[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 598-601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Rosanna Malouf Peterson, of 
Washington, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District 
of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 6 
o'clock shall be equally divided between the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Leahy, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are about to vote on the nomination 
of Rosanna Malouf Peterson to the District Court for the Eastern 
District of Washington.
  I am pleased to be able to support the nomination, as I have most of 
the nominations President Obama has submitted. I think we are moving in 
a rather expeditious way in the process to confirm Federal judges. Less 
than a week ago, we confirmed Judge Beverly Martin to serve on the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Frankly, we failed to confirm her 
before Christmas because the Democratic leadership, for some reason, 
would not bring her nomination up. I cleared it on our side on several 
different occasions and made sure there were no objections. At any 
rate, she was confirmed and she is now on that bench.
  Before the recess, we confirmed two judges, seven U.S. attorneys, and 
five U.S. marshals.
  We are moving faster than we have previously--at least in comparison 
to President Bush's tenure. This chart shows the average number of days 
to confirm President Bush's circuit court nominations. We waited an 
average of 350 days for confirmation. President Obama's nominees are 
being confirmed about 4\1/2\ months faster, which is a good bit faster. 
In addition, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings for every single 
circuit court nominee.
  This chart shows that during President Bush's tenure, it was 350 
days, and for President Obama, it is a little over 200 days. For 
President Clinton, it was under 250. The others in the past were 
quicker. But these are lifetime appointments. We have had some more 
intense scrutiny of nominees, which I think is appropriate. But most of 
the nominees are coming through well and should move on to confirmation 
at a reasonable pace.
  I will note that if a judge who is about to obtain a lifetime 
appointment fails to convince Members of the Senate that they are 
committed to faithfully following the law, being a neutral umpire, not 
favoring one side in the ``ball game'' over the other--if they are not 
committed to that, then they should not be confirmed. Or if they have 
other weaknesses, such as lack of skill, or a demonstrated bias, or a 
lack of background and ability, then I think they should be examined 
closely and not confirmed.
  On the district court nominees, you can see that President Obama's 
district court nominees are being confirmed, on average, a little over 
100 days after being nominated. Whereas, President Bush's were at 180. 
Under President Clinton, it was about 130. So President Obama is doing 
well there as well--pretty close to President Bush 1--for nominations 
moving forward.
  I am pleased with this nominee. I think she has the skills and gifts 
necessary to be a good Federal judge. I hope so. She has the support of 
her Senators. She has been moved through committee, and I believe she 
will be confirmed when we vote. I urge my colleagues to support her 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the nomination 
of Rosanna M. Peterson to fill a judicial vacancy in the Eastern 
District of Washington. While I am pleased that we will consider, and I 
am confident the Senate will confirm, this nominee, I remain 
disappointed by the Republican delays and obstruction.
  This is only the 14th Federal circuit or district court nominee 
considered since President Obama was inaugurated over 1 year ago. By 
this date during President Bush's second year in office, the Senate had 
confirmed more than double that number, having confirmed 30 of his 
judicial nominees to lifetime appointments on the Federal courts.
  Last Friday the majority leader tried to secure an agreement to take 
up the next judicial nominee on the Senate Executive Calendar, but 
Republican objection continued to stall consideration of Judge Joseph 
Greenaway's nomination to the Third Circuit. That is a shame. He is a 
good judge. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee almost 4 months ago, on October 1 last year. 
Senator Sessions praised him at his confirmation hearing. I do not know 
why he is being stalled, and no one has explained. His is one of the 
many outstanding judicial nominations reported by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee that remain stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. They 
should have been confirmed last year, and would have been, but for 
Republican objection. When considered they will be confirmed, but not 
before being needlessly delayed for months.
  I saw last week's statement by the Judiciary Committee's ranking 
Republican member, when the Senate finally considered the long-delayed 
nomination of Beverly Martin to the Eleventh Circuit. He was 
misinformed about that nomination, as he was about the history of other 
nominations. In fact, I

[[Page 599]]

expedited consideration of Judge Martin's nomination. The Senate 
Democratic leadership sought an agreement for prompt consideration of 
Judge Martin's nomination but was rebuffed by Republicans who were in 
no hurry to consider it. Indeed, we have been seeking time agreements 
for the consideration of both Judge Martin and Judge Greenaway for 
weeks and months. Republicans finally agreed at the end of last year to 
consider Judge Martin's nomination after the recess. I had pressed for 
Judge Martin and the many other judicial nominees who had been reported 
unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee to be considered and 
confirmed before Christmas last year. Republicans would not agree. I 
asked repeatedly that we act on all the judicial nominees on the Senate 
Executive Calendar in December. The reason the Senate did not was not 
because any Democratic Senator objected. It is solely because 
Republicans would not agree.
  The efforts of the Democratic leadership to seek a time agreement for 
prompt consideration of Judge Martin's nomination were rebuffed by 
Republicans, just as they are now refusing to consider the nomination 
of Judge Greenaway.
  The Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered the nomination of Judge 
David Hamilton last November, having delayed its consideration for 
months. Republicans insisted on hours of debate for the nomination of 
Judge Andre Davis, who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. They 
insisted on debate on the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was 
confirmed with more than 90 votes. As the Senate Democratic leadership 
was forced to work through a number of nominations denied consent for 
prompt consideration, the last Federal circuit court nominations 
considered before Judge Martin was Judge Hamilton in November. It is 
true that Judge Davis and Judge Hamilton were considered and confirmed 
by the Senate before Judge Martin, but they were also considered three 
months earlier by the Senate Judiciary Committee than Judge Martin. 
They had been on the Senate Executive Calendar since before she was 
even nominated. I do not fault the Senate Democratic leadership for 
following that order of consideration.
  What the ranking Republican member of Judiciary does not acknowledge, 
and perhaps is unaware of, is that it was his own Republican leadership 
that slowed consideration of Judge Martin. Even the ranking Republican 
member has no excuse for the delay after November 19, when both Judge 
Davis and Judge Hamilton had been confirmed. For the last 2 months, 
Judge Martin's nomination was stalled because Republicans would not 
agree to consider it before January 20.
  Judge Martin's nomination offers a troubling example, as well, of the 
consequences of the Republican strategy of obstruction and delay. Even 
though Judge Martin was a well-respected district court judge with the 
strong support of both of her home State Republican Senators, Senator 
Chambliss and Senator Isakson, and the highest possible rating from the 
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, 
it took over 4 months to reach agreement with the Republican leadership 
for the Senate to consider her nomination.
  Regrettably, the nomination of Judge Greenaway of New Jersey to the 
Third Circuit is another example of these tactics. The Judiciary 
Committee favorably reported his nomination by unanimous consent last 
October 1, and he is now the longest pending judicial nomination on the 
Senate Executive Calendar. The Democratic leadership sought to build on 
our belated progress last week when we were allowed finally to consider 
and confirm Judge Martin. We asked for agreement to consider the 
nomination of Judge Greenaway. As the majority leader indicated last 
Friday: ``[The Democratic] majority was in a position to agree to a 
vote on the nomination of Joseph Greenaway to be a U.S. circuit judge 
for the Third Circuit. However, I was advised the Republicans would not 
agree to such request.'' See Congressional Record, S166, January 22, 
2010, daily ed. Again, Senate Republicans have withheld consent and 
have objected to consideration of a nominee. Instead, they would 
consent only to consideration of a district court nominee, Professor 
Peterson. While it is appropriate that the Senate considers Professor 
Peterson's nomination today, we should also be able, in regular order, 
to consider other nominations without months of delay.
  None of the eight remaining judicial nominations currently pending on 
the Senate Executive Calendar should be controversial. Many, like 
Professor Peterson and Judge Greenaway, were reported by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. We have wasted 
weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider 
nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously and who are then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once 
they were finally allowed to be considered.
  These obstructionist tactics from Republicans last year led to the 
lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Only 12 
of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and 
district courts were confirmed all last year. The 12 Federal circuit 
and district court nominees confirmed last year was less than half of 
what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. In the 
second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to 
confirm 28 judges. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary 
Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 
of his judicial nominees.
  The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican member was also mistaken 
last week when he stated that Democrats sent 40 of President Bush's 
judicial nominations back to the White House in August 2001. It was the 
objections of the Republican minority, in fact objection by the 
Republican leader, Senator Lott, that resulted in the Senate returning 
over 40 of President Bush's nominations before the August recess to the 
White House.
  Just before the Senate recessed in early August 2001, the Senate's 
Democratic leadership requested all pending judicial nominations be 
retained through the August recess. That is right; the Democrats in the 
Senate were asking that the judicial nominations not be returned but be 
allowed to continue in place. I know; I was the Chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee at the time. In fact, the only two nominations the 
Democratic leadership sought to return to the President were two 
controversial executive nominees: Mary Sheila Gall, nominated to be 
Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Otto J. Reich 
to be an Assistant Secretary of State. The Commerce Committee had voted 
not to report the Gall nomination. The Reich nomination had become 
highly controversial and the Assistant Majority Leader sought to give 
the President an opportunity to reconsider the nomination. The proposal 
by the Democratic leadership would have continued in place every other 
nomination including every judicial nomination notwithstanding the 
Senate rule that nominations should be returned to the President when 
the Senate recesses for a period of more than 30 days.
  At that time it was the Republican leader, Senator Lott, who objected 
to the Democratic consent request and insisted on returning all 
nominations, including all judicial nominations, to President Bush in 
early August. See Congressional Record Vol. 147, No. 112, S8888 (Aug. 
3, 2001). That Republican objection resulted in a strict application of 
the Senate rules which required needless paperwork and occasioned more 
unnecessary delay in early September 2001.
  I remember it well. In fact, in order to continue making progress on 
judicial nominations despite the action by the Senate Republican 
leader, I convened two unprecedented confirmation hearings during the 
August recess in 2001 for President Bush's nominees whose nominations 
were not technically pending before the Senate. They had been returned 
to the White House in accordance with Senator Lott's objection and were 
not renominated until the Senate reconvened in

[[Page 600]]

September. As Chairman, I convened those hearings as yet another 
indication of my commitment to filling vacancies on the Federal courts. 
We had already at that time been delayed for a month in reorganizing 
the Senate, as well as by President Bush's decision to turn away from a 
50-year-old precedent to delay the American Bar Association's 
evaluation of a judicial nominee's qualifications until the nomination 
is made public. Even with the subsequent September 11 attacks, and the 
anthrax attacks in the Senate, we continued our work and ultimately 
confirmed 28 judicial nominees that year, including 10 confirmations in 
December 2001. By contrast, in December 2009, Senate Republicans would 
only allow consideration of three judicial nominations, returned two to 
the White House and carried over eight, including Judge Martin's, 
without final action.
  There are currently more than 100 vacancies on the Federal courts 
around the country. Professor Peterson will fill one of those vacancies 
but we must do better. The American people deserve better. The cost 
will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened 
Federal courts.
  I am pleased that today we will confirm Professor Peterson. When 
confirmed, Professor Peterson will be the first woman to serve on the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. She earned 
her B.A. and her M.A. from the University of North Dakota and her J.D., 
with distinction, from the University of North Dakota School of Law, 
where she served as editor-in-chief of the law review and was chosen by 
her professors as the ``Outstanding Graduate.''
  After graduation, Professor Peterson clerked for U.S. District Court 
Judge Fred Van Sickle, whom she would now replace on the district 
court. Over the course of her 18-year legal career, Professor Peterson 
has been a law professor and a lawyer with a diverse private practice. 
Professor Peterson has the strong support of both home state Senators, 
Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell.
  I congratulate Professor Peterson and her family on her confirmation 
today.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of 
Professor Rosanna Malour Peterson. She is a distinguished law professor 
and attorney. She is a woman who enjoys broad bipartisan support, and 
she deserves a seat on the Federal bench.
  I was very pleased to introduce Professor Peterson before the 
Judiciary Committee last November and meet her and her family. I 
thought it was telling of the type of nominee she is that so many of 
her current and former students were there to support her confirmation. 
Tonight I am honored to recommend that the Senate confirm Professor 
Peterson as a district court judge for the Eastern District of my home 
State.
  Professor Peterson has strong bipartisan support with good reason. 
She has devoted her career to serving the interests of justice and to 
instilling those values in a future generation of leaders.
  Professor Peterson is a graduate of the University of North Dakota, 
where she earned her bachelor's, master's and law degrees. After law 
school, she started her legal career in the chambers of Judge Fred Van 
Sickle in Spokane. This is the very same seat she has now been 
nominated to fill.
  During her distinguished career, Professor Peterson has worked as an 
attorney in Spokane area law firms, for corporate and individual 
clients. She has worked in private practice, often representing 
teachers, and she has worked as a court-appointed representative for 
criminal defendants in State and Federal court. Since 1999, Professor 
Peterson has been a law professor at the Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, 
where she is assistant professor of law and director of the law 
school's externship program. At the same time, Professor Peterson has 
maintained her private practice, where she has continued to work with 
Federal defendants on a pro bono or reduced-fee basis.
  Professor Peterson has also played a leadership role in the 
Washington legal community, including serving as president of the 
Federal Bar Association of the Eastern District of Washington, 
president of the Washington Women Lawyers Bar Association, and on the 
judicial selection committee that helped recommend a magistrate judge 
in 2003. In recognition of her service in 2006, she was awarded the 
Smithmoore P. Myers Professionalism Award, the Spokane County Bar 
Association's highest honor.
  Professor Peterson's accomplishments stand for themselves, but I have 
also received numerous letters and e-mails testifying to her toughness, 
her work ethic, her understanding of the law, and her advocacy on 
behalf of her clients. I have also received many letters from her 
former students and the people she has mentored, taught, and befriended 
over the years, letters that all say she has made a difference in the 
lives of so many in my State.
  She clearly meets the standards of fairness, of evenhandedness, and 
adherence to the law that we expect of our Federal judges.
  Outside of her many professional credentials, I have been impressed 
by her professionalism and decency. I know I speak on behalf of a large 
number in the Washington State legal community in supporting the 
nomination of Rosanna Peterson to be the next district judge for the 
Eastern District of Washington.
  I do think it is also important to note, for all my colleagues, that 
Professor Peterson's nomination was the product of a bipartisan 
selection committee that we use in my State of Washington to get to 
where we are with this confirmation vote. The commission was formed and 
did much of its work on Professor Peterson under the previous 
administration. It has proven that it works, even as we have moved from 
one administration to the next. I am proud to have created that 
selection commission and believe it is something that has served our 
State and our Federal judiciary well.
  Therefore, it is my pleasure to recommend my colleagues confirm a 
great lawyer, a teacher, and a mentor who I believe will make an 
exceptional Federal judge. I urge my colleagues, this evening, to vote 
for the confirmation of Professor Rosanna Peterson as the next district 
judge for the Eastern District of Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, 
Senator Leahy and Senator Murray, to express support for the 
confirmation of Professor Rosanna Peterson.
  Professor Peterson has been nominated to be a U.S. District Judge for 
the Eastern District of Washington. I have no doubt that she will be an 
excellent Federal judge.
  It is important to ensure that all branches of our government, 
including the judiciary, reflect diversity. If confirmed, Professor 
Peterson would be the first woman to serve on the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of Washington.
  Rosanna Peterson is currently an Assistant Professor of Law at 
Gonzaga University. She teaches Evidence, Federal Jurisdiction, and 
Trial Advocacy. She also runs the law school's externship program. 
Previously, she worked as an attorney in private practice at a number 
of Spokane law firms. She also clerked for U.S. District Court Judge 
Fred Van Sickle, whom she will now replace.
  Professor Peterson has long been recognized by her peers for her 
intellect, dedication to the law, and commitment to equal justice.
  She has been an active member of Washington State's legal community, 
having served as President of the Federal Bar Association for Eastern 
Washington, President of Washington Women Lawyers State Bar Association 
and President of the Spokane County Washington Women Lawyers Bar 
Association.
  I urge the Senate to confirm Professor Peterson this afternoon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 601]]


  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we go out of 
executive session and that I be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Honoring Senator Arlen Specter on His 10,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Madam President, in just a few minutes, as soon as I finish 
my remarks, we will move to vote on a judge. This will be the 10,000th 
vote of Arlen Specter. I congratulate our distinguished colleague, 
Senator Specter, as he is about to cast his 10,000th vote as a Senator. 
He is only the 30th Senator to reach this number of five digits.
  I have known Senator Specter for more than a quarter of a century. I 
have read his book. The book on his life is a remarkably impressive 
travel through his political career. He was a crime fighter as a 
district attorney. As far as lawyers go, the Specter genes are pretty 
good. The largest judgment in the history of the State of Nevada was a 
judgment his son received. His son is a prominent trial lawyer. Nevada 
knows the Specter name from more than Arlen.
  Arlen has always been a man of honor and integrity and a tremendous 
public servant. The State of Pennsylvania, of course, is home to some 
of our Nation's most significant political history--the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution were drafted in Senator Specter's 
hometown of Philadelphia. No one has served that State longer than 
Senator Specter.
  I congratulate my friend Arlen Specter on making this historic 
milestone. It will make Pennsylvania proud. No one with whom I have 
served in the Senate has a better legal mind than Arlen Specter. We 
always look to him when there is a complex legal issue to give one of 
his renown statements.
  I am sorry to hold up everybody, but I wanted this night not to go 
forward without saying something about our friend, Arlen Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Rosanna Malouf Peterson, of Washington, to 
be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington?
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from 
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________