[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S125-S126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 3) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026.

  Pending:

       Enzi (for Paul) amendment No. 1, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Sanders amendment No. 19, relative to Social Security, 
     Medicare, and Medicaid.
       Sanders (for Hirono/Donnelly) amendment No. 20, to protect 
     the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Nominations

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last week, I expressed my sincere hope 
that the majority leader and I could come to some agreement on the 
process of nominations. He has negotiated in good faith, and we have 
made some progress. I sincerely appreciate his willingness to work with 
us so far. I do want to clarify why Democrats are doing this.
  Yesterday, my friend the majority leader went on television and 
suggested that we were raising concerns about the nominations out of 
pique or anger. He chalked up these ``little procedural complaints'' to 
``sour grapes,'' and he suggested that Democrats ``grow up.''
  We are not doing this for sport. Democrats feel very strongly that 
pushing for a thorough and thoughtful vetting process is the right 
thing to do. Here is why. The Democratic minority was and is concerned 
about the hearing schedule, which is so jammed right now that several 
high-importance hearings will fall on the same day, depriving Senators 
and the American people a chance to properly participate in the vetting 
process of these nominees.
  Our caucus was and is concerned about the timely completion of the 
standard paperwork and ethics clearance for nominees before proceeding 
full steam ahead with confirmation hearings and votes. Bear in mind, 
President-Elect Trump's nominees pose particularly difficult ethics and 
conflict-of-interest challenges. Many of them come from enormous 
wealth. Many have vast holdings in stocks, and very few have experience 
in government so they have not been appropriately vetted for something 
like a Cabinet post before.
  What had been standard practice for the vast majority of nominees--
the completion of a preliminary ethics review before their nomination--
was skipped over for the vast majority of President-Elect Trump's 
nominees. In fact, the independent Office of Government Ethics went so 
far as to send a letter warning that ``their [the Republicans] schedule 
has created undue pressure on OGE's staff and agency ethics officials 
to rush through these important reviews.''
  The OGE office is nonpartisan. It has never been political so this 
has nothing to do with politics. ``I am not aware,'' wrote the 
Director, Walter Schaub, ``of any occasion in the four decades since 
OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before 
the nominee had completed the ethics review process.''
  The very same majority leader, my friend Senator McConnell, who 
suggested that Democrats were raising concerns out of pique or 
resentment, in fact, raised the same concerns in 2009 when he was 
minority leader. In fact, then-Minority Leader McConnell sent then-
Majority Leader Reid a letter laying out his prerequisites for time 
agreements on the floor for President Obama's nominees. They are almost 
exactly what Democrats requested.
  I don't bring this up to play gotcha. I am doing it to show that our 
requests are eminently reasonable and, in fact,

[[Page S126]]

have been shared by leaders of both parties. I am going to read the 
letter because it is amazing how it mirrors our requests. It was sent 
to Harry Reid from Mitch McConnell in 2009, just as President Obama 
became President.

       Dear Harry:
       The Senate has the Constitutional duty to provide its 
     Advice and Consent on Presidential nominations, a duty which 
     we take seriously. In consultation with our Ranking Members, 
     we reaffirm our commitment to conduct the appropriate review 
     of these nominations, consistent with the long standing and 
     best practices of committees, regardless of which political 
     party is in the majority. These best practices serve the 
     Senate well, and we will insist on their fair and consistent 
     application.
       Therefore, prior to considering any time agreements on the 
     floor on any nominee, we expect the following standards will 
     be met:
       1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to 
     the committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being 
     noticed.
       2. The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and 
     submitted in time for review and prior to a committee 
     hearing.
       3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for 
     applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the 
     committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
       4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been 
     returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for 
     follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and 
     nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior 
     to a committee vote.
       5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff 
     interviews, where that has been the practice.
       6. The nominee has had a hearing.
       7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when 
     requested.
       8. The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking 
     Member on requests for information and transparency.
       There will be additional requirements, honoring the 
     traditions of the Senate, for judicial nominees. These common 
     sense standards and long standing practices will ensure that 
     the Senate has had the opportunity to fairly review a 
     nominee's record and to make an informed decision prior to a 
     vote.
       Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
                                                Republican Leader.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                                February 12, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Harry: The Senate has the Constitutional duty to 
     provide its Advice and Consent on Presidential nominations, a 
     duty which we take seriously. In consultation with our 
     Ranking Members, we reaffirm our commitment to conduct the 
     appropriate review of these nominations, consistent with the 
     long standing and best practices of committees, regardless of 
     which political party is in the majority. These best 
     practices serve the Senate well, and we will insist on their 
     fair and consistent application.
       Therefore, prior to considering any time agreements on the 
     floor on any nominee, we expect the following standards will 
     be met:
       1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to 
     the committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being 
     noticed.
       2. The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and 
     submitted to the committee in time for review and prior to a 
     committee hearing.
       3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for 
     applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the 
     committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed.
       4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been 
     returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for 
     follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and 
     nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior 
     to a committee vote.
       5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff 
     interviews, where that has been the practice.
       6. The nominee has had a hearing.
       7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when 
     requested.
       8. The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking 
     Member on requests for information and transparency.
       There will be additional requirements, honoring the 
     traditions of the Senate, for judicial nominees. These common 
     sense standards and long standing practices will ensure that 
     the Senate has had the opportunity to fairly review a 
     nominee's record and to make an informed decision prior to a 
     vote.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
                                                Republican Leader.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I plan to return the exact same letter to 
my friend, the majority leader, with the same requests. In 2009, the 
then-minority leader called these benchmarks ``common sense standards'' 
and ``long standing practices.''
  I agree with him. These standards do not indicate a lack of maturity. 
They show an abundance of common sense, just as his letter said. I 
remind the majority that several, if not most, of the nominees have 
actually failed to meet the qualifications laid out by this letter 
given the hearing schedule.
  The majority leader is fond of mentioning that many Obama nominees 
passed quickly in 2009 and he asks that we do the same, but there is a 
big difference between 2009 and today. President Obama's nominees met 
all the standards laid out in then-Minority Leader McConnell's letter. 
President-Elect Trump's nominees have not.
  In 2009, 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. 
President-Elect Trump's nominees are way behind that mark.
  I only ask, respectfully, that the Republican majority follow the 
same set of standards they had in 2009 when the shoe was on the other 
foot, especially because these nominees raise particular concerns. The 
standards we have laid out as leaders of both parties address conflict 
of interest and security concerns.

  Of course, those are prime concerns, but there is another concern as 
well. These nominees have, even collectively, very little experience or 
record in government. Many of them have taken positions quite different 
from the President-elect. They need to be thoroughly vetted, not just 
before the U.S. Senate but before the American people. If, for 
instance, Representative Price is for the privatization of Social 
Security, but President-Elect Trump said he is not, what position is 
nominee Price going to take? Jamming all these hearings into 1 or 2 
days, making members run from committee to committee makes no sense. 
After all, these nominees are going to hold incredibly powerful 
positions for potentially the next 4 years. To spend an extra day or 
two on each nominee, even if it takes a few weeks to get through them 
all in order to carefully consider their nominations, is well worth it. 
It is only fair that they are given a thorough and thoughtful vetting 
and they abide by the ``long standing'' ethics practices that were 
established--and laid out quite clearly by the majority leader 
himself--to ensure Cabinet officials were in good standing to work on 
behalf of the American people.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________