[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S75]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CABINET NOMINATIONS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have another subject I wish to talk 
about, and maybe this one will be a little more constructive right now 
in terms of my Republican leader's response because he and I yesterday 
had a constructive meeting on the matter of processing the President-
elect's nominations to the Cabinet. We are still working out several 
details, but on this issue I want to express my appreciation for the 
majority leader's willingness to have a dialogue and work in good faith 
toward a process both sides of the aisle can live with.
  Our caucus thinks it is absolutely essential that the Senate has a 
chance to appropriately vet the nominees, and the American people 
deserve to hear their views and qualifications in public hearings, 
especially for the most powerful Cabinet positions. We all know Cabinet 
officials have enormous power and influence over the lives of everyday 
Americans. They run massive government agencies that do the actual work 
of implementing our laws, keeping our Nation safe from terrorism, 
protecting the environment and civil rights, promoting clean energy and 
affordable housing--on and on. Every facet of public life is governed 
by a very powerful Cabinet official.
  It is only right that we in the Senate--and by extension the American 
people--get to thoroughly vet their baseline acceptability for these 
jobs. That means getting their financial records to make sure they 
don't come into public office with standing conflicts of interest, and 
if potential conflicts of interest are found, making sure they have a 
plan to divest the assets in question, making sure the FBI has had the 
time to complete a full background check. It means making sure the 
independent ethics officers of each agency can sign off on them.
  All of these benchmarks are standard protocol. All were done by about 
this time 8 years ago by the Obama administration. They are not onerous 
requirements. They are necessary requirements to prevent conflicts of 
interest.
  I remind my colleagues again, every Obama Cabinet nominee had an 
ethics agreement in before their hearing. Every Obama Cabinet nominee 
underwent a full FBI background check before the Senate considered 
their nomination. For such positions of influence in our government, it 
is the responsibility of the Senate to guarantee that we have all the 
information we need on each nominee and in a timely fashion.
  Truth be told, the slate of nominations selected by President-Elect 
Trump has made this process--standard for nominees of Presidents of 
both parties--immensely difficult. There are several nominees who have 
enormous wealth and own stock of enormous value. We have a CEO of one 
of the largest oil companies in the world, a billionaire financial 
services executive financier--oh, and another billionaire financial 
services executive.
  Leaving aside for a moment what that says about the President-elect's 
priorities for his incoming administration, these nominees have 
potential conflict of interest challenges of epic proportions. At the 
very least--at the very least--they owe the American people the 
standard paperwork, and in fact we believe many of these nominees, 
given their financial holdings, should go one step further and provide 
their tax returns.
  The minority only has ethics agreements in for four of the nominees 
so far. We only have financial disclosure forms from four of the 
nominees so far. We only have tax returns for four of the nominees so 
far. None of our committees has been notified that any nominees' FBI 
background check has been fully completed. Briefings have started, but 
they are far from complete.
  As I said earlier, I hope the majority leader and I can work out an 
arrangement that works for both of our caucuses to process these 
nominees in a fair but thorough fashion. It certainly shouldn't be the 
case, as seems to be planned now, that six hearings--several on very 
important nominees--all occur on the same day and on the same day as a 
potential vote-arama. That is mostly unprecedented in the modern era of 
Cabinet considerations, happening only once in history. That is not the 
standard, but right now that is the case on January 11.
  There are Members who sit on multiple committees. One of our Members 
chairs one of the committees, Judiciary, but has been very active on 
the Intelligence Committee--both nominees in a single day. That is 
unfair, not only to her, with her great knowledge, but to the American 
people. Each member deserves plenty of time to question each nominee, 
and if questions remain, they should be brought back for a second day 
of hearings.
  After all, they are going to hold incredibly powerful positions for 
potentially the next 4 years. To spend an extra day or two on each 
nominee, if it takes a few weeks, several weeks, to get through them 
all in order to carefully consider their nominations, that is certainly 
worth it to the American people and, I would argue, to the new 
administration.
  I have made these points to the majority leader, and I must say he 
has respectfully listened. I am hopeful we can find an agreement that 
alleviates the crunch and gives Senators and committees the opportunity 
to process these nominations with the proper care and oversight, with 
all of the proper paperwork in place, thoughtfully and thoroughly.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________