[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Page S1151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judiciary Committee

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to address an extremely unusual 
request that our Democratic colleagues have made with respect to the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Our dear friend Senator Feinstein is a titanic figure and a 
stateswoman. Elaine and I have been honored to count the Senator and 
her late husband Dick as close, personal friends for many, many years. 
We miss our colleague. We wish her the very best for a speedy recovery 
and a smooth return.
  In the meantime, our colleague's temporary absence has really not 
ground the Judiciary Committee to a halt. So far this Congress, the 
committee has reported out 40 judicial nominees--listen to this--more 
than half of them--more than half of them--on a bipartisan basis.
  Let me say that again. More than two dozen judicial nominees have 
been reported out this Congress on bipartisan votes.
  There are more than a dozen article III judges already waiting on the 
Executive Calendar, and a whole bunch of the nominees currently in 
committee are likely to receive bipartisan support as well. So the 
administration does not face any obstacle to moving nominees who are 
remotely qualified for the job. People who are mainstream and qualified 
have a path forward.
  Yet some of the same far-left voices who have attacked Senator 
Feinstein in the past are now suggesting that the Senate move her off 
the Judiciary Committee indefinitely--indefinitely. The stated reason, 
the supposed emergency, is that Senate Democrats are unable to push 
through the small fraction of their nominees who are so extreme--so 
extreme--and so unqualified that they cannot win a single Republican 
vote in Committee.
  Let me say that again. The far left wants the full Senate to move a 
Senator off a committee so they can ram through a small sliver of their 
nominees who are especially extreme or especially unqualified.
  There are four main nominees whom our Democratic colleagues are 
currently unable to move. One of them threatened an underage abuse 
victim while representing her prep school. One of them didn't know what 
article II of the Constitution says. One of them didn't know what a 
Brady motion is. The fourth one argued that the sex offender registry--
listen to this--does not help keep children safe. Those are the four 
they are having a hard time moving. They are not on track to get 
bipartisan support.
  It is purely the Democrats' political choice to hold relatively more 
reasonable nominees hostage so the unqualified ones can move in a pack. 
So even though they could move a number of less controversial nominees 
right now--right now--they want to sideline Senator Feinstein so they 
can ram through the worst four as well.
  I understand our Judiciary Committee colleagues report they cannot 
find a single past example where their committee let a Member be 
temporarily replaced in this fashion that some Democrats are 
advocating.
  So let's be clear. Senate Republicans will not take part in 
sidelining a temporarily absent colleague off a committee just so 
Democrats can force through their very worst nominees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.