[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2361-S2362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Senate Rules on Nominations

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Rules Committee will mark up 
Senator Lankford's resolution tomorrow to change the rules on the 
consideration of nominees to benefit the Senate majority. Of course, 
the majority in the Senate can already approve of a nomination on a 
party-line vote for all nominees up to and including now the Supreme 
Court since Leader McConnell elected to change those rules last year.
  Why the need for further erosions to minority rights in the Senate? 
The Republicans argue it is because they are facing ``historic'' 
obstruction of the President's nominees.
  A few points on that: First and foremost, the truth is the Democrats 
have cooperated with the majority on noncontroversial nominees, like 
career ambassadorships and civil servants, for a long time now. Before 
each recess, there is a long list of names that is approved. Before the 
last recess, the Senate had confirmed nearly as many nominations in 
2018 as President Obama had confirmed in the analogous year of 2010. 
Let me repeat that. Before the last recess, the Senate had confirmed 
almost the exact same number of nominees in 2018 as President Obama had 
confirmed in 2010, the second year of his Presidency.
  So this idea that it is historic--bunk. You can tell it is bunk 
because at the same time our Republicans and even the President 
himself, on some days, complain about obstruction, on other days, the 
President and the Vice President are boasting about how many judges 
they have filled on the bench.
  This morning, President Trump said:

       We put [on] a tremendous amount of [Federal] district 
     [court] judges. We are setting records.

  I say to my Republican friends and the President: You can't have it 
both ways--on the one hand, historic obstruction and, on the other, a 
record pace of confirmations that you brag to your base about. You 
can't have it both ways. It is hypocrisy.
  A second point: The Republican majority has already taken brazen 
steps during this Congress to limit minority rights on nominations. I 
mentioned the leader breaking the rules on Supreme Court nominees. 
Let's not forget that he broke the rules after letting Merrick Garland 
sit there while not allowing a nomination. It takes a lot of gall to 
complain about obstruction when Leader McConnell opened the gates to 
obstruction--made obstruction his watchword--when he did what he did to 
Merrick Garland. He didn't stop. The Republicans have not stopped this 
year. The Republicans have engaged in hardball tactics at the district 
and circuit court levels.
  Here is what happened. Take the Republican seat that is vacant on the 
Seventh Circuit. Because Senator Leahy--then-chairman--and, later, 
Senators Hatch and, I believe, Grassley honored the blue slip, a seat 
in the Seventh Circuit that belongs to Wisconsin was held open for 6 
years by their refusing to approve two nominees by President Obama. Now 
the President has nominated a very conservative judge, Michael Brennan, 
who has failed to earn the recommendation of the bipartisan commission 
that is respected in Wisconsin and was set up by both Senators Baldwin 
and Johnson--one a Democrat, one a Republican--to recommend Federal 
nominees. Yet this administration has no known concern about the real 
qualifications of the judges as long as they meet the hard-right 
checklist.
  Despite the fact that Senator Baldwin has not returned a blue slip 
for Mr. Brennan, Chairman Grassley has moved him out of committee 
anyway. This is the second time Chairman Grassley has ignored the blue 
slip tradition. The blue slip tradition was faithfully honored by 
Senator Leahy when he was chairman. Our Republican colleagues have used 
it to an extent that, certainly, would be ``historic'' obstruction. For 
6 years, a seat was vacant on the circuit court, and it was not the 
only one that had had long-term vacancies. Now, all of a sudden, 
because the Democrats want to discuss this, mull this for a few days, 
Senator Lankford wants to change the rules. I know he only came to the 
Senate in 2014, but he ought to look a bit at the history before he 
gets into high dudgeon.
  The issue of nominations has been fraught, and it is true there have 
been escalations on both sides. I am the first to say that. Despite the 
rhetoric from the majority party, the Democrats have worked in good 
faith this year to clear noncontroversial nominations expeditiously. 
When nominees require vetting, the Senate should have the tools to 
consider them thoroughly because, clearly, this administration is not 
taking the task of vetting seriously.
  This is a final argument--and there are many good ones I would like 
to make. The Trump administration has done the worst job of vetting its 
nominees of any administration I can remember. It seems a slapdash 
process. It has had to withdraw the nominee for the Labor Department 
because he was not properly vetted; it has fired the Secretaries of 
HHS, State, and the VA; and it has faced a host of other controversies 
with staff and turnover. I dare say, if Mr. Pruitt had been properly 
vetted, he may not have been nominated given what we have found out.
  Now we hear that the new nominee for the VA Secretary--the 
President's personal doctor--is on hold because of some troubling 
allegations. How did he get through the process with all of these 
allegations not even having been made public? My guess--there was not 
proper vetting. I was not there, but it is speculative that, maybe, one 
day, the President, who we know acts on

[[Page S2362]]

impulse, had this nominee in the room--his doctor--and he said: Hey, 
let's put you up without any vetting.
  The President is putting forward nominees without appropriate 
vetting. It is our job to vet, and we will not be rushed through, 
particularly when this administration has had such a poor record of 
looking at the qualifications and the problems that each nominee has 
brought. More than ever, with this President, it is the Senate's job to 
advise and consent, not to be a rubberstamp. The rule change that is 
being proposed by Senator Lankford is totally unmerited, inadvisable, 
and lacks any knowledge of history of the Senate.
  You know, we are trying to return to some comity here. The omnibus 
bill was very good work among Speaker Ryan, Leader McConnell, Leader 
Pelosi, and me. We are going to meet in a little while to talk about 
doing the appropriations process in regular order and going back to the 
days when we did that, which I know our majority leader sincerely wants 
to do, as do I, as does Senator Shelby, as does Senator Leahy. 
Something like this--so partisan, so unfair, and so unacknowledging of 
the history that has come before--doesn't help the sense of comity in 
the Senate.
  I urge Republicans and Democrats alike on the Rules Committee to 
reject this terribly ill-advised proposal.