with a Democratic President, made sure that judicial vacancies 
skyrocketed to historic levels. It actually got to the point that Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, a conservative Republican, weighed in publicly to 
criticize the Republican-led Senate.

[[Page S2927]]

  Republicans do not talk about what they did. I do not believe they 
can bear an accurate comparison of what we have accomplished and what 
they did not.
  So I wonder when the Republican leader and others who come to the 
floor with accusations about slow-walking nominations will explain 
their roles during the Clinton years--especially the over 60 they 
pocket filibustered, something joined by every Republican member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Why was it that during the 1996 session--the end of President 
Clinton's first term--the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a 
single circuit nomination?
  Why was it that Bonnie Campbell, the former attorney general of Iowa, 
who was supported by both Senator Harkin, a Democrat, and Senator 
Grassley, a Republican, was never even allowed to be considered by the 
Judiciary Committee, to say nothing about the full Senate, after her 
hearing?
  Why was it that Kent Markus, of Ohio, a law professor, a former high-
ranking Department of Justice official, who was supported by both his 
home State senators--both Republicans, incidentally--was never 
considered by the Judiciary Committee or this Senate?
  Why was it that so many circuit vacancies were left without any 
nominees considered during the last years of the last Democratic 
administration when Republicans controlled the Senate?
  I remember one. When I asked them about that one, they said: Well, we 
can't have her. We are not sure of her qualifications. That nominee is 
now the dean of the Harvard Law School--one of the most prestigious 
legal positions in America.
  So Republican Senators have many questions to answer before they 
level accusations of any kind. To any objective observer, the answer is 
clear. The Republican Senate chose to stall consideration of circuit 
nominees and maintain vacancies during the Clinton administration in 
hopes they would have a Republican Presidency. Vacancies rose to over 
100. Circuit vacancies doubled. But as soon as a Republican President 
was elected, they sought to turn the tables and take full advantage of 
the vacancies they prevented from being filled. Well, they have been 
extraordinarily successful. Currently, more than 60 percent of active 
judges on the Federal circuit courts were appointed by Republican 
Presidents, and more than 35 percent have been appointed by this 
President.
  Another way to look at their success and compare the better treatment 
shown to this President is to observe that the Senate has already 
confirmed more than three-quarters of this President's circuit court 
nominees, compared to only half of President Clinton's circuit nominees 
confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate.
  Now, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have turned the other 
cheek. I have worked hard to improve the treatment of nominees. To make 
progress, I even chaired the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the 
circuit nomination before us today during a congressional recess. I 
said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than the 
Republicans treated President Clinton's, and we have. We have not 
pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's judicial nominees, 
as was done to President Clinton's nominees. We have not opposed them 
in secret or anonymously. In fact, during my chairmanship, the views of 
home State senators, as reflected in the ``blue slips'' submitted to 
the committee, were made public for the first time. No more secret 
holds. We did not allow that. We have considered nominations openly and 
on the Record. We have proceeded with consideration of nominees whom I 
opposed, something that never happened under previous Republican 
leadership. If the Republican chairman opposed them, they never even 
got a consideration.
  I am glad we have Judge Haynes here because if she is confirmed, then 
the Fifth Circuit will have no vacancies. I was almost worried whether 
she would get here.
  Even though she was already on the Judiciary Committee's agenda, she 
appeared at a political, partisan function at the White House, where 
they were demanding that she be put on the agenda. Of course, she was 
already there. It had been noticed for a couple days. Then, when we 
were set to vote on her last week, Republicans almost filibustered her 
nomination. They talked so much, we virtually ran out of time, and I 
had to keep this committee in an extra 10 minutes; otherwise, she would 
not have been confirmed. It was then that I realized what was 
happening--just like in February, when they refused to show up and make 
a quorum throughout the whole month of February. If they had shown up, 
we would have passed out a number of judges. But they were planning to 
give speeches saying we are not passing out judges, so they would not 
show up to make sure that happened.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield?

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman.
  I say to the Senator, I want to compliment you for the fairness in 
which you have conducted the confirmation process. It is interesting, 
on the most controversial nominee we had, the vote was delayed at the 
request of the Republicans.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
  Mr. CARDIN. We were prepared to vote. They wanted more time in order 
to get enough support to get that nominee out of the committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, they asked me several times, 
over a period of several weeks, to delay the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I say to the Senator, I think you have been abundantly 
fair in scheduling these hearings. You mentioned Judge Haynes's 
confirmation. I happen to oppose that nomination, but I have made no 
efforts at all to delay the consideration of that nomination, which has 
been true, I think, of all the members on our side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland, who has been a tremendous help and a key member of our 
committee.
  As I said before, if Judge Haynes is confirmed today, the Fifth 
Circuit will have no vacancies. We have proceeded despite the fact that 
12 of the 16 active judges on this court have been appointed by 
Republican Presidents. I did this notwithstanding the fact that 
Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees. Judge Jorge Rangel, 
of Texas, Enrique Moreno, of Texas, and Alston Johnson, of Louisiana 
were all blocked. They were told they could not even have hearings 
because it was a Democratic President. We have not done that. Every one 
of these circuit court nominees has had a hearing and a vote. In fact, 
I have held hearings on all six of the Fifth Circuit nominees of this 
President during my chairmanship. With today's vote, the Senate will 
have voted on all of them.
  Just understand this: Republicans would not hold hearings on 
President Clinton's nominees to that circuit. I have held hearings on 
them, and we have voted on them all. And we will hear these crocodile 
tears on the other side that: Oh, woe is me, we are not getting any 
circuit judges. Well, most of the time I have ignored it because it has 
been such balderdash that it is hard to think that anybody would 
believe it. But just in case somebody has been fooled by it, I thought 
we would put the numbers in the Record.
  In fact, vacancies on the Fifth Circuit are at an alltime low--zero 
after today. Contrast this with the situation during the Clinton years, 
when the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit declared a circuit emergency 
because Republicans were pocket filibustering all of President 
Clinton's nominees. That circuit-wide emergency was due to multiple, 
simultaneous vacancies caused by the fact that the Republican-led 
Senate would not act on the nominees of a Democratic President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right 
to the floor, I be allowed to yield to the distinguished majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I so appreciate my friend yielding for me to 
say a few words prior to these votes starting. Mr. President, if there 
is inadequate time, I will use my leader time. I think we do have an 
hour left on our side, so I think we have plenty of time. Is that 
right?

[[Page S2928]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the judge situation with me is very touchy. 
I have written a book. It will be coming out in a few weeks. In that 
book, I have said--and as I have said a number of times on the floor--
the most important issue I ever worked on in all my political career is 
when the Republicans tried to turn the Constitution upside down with 
their so-called nuclear option. To think that they would throw away 
basically having the Senate be the Senate. But they were willing to do 
that until seven courageous Democrats and seven courageous Republicans 
stepped in and said: Enough is enough.
  The person who has gotten all the abuse on our side is not me, not 
Senator Daschle; it has been the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  I want to do everything I can to process judges. I believe in 
quality, not quantity. We are going to do the very best we can. We have 
a majority. It is very thin. We are going to treat the minority very 
fairly, as has been indicated in what my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, has said.
  I commend Chairman Leahy for his work, not these last few months 
during this year, not last year, but for his entire career in the 
Judiciary Committee, as the chairman and ranking member, which I have 
been able to watch up close. He has done a remarkably good job under 
very difficult circumstances. How he was treated when he was in the 
minority is something the history books will recount as some of the low 
days of the history of this institution.
  Senator Leahy and I decided that it is not payback time. We were 
going to do to the Republicans what they did not do to us: treat them 
fairly. We have done that.
  My friends have criticized the chairman for the pace of judicial 
confirmations in this Congress. There is a Yiddish word for those 
Republican complaints: ``chutzpah.'' What they have complained about is 
absolutely without any foundation or basis--in fact, the gall to have 
them do that.
  Now, Mr. President, during the years President Clinton was sending 
judicial nominations to the Republican-controlled Senate, more than 60 
qualified nominees were denied floor votes. The chairman referred to 
them as pocket vetoes. Many were even denied a committee hearing. In 
1999, more than 6 months went by before Chairman Hatch agreed to 
process any judicial nominations.
  As I have said many times, we should not hold a grudge. We are not 
doing that. We should not live in the past. But as a result of the 
Republican tactics during the Clinton years, some of the vacancies 
President Bush wants to fill are illegitimate vacancies--the seats are 
only vacant because the Senate unreasonably withheld its consent to 
President Clinton's nominations. Republican complaints about the 
current process must be considered in that light.
  For example, one Clinton nominee--and there were lots we could use as 
examples and talk about here--One Clinton nominee, a distinguished 
Missouri Supreme Court justice named Ronnie White, was defeated on a 
party-line vote after Republicans accused him of being pro-criminal. 
Pro-criminal. How do you like that? Another nominee, Elena Kagan, is 
now the dean of the Harvard Law School. I don't know if Harvard is the 
best law school in the country. I don't know if Yale is the best law 
school in the country. I don't know if Stanford is the best law school 
in the country. But Harvard is a really good law school, and she is the 
dean of that law school. She was even denied a hearing because the 
Republicans claimed the court to which she was nominated didn't have 
enough work to do. How about that?

  So without going on more, other than to say the Republican record as 
to how it processed Clinton's nominees is dismal. Complaints about 
Chairman Leahy should ring hollow, to say the least.
  The fact is, 140 of President Bush's judicial nominations--90 percent 
of them--have been confirmed in the years the Democrats have been in 
control of the Senate. Last year the Senate confirmed 40 judges, more 
than during any of the 3 previous years with the Republicans in charge.
  After we confirm Catharina Haynes today, more than 75 percent of 
President Bush's court of appeals nominations will have been confirmed. 
In contrast, during the 8 years that President Clinton was President, 
they confirmed 50 percent. So if we stop right now, we would be 25 
percent ahead of them at the end of this year.
  Well, we are not going to stop now; we are going to try to process 
more of these nominations. Our treatment of President Bush's nominees 
has been more than fair and fully in keeping with the Senate's 
constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to Presidential 
nominees.
  The Republican leader, my friend--I know how much he cares about 
these judges--talks about the fact that there has been some kind of an 
agreement that we would confirm 15 of the President's court of appeals 
nominees in this Congress. We are going to do our very best to process 
nominations. But it would be a good idea--and we could process a few 
more--if the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would show up at 
the hearings that the chairman holds so he could have a quorum.
  Chairman Leahy and I are not making any specific numerical commitment 
on behalf of Democrats. I said in a floor statement last May 10 that we 
should measure the quality of nominees, not the quantity of the 
nominees. We should confirm mainstream, capable, experienced nominees 
who are the product of bipartisan cooperation. But we should not 
confirm nominees who are out of the mainstream and who are 
unacceptable, for example, to the home State Senators.
  The judicial confirmation process has been the subject of much 
acrimony over the years. I talked about it a little bit earlier. To 
think what the Republicans were going to do. It is hard for me to 
comprehend that they were willing to do that, but they were. Senator 
Leahy and I have worked hard to diffuse those tensions, and I think we 
have done a pretty good job. We have done it because we believe there 
are judges who need to be confirmed. We believe the confirmation of 
five judges today is another step in that process.
  I was so disappointed--and I expressed this privately to the 
Republican leader today--we bring to the floor five nominees today, and 
they spend all morning beating up on you. It is kind of a strange world 
we live in here. Why did they have to do it today? What does that show?
  We moved forward on these. We could have done two of them today, and 
a lot of the Members would be happy. But if we didn't do them all 
today--it is going to take a lot of time but we decided, let's do 
these. It is a showing of good faith. I am the one who talked to the 
chairman of the committee and said let's do them all. All they do is 
come out and beat the daylights out of him all day.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. No. 1, I can't tell my dear friend from Nevada how much 
what he has said has meant. He has told me similar things in private as 
well as in public. He and I have been close friends for well over 20 
years, and he knows of my huge respect and affection for him.
  I chuckled as he put his finger on the issue, as he always does--the 
man from Searchlight shines the light on what happens--and talked about 
this kabuki show we saw this morning on the floor, criticizing me 
especially for moving judges. It kind of reminds me of what happened in 
February where we had markups to confirm judges and the Republicans 
would not show up. We wondered, why wouldn't they show up for their own 
judges? Why wouldn't they show up when they were given a chance to get 
out these judges? And then I find out. They were all giving speeches 
saying it is terrible we are not getting out judges. Well, if they had 
shown up, of course, the speeches could not be given. It is kind of 
damned if you do and damned if you don't.
  I said when I became chairman the first time and again the second 
time I would not do to them, or to President Bush, what they did to 
President Clinton and to us, and I have not. I do not intend to. I told 
the President that. But I would like to see a little bit of cooperation 
from the White House in working with home State Senators and in working 
with us not to get

[[Page S2929]]

idealogues that fit well in a fundraising letter, but instead to 
nominate people who are good for the Federal court.
  So I can't tell the distinguished leader enough how much I appreciate 
his constant support throughout this whole thing.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said to the leader, I would still 
rather see us work with the President on the selection of nominees the 
Senate can proceed to confirm than waste precious time fighting about 
controversial nominees to score political points. I will give an 
example. We have a State with a highly respected Republican Senator and 
a highly respected Democratic Senator, and they worked together to make 
recommendations that were completely out of any kind of partisan 
politics. They sent a list of several people who had gone through the 
screening committee, talked to everybody on the bar--Democrats, 
Republicans, people with no political affiliations--and said: Look, 
here is a list of the best people we could possibly find in our State. 
White House, you go ahead and pick whomever you want out of this group. 
We are happy with them.

  They came and talked to me, and I said fine. I have huge respect for 
both the Republican Senator and the Democratic Senator, and I am sure 
we can move them through. Do my colleagues know what happened. The 
White House rejected that and sent up a totally controversial person. 
Again, the fundraising letters went out touting how we have to have 
this person. Both of the Senators said they would not return a positive 
blue slip; they wouldn't support this. It was not somebody they wanted 
to have on their record as supporting.
  The White House finally withdrew that name. It went back to those 
Senators, and I am told by the Senators they have a nomination now that 
both will support for the circuit court of appeals, and that person 
will go charging through.
  I recall another nomination this White House had made, strongly 
opposed by the two Senators, one of the more senior Members of the 
Senate, from their State. Those Senators said they did not want this 
nomination to go through and it did not. I still hear how terrible it 
was we did not confirm that nomination, even after the nominee pled 
guilty to criminal fraud.
  I can think of other examples of people whom my Republican colleagues 
came and said: We really don't want to go with this person because of 
their situation back home--without going into a further description.
  Now, Judge Catharina Haynes--and I see my friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Texas on the Senate floor, Senator Cornyn--Judge Catharina 
Haynes is a former Texas State trial judge in the 191st District Court 
for the State of Texas. She currently works as a partner at the law 
firm of Baker Botts in Dallas--an excellent firm. The Fifth Circuit has 
played an extraordinarily historic role in the protection of civil 
rights in this country. As we moved from that terrible time in our 
history of segregation into civil rights for all, some of those judges 
were among the most courageous this Nation has known.
  I wish I knew more about Judge Haynes's attitude about civil rights 
than her record and testimony reveal. But I listened to what the 
distinguished Senator from Texas said, and I vote in favor of 
confirmation with the hope that she will treasure and follow the 
example of earlier judges in that court who made such a passionate 
commitment to the rights of all Americans.
  So I congratulate her and her family on what I expect will be her 
confirmation today.
  We have five nominations. I had been told the leadership has been 
talking about having rollcalls. We still have a fair amount of time on 
both sides; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour 5 minutes remaining. 
The minority has 100 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, because I have been asked by both 
Republican and Democratic Senators, with the American Airlines snafu 
and other things as we are trying to get flights out of here, I might 
ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania how soon he would be 
willing to start votes if I were to yield back all time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, Mr. President, I am not quite sure about that. I 
am quite sure that I waited here for 40 minutes for somebody to appear 
to start this debate, and I am quite sure we have heard very extensive 
discussion by the Democrats, but my practice is to be brief. I believe 
I will speak no more than 15 minutes, perhaps 20 at the outside. I hate 
to so understate it, but I don't think it takes a whole lot of time to 
refute what the chairman and the majority leader have said. So I think 
we are ready to start fairly soon. If we had some indication as to how 
many rollcall votes we will have--if we have five, which will take us 
several hours, I might be a little more disposed to be even briefer, if 
I had some indication of that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to talk to the Senators who have 
proposed these nominations. I have been a little bit more lengthy than 
normal, but that is after several hours that have been spent on the 
floor of the Senate being critical of me--I did not respond to that 
until now--just as a great deal of time was spent in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee being critical of me which I did not respond to; 
otherwise, we would not have Judge Haynes on the floor today because 
the Republicans would have filibustered her nomination.
  So I will not quite yet withhold the balance of time. I am prepared, 
if people want, to begin these votes within the next 5 minutes and to 
work with--I understand a couple of the proponents of a couple of these 
judges are not going to require rollcall votes.
  I want to be able to confirm that. If that is the case, I am prepared 
to begin in the next 5 minutes or so. I withhold the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if his willingness to 
begin in 5 minutes would leave me 5 or, perhaps, 3 minutes. The Senator 
from Georgia wants 4 minutes, and I would only have 1 minute. My 
question to the chairman would be, as a vocal, outspoken, voluminous 
proponent of fairness, if he thinks 1 minute would be sufficient to 
reply to the better part of an hour, which he has taken. Perhaps I can 
answer that myself. I don't think it would be sufficient.
  Mr. LEAHY. To answer that question, the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
one of the most articulate, best trial attorneys in this place. He 
could do in a minute what others would take an hour to do. I did try to 
take far less time than was used to attack me this morning.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, we have heard the magnanimity of the chairman on 
this one circuit nominee. So far this year, we have not confirmed any 
Federal judges. We have heard the magnanimous comments by the chairman 
about Catharina Haynes. We might not have had one. We didn't have a 
hearing from September 25 to February 21. I don't think an argument of 
being magnanimous pertains.
  I don't blame the chairman for departing the Chamber. He might not 
like to hear what I have to say in response; although, I sat through 
his entire speech. I will not comment on his departure beyond what I 
have already said.
  In listening to the presentation by the Senator from Vermont, I would 
have thought he was running for President. He had this big, flamboyant 
chart about the Bush Presidency. The chart had statistics on the 
unemployment rate going up, gas prices going up, the budget deficit 
going up, the trade deficit going up, and the number of uninsured 
people going up. For a moment, I thought I was listening to Senator 
Hillary Clinton. And then, I thought I might be listening to Senator 
Obama. Had either of those Senators been making that speech, I could 
understand the purpose, but it is a little hard to understand the 
purpose of the comments by the chairman.
  When the chairman talks about Republicans not showing up for 
committee meetings, he is in fantasyland, as are a good many of his 
comments.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a detailed 
rebuttal. It would take considerable time to answer specifically, but 
this can be in

[[Page S2930]]

the Record to demonstrate proof and to establish the fantasy of the 
chairman's assertions that Republicans didn't show up.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Assertion: Chairman Leahy has asserted the Republicans 
     boycotted markups in February when he was trying to move 
     nominations
       Rebuttal: Republicans did not boycott Committee business 
     meetings or obstruct the Committee's ability to vote out 
     judicial nominations.
       Between the first business meeting of 2008 (Jan. 31) and 
     the April 3 business meeting when Chairman Leahy made the 
     above assertions, the Committee had held only four business 
     meetings (Jan. 31, Feb. 14, Feb. 28, and March 6), and had 
     held two judicial nominations hearings (Feb. 12 and Feb. 21), 
     even though the Senate had been in session eight weeks.
       Neither the Jan. 31 meeting nor the Feb. 14 meeting agendas 
     listed any judicial nominations.
       A total of five executive nominations were listed on Jan. 
     31 and Feb. 14 meeting agendas.
       Even though no judicial nominations were listed on the Feb. 
     14 meeting, PI Ranking Member Specter arrived at the meeting 
     early and, finding no other Committee Members present, left 
     to testify before the Senate Finance Committee. When he 
     returned, the meeting had been adjourned. According to 
     Committee records, Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, 
     Durbin, Kyl, and Brownback were the only Members present 
     before adjournment.
       The Feb. 28 meeting was the first to list judicial 
     nominations and only listed two district court nominees--
     Brian Miller (AR) and James Hall (GA).
       A total of four Republicans and five Democrats were present 
     at the Feb. 28 meeting before Senator Specter left at 10:17--
     hardly a boycott. A fifth Republican, Senator Hatch, arrived 
     after the gavel. (According to Committee records, Specter 
     arrived at 9:59, Coburn 10:00, Feinstein 10:02, Leahy 10:03, 
     Durbin 10:04, Cardin 10:05, Kyl 10:08, Grassley 10:16, Kohl 
     10:17, Hatch 10:19 after the gavel)
       The next meeting was held on March 6 and the Committee 
     voted out four district court nominees: Brian Miller (AR), 
     James Randal Hall (GA), John Mendez (CA), and Stanley 
     Anderson (TN). According to Committee records, Senators 
     Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn, Coburn, Leahy, Biden, 
     Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, and Cardin were 
     all present for the Committee vote on the nominations.
       Kevin J. O'Connor, nominee to be Associate Attorney General 
     and Gregory Katsas, nominee to be Assistant Attorney General 
     for the Civil Division, who were listed on the Feb. 14 
     agenda, were also voted out on March 6.
       Catharina Haynes was the only judicial nomination listed on 
     the April 3 meeting agenda and was the first circuit court 
     nomination listed on a Committee meeting since Nov. 1, 2007 
     (5 months ago).
       It is unclear what ``boycott' Chairman Leahy is referring 
     to given that the February 28 meeting was the only one 
     between January 1, 2008 and February 28 that listed judicial 
     nominees and a quorum was not reached by 10:15 even though 
     four Republicans were present.

  Mr. SPECTER. Now, when the majority leader came to the floor and 
talked about turning the Constitution on its head with the 
constitutional option, he glossed over the point pretty fast and missed 
most of the salient points--that there was enormous provocation that 
led some Republicans--and I say ``some'' Republicans--to consider 
raising the constitutional option. What we have seen is a practice 
going on now for two decades--20 years--since 1986, so it is 22 years 
now--starting with the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, 1987 
and 1988, when the Democrats had control, nominations were slowed down 
to a crawl. And then the same thing occurred during the last 2 years of 
the first President Bush. Then Republicans retaliated with gusto in 
kind, exacerbating the problem.
  The one thing I agree with the Senator from Vermont on is that the 
Clinton nominees were not treated fairly.
  That is true. They were not treated fairly, and I said so at the 
time. I crossed party lines to support qualified Clinton nominees. But, 
what is happening in this body is just ratcheting it up again and 
again. And then, after President Clinton's term, we had the virtual 
disintegration of institutional prerogatives around here due to 
filibusters that were conducted by the Democrats on the Bush nominees 
in 2004 and 2005.
  The majority leader talks about the constitutional option. Well, the 
constitutional option was not pursued by Republicans. There were 
sufficient Republicans to have put the constitutional, or nuclear 
option, into operation. There were sufficient Republicans to do that. 
Under the plan, it would have taken 51, but the Republicans did not do 
that, notwithstanding the Democrats' provocation.
  The majority leader said, ``We have been fair to Republicans.'' That 
comment sort of approaches this issue as if it is a private boxing 
match between Republicans and Democrats and an issue of fairness 
between Republicans and Democrats. Well, that is not the issue. The 
issue is what is fair to the American people. We are not here to spar, 
to argue or to fight; we are here to do the people's business. How fair 
is it to the American people to have these nominations delayed where 
there are judicial emergencies in the courts of the United States? This 
is not Arlen Specter's idea. The Judicial Conference determines what is 
a judicial emergency.
  There is a judicial emergency in the Fifth Circuit, the court to 
which Catharina Haynes is nominated and up for a vote today. How long 
has she waited? It has been over 260 days. Now, I don't consider it 
relevant as to whether it is fair to Republicans; I consider the 
question whether it is fair to Americans--the people who live in the 
Fifth Circuit who have had to wait for decisions to be made by an 
understaffed court. It may be a statistic to those of us who hold lofty 
positions--and it is a great privilege to be a Senator. It may be a 
statistic to us, but if somebody has filed a lawsuit who has been 
injured, say, in an automobile accident. Someone who has doctor bills 
and loss of wages, and that person has to wait and wait for the case to 
come up, finally to be tried, and then to be appealed and waits and 
waits--that is where the issue is.
  Take a look at the waiting periods: Robert Conrad in the Fourth 
Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 260 days; Raymond Kethledge 
in the Sixth Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 650 days; 
Stephen Murphy also in the Sixth Circuit and a judicial emergency, 
waiting over 650 days. Shalom Stone in the Third Circuit, a judicial 
emergency, has been waiting over 250 days. Tom Farr in the District 
Court of North Carolina has been waiting over 490 days. James Rogan has 
been waiting over 450 days. The list goes on and on. Peter Keisler is a 
very distinguished nominee who has an extraordinary record, and I ask 
unanimous consent that his resume be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Peter Douglas Keisler


    United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit

       Birth: October 13, 1960, Hempstead, New York.
       Legal residence: Bethesda, Maryland.
       Education: B.A., Yale University, 1981, Magna Cum Laude; 
     J.D., Yale Law School, 1985, Note Editor, Yale Law Journal.
       Employment: Law Clerk, Judge Robert H. Bork, D.C. Circuit 
     Court of Appeals, 1985-1986; Assistant Counsel, Office of the 
     Counsel to the President, 1986-1987; Associate Counsel, 
     Office of the Counsel to the President, 1987-1988; Law Clerk, 
     Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Supreme Court, 1988; Associate, 
     Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, 1989-1993, Partner, 1993-2002; 
     Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department 
     of Justice, Oct. 2002-March 2003; Principal Deputy Associate 
     Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, June 
     2002-June 2003; Assistant Attorney General, United States 
     Department of Justice, Civil Division, July 2003-September 
     2007; Former Acting Attorney General, United States 
     Department of Justice, September 2007-November 2007.
       Selected activities: Member, Advisory Committee on Civil 
     Rules; Director & Secretary, Federalist Society for Law and 
     Public Policy, 1983-2000; Member, Maryland Bar Association; 
     Member, District of Columbia Bar Association; Member, 
     Pennsylvania Bar Association; Member, American Bar 
     Association.
       ABA rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Peter Keisler has waited for 650 days, 
and soon, it will be the 2-year anniversary of his nomination. So the 
real question is not fairness to Republicans; it is a question of 
fairness to the American people. The American people have not been 
treated fairly, and they have not been treated fairly by the Democrats, 
and they weren't treated fairly by Republicans when President Clinton 
sent nominees to this floor.
  It is high time this stops. That is why I have introduced a 
resolution that would establish a protocol. The protocol would be, 
after a nominee is

[[Page S2931]]

nominated, there be a hearing and then there is a committee vote. Then, 
the nominee comes before the full Senate and we start to follow the 
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. 
The Constitution talks about the President's prerogatives to nominate 
and the Senate's duty to consent or not to consent.
  The majority leader made a big to-do about its being a matter of 
quality, not a matter of quantity. Well, if the majority doesn't like 
the quality, all they have to do is vote the nominee down. All I am 
asking for is up-or-down votes. If they don't like the quality, say so. 
Say so. I think that, on an examination of the record, there would be 
no real issue about quality. These are quality people. But, if I am 
wrong, and their judgment is to the contrary, I will abide by that. 
Vote no. Don't consent. Follow the Constitution and don't consent.
  We have real problems with going forward when the chairman talks 
about judicial vacancies not being the most pressing problem in 
comparison to unemployment, the economy, and Iraq. I agree there are 
problems of greater immediacy. But, we have time to handle them all. We 
might have to work on Mondays and Fridays. A lot of Americans work on 
Saturdays. We could come in a little earlier, and we could use the 
floor time a little more efficiently.
  I do believe it is time we took stock in what we are doing in this 
body. You can cite the statistics in many different directions, but I 
think the real critical statistics are what has happened in the last 2 
years during President Bush's Administration in comparison to President 
Clinton's final two years. There is a decisive discrepancy there. A 
Republican Senate confirmed 15 of President Clinton's circuit judges in 
his final two years in comparison to 6 for President Bush before the 
nominees are considered today. I hope it will go up to 7. President 
Clinton had 57 district judges and President Bush had 34, and I expect 
it will go up to 38 today. Over the 8-year terms of the two Presidents, 
President Clinton had 65 circuit judges and President Bush had 57; 
President Clinton had 305 district court judges, and President Bush had 
237 judges.
  So I hope we can move through the morass we find ourselves in. If we 
don't, there is going to be an election this year, and there may be a 
Democrat in the White House. I don't know what is going to happen. It 
is a close matter. The American people will decide that.
  At some point, there will be another Democrat in the White House, if 
not on this election, and there will be retaliation because one insult 
begets another. As one side exacerbates, so does the other. The 20-year 
record is not a good record as to what we have here. I urge a truce.
  On a personal level, no two Senators in this body have a closer 
relationship than Senator Leahy and myself. It goes back a long time 
when we had important jobs--when he was a prosecuting attorney and I 
was the same. We have worked together very closely, but we have a 
disagreement on this issue.
  I believe the Republican caucus is right today in its position, and I 
am prepared to lead the caucus on the issue. That is my job in my 
capacity as ranking member. When the Republican caucus was wrong, I 
said so, and I voted with the Democrats on the Clinton nominees.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request so we can move on?
  Mr. SPECTER. Surely.


Vote on the Nomination of Catharina Haynes to be United States Circuit 
                                 Judge

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
call up the nomination of Catharina Haynes of Texas to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, that the nomination be confirmed 
and sent to the President.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't understand the import of that 
question.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is talking about ways to move forward. I am 
asking by consent that we confirm by voice vote Calendar No. 515, 
Catharina Haynes to be a Fifth Circuit Judge.
  Mr. President, is the Senator going to object?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have something on 
which to agree. I agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
nomination is confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both sides 
yield back their time and we begin with a vote on Brian Stacy Miller of 
Arkansas, which will be a rollcall vote, and if rollcall votes are 
required on the subsequent nominations, that they be 10-minute 
rollcalls.
  Mr. SPECTER. That they be voice votes?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. I should advise, I will ask, if time is all yielded 
back, for the yeas and nays on Brian Stacy Miller, but if the yeas and 
nays are requested on the subsequent nominees, that they be 10-minute 
rollcalls, although subsequent to the Brian Stacy Miller, the first 
one.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if he 
intends to ask for the yeas and nays on the other nominees?
  Mr. LEAHY. Why don't we begin with this nomination, and the 
distinguished ranking member, who is one of the closest friends I have 
in this body, and I may discuss that during that rollcall vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I respect the chairman's right not to answer. The 
Senator from Georgia has been waiting for a considerable period of 
time. I agree with whatever Senator Leahy has had to say. I ask that 
the Senator be given--how much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Up to 3 minutes, and I also ask that Senator Cornyn be 
given up to 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. We just confirmed Senator Cornyn's nomination. Does he 
want us to undo that?
  Let me do this. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 minutes of 6, all 
time be yielded back and the Senate go to a vote on the nomination of 
Brian Stacy Miller of Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered 
on Brian Stacy Miller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
James Randall Hall to be United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of Georgia. Randy Hall is supremely well qualified to fill 
this position.
  I am pleased the Senate will finally have an opportunity to vote on 
Randy's confirmation today. If confirmed, Randy will fill the vacancy 
created on August 2, 2006, when Judge Avant Edenfield took senior 
status. The Southern District of Georgia is designated as a judicial 
emergency, as just referred to by Senator Specter, by the nonpartisan 
Judicial Conference of the United States. This means the court dockets 
of the Southern District of Georgia are too busy and that litigants are 
waiting too long for results.
  To that end, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as well as the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Specter, for their efforts 
and that of their staffs for shepherding Randy's nomination through the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Randy Hall is a native of Augusta, GA. He graduated from Augusta 
College in 1979 and from the University of Georgia School of Law in 
1982. His private practice has focused on commercial real estate, 
banking, corporate matters, and commercial litigation. During his years 
as a private attorney, he built an impressive legal resume. He served 
as general counsel of Bankers First Corporation for over a decade, 
managing the entire legal function of the billion dollar corporation, 
including securities matters, State and Federal regulatory matters, 
litigation, real estate acquisition and development, employment issues, 
and general corporate projects.
  Mr. Hall also has a history of public service. In 1997, he was 
appointed to the Augusta-Richmond Planning Commission, a 12-member 
board authorized

[[Page S2932]]

to regulate the subdivision of land, plan for the orderly growth and 
development of Augusta-Richmond County, and zone all land into various 
use classifications. He served on the commission until 2002, acting as 
its chairman from 2000 to 2002. In 2003, Mr. Hall was elected to the 
Georgia State Senate as a senator from the 22nd District in 2003 and 
served there in 2003 and 2004.
  Since 2004, Mr. Hall has been a partner with Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins 
& Hall in Augusta, GA. Those who know Randy describe him as a man of 
integrity and someone with good moral character. His colleagues also 
say he is totally committed to the rule of law, and that he is fair and 
honest in all of his dealings and undertakings.
  I believe the Southern District of Georgia will be well served to 
have Randy Hall on the bench. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
his confirmation.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes be 
yielded to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for moving this nomination 
of Catharina Haynes to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am 
pleased she has been unanimously confirmed today by a voice vote.
  Judge Haynes is actually a former State district court judge. I am 
proud to call her now Judge Haynes as a confirmed United States circuit 
court judge.
  I am proud to concur with the American Bar Association's unanimous 
opinion that Ms. Haynes is well qualified for a seat on the Federal 
appellate bench. Her record as both a State judge and a member of the 
civil bar amply demonstrates the legal acumen, the commitment to 
justice, and the dedication to public service required for those 
nominated to serve on our Nation's appellate courts.
  It is truly a pleasure to recommend confirmation of a Texas lawyer 
with a career-long record of dedication to public service and equality 
before the law. Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal 
aid clinics, providing legal assistance to people who otherwise would 
be unable to afford to have a will probated or resolve family law 
issues. Ms. Haynes helped develop a brochure for pro se litigants, 
opening the doors of justice in what can be a daunting and intimidating 
system for disadvantaged litigants.
  This pattern of helping the less fortunate navigate the legal system 
bespeaks a commitment to the ideal of equal justice for all. This is 
but one aspect of Ms. Haynes's service to her community.
  Since 2005, Ms. Haynes has been a director of the Vickery Meadow 
Learning Center, a nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among 
the residents of a low-income Dallas neighborhood. Ms. Haynes teaches 
pre-GED classes at the Learning Center. Ms. Haynes's direct involvement 
her community demonstrates that her dedication to the rule of law is 
matched by her passion for public service.
  Ms. Haynes demonstrated this commitment to public service in 1998, 
when she gave up a prestigious and lucrative partnership at the Baker 
Botts law firm to take the bench as a State district court judge on the 
191st District Court in Dallas.
  As a former district court and appellate judge, I can attest that the 
district judge's experience seeing actual litigants and the real-world 
consequences of their legal disputes is invaluable for later service on 
the appellate bench.
  The fundamentals of judging--analyzing the arguments presented to the 
court in light of the facts and the law--carry over from the trial 
court to the appellate level. And Ms. Haynes's experience as a trial 
court judge will undoubtedly remind her each day that the consequences 
of a judge's decisions always have a human face.
  As a State judge, Ms. Haynes gained deep experience in many areas of 
substantive law including commercial litigation, personal injury, 
employment, insurance bad faith litigation, and intellectual property. 
State court judges interpret and apply Federal statutory and 
constitutional law, which are, of course, the supreme law of the land, 
binding on judges in every State. In presiding over nearly 300 trials, 
Judge Haynes distinguished herself for her work ethic and commitment to 
the rule of law.
  Ms. Haynes's intellect and diligence have been evident throughout her 
legal career, starting with her extraordinary academic record.
  After graduating first in her class from Florida Institute of 
Technology at the age of 19, Judge Haynes went on to graduate, with 
distinction, second in her class at Emory University School of Law at 
the age of 22. In her 21-year legal career, she has been involved in a 
wide variety of complex civil cases in both State and Federal courts.
  Ms. Haynes's professional excellence has been repeatedly recognized 
and honored by her peers in the legal community. Her many awards 
include the State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, the Dallas 
Association of Young Lawyers Foundation Award of Excellence, and the 
Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, which is 
awarded annually to a Dallas-area attorney who has worked to advance 
women in the legal profession, shown outstanding legal proficiency and 
the highest level of ethics, and made a significant contribution to the 
profession.
  It is fitting that Ms. Haynes has received awards for her 
contributions to the legal profession, given that she has dedicated 
significant energy to promoting the professionalism and ethics that are 
central to the rule of law. She has written and spoken extensively on 
issues of civil trial litigation, professionalism, and ethics.
  Among her many professional leadership positions, she has served on 
the board of the Dallas Bar Association and the Professional Ethics 
Committee of the State Bar of Texas. Her life's work speaks to a belief 
in the high calling of a career in law and a steadfast and accomplished 
pursuit of the profession's highest ideals.
  I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee recently approved Ms. 
Haynes' nomination and the Senate just confirmed her.
  The Federal bench needs more men and women of her caliber, drawn from 
among the best of the civil bar.
  Mr. President, the People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy 
group, sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee last week urging the 
committee not to proceed with this nomination. To the credit of 
Chairman Leahy and my Democratic colleagues, they rejected this 
baseless and unfair attack.
  The lack of any substantial reason to deny this nomination is clear 
when we look at the pretense offered by People for the American Way for 
opposing Ms. Haynes. The letter claims that Ms. Haynes has no ``record 
of commitment to civil rights progress in this country.''
  First of all, I do not know exactly what that means. I believe that 
this group is deliberately creating a vague standard that they can 
invoke to reject any nominee. I think that it is clear that there is 
nothing in Ms. Haynes' background that they can reasonably complain 
about with any specificity, so they fall back on vagueness.
  I don't know what this group means by a ``record of commitment to 
civil rights,'' so I can't respond to that other than by directing my 
colleagues to Ms. Haynes actual record--a record that was discussed at 
length in Ms. Haynes' hearing and that this letter ignores completely.
  Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal aid clinics, 
volunteering her time to protect the legal rights of those who can't 
afford a lawyer.
  Ms. Haynes helped write a brochure for pro se litigants, giving 
disadvantaged litigants the tools they need to vindicate their rights 
in courts of law.
  Ms. Haynes serves as a director of the Vickery Meadow Learning 
Center, a

[[Page S2933]]

nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among the disadvantaged. 
Ms. Haynes teaches pre-GED classes at the center, aiding the less 
fortunate along the path to literacy, education, and a fuller civic 
life.
  By any fair reading, Ms. Haynes has an exemplary record of commitment 
to the high ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice before the 
law--ideals that I believe are at the core of civil rights.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  I believe we are ready to vote.


   Vote on the Nomination of Brian Stacy Miller to be United States 
                             District Judge

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Brian Stacy 
Miller, of Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Arkansas?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from 
Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have 
voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown
     Bunning
     Clinton
     Dole
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Menendez
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.