[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15423-15425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another issue, this is the 1-year 
anniversary of the nomination of Judge Robert Conrad to be a member of 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. When this Congress began, the 
majority leader and I agreed that partisanship in the judicial 
nominations process was unhealthy, and we said this Congress would be 
different. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post acknowledged 
the President did his part to get the process off to a good start back 
in the beginning of this Congress. They, and many others, complimented 
his good faith in not resubmitting circuit court nominees whom some of 
our Democratic colleagues did not like.
  The majority leader himself said how much he appreciated the 
President's good faith. He said:

       I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate 
     the President not sending back four names that were really 
     controversial.

  The majority leader also said he and his colleagues had an obligation 
to reciprocate and treat circuit court nominees fairly. He said:

       I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is 
     appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at 
     these nominees as quickly as we can.

  So the question is, have the Democrats treated these nominees fairly? 
Have they, in fact, reciprocated?
  Let's look at the facts. This President is in his final 2 years of 
office, and the Senate Democrats, of course, hope to recapture the 
White House. So, obviously, there is a partisan incentive not

[[Page 15424]]

to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. This is, of course, 
human nature, but this situation is not new. President Bush is not the 
first President to be in his final 2 years in office when the opposite 
political party controls the Senate, and he will not be the last.
  Even with lameduck Presidents, there is a historical standard of 
fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court 
nominees. The majority leader and I agreed that this Senate should meet 
that standard. The average number of circuit court confirmations in 
this situation is 17. President Clinton had 15. This Senate has 
confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. What happened?
  Unfortunately, old habits are hard to break and, in my opinion, 
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee found it hard not to play 
politics. It started with the renomination of Judge Leslie Southwick.
  Judge Southwick was a distinguished State court judge and an Iraq war 
veteran. Moreover, he was someone the committee Democrats had already 
approved unanimously to the district court. So at the beginning of this 
Congress when the President tried yet again to fill a vacancy on the 
Fifth Circuit that had existed for his entire Presidency, he did not 
resubmit a nominee the Democrats opposed. Instead, he quite reasonably 
nominated someone whom committee Democrats had already approved: Leslie 
Southwick.
  How did the Judiciary Committee Democrats respond? With one 
exception, they did a total about-face and actually tried to filibuster 
Judge Southwick's nomination.
  Unfortunately, Judge Southwick isn't the only consensus nominee who 
became ``controversial.'' Judge Robert Conrad is the chief judge of a 
Federal district court in North Carolina. The Senate has already 
approved him to important positions not once but twice; first, as the 
chief Federal law enforcement officer in North Carolina, and then to a 
lifetime position on the Federal trial bench. In addition, the ABA gave 
Judge Conrad its highest rating, unanimously ``well qualified.'' Former 
Attorney General Janet Reno called him ``an excellent prosecutor'' and 
said she was ``impressed with his judgment . . . and his knowledge of 
the law.''
  Again, to resolve a dispute--this time over a Fourth Circuit seat--
President Bush did not resubmit a nominee whom Senate Democrats 
opposed. As with Judge Southwick, he nominated someone they had already 
approved, Judge Robert Conrad.
  Guess what has happened. Well, nothing has happened. As of today, 
Judge Conrad has been sitting in the committee for 365 days, 1 full 
year, without a hearing, even though he meets all the chairman's 
criteria. He has the highest possible ABA rating, he has strong home 
State support, and he would fill a judicial emergency.
  What is the result of all of this? While Judge Conrad waits in 
committee, the circuit court to which he is nominated is over 25 
percent vacant. Over one-fourth of its seats are empty. Its chief judge 
states that to keep up with its work, the court must rely heavily on 
district court judges. In short, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. ``It 
goes without saying,'' she says, ``that having to use visiting judges 
puts a strain on our circuit. In particular, it forces the circuit's 
district judges to perform double duty.''
  The situation on the Fourth Circuit is so bad that the ABA has made 
the crisis on the Fourth Circuit its lead story in the most recent 
edition of its professional journal. It is on the cover page.
  Now, my friend, the majority leader, comes to the floor this morning 
and essentially says judges aren't important, and no one cares about 
them. Given the crisis in the Fourth Circuit--a crisis that is so bad 
the ABA is highlighting it--I can't imagine he would suggest such a 
thing. I am sure the millions of citizens of the Fourth Circuit don't 
think that having their appellate court over 25 percent vacant doesn't 
matter. I am sure they care very much about that. But evidently that is 
what the majority leader believes, and apparently he is not the only 
one in his conference who feels that way, given the lack of action in 
the Judiciary Committee.
  The committee refuses to move Judge Robert Conrad's nomination or any 
other pending Fourth Circuit nominee. We are told Democrats do not 
support Rod Rosenstein's nomination to the Fourth Circuit--which is 
supported by the Washington Post--because he is doing too good a job as 
U.S. attorney. That is an interesting rationale for not moving someone.
  We have another Fourth Circuit nominee, Judge Glen Conrad from 
Virginia. He is a Federal district court judge whom the Senate 
confirmed to the trial bench without any controversy. He has the 
support of both his home State Senators, one Democrat and one 
Republican. After he was nominated, the chairman said he would move him 
as long as there was time to do so. Specifically, he stated:

       I have already said that once the paperwork on President 
     Bush's nomination of Judge Glen Conrad to the Fourth Circuit 
     is completed, if there is sufficient time, I hope to move his 
     nomination.

  Well, the chairman's conditions have been met with respect to Judge 
Glen Conrad's nomination. His paperwork has been ready for a month, and 
it is only July 17. The last time I looked, there were 12 months in a 
year. This is July 17. Clearly, we have time to confirm him, but yet we 
have no action on his nomination.
  Now, our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called 
Thurmond rule under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges 
in a Presidential election year. I am concerned that this seeming 
obsession with this supposed rule--which, by the way, doesn't exist; 
Senator Specter has researched that thoroughly and there is no such 
rule. Anyway, I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this rule 
that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the 
clock on qualified nominees who are urgently needed to fill vacancies.
  No party is without blame in the confirmation process, but what is 
going on now--or, more accurately, what is not going on--is yet another 
step backward in politicizing the confirmation process--something we 
had all hoped we would get beyond.
  It is the American people, especially those in the five States that 
make up the Fourth Circuit, who are suffering the consequences, and I 
am sorry the majority leader doesn't think that matters.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I again thank my 
colleague from Rhode Island.
  Before the distinguished leader departs the floor, I simply wish to 
say that I appreciate his bringing up the nomination of Judge Glen 
Conrad to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I 
was privileged to recommend Glen Conrad to President Bush for his 
current seat on the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. Judge Conrad has served in this position for five years, and, 
prior to his confirmation by the Senate, he was a magistrate judge in 
the Eastern District for twenty-seven years. He has devoted his 
professional life to serving the Federal court system and is eminently 
qualified to fill one of those Fourth Circuit vacancies that 
desperately need it.
  I wish to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Webb, who 
joined me in recommending Judge Conrad for the Fourth Circuit. We have 
submitted our blue slips to the Judiciary Committee, and I have 
confidence that the majority leader and the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will find time to look at his 
nomination. Glen Conrad is a true public servant who is ready to take 
and fill a badly needed post.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if I could just take a moment, I 
haven't given up hope, I would say to my good friend from Virginia, 
that Judge Conrad will be reported out of committee and confirmed. But 
there are no remaining obstacles. All of the paperwork is done and has 
been finished for

[[Page 15425]]

 over a month. I hope my good friend from Virginia, and his colleague 
who supports the nominee who is of the other party, will continue to 
press the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the majority leader 
to move forward with a nominee who appears to me by all accounts to be 
about as noncontroversial as can be come up with. So I thank my 
colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank again our colleague from Rhode Island.
  I spoke earlier when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici, was on the Senate floor talking generally about the drilling 
offshore. I mentioned that for many years I have been working on it 
with other colleagues in this Chamber and lost the majority by one 
vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to amend those statements with further 
criteria.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, now I wish to briefly address what I 
think is a very important aspect of the ongoing debate on energy. I 
want to laud many Senators on both sides of the aisle who are looking 
at the gravity of the situation. Families sit around the kitchen table 
in the evenings and work out problems among themselves, including the 
gravity of the problems associated with the rising gas prices at the 
gas pump, food prices, and many other issues. I went in and made a 
study of the increased cost of a loaf of bread, dishwasher fluid--I 
could go on and on--hot dogs, hamburgers. The extent to which prices 
are going up is extraordinary, coupled with the increased price at the 
gas pump.
  We are all working together, and I firmly believe that under the 
leadership of Senators Reid and McConnell, we can come up with some 
sort of a bipartisan effort consistent with the overall policy the 
President has urged recently in his speech.
  As important as offshore drilling is--and I yield not a foot of 
ground on that; I think it is important, and that is why I have been 
advocating it for many years. I support battery-powered automobiles, 
wind energy, and all of the other renewables. But we have to do 
something now, today, and tomorrow to help the people sitting around 
their kitchen tables trying to solve their problems. I have been 
looking at several options, and I will review them briefly.
  I anticipate that one-third of Americans today are virtually 
desperate and trying to make ends meet with their family budgets, and 
the necessity to drive their automobiles to go to work, pick up their 
children, to visit their elderly grandparents--all of these things are 
matters of necessity, and they are trying to balance that out among 
themselves. What do we do about it?
  I introduced the Immediate Steps to Conserve Gasoline Act--an odd 
title but straightforward in what it says. My idea is as follows: Many 
folks--a third of them--are conserving; they are taking conservation 
steps. Look at the statistics. You see less driving. Quite a few 
statistics are coming in about less driving, which translates into less 
demand at the gas pump. A free marketplace should lead to some measure 
of reduction. We recognize that gasoline and petroleum is at worldwide 
pricing, and we are in a one-world market. We are competing with other 
nations, which are likewise experiencing the rising costs of fuel.
  My brother recently returned from a business trip to Europe. He is 
quite familiar with Central Europe and Austria. He said on the famous 
autobahn they are cutting back on the speed because there is a savings 
on gasoline. The faster you drive, the less efficient the carburetion 
process in the engine is in terms of delivering power.
  I suggested to the President, to the Secretary of Energy, and I have 
asked the Government Accounting Office to look at a chapter in American 
history. I remember it quite well, 1973 to 1974. I was at the Navy 
Department. My friend from Rhode Island, John Chafee, and I were 
together at that time. I remember the President, together with the full 
support of the Congress, enacted legislation whereby America imposed a 
hardship on itself; it was a program all across America--and it is all 
a matter of public record--that made the speed limit 55 miles per hour. 
What I have asked the President, the Secretary of Energy, the GAO, and 
others to do is to go back and examine that period, take a look at it. 
Fifty-five might not be the speed limit; it might be 60 or even a 
slightly higher speed limit because of the improved carburetion process 
and efficiency achieved in this nearly quarter of a century in today's 
modern automobiles compared to the 1973-1974 automobiles.
  It is interesting, in that period of time--and these are Government 
statistics--when the national speed limit was imposed, it saved 167,000 
barrels of oil a day. The significance of that figure is that, in that 
period, 1973-1974, we were only 30 percent dependent upon importing oil 
from abroad. Now we are at 60 percent. So there has been a doubling of 
our dependency on foreign oil. Also, the number of vehicles on the road 
today--a quarter of a century later--is approximately twice the number 
of vehicles that were traveling America's highways and roads in 1973-
1974.
  I realize it is not popular to talk about it. Believe me, around my 
own dinner table at night, I have heard from my children, who are not 
at all pleased with this.
  Anyway, I think we have an obligation as a Congress, working with the 
executive branch, to look at it. That is all I am asking. Go study it, 
those who are far more knowledgeable than I and those who have all of 
the facts at their fingertips, and let's bring in the private sector to 
give their views and look at this potential. If we were to bring about 
some reduction of the high speeds on America's roads and highways 
today, I think you could translate that into less demand at the pump 
and less demand in terms of out-of-pocket costs.
  So there we are, simple as that. It is history, it worked, so let's 
look at it. That 55-miles-an-hour speed limit that was put in back then 
stayed for 20 years. Congress finally repealed it in 1995. Guess what. 
The cost of fuel had dropped to $2 a gallon or thereabouts.
  The other measure that I bring to the attention of my colleagues is 
this: The American people are using their own initiatives to save 
energy, and I am calling on the entire Federal Government, under the 
leadership of the President, and all of the agencies and departments to 
see whether they can reduce their overall use of gasoline by 2 to 3 
percent--just by a small margin.
  We passed an energy act here not long ago, and I use that as a model. 
We were talking about other forms of energy there. That is becoming 
law.
  For 1 year, the Federal Government can say we are going to join the 
citizens and reduce our overall consumption of gasoline by 2 to 3 
percent, give it a try--anything to bring off pressure at the pump.
  My two concepts fall clearly under the area of conservation. As I 
look at the various options my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
are exploring and looking at, I do not see therein the conservation 
potential, thus far, which can bring about some relief. I am confident 
this can be done if it is done properly. The American people are not 
going to like it. Politically, it will be a tough one. Somehow, I have 
always felt, in the 30 years I have been privileged to be a part of 
this body, that we are called upon now and then to make tough calls and 
stand up to the American public and say we have to all pull together--
the people and the Government, State and Federal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after I 
have concluded my remarks, the control of the time go back and forth 
between the Republicans and the Democrats, alternating in half-hour 
increments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________