[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[SEN]
[Pages 5692-5693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to make a few observations about 
the status of the judicial confirmation process, and then I will turn 
to another matter.
  It has been 108 days since the Senate confirmed a Federal judge of 
any kind. It last did so the week before Christmas, on December 18, 
2007. Since then, the Senate has made precious little progress on 
judicial nominations. I don't blame the majority leader for that. I 
think we began this Congress with a general understanding of what we 
hoped to achieve, and that is still possible. But as of today, we have 
not confirmed any judicial nominees this year, and the Judiciary 
Committee has held only one hearing on one circuit court nominee since 
last September.
  Today we will finally be able to confirm some judicial nominees. That 
is obviously good news, and I applaud that. But after we confirm the 
judicial nominees on the calendar, that may be it for a while due to 
the glacial pace at which the Judiciary Committee is proceeding.
  It is not as if the committee has been otherwise occupied. This is 
another week in which the committee could have held a hearing, for 
example, on

[[Page 5693]]

the qualified nominees to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but 
again it chose not to. These nominees meet the chairman's own criteria 
for prompt consideration. Nevertheless, they have been inexplicably 
languishing for hundreds of days without a hearing while the Fourth 
Circuit is one-third vacant.
  We were told that having the support of home State Senators ``means a 
great deal and points toward the kind of qualified consensus nominee 
that can be quickly confirmed.''
  Let me say that again. We were told that having the support of home 
State Senators ``means a great deal and points toward the kind of 
qualified consensus nominee that can be quickly confirmed.''
  Well, Steven Matthews of South Carolina had the strong support of 
both of his home State Senators, one of whom, by the way, sits on the 
Judiciary Committee, but he has been waiting 217 days just to get a 
hearing.
  Judge Robert Conrad of North Carolina, whom the Senate majority 
unanimously confirmed to two Federal positions and most recently to a 
lifetime position on the district court, has the strong support of both 
of his home State Senators. Yet he has been waiting for 268 days.
  My Democratic colleagues are quick to point to the lack of home State 
support as a reason not to give someone a hearing. But it is beginning 
to look as if this criterion is being selectively applied. It is 
readily used as a reason not to move a nominee, coincidentally, when 
the nominee is from a State with a Democratic Senator, but it is 
ignored when the nominee has the support of two Republican Senators. At 
least that has been the case to date with the Fourth Circuit nominees.
  For example, Rod Rosenstein is the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He has 
been nominated to the Fourth Circuit. By all accounts, Mr. Rosenstein 
is a fine lawyer and public servant. His peers at the American Bar 
Association certainly think so. They gave him the ABA's highest rating, 
``unanimously well qualified.''
  The Washington Post also thinks Mr. Rosenstein is an outstanding 
nominee. In an editorial entitled ``A Worthy Nominee,'' the Post noted 
that Mr. Rosenstein has ``earned plaudits for his crackdown on gang 
violence and public corruption,'' and that one of his supporters at the 
head of the Criminal Division during the Clinton administration, Jo Ann 
Davis, called him a ``perfect'' candidate for a judgeship:

       Smart, savvy and as straight of an arrow as I have ever 
     encountered.

  The Post bemoaned the fact that Mr. Rosenstein does not have the 
support, for some reason, of his home State Senators, and out of 
deference to them the committee would not process Mr. Rosenstein's 
nomination. But Mr. Matthews and Judge Conrad do enjoy the strong 
support of their home State Senators. Yet those nominees can't get a 
hearing. So it doesn't seem that the same sort of deference is being 
paid to the Carolina Senators as to others.
  I do understand the committee intends to give a hearing to the Fourth 
Circuit nominee from Virginia because the junior Senator from 
Virginia--a Democrat--in addition to the senior Senator from Virginia--
a Republican--support the nominee. It is great that the committee may 
actually at some point move a circuit court nominee, especially one to 
a circuit that is 33 percent vacant. But why is this nominee leap-
frogging over two other nominees to the very same circuit, both of whom 
enjoy the strong support of their home State Senators and both of whom 
have been pending for hundreds of days longer than the nominee from 
Virginia?
  It looks as though if a Democratic Senator in the Fourth Circuit 
opposes the nominee, then the committee will not move the nominee, and 
if a Democratic Senator of the Fourth Circuit supports the nominee, 
then the committee will move the nominee. But if two Republican 
Senators in the Fourth Circuit--or, in this case, four Republican 
Senators in that circuit--support two nominees, that doesn't seem to 
mean anything.
  We need to treat all of the Senators who represent the Fourth Circuit 
consistently and fairly. We can do that by holding a joint hearing for 
Mr. Matthews and Judge Conrad. Doing so will make up for lost time and 
will afford the Carolina Senators the respect to which they are 
entitled.

                          ____________________