[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 182 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9089-S9090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first I wish to thank my colleagues from 
New Hampshire and South Carolina.
  There is at least an opportunity or a tradition at the end of a 
calendar year that we take the nominations pending in the Senate, both 
in committee and on the calendar, and literally return them to the 
White House. That means that in the beginning of the next year, we 
start over. It may mean a hearing, it may mean postponement, but we 
lose all we have achieved up to this point. We absolutely have to start 
over. I would argue at this point that we seriously consider changing 
that tradition, and I will make a unanimous consent request to change 
it.
  There are some 238 total nominees who are at issue here. Eighty-three 
are on the Executive Calendar and 155 are pending in committee--
nominations sent by the White House to Capitol Hill which have either 
been lost--not lost in committee but held in committee--or sent to the 
calendar. Of the group I have just mentioned, of the 238, 47 are 
judicial nominations, 36 are Ambassadors--and I have read through the 
list of countries here and they range from some of the smaller ones to 
larger countries as well--and 86 are nominees to Cabinet-level 
agencies. So it is a wide spectrum of appointments that have been sent 
for Senate consideration to Capitol Hill.
  We are embroiled in an internal debate about the rules of the Senate 
concerning the filibuster and nominations. It is one that has not been 
resolved to the satisfaction of either side of the aisle, but we have 
labored through it over the last several weeks and will when we return.
  I am going to make a unanimous consent request that those 
nominations--all of them; the military nominations as well as others--
be held here on the calendar and in committee and not be returned to 
the White House, thereby requiring we repeat everything we have done in 
this previous year. We don't get high marks at the end of this year for 
our legislative performance, and to throw aside all of the effort that 
has been put into these nominees and require the White House to start 
over is literally a waste of time and unfortunate for these nominees, 
many of whom have been waiting for a long period of time for 
consideration and a vote by the Senate.
  This is a chance, with this unanimous consent request, to get the 
next year off to a good start, where we can take what has been done 
with nominees, use it, take those nominations that are on the calendar, 
move forward; they will still be subject to an up-or-down vote. The 
Senate has to work its will, and that will not be compromised at all by 
the unanimous consent request I am making, but I am hoping we can get 
it through so that when we return on January 6, we will have an 
opportunity to move with a little more dispatch and a little more 
productivity in the Senate.
  As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that all nominations 
received by the Senate during the 113th Congress, first session, remain 
in status quo, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXXI, paragraph 
6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Reserving the right to object, to my good friend 
from Illinois, all I can say is that the normal way the Senate has 
operated for a couple of hundred years has been destroyed this year, 
and asking that normalcy come about now is beyond the pale, but we are 
where we are. So I object.
  However, I urge the Senate to act to confirm the many military 
nominations pending for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. So 
I object, with that understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand we are at a point of great 
emotions and feelings, stress in the Senate over the change in the 
rules about the use of the filibuster in the Senate. Unfortunately, it 
appears that we are going to stay in that state for at least a short 
period of time, and I am not holding my colleague from South Carolina 
accountable for that. I believe what he has done is reflect the 
feelings on that side of the aisle, not just his personal feelings. 
However, I believe he has made a valuable suggestion.

[[Page S9090]]



                          ____________________