[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Page 24287]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate will soon be asked to 
confirm a new Attorney General. For the past several months, our 
Democratic colleagues have pleaded for this very thing. They have 
spoken at length about the importance of the Justice Department and the 
urgent need to install new leadership there as soon as possible.
  They do not want to make the pick. All they want is someone with 
``integrity'' and ``experience,'' who ``respects the rule of law,'' and 
who can ``hit the ground running.'' These are their words. The senior 
Senator from New York has assured us he and his colleagues will not 
``obstruct or impede'' such a nominee--again, their own words. This was 
their plea and their promise.
  It now appears, however, that despite these promises, some of our 
Democratic colleagues may indeed obstruct and impede.
  Roll Call reported Monday that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 
may intentionally--intentionally--delay confirmation of the next 
nominee, whoever he or she is, in order to extract still more 
administration documents in the U.S. attorneys matter. It cited one 
Democratic leadership aide as saying that ``it would not be surprising 
if Democrats decide to take their time on the nomination as a way to 
force the administration's hand.''
  So our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly told us that the central 
concern in all of this was the health and well-being of the Justice 
Department. Yet now they say they are willing to hold up the new 
Attorney General in exchange for more documents related to their 
fishing expedition--which, so far, has been long on fishermen and short 
on fish.
  Let's remember that over the last 7 months, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee has held no fewer than 13 hearings on the U.S. attorneys 
matter--13 hearings. The administration has cooperated extensively in 
this process. It has provided more than 8,000 pages of documents, along 
with dozens of witnesses in both public hearings and private 
interviews.
  None of these documents, none of these witnesses, none of these 
hearings has produced evidence of illegality on the part of the 
administration in the U.S. attorneys matter. Despite their best 
efforts, our Democratic friends have candidly and publicly conceded 
they have yet to find--again, in their own words--a ``smoking gun,'' 
which is not to say these investigations have been a complete waste of 
time for Senate Democrats.
  While the Senate Judiciary Committee was holding hearings, the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was hard at work too. 
According to the Washington Post, as the Judiciary Committee hearings 
began, the Democrats' campaign committee began to raise money off the 
matter.
  Here, in fact, is a copy of one of the DSCC's fundraising 
solicitations. It points to the U.S. attorneys matter and asks for a 
donation. Interesting timing.
  Well, Madam President, as the adage goes: The proof is in the 
pudding. Our Democratic colleagues will help prove their concern for 
the Justice Department was genuine and not motivated by partisan 
politics by confirming a nominee in a timely manner.
  Now, we know what the precedents are. Since the Carter 
administration, it has taken, on average--let me say this again--since 
the Carter administration, it has taken, on average, about 3 weeks from 
nomination to confirmation for a nominee for Attorney General--3 weeks, 
on average, from nomination to confirmation for Attorneys General since 
the Carter administration.
  Some nominees have actually taken less time. Benjamin Civiletti and 
Janet Reno, the second Attorney General nominees of President Carter 
and President Clinton, were confirmed in 12 and 13 days, respectively, 
after their nominations. Richard Thornburgh, President Reagan's third 
Attorney General, was confirmed 17 days after he was nominated.
  Now is the chance for our Democratic colleagues to prove they meant 
what they said. If they were serious when they cried out for new 
leadership at the Justice Department, they will follow Senate 
precedent. They will carefully weigh the qualifications of the nominee 
and vote in a timely fashion, as has been the case since the Carter 
administration.
  If, instead, our colleagues intentionally delay the nominee and hold 
him or her hostage, they will show the American people that their 
concern for the Department was insincere and that they simply did not 
mean it when, as the senior Senator from New York put it: ``This Nation 
needs a new attorney general, and it can't afford to wait.''
  In these times, it is especially important that the Senate act 
promptly. We are, after all, at war, and as the distinguished ranking 
member of the committee has noted, apart from the Defense Department, 
no Department of the executive branch is more important to defending 
our Nation than the Department of Justice.
  So, Madam President, we need to act.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I just note, listening to the Republican 
leader, it is a little difficult to accuse us of delaying a nomination 
that has not yet been made. This is a new one.
  The way it works is the President actually has to nominate somebody 
before we can consider the nomination. So before we rush out here and 
start accusing our side of delaying a nomination that has not yet been 
made, they might want to direct their attention to the White House. 
They are the ones who have an obligation to make the nomination.

                          ____________________