Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the nomination of Bernice Bouie Donald as a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. With today's vote, we will have confirmed 34 article III judicial nominees during this Congress.
We continue to make great progress in processing President Obama's judicial nominees. We have taken positive action on 78 percent of the judicial nominations submitted during this Congress. The Senate has confirmed 63 percent of President Obama's nominees since the beginning of his Presidency, including two Supreme Court Justices, which everyone may recall was a lengthy process.
Despite our productive efforts, we continue to hear unsubstantiated and unfounded charges of delays and obstruction on the part of the minority party of the Senate. Over the August recess, opinion writers and bloggers parroted one another in churning out this message of obstruction on the part of the Republicans. I am not surprised to see this from outside groups. However, I was very disappointed the White House joined in publishing a distorted record on judicial nominations. I had a meeting this year with the White House Counsel's Office, and at that meeting I expressed my intent to move forward as the Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee Republicans on consensus nominees. I thought we had cooperative and productive conversations with the White House. Furthermore, I have demonstrated a record, on the part of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, of cooperation and action regarding judicial nominees.
But in a White House blog that was titled ``Record Judicial Diversity, Record Judicial Delays'' the White House characterized ``the delays these nominees are encountering'' as unprecedented. The White House has a short memory or a very limited definition to characterize the nominations process as ``unprecedented.''
To illustrate, the blog cites a statistic on the average wait time between the Judiciary Committee reporting out a nominee and confirmation on the Senate floor as evidence of an unprecedented delay. For example, it indicates circuit nominees of President Bush only waited 29 days, while President Obama's circuit nominees waited 151 days.
The nominations process, as everyone knows but maybe the White House needs to be informed about, is more than Senate floor action. It starts with the President actually nominating somebody. I have previously commented on the White House delay in sending nominations and have criticized some of the qualities of the nominees the White House has submitted. I will not elaborate on that today. But after a nomination is received, there is a process for hearing, for questions, and for committee debate prior to our committee vote. For whatever reason, the White House blog fact sheet ignored the bulk of the process.
The record shows, then, that we are moving nominees through committee much faster than President Bush's nominees. For instance, President Obama's circuit court nominees have only waited, on average, 68 days for a hearing. President Bush's circuit court nominees were forced to wait over 247 days. President Obama's district court nominees have been afforded a hearing in just 78 days. President Bush's district court nominees, on the other hand, had to wait close to 120 days. So we can see how wrong the White House blog is when they just cite the waiting period between the committee reporting out and actually voting on it.
Not only are President Obama's judicial nominees receiving hearings quicker than those of President Bush, they are also being reported out of committee more quickly. Circuit court nominees have been reported to the Senate floor in just 118 days, while President Bush's circuit court nominees were held for 369 days before they saw a vote in committee. The same is true for district court nominees. President Obama's nominees have been reported in just 129 days, while President Bush's district court nominees waited 148 days. Despite the so-called obstruction, we are confirming President Obama's circuit court nominees faster than those nominated by President Bush. That is the cooperation I promised. Thus far, circuit court nominees have been confirmed, on average, in 259 days. President Bush's circuit court nominees waited, on average, 350 days.
The White House blog also stated that 21 months is the ``[l]ongest wait for one of President Obama's judicial confirmations.'' This is neither unprecedented nor uncommon. The Democrats should know; they held President Bush's circuit court nominee Raymond Kethledge for 23 months before he was confirmed by the Senate, and then when he was confirmed, he was confirmed on a consensus voice vote basis. In addition, the record will show district nominees who waited well over 1 year for confirmation, one of them as long as 441 days.
After today's vote, there will be 19 judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. If you listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would conclude that this, too, is ``unprecedented.'' But again, the record demonstrates otherwise.
Colleagues may recall a period in the 108th Congress when the Democrats--in the minority at that time--completely shut down the judicial nominations process. Not only were there numerous filibusters conducted by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but they would allow no votes on judicial nominees. As a result, in April and May of 2004, when George W. Bush was President, 32 highly qualified judicial nominees awaited final votes while on the Executive Calendar. Only after a compromise was reached did judicial nomination votes resume on those who were on the Executive Calendar.
I could continue to rebut this outrageous assertion that Senate Republicans are somehow paving new ground, according to the White House blog. The facts demonstrate that the current status of nominations is not--not--unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the media, the bloggers, and even this administration continue to distort the facts. I would rather use my time to speak on positive actions, such as the nominee we are about to confirm. But if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to continue to live in the past, then I feel, as leader of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, the need to correct the record.
I support the nomination before us today, and I congratulate Judge Donald. I wish to say a few words about her before we vote.
Bernice Donald is nominated to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Donald received her undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Memphis. After graduating from law school, Judge Donald worked for a few months as a sole practitioner. In April of 1980, she began work as a staff attorney for the Memphis Area Legal Services Clinic. In November of 1980, she began working as an assistant public defender at the Shelby County Public Defender's Office.
In 1982, Judge Donald was elected to serve as a judge on the Court of General Sessions in Shelby County. As a general sessions judge, Judge Donald presided over trials of State misdemeanor offenses, and the preliminary hearings of State felony cases involving alleged crimes against persons as well as property.
In 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appointed Judge Donald to a 14-year term on the Bankruptcy Court.
In 1996, Judge Donald was confirmed by the Senate and appointed by President Clinton as United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee. She has served as a Federal judge for the past 15 years.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge Donald a rating of substantial majority ``well-qualified''; minority ``qualified.''
Mr. President, if I could, I wish to take 2 minutes to speak about the second vote we are having today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This bipartisan legislation will make our patent system more effective and more efficient. It will enhance transparency and patent quality and improve certainty in the patent process. It will also enhance the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to cut its backlog and process patent applications in a more expeditious manner. Ultimately, this bill will help promote innovation and technological advancements and will provide a stimulus for American businesses and, obviously, will help generate new jobs.
My colleagues will recall the Senate passed the bill we entitled the America Invents Act earlier this year by a margin of 95 to 5. The House bill is very similar to our Senate bill, so Senators should not have a problem supporting it. In addition, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act enjoys the widespread support of a large number of industries and other stakeholders from within the United States patent community.
I am pleased to support the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed so we can get this bill done as soon as possible.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source