[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 195 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S15981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION NOMINEES

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republicans have taken the very unusual 
step of objecting to a majority vote on their own nominee, Mr. Hans von 
Spakovsky. I offered them that option. The option was rejected. Mr. von 
Spakovsky is a very controversial nominee, but I said: Let's have a 
vote on him. Now, remember, we are not asking for 60 votes. We say: 
Have a simple majority vote. By that action, not accepting that offer, 
the Republicans are blocking the Senate from ensuring that the Federal 
Election Commission can function at perhaps the most important time--
during a Presidential election year. What they have done will ensure 
that the FEC is unable to enforce the new ethics bill we enacted. The 
agency is in the midst of rulemakings on that law.
  There are two conclusions I draw from the objections of the 
Republicans: First, even Republicans find Mr. von Spakovsky so 
objectionable that he would be defeated on a majority vote; and second, 
facing possible defeat for their own nominee, the Republicans would 
prefer to hold the remaining three unobjectionable nominees hostage and 
render the FEC unable to function in the next election.
  We have offered them a majority vote. We said: We will take a 
position, a majority vote on all three. They said: No, now we want 60. 
So the FEC will be unable to function during the next election.
  Both the New York Times and Washington Post recently editorialized 
about the absolutely critical importance of ensuring we have a 
functional FEC during a Presidential election that promises to bring 
record sums of money into our political system. Democrats agree. We are 
prepared to have a majority vote on each of the nominations. But this 
nominee has been controversial since the President recess-appointed him 
almost 2 years ago. That controversy stems from his well-documented 
work as a Justice Department lawyer in the Voting Rights Section.
  The Republicans say he is a person whose work on matters that 
suppress minority voting, such as voter ID and the Texas redistricting, 
has nothing to do with his responsibility at the FEC, which we feel 
bordered on illegality, if not being unethical. Work on matters to 
suppress minority voting has everything to do with the Federal Election 
Commission. So I take issue with their statements that it means 
nothing.
  The problem my colleagues and I have with him is that his prior work 
demonstrates that he is at least a partisan manipulator of our Federal 
election laws. That, it seems to me, is highly relevant to the advice-
and-consent duty the Constitution puts in our care as Senators, but 
that is a decision each Senator in this body should be permitted to 
make. We are not going to be able to do that. Republican action today 
prevents us from making it.
  Remember, a simple majority vote on their nominee, but they want 60 
votes on ours.
  It is important to note how we got here and the concessions that have 
been made on our side.
  His history, not surprisingly, led to a number of Senators on our 
side of the aisle, Democrats--we imposed a 60-vote threshold on the 
nomination. We originally wanted 60 votes on this nomination. On the 
other side of the aisle, Republicans demanded that the Senate only 
consider the nomination of the remaining three noncontroversial 
nominees if he was confirmed by the Senate. These two positions could 
not be further apart. In view of that impasse, I have long suggested 
that the White House withdraw his name and substitute a new name of the 
President's choosing. Despite this, the nomination has endured.
  As the days ran short in this session, my Democratic colleagues 
indicated to me that they would reconsider and allow a majority vote on 
each of the nominees. That resulted in my ability to make this offer to 
Republicans of a majority vote, and I thank my colleagues for their 
work with me in this regard. I appreciate very much that we could have 
a 50-vote margin on this controversial nomination and on the rest. That 
work should have meant that the FEC would continue to function. The 
Federal Election Commission will not be able to function. It should 
have meant that campaign finance laws would be enforced in the next 
election. It should have meant that the FEC would be able to complete 
its new binding rules as it relates to bundling, but it will not 
because Republicans have obstructed a vote on these nominees, including 
a vote on their own.
  The Republicans seek confirmation even though a majority of Senators 
may not support that nomination. That, it seems to me, is truly 
extraordinary.
  A lot has been said about the precedents of FEC appointments. A 
Republican Senator came out here yesterday and said there is precedent 
for this. Arguments made yesterday are that essentially FEC nominations 
always move as a package, always move together. But that is, of course, 
simply not true. It is true that FEC nominees have usually moved as 
pairs by unanimous consent, and that pairing of nominees is generally a 
rule on all boards and commissions: Here is a Republican, here is a 
Democrat; let's get it done. We do not need a lot of time on the floor. 
That is a fact, not by reason of precedent as much as by reason of 
necessity. Nomination pairing occurs because it gives both sides a 
reason to come to the table and confirm nominees.

  There are also cases of FEC nominees not moving together by unanimous 
consent. One recent case is that of former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith. 
Mr. Smith was very controversial on our side of the aisle and required 
a rollcall vote, which he got. He succeeded in winning confirmation.
  There are also cases I have known where a Republican President did 
not respect the Democratic selection of an FEC nominee. For example, 
President Reagan refused to send the Democratic selection of Tom Harris 
because the Republicans objected to his nomination.
  These different examples do show there is no single precedent about 
how nominations are handled. As is so often the case of nominations, a 
lot depends, as it should, on the actual identity of the nominee in 
question. I do think, however, that as a rule the offer of a majority 
vote on a nominee is presumptively fair. If the nominee is so 
controversial that he cannot win the support of a majority of Senators, 
the Constitution and the rules of this body dictate the appropriate 
outcome for that nominee.
  It is my hope that my colleagues on the other side will reconsider 
this position. I would hope this White House would reconsider their 
support for this controversial nomination. If they do not, the 
responsibility for a defunct FEC rests squarely on their shoulders.

                          ____________________