[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 153 (Saturday, December 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6806-S6807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. There is a cloture motion at the desk, and I ask that it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Stephen R. Bough, of Missouri, to be United States District 
     Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Richard J. Durbin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Brian Schatz, Debbie Stabenow, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, 
           Christopher Murphy, Edward J. Markey, Al Franken, Tom 
           Harkin, Sheldon Whitehouse.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Grassley be recognized for 5 minutes for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to correct the Record on the 
claim that we typically confirm judges during a lameduck session. 
However, we do confirm judges during a lameduck if those judges were 
reported to the floor before the election. What we typically don't do 
is report judges out of committee during a lameduck and then also 
confirm them that same year, and that is what the majority is 
attempting to do here, and, of course, I object.
  We need to follow precedent on these nominees. I will use 12 years as 
an example to illustrate what really happened.
  In 2002, 20 judges were confirmed during the lameduck, but 18 of 
those judges had been reported out of committee before the midterm 
election. Only two of those judges were reported during the lameduck, 
and that was because these two judges waited for more than a year for a 
hearing.
  In 2004, four judges were confirmed during the lameduck session, but 
none were reported out during that lameduck session.
  In 2006, one judge was confirmed, but again, that judge was not 
reported out of committee during the lameduck session.
  In 2008, there were no confirmations in the lameduck session.
  In 2010, again, no judges were confirmed, but that year 15 judges 
were reported out of committee during the lameduck and every one of 
those 15 judges was returned to the White House.
  Finally, in 2012, no judges were confirmed. That year, again, five 
judges

[[Page S6807]]

were reported out of committee during the lameduck, but all five were 
returned to the White House. That is the raw data.
  The data confirms that since 2002, with only two exceptions for 
special circumstances, no judges have been reported out and confirmed 
during the lameduck session. The reason is simple. It gives our newly 
elected Senators the opportunity to have their voices heard, and that 
is what this is all about. That is the reason the judicial nominees, 
which are lifetime appointments, are typically returned to the 
President if they come out of committee during a lameduck session. It 
gives the new Members an opportunity to have their voices heard.
  I am raising this objection today, although I know we are going to 
proceed, to protect the prerogatives of newly elected Members. Frankly, 
I am disappointed that the Members are not willing to stand up and 
protect those rights and prerogatives. I believe I have a pretty good 
reputation for working across the aisle on a lot of issues, and I 
expect that somebody would realize that next year these people would 
get a fair hearing just as they did before they were reported out of 
committee.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________