```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6494-S6495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we currently have 17 district judges on 
the calendar, 14 reported by voice vote. For the people within the 
sound of my voice, what that means is they are not controversial. 
Twelve will fill judicial emergencies. These are places around the 
country where we have judges who are tremendously overworked on these 
important cases.
  We have heard this kind of joke: What are you trying to do, make a 
Federal case out of it? What that means is the Federal system is so 
good that people look at it as being the best there is as far as 
judicial activity.
  I am disappointed to say my Republican friends on the other side have 
informed me they will not agree on votes on any of these nominees. 
Republicans can offer no reason for blocking these bipartisan consensus 
district court nominees. I understand why they didn't want us to do 
circuit courts--I understand that. I may disagree, but I understand 
that because Democrats have set boundaries in the past, as when we 
would no longer accept circuit court judges. But this is district court 
judges.
  Historically, the Senate has considered district court nominees as 
late as October in Presidential election years. In the past five 
Presidential election years, Democrats have never blocked a district 
court nominee from receiving a vote on the Senate floor, never. But our 
Republican colleagues are setting new standards for obstruction, not 
only in all the legislation but in judges.
  For the 28 district court nominees we have considered this year, I 
filed cloture 19 times. In other words, we have had to break a 
Republican filibuster on 67 percent of the district judges we have 
considered and confirmed. President Obama's district court nominees 
have been forced to wait 300 percent more than President Bush's 
nominees; three times more. Only two people whom the President 
nominated this year have been confirmed. The kind of qualified 
consensus nominees who in years past would have been confirmed in a 
matter of minutes are now taking weeks and months, languishing with no 
action. These votes should be routine.
  There should not be a fight that delays action on important job 
measures. In September 2008, right before the last Presidential 
election, Democrats confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court 
nominees in 1 day. More than half of the Nation's population, 160 
million Americans, live in the part of the country where there has been 
a judicial emergency declared. That means more than half the people in 
this country seek justice from courts and judges that are strained to 
the breaking point under a backlog so intense an emergency has been 
declared.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, of course, knows I am here. 
He wants to be on the Senate floor, but the time did not work. He has 
done a remarkably good job getting the judges out. With 1 out of every 
10 Federal judgeships standing vacant, Americans can no longer wait on 
fair and speedy trials, and that is what they have to do. They cannot 
rely on them.
  Republicans should work with Democrats to confirm consensus district 
court nominees now. Refusing to do so is irresponsible. The Senate 
could act today and put highly qualified judges on the Federal bench, 
judges supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
  I hope we can get something done before we leave. I don't want to 
file cloture on these nominees before the end of the year. It is not 
the way we should be working around here. We should be working 
together.
  I have a consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 674, 675, 676, 760, 761, 762, 818, 828, 829, 830, 832, 
833, 834, 835, 875, 876, and 877; that the nominations be confirmed; 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate and that no further motions be in 
order to any further nominations; that any statements relating to the 
nominations be printed in the Record.
  Further, Madam President, before you rule, we have the gamut. We have 
California, Utah, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan,

[[Page S6495]]

New York, and Pennsylvania. That is a classic, these two Pennsylvania 
judges.
  During the August recess the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania 
said that I am the reason the two judges from Pennsylvania have not 
been confirmed.
  Try that one on for logic. He actually said publicly that I was the 
reason that Matthew Brann and Edward Mannion are not being confirmed, 
that it is my fault.
  Madam President, I will finish this consent request: that the 
nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is quite curious that my friend 
the majority leader is complaining about the one area I can think of 
over the last year and a half where the Senate has met historic norms. 
In other words, we have handled judicial confirmations in this Congress 
here in the Senate in a way that meets and in some ways exceeds 
historic norms. At the same time, of course, we have not done all the 
other things we have normally done in the past.
  So far during this Presidential election year, we have confirmed 5 
circuit court nominees and 29 district court nominees. That is a good 
record for Presidential election years. Let me look at a few. In 1996 
we confirmed 18 district court nominees. This year we have confirmed 
29. In 2000 we confirmed 31, in 2004 we confirmed 30, and in 2008, the 
last year of President Bush's tenure, only 24 district court nominees 
were confirmed. In fact, in 2008 Senate Democrats treated President 
Bush's nominees so badly that they were forced to confirm--as the 
majority leader bragged about--10 nominees in September of that year 
just to try to catch up to historical norms. So rather than bragging 
about doing 10 on 1 day, the reason they did 10 on 1 day is because 
they were so pathetically below historic norms they had to do 10 on 1 
day so as to not be embarrassed by the process. If they had not done 
that, the Senate would have confirmed only 14 district court nominees 
in 2008, which is fewer than half the 29 we have already confirmed this 
year.
  President Obama is also faring much better overall than President 
Bush did in his second term, which is the last time the Senate 
considered and confirmed two Supreme Court nominees. The reason I bring 
that up is because Supreme Court nominees take a lot of time and 
effort. President Obama, of course, did have two Supreme Court nominees 
confirmed during his first term.
  So far the Senate has confirmed 158 of President Obama's judicial 
nominees. Compare that to President Bush's second term when the Senate 
confirmed only 122 of his judicial nominees. President Obama has had 
158 confirmed; while President Bush had only 122 confirmed. So the 
Senate has confirmed one-third more judicial nominees than it did the 
last time it had to process two Supreme Court nominees.
  Not only is President Obama being treated fairly in absolute terms, 
but the Senate is also treating him fairly relative to the number of 
nominees he has submitted. So far during President Obama's term, the 
Senate has confirmed 158 of his 205 nominees. That is a confirmation 
rate of 77 percent. By contrast, President Bush got only 74 percent of 
his nominees during his first term.
  The contrast is even more revealing when we compare President Obama 
to President Bush's second term. During that term, President Bush got 
only 61 percent of his nominees confirmed. Again, President Obama got 
77 percent of his nominees confirmed versus President Bush's 61 
percent.
  Now we are trying to get consent agreements to process the next two 
district court nominations that are in the queue, and we are hoping 
that will come about. That is the procedure we have been following. I 
am hopeful we can achieve that. If we do, we will have confirmed 31 
district court nominees this year, which will equal the record for the 
most district court confirmations in a Presidential election year in 
recent memory. So whether it is looked at in terms of absolute 
confirmations or relative confirmations, this President is being 
treated very fairly.
  I am happy to work with the majority leader, but we cannot allow the 
majority to jam us here at the end of this session; therefore, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am not going to prolong this much, but I 
would say this: No matter how we try to juggle the numbers, we still 
have 12 emergencies. I hope my friends on the other side would at least 
look at some of those emergencies and see if we could get some help for 
those beleaguered judges out there and the court personnel. It wasn't 
until May 7 of this year that we were able to vote on our first nominee 
for this year. They were all from last year that we did before that. I 
hope everyone understands we have 12 judicial emergencies. If some of 
these nominations were confirmed, it would take that away and make life 
for the court system much more fair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there is no way to spin the math. 
President Obama has been treated quite fairly every way we look at it. 
He has certainly met the historical norms with the treatment of 
Presidents in Presidential years. I rest my case.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
3 minutes, the Senator from Indiana be given 3 minutes, and the Senator 
from Rhode Island then be able to continue his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I wanted to follow up on the Democratic 
and Republican leaders' conversation. This is not the first time we 
have seen obstruction for obstruction's sake over noncontroversial, 
consensus nominees to the Federal bench. It has been going on for 4 
years.
  In 2008 we cleared all 10 of President Bush's district court nominees 
pending on the floor by unanimous consent. Now, of course, we are being 
blocked. Well, I don't think Oliver Wendell Holmes could get unanimous 
consent from our Republican colleagues to be a district court judge 
today.
  In the Western District of New York, nominee Frank Geraci has total 
bipartisan support. His slot has been vacant for years. We need him to 
fill that judicial emergency post. His nomination has been pending on 
the floor for more than 2 months. Why can't we confirm him today? He 
passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously with strong bipartisan 
support.
  In the Southern District, another nominee, Lorna Schofield, has also 
been awaiting confirmation for 2 months. She also has complete and 
total bipartisan support. What is more, she would be the first Filipana 
confirmed to the Federal bench. The Southern District is one of the 
busiest benches in the country, and the judges hear among the most 
important cases, such as complex civil litigation, insider trading, 
terrorism. You name it, they do it. Why can't we confirm her today?
  We hear one excuse after another for filibustering judges--recess 
appointments, funding for some area unrelated to judges, the so-called 
Thurmond rule, which has never applied to district court nominees.
  I support the majority leader's motion for unanimous consent for 
these pending district court nominees, and I hope our colleagues will 
think about it. Before we leave this week, I hope we can come together 
and do what we have been doing together for decades--confirm 
uncontroversial judges.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________
```