[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S928-S929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 565 and 570; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in 
order to any of the nominations; that any related statements 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?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object--and I will object--I 
wish to remind my colleagues of a couple important points.
  First, over the last several weeks some of my colleagues in the 
majority have expressed frustration because some of the nominees they 
support haven't been brought up for a final vote. I must say this is 
quite surprising to me.
  As everyone knows, late last year the Senate Democrats invoked the 
so-called nuclear option. The stated reason for doing so of course was 
to strip the minority of our ability to stop any judicial or executive 
nominees on the floor. In fact, just before invoking the so-called 
nuclear option, here is what the majority leader said about it:

       The change we propose today would ensure executive and 
     judicial nominations an up or down vote on confirmation--yes 
     or no.
       The rule change will make cloture for all nominations other 
     than the Supreme Court a majority threshold vote--yes or no.

  Of course, 52 Democrats voted to take this unprecedented step, which 
tossed aside two centuries of Senate history and tradition, even though 
this President has an outstanding record of getting his nominations 
confirmed. In fact, prior to the President's attempt to fill the DC 
Circuit with judges they didn't need, the Senate had confirmed 215 of 
the President's judicial nominees, rejecting only 2. That is more than 
a 99-percent approval rating of the President's nominees.
  Notwithstanding that record, however, the majority voted to cut the 
minority out of the process on the floor. I note there was bipartisan 
opposition to what the majority leader tried to accomplish. Three 
Democrats voted against it. I have to give credit to the Senator from 
Arkansas who has made this unanimous consent to be one of those who 
thought the minority should not be cut out of the process.
  The bottom line is that under the precedent 52 Democrats voted to 
establish, the majority leader now can bring up at any time these 
nominations for a vote on the floor whenever he decides to do it. If he 
did, the nominees would be confirmed within no more than 2 hours of 
debate.
  So the minority simply has no ability to stop anyone from getting a 
vote. There is no filibuster of any nominees anymore, which is the 
whole point of what the majority chose to do in November.
  I object to this unanimous consent and respectfully suggest that any 
Senator--including the Senator from Arkansas--discuss the matter with 
the one individual who has the ability to bypass the minority in that 
matter, and that happens to be the one Senator who is the majority 
leader of the Senate.
  I do object, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to respond and further explain.
  We have two judges pending on the calendar right now. In the sequence 
of judges to be considered, they are No. 2 and No. 7; one is Timothy 
Brooks and the other is James Moody.
  Tim Brooks was nominated by the White House in June and came out of 
the Judiciary Committee in October. Jay Moody was nominated by the 
White House in July and came out of the Judiciary Committee in 
November.
  On the Federal bench in Arkansas district court level, we have eight 
judges. We now have two vacancies. I don't wish to be dramatic and 
declare a judicial emergency, but certainly people should understand we 
are only working at 75 percent horsepower right now and we need to get 
these judges confirmed forthwith.
  Yesterday, I stood at my desk and notified the Senate I was going to 
make this request. I did not receive an objection, as far as I know--
unless maybe a staff person talked to a staff person. But I never heard 
of any objection.
  It is bad enough to have 25 percent of our judiciary in Arkansas 
which needs to be filled, but the real urgency for this is a matter of 
State law. James Moody is an elected State court judge. He is an 
elected trial court judge. Under Arkansas law, this is a nonpartisan 
position. Our filing deadline for the 2014 election cycle opens on the 
24th of February and it goes to March 3.
  So here is the problem: Today is February 12. We are about to have a 
snowstorm tonight and the next few days and next week we are on recess. 
We come back on February 24. The filing period will already be open in 
Arkansas. I wish I could tell Judge Moody:

[[Page S929]]

Don't worry about it; you are going to be confirmed when we get back. 
The way things have worked around here recently, I can't give him that 
guarantee. I can't give him my word. I can't tell him: Judge, don't 
file for reelection. Just go ahead and wait and trust that this is 
going to happen. I can't do that under the circumstances. So he is in 
limbo.
  There are other lawyers and judges in Arkansas who want to run for 
his position. There is a domino effect in the local judiciary and local 
bar about this.
  Under Arkansas State law, once he files, he cannot get his name off 
the ballot. These are nonpartisan elections. If they were party 
elections, he could go to the State party and they could handle it 
through their primary process or through their rules or whatever. But 
that is not the case here. There is no party to go to. Once he files 
and his name is on the ballot, he is on the ballot, and that is a big 
problem. This is causing a lot of problems back home.
  There is no principle involved here. There is no reason why these two 
judges should be held over. They should have been done at the end of 
last year. I asked my colleagues to help me do that; I was told no.
  We need to get these judges done now so we don't create this problem 
in Arkansas. Both of these judges are very well qualified. They have 
all the credentials the American Bar Association looks at. As far as I 
know, every lawyer in Arkansas is unanimously for both. In fact, I 
heard my colleague Senator Boozman of Arkansas tell the Republican 
leader last week: Mitch, if you were picking these judges yourself, you 
couldn't pick any two better judges.
  That is a paraphrase, but that is in effect what he said, and it is 
true. These are noncontroversial judges. Both these judges should be 
confirmed now so we don't cause this problem in Arkansas.
  I yield the floor, but I will continue to push for these nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I see the good Senator from New Mexico 
is here. I am willing to defer to the Senator if time is an issue for 
him. If it is not, I will proceed.

                          ____________________