[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2711-S2712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Nominations

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we reached a milestone last week with the 
confirmation of President Trump's 100th Federal judge, and, frankly, it 
is a milestone that should have come earlier. Had this been another 
President, it almost undoubtedly would have come earlier. But, 
unfortunately, the response to this President has been characterized by 
what the leader aptly referred to yesterday as ``unhinged 
partisanship.''
  Now, 2\1/2\ years on from President Trump's election, Democrats still 
can't get over the fact that they lost. Somehow, my colleagues missed 
the section in government class where you learn that is what happens 
sometimes in democracies. Sometimes you win. Sometimes--and I hate to 
break it to my colleagues--sometimes you lose. It is not fun. No one 
likes having their candidate lose, but that is what happens sometimes 
when you have free elections.
  No one expects Democrats to just sign on to everything President 
Trump says or does. No one expects them to sign on to most of what 
President Trump says or does. I certainly understand that they have 
philosophical disagreements with many of his policies. I have been in 
their position. During my time in public office, there have certainly 
been Presidents with whom I disagreed a substantial part of the time. I 
like to think that I didn't reflexively oppose everything they said or 
did simply because they weren't my preferred candidate for the office. 
I am fairly certain President Trump couldn't eat a cheese sandwich 
without some Democrat crying treason.
  Well, let's step back a minute. Maybe it is not that my Democratic 
colleagues are reflexively opposing everything this President does. 
Maybe it is not unhinged partisanship. Maybe it is just that they 
disagree with every single word he says, every single thing he does, 
and every single individual he nominates--except in the case of 
nominees, at least, we know that isn't true.
  Let's go back to those judicial nominations. Democrats have engaged 
in a

[[Page S2712]]

truly unprecedented amount of obstruction on President Trump's judicial 
nominees. As of May 2, Democrats have forced cloture votes on almost 65 
percent of President Trump's judicial nominees--65 percent. At the same 
point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had required cloture 
votes on just 2\1/2\ percent of his judicial nominees--65 percent to 
2\1/2\ percent. But, again, maybe that is because Democrats have 
serious philosophical objections to these nominees--except they don't, 
because again and again, Democrats have turned around and voted for the 
Trump judicial nominees they obstructed.
  One egregious example occurred in January of 2018 when Democrats 
forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four district 
court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their 
confirmation. That is right. Democrats forced the Senate to spend more 
than a week considering the nomination of four judges even though not 
one single Democrat opposed their confirmation. These judges could have 
been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats 
forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration--
time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or 
on some of the many important issues facing our country.
  As of April 2 of this year, Democrats have forced cloture votes on 20 
of the district court judges the Senate has confirmed. Ultimately, 
however, 19 of those 20 judges were confirmed by more than 68 votes. 
Now, 17 of those 20 were confirmed by more than 80 votes, and 12 of 
those 20 were confirmed without a single vote in opposition. Yet 
Democrats obstructed all of them.
  One hundred judicial nominees confirmed is a solid milestone, but, as 
I said before, it is a milestone that should have come earlier and 
would have come earlier if Democrats hadn't chosen to engage in a 
massive campaign of partisan obstruction. Despite a lot of hard work by 
the Judiciary Committee and a robust pace of nominations from the 
President, the number of judicial vacancies is actually 25 percent 
higher today than it was when the President took office, and a near 
record number of those vacancies are designated as judicial 
emergencies. That shouldn't be the case, but thanks to Democrats' knee-
jerk obstruction, that is where we are.
  Regardless of how much the Democrats obstruct, though, Republicans 
will keep moving forward. Despite Democrats' best efforts, we confirmed 
a record number of circuit court judges during the President's first 2 
years, and we are going to keep working our way through the President's 
nominees, judicial and otherwise. We are committed to filling vacancies 
in both the executive branch and the judiciary so that the American 
people have the fully functioning government they deserve.
  Perhaps someday Democrats will decide to drop the obstruction and to 
join us in the business of actually getting things done for the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.