[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6781-S6783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, John Cornyn, Chuck
Grassley, Thom Tillis, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso,
Johnny Isakson, Roger F. Wicker, John Thune, Marco
Rubio, James Lankford, Richard Burr, Steve Daines, Mike
Crapo, John Boozman, James M. Inhofe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Scott L. Palk, of Oklahoma, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 250 Ex.]
YEAS--79
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
[[Page S6782]]
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Wicker
Young
NAYS--18
Blumenthal
Booker
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hirono
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Sanders
Schatz
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Heinrich
Leahy
Menendez
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are
18.
The motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Senate about the
nominee that is currently in front of this body and on whom we should
vote in the next few hours. We just finished a cloture vote to actually
start 30 hours of debate. In the past, we wouldn't have had 30 hours of
debate for a district court nominee, especially a district court
nominee like this. This would have been something that would have been
done by consent. We would have had a vote on this individual, rather
than burning up 30 hours of time in debate on a single individual who
just passed a cloture vote 79 to 18. This is not a controversial
nominee.
Let me introduce you to Scott Palk. Scott Palk was actually reported
out of the Judiciary Committee on June 15 of this year. He was
nominated by President Trump on May 8. He has been pending since June
15 to get a vote on this floor because of the ongoing delays for each
nominee as we go through the process.
Why do I say Scott Palk is not a controversial nominee? It is not
just the fact that he passed the cloture vote 79 to 18. Scott Palk, if
you remember his name in this body, was also a nominee of President
Obama for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
He is now a nominee of President Trump for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma.
There may be five things total that President Obama and President
Trump agree on. Scott Palk is one of those five. This is not a
controversial nominee, and he will be a great judge for us. He will
also be a great judge in Western Oklahoma.
He currently serves as the assistant dean for students and the
assistant general counsel at the University of Oklahoma College of Law
in Norman, OK, a position he has held since 2011. He has the strong
support of the president of the University of Oklahoma, who happens to
be former Senator David Boren, a Democratic Senator from this body, who
is now leading the University of Oklahoma and has done that with great
excellence for the past two decades. He is also strongly behind this
nominee as well.
Scott Palk joined the University of Oklahoma College of Law after 19
years of public service as a State and Federal prosecutor. He graduated
in 1992 from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, where he began
his legal career as a legal intern for the district attorney's office
of district 21, serving in Cleveland, Garvin, and McClain Counties.
After graduating and passing the bar, he became an assistant district
attorney for Cleveland County, where he prosecuted a variety of crimes
and death penalty cases. In 1994, he became the multicounty drug task
force coordinator, initiating and directing the district's first wire-
interception drug investigation and coordinating Federal and local
resources, culminating in the successful prosecution of a significant
multicounty methamphetamine distribution organization.
The Association of Oklahoma Narcotics Enforcers awarded him the
Prosecutor of the Year award in 1993. In 1992, he became the first
assistant district attorney for district 21 and served in a dual
prosecutorial and administrative role.
In 2002, he joined the U.S. attorney's office in the Western District
of Oklahoma, where we are pushing him to be a judge now, as an
assistant U.S. attorney, prosecuting violent crimes, gangs, and
domestic terrorism.
In 2004, he became the deputy criminal chief of the U.S. attorney's
office and served in the additional roles of violent crime, national
security coordinator, anti-terrorism, advisory council coordinator, and
crisis management coordinator.
That same year, in 2004, the Oklahoma Gang Investigators Association
awarded him the Prosecutor of the Year award. The Executive Office for
U.S. Attorneys awarded him the Director's Award for Superior
Performance.
In 2005, the Drug Enforcement Administration awarded him the
Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Contribution in the Field
of Drug Law Enforcement.
In his most recent role at the U.S. attorney's office, he supervised
administrative staff and assistant U.S. attorneys, handling a criminal
caseload primarily consisting of national security and organized crimes
and coordinating efforts with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, the
FBI foreign counterintelligence squad, and the National Security
Division of the Department of Justice.
His work in national security matters included both traditional
criminal investigations, as well as investigations utilizing provisions
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In 2011, the FBI awarded him the Director's Certificate of
Appreciation for Assistance to the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Scott Palk is eminently qualified for this task. He shouldn't be a
controversial nominee, and he should already be a judge. We are missing
three judges in the Western District of Oklahoma. President Trump
nominated him on May 8, and it is now the end of October when we can
finally get him to the floor to be able to move him.
This delay tactic, this stalling tactic that is out there, this
resist movement to try to prevent the President of the United States
from getting his staff in every agency and to prevent judges from being
able to actually go on the bench is delaying good people who are not
controversial to be able do the job that is needed in each district. He
is an individual who passed 79 to 18 on a cloture vote, and I am
confident we will not consume the next 30 hours of debate about him.
The hours will now expire as we sit in silence on the Senate floor,
waiting for us to be able to have a final vote--just delays.
I have made a proposal to my colleagues. It is not a radical
proposal. Quite frankly, it was a proposal in 2013, first proposed by a
Senator named Harry Reid: to be able to move the nominations time
period from 30 hours of just wasted time on the Senate floor to 2
hours--2 hours for district court, 2 hours for the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of whatever agency it may be, having 2 hours of debate. These
are for individuals who have already gone through committee, already
gone through extensive vetting, already moved to the floor, and who
most certainly will pass because it is a simple majority to be able to
move these individuals based on the change of rules that at that time
Senator Reid led.
Let's also do the same rule on time. Instead of 30 hours of wasted
time on the floor when we could do other things for the American
people, let's go back to the 2-hour agreement that we had in the past.
It was a simple rule of 2 hours for individuals like for district
courts and other individuals and agencies, 8 hours for higher tier
individuals, who may be for a circuit court and such, and 30 hours for
Cabinet officials.
I don't think that is an unreasonable request to make. It is a rule
that we have done in the past, and it is a rule that we need to go back
to. The American people are frustrated with the block in timing on
moving people, especially people with wide bipartisan support. No one
understands why someone who President Obama nominated and President
Trump nominated has to take up 30 hours of time on the floor on debate
when no one will really debate him and it is certain what the outcome
of these people will be.
The American people are expecting us to debate and to engage on
issues. I recommend again to this body: Let's go back to the Harry Reid
rule--2 hours of debate for individuals like this in district courts, 8
hours of debate for higher tiered courts, and 30 hours of debate for
Cabinet officials and the Supreme Court. We can do that again. We have
done that in the past, and I recommend that we move back to that, not
just for a single congressional body but as a change in the rules of
the Senate, so that, permanently, we are able to be more functional
again. A body that is
[[Page S6783]]
dysfunctional can be fixed by its own Members, moving us to a
functional set of rules. That is what I hope we would achieve in the
days ahead.
I look forward to voting for Scott Palk, whenever we finish with a
30-hour clock of time--of wasted time--to be able to move on a nominee
and to see wide bipartisan support again for a good nominee. Scott is
going to do a great job on the bench. We need him there to be able to
get started.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.