[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1640-S1641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is time to end the delays and move 
ahead with up-or-down votes on these judicial nominations.
  Right now there are 22 judicial nominations sitting on the judicial 
calendar: 17 district court and 5 circuit court nominees. These are 
appointments to Federal judgeships. In many instances they are 
appointments that are long overdue and desperately needed.
  Twelve of these nominees were voted out of the Judiciary Committee 
last year--last year--two of them as far back as last October.
  One would think they must be very controversial people to have made 
it this far but then stalled on the calendar. It turns out 17 of these 
22 nominees received strong bipartisan support on the committee. 
Thirteen had blue slips, which is permission to go forward, from home 
State Republican Senators. Eleven of them would fill vacancies deemed 
as judicial emergencies.
  I don't understand how we can do this to the Federal judiciary and to 
the men and women who are involved. The American people need these 
nominations to be confirmed in a timely fashion, and it is only fair to 
these men and women who are offering their lives in public service and 
sometimes jeopardizing their current jobs because of the uncertainty of 
their future.
  All Americans want our Federal courts to be there to prosecute 
criminals, to make certain they have their day in court in civil 
proceedings, as well as to maintain the integrity of our judicial 
process.
  There are only two ways to schedule a confirmation vote in the 
Senate: either a unanimous consent agreement or file cloture, which 
basically means force the issue. Forcing the issue takes time, and time 
isn't on our side. We have important things to do: finishing the 
Transportation bill today and moving forward on other important issues. 
But since President Obama took office, Senate Republicans have 
routinely objected when we have asked for their consent to promptly 
schedule confirmation votes on judicial nominees.
  When we take a look at the record President Obama has faced, the 
obstruction from the Republican side of the aisle is unprecedented. 
President Obama's district court nominees have been forced to wait on 
the floor more than four times longer on average than those confirmed 
under President Bush or under President Clinton. Overall, at this point 
in their terms, President Obama has had only 131 nominees confirmed 
while President George W. Bush had 172 and President Clinton had 183.
  Right now there are 39 judicial nominees pending either on the 
Judiciary

[[Page S1641]]

Committee or on the Senate floor. Promptly confirming these 39 would 
bring the President's overall numbers close to parity with President 
Bush. It wouldn't give him an advantage.
  It is time to stop the delay. I think it is important for us to 
confirm these nominees as quickly as possible. We don't have to go 
through this painful and embarrassing charade of calling cloture vote 
after cloture vote on nominees who were accepted on a strong bipartisan 
vote, have been approved by Republican Senators, and are simply being 
held up on the hope by some Republican Senators that the day will come 
when there is a Republican President who can fill these vacancies. That 
isn't fair. Taking that approach is what gives our Chamber a bad name.
  Ten of these nominees were reported out of committee last year. Why 
continue to delay them? I know during President Bush's first term the 
Senate confirmed 57 district court nominees within 7 days. These 
nominees languished on the calendar for months--months. If there is a 
legitimate objection to any nominee, step forward and state the 
objection. If a Member opposes the nominee, when the vote comes vote 
no. But for, goodness' sake, to let these names and nominations 
languish on the calendar isn't fair to the nominees, and it isn't fair 
to the courts that are in many instances facing judicial emergencies 
because of these vacancies.
  I urge my colleagues--among these nominees are two for Illinois. 
Senator Mark Kirk and I had an agreed-to bipartisan approach. We put 
together bipartisan committees, we each found our favorite nominees, 
and we submitted the nominee to one another. We asked for approval; we 
got the approval. We have two extraordinarily good people: John Lee, 
proposed by me, and Jay Tharp, proposed by Senator Kirk. Both came out 
of committee without controversy--two excellent nominees sitting on the 
calendar.
  For goodness' sake, I ask my colleagues, why would they do this? It 
isn't fair to these individuals. It isn't fair to Senator Kirk, and it 
isn't fair to this process. Let's move these names forward as quickly 
as possible.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________