[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1502-S1505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Proposed Rules Change
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today on the
floor by my colleagues to discuss the unprecedented levels of
obstruction aimed at President Trump's nominees. This issue plagued the
115th Congress, and it is one I am hopeful we can remedy moving forward
in this new session.
The Senate is tasked with the critical role of providing advice and
consent on many of the President's nominations, including executive
branch officials and Federal judges. Vetting these officials is a task
that I take extremely seriously, and I have often welcomed discussion
regarding these critical appointments with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle, as well as my constituents.
We can all agree that these positions must be filled by our Nation's
most qualified candidates, individuals who are committed to public
service and upholding the values and principles that make our Nation so
great. We should also be able to agree that these positions should be
filled using an expedient and timely process.
As any Iowa small business owner can tell you, if you don't have
employees, you can't function. Iowans and many others across this
Nation expect the Federal Government to run on the same commonsense
principle.
The recent levels of obstruction for the President's nominees have
not only kept the executive branch and our Federal courts from staffing
critical positions but have also prevented the Senate from moving
forward on other critical legislative priorities and initiatives.
In the past, the Senate has been able to disagree on certain
nominations and still move forward in a respectful and expedient manner
to ensure that the Federal Government operates efficiently. However,
during President Trump's first Congress, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have utilized a series of procedural tactics to eat
up time on the Senate floor and to stall the President's nominees.
To put this in perspective, during President George W. Bush's first
Congress, the Senate forced a cloture vote on nominations only 4 times.
That was during President Bush's first Congress. So it was 4 times.
During President Clinton's first Congress, this increased to a mere 8
cloture votes--8 cloture votes for Clinton.
During President Obama's first Congress, the use of this tactic still
remained minimal, with only 12 cloture votes on nominations. So it was
Bush, 4; Clinton, 8; and President Obama, 12.
Compare that to the use of cloture votes during the 115th Congress.
My Democratic colleagues forced cloture votes 128 times--128 times.
That is 10 times more often than during President Obama's first
Congress.
Despite that President Trump submitted nearly the same number of
nominees as President Obama, 29 percent more Obama nominees than Trump
nominees were confirmed during each President's respective first
Congress. Yet these delays have often not been used to raise objections
to controversial or unqualified nominees. That is just not the case.
In fact, nearly half of all recorded cloture votes--48 percent, to be
exact--received 60 or more votes to end debate. Furthermore, nearly a
third received 70 or more votes to end debate. These nominees were
confirmed with widespread bipartisan support.
Cloture was not invoked in order to extensively debate the merits or
the qualifications of those candidates. Instead, this procedural tactic
has been used to run down the clock and prevent the Senate from moving
forward with other important business.
Many nominees from my home State of Iowa have been fortunate enough
to escape some of these political games. I was proud to see the Senate
reach an agreement in September to move forward and confirm Judge C.J.
Williams to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
by a 79-to-12 vote. I am also glad that multiple U.S. marshals and U.S.
attorneys have been able to fill critical Federal law enforcement
positions in Iowa after being confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate.
However, while many of these positions have been filled back in my
home State, Iowans are still greatly harmed when the Senate fails to
efficiently fill executive branch positions whose duties do impact the
entire Nation.
Furthermore, many States across our Nation have faced unnecessary
challenges to filling critical positions after cloture was invoked for
noncontroversial nominees.
Take a State like Alabama, for example. Judge Annemarie Carney Axon
received bipartisan support from both
[[Page S1503]]
of her home State Senators for her nomination to serve on the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. However, Democrats
forced a cloture vote on her nomination before confirming her by a vote
of 83 to 11.
Similarly, Judge Terry Doughty was confirmed to be a judge on the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana by a 98-to-0
vote after a forced cloture vote.
These are not isolated examples. Just last year, multiple district
judge nominees in Kentucky and Texas received the support of more than
90 Senators, but only after their nomination was first stalled, again,
by an unnecessary cloture vote.
We cannot continue to allow the Senate to be bogged down by
unprecedented obstruction tactics. The American people expect and
deserve a fully functioning government with the right personnel in
place.
That is why I want to thank Leader McConnell for continuing to make
nominations such a priority and managing to confirm so many Federal
judges, despite these tactics. I also thank my colleagues, Senators
Blunt and Lankford, for introducing a proposal that accelerates the
nomination process for lower level nominees.
This commonsense proposal builds on the previous Reid-Schumer rule
affecting Senate considerations of Obama nominees during the 113th
Congress--a rule that garnered widespread bipartisan support, including
the agreement of 35 of my Democratic colleagues who still serve in the
Senate today.
I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable proposal that enables
us to move forward in a timely manner while still encouraging input and
debate on those candidates. It is time for the Senate to put a halt to
these delay tactics and get back to fulfilling our commitments to the
American people. Again, I urge support of the proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, maybe the fastest way to put people to
sleep is to give a speech on cloture here in the Senate, but I hope
that is not the case, because, as my colleague from Iowa just pointed
out, this is an abuse of the Senate rules to do nothing but to obstruct
and to slow down President Trump's well-qualified nominees for
important positions.
This is not about their qualifications. This is not about exercising
the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. In virtually
every instance in which the clock has been burned to get to an eventual
vote, these largely noncontroversial nominees have been confirmed
overwhelmingly.
Call it part of the ``Trump derangement'' syndrome or the ``never
Trump'' effort. It is very clear to me that rather than take these
nominees one at a time, treat them fairly, assess their qualifications,
and vote on their nomination, these people are being delayed and denied
an opportunity to serve, and many of them have just simply given up
because of the backlog of nominations. It is unfair to them, it is
unfair to this administration, and it is completely an abuse of the
Senate rules.
We know that our Democratic colleagues have unnecessarily blocked
nominees, put them through the ringer in hearings, and, in one
particular case--the Kavanaugh nomination--engaged in an all-out smear
campaign.
This treatment has grabbed headlines, but the story that doesn't get
much attention is what I want to talk about now--this practice of
eating up time on the floor, using every second of the rules to
essentially eliminate the possibility that we can take up other
bipartisan legislation or consider these nominees on any sort of
efficient and effective basis.
As a result of the work, these nominees are being denied an
opportunity to serve, the floor is being occupied by nominations that
are uncontroversial, and we are unable to get to other important work
that the American people want us to do.
Now, it is true that the Senate is not known for speed, and, more
often than not, there is a good reason. When we are appropriating
taxpayer dollars or debating sanctions on hostile governments or
negotiating changes to our healthcare system, speed is not always an
asset.
But when it comes to confirming nominees--those who already have had
a hearing, who aren't controversial, who have already received a vote
in committee--the process should be able to move rather quickly and
efficiently.
But, as I said, this is part of a concerted effort to undermine the
Trump administration, to deny them the appointees necessary for them to
conduct the Nation's business, and, in many instances, these are
Ambassadors who should be representing the United States of America in
foreign countries where it is important we maintain good communication
with those other countries.
Over the last 2 years, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have forced votes on nominees who in previous years would have sailed
through the Senate.
Let's look at some of these numbers. You can see how much red there
is on this chart--cloture votes in the first Congress. President Trump
had 128 cloture votes, President Obama had 12, President Bush had 4,
and President Clinton had 8. What that means is that, for example, in
the Clinton administration, there were 120 nominees who were confirmed
without the necessity of even going through the procedure of cloture.
Frequently, these nominees are either passed by voice vote or unanimous
consent or at some agreed upon time. Even fewer required a cloture vote
under President George W. Bush. There were 12 under President Obama and
128 under President Trump. If we were to continue down this same path,
we would not be able to do anything else except consider nominations by
this President, and we still wouldn't get to the end of the list.
Our Democratic colleagues don't want to hold votes on these nominees
to support or oppose a nomination; they simply want to waste the
Senate's time and to test the patience of the American people. The
majority of these nominees, as I said, aren't controversial. Nearly
half received the support of 60 or more Senators during the cloture
vote, and more than one-third got 70-plus votes.
As I said, the delay and obstruction have led to a long list of
vacancies across every Department and Agency. Critical leadership
positions have gone unfulfilled while the nominees await confirmation
votes from the Senate. As I said, many have simply given up, unwilling
to accept any more disruption in their personal lives in the vain hope
that perhaps someday, somehow, they will get a vote in the Senate. This
list includes Ambassadors, Federal judges, Under Secretaries, Assistant
Secretaries, and inspectors general. The list continues to grow while
our Democratic colleagues insist on votes that will not change the
outcome.
It is one thing to have a nominee whose qualifications are
controversial or where a debate would enlighten the Members of the
Senate on how best to cast their vote, but that is not what is
happening here.
Despite our repeated pleas for Democrats to cooperate, things aren't
going to change. That is why the rules change we are contemplating is
so important. It would expedite the process for many nominees to
receive a vote on the floor. It won't change the number of votes they
need to get confirmed--they will still need to get a majority of
votes--or tilt the scale in their favor in any way; it will simply make
sure we are not wasting time that is not being used in order to delay
or defeat nominations.
Ironically, we have been told by our Senate colleagues on the other
side that if we were to pass a rule limiting the postcloture time to 2
hours and we would start it in 2021, at the end of President Trump's
current term of office, they would vote for it. So this is really an
unprincipled and nakedly partisan approach, because while they are
willing to do it for the next President--and that could well be a
second Trump term, or it could well be another President--they won't do
it now, which demonstrates the hypocrisy they are exhibiting.
What would happen is, a nominee would get a hearing in front of the
appropriate committee. That would be debated, and there would be a vote
up or down. If the nominee was passed out of the committee and made
available to come to the floor, the Senate majority leader could still
file a paper asking for a cloture vote. If that was obtained, then the
postcloture time would be reduced from 30 hours to 2 hours. In the
[[Page S1504]]
meantime, there would be an intervening day during which debate would
occur. Every Senator would still enjoy the right to vote against any
nominee they don't support, but to just burn time for time's sake is an
abuse of the Senate rules and needs to stop. It is not just hurting
these nominees; it is not just hurting the Senate; it is hurting the
country. These Ambassadors, judges, and appointed officials who serve
in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the inspectors
general who make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent legally and
efficiently and that people are doing their jobs--none of those
positions are able to be filled.
I would point out that this rule change does not apply to all
nominees. High-level Cabinet positions and Supreme Court Justices would
still receive the 30 hours of debate time after 51 Senators have voted
to proceed to that vote.
It is important to note that this type of rules change isn't new.
Actually, in 2013, there was a negotiated, bipartisan standing rule
when Majority Leader Harry Reid and the current Democratic leader,
Chuck Schumer, introduced a similar change to speed up the process, and
this simply builds on the foundation they laid down. So if we asked
them to do now what was done then on a bipartisan basis, their answer
will be no--for no good reason other than it is President Trump who
would presumably benefit from this restoration of that same process.
As I said, the real hypocrisy of their position is indicated by the
fact that they said they would vote for this rule, but they don't want
it to take effect now. They want it to take effect in 2021. In short,
they appear to believe that what we are trying to do is an important
rules change to make, but they don't want to do it if it benefits a
President they clearly despise.
This political theater is being orchestrated by Senate Democrats and
is impacting our ability to carry out our constitutional duty of advice
and consent. I believe this is a necessary step to get the Senate back
on track, and I will support this rules change when it comes to the
floor for a vote and would encourage all of my colleagues to do the
same.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today as one of a number of our
colleagues to talk about something that really bothers me. We are
seeing historic obstructionism in the Senate today. It has been going
on for the last 2 years.
One of the fundamental responsibilities in the Senate is to provide
advice and consent on Presidential nominations. When President Trump
took office, he acted with urgency to fill positions in his
administration with highly qualified and highly skilled, experienced
individuals from the real world--not just people from the bubble but
people from America. Unfortunately, Democrats have slow-walked this
confirmation process every step of the way. In my view, this is
historic obstructionism, and it needs to stop.
This is the first time in U.S. history that the minority party has
not waived the 30-hour debate rule to this degree. As a result, of the
1,200 nominees to be confirmed by any new President, only 714 have been
confirmed to date. At the end of last year, because of this historic
Democratic obstructionism, we had 386 nominations in line waiting to be
confirmed. At the end of Obama's first 2 years, only 5 nominees were
outstanding, compared to the 386 for President Trump at the end of last
year.
Let me say that again. At the end of President Obama's first 2 years,
only five nominees had not been confirmed. That means that out of
everybody he sent to the Senate, only five at that point had not been
confirmed. However, at the end of December this past year, President
Trump still had 386 nominees in the pipeline right here in the U.S.
Senate, waiting for us to get to them.
Of the last three Presidents, we have collectively only had 24
cloture votes required by the minority party--only 24. However, during
President Trump's first 2 years, Democrats forced 128 cloture votes on
nominees on the Senate floor. Each one of these cloture votes requires
30 hours of debate. We can't do anything else on the floor while we are
doing that. That means the normal business of the Senate cannot be
transacted because we are waiting, due to the 30-hour debate rule, to
get to the vote. Basically, under those realities, the Senate is able
to do only one confirmation per week. Do the math--386 weeks is a long
time.
What is going on here has nothing to do with the nominees'
qualifications, either. Every single one of Donald Trump's nominees who
received a recorded vote was passed. Not one has failed to pass in this
body--not one. The vast majority of these nominees are noncontroversial
and get more than 70 or 80 votes and in some cases more than that.
This chart shows that of the cloture votes we have had to take, 48
percent got more than 60 votes, and 37 percent got more than 70. That
means 70 percent of the nominees got more than 60 votes. These are not
controversial nominees. That is not the issue.
My own cousin, who is now Secretary of Agriculture, waited 4 months.
I know this personally because he bunked in my place for 4 months while
we were waiting to get his confirmation. When he finally got to the
floor of the Senate, he got 87 votes.
It is clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to obstruct the
Senate from working on real issues. Every hour we have to spend in the
30-hour waiting period is time we can't utilize to take up the
country's business and the priorities Americans want us to be working
on. If this obstruction continues, President Trump will not have his
full team in place until the end of his second term.
These delays are petty, and the American people have had enough. I
hear about it every time I go home.
For the last 2 years, several of my colleagues and I have pushed to
keep the Senate in session during the traditional August State work
break in order to confirm nominees and make progress on funding the
Federal Government. In August of 2017, the leader of the majority
party, Senator McConnell, agreed to keep us here for the month of
August in order to work on several things we were working on, including
confirming these nominees. The minority party agreed, after 4 days, to
basically confirm 77 nominees on that one day. What makes that
important is that prior to that time in August, in all of that year, we
had only been able to get 44 nominees confirmed. While staying here
last August, in 2018, we confirmed 43 nominees and completed 75 percent
of the government funding bills.
As I speak today, there are 249 nominees before the U.S. Senate
waiting to be confirmed. Basically, that would require 249 weeks to do
if we follow the rule we have been following over the last 2 years.
These nominees include the Assistant Secretary of Readiness for the
Department of Defense, who has been waiting to be confirmed for 8
months. This is in the Department of Defense, the Assistant Secretary
for Readiness--one of the crisis areas we have in our military. For 8
months this nominee has been waiting to be confirmed. The Under
Secretary for Food Safety in the Department of Agriculture--one I hear
a lot about--has been waiting 9 months in line to be confirmed.
The people on the other side are saying: The President is just not
sending up nominees fast enough.
Well, what happens with these folks who have been sitting here for 9
months waiting to be confirmed?
The Assistant Secretary for Economic Development at the Department of
Commerce has been waiting to be confirmed for 8 months.
These are not low-level nominees; these are Assistant Secretaries who
are waiting to be confirmed.
This has to stop. This President is not even able to form his own
Cabinet in complete terms because these Assistant Secretaries are not
in place. We should be working around-the-clock to get these people
confirmed.
If this obstructionism continues, we should try to change the
existing rules for confirming nominees by reducing the 30-hour debate
rule at minimum. There is a plan in the Senate right now that would
reduce the 30 hours of debate to 8 hours for most and 2 hours for
[[Page S1505]]
some. Reducing the debate time required would speed up the confirmation
process and allow us to focus on other business in the Senate that
people want us to address. Every single Democrat in the Senate today
who was also here in 2013 supported reducing debate time on nominees,
and they should do so again right now.
I will close by saying that despite this historic obstructionism, the
Senate has, indeed, over the last 2 years--because we focused on this
as a priority, even with this 30-hour debate rule being enacted--we
confirmed 63 district court judges, 31 circuit court of appeals
justices, and two Supreme Court Justices. These judges will have an
impact on the judiciary for years to come.
By the way, these are not activists with political agendas or
motives. They are accomplished, experienced jurists, dedicated to
upholding the Constitution and adhering to the rule of law. It is
criminal that we waited that long to get these people confirmed.
I applaud the President for nominating such outstanding individuals
to these positions. If this historic obstructionism continues in the
Senate, I believe President Trump will not have his full team in place
until the end of his second term, if then. This obstruction needs to
end. The resistance movement threatens the security of our country and
our ability to deal with the problems facing America today. It is time
to rise above this partisan gridlock, change the rules, confirm these
nominees, and finally begin to get results for the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
IRS and tax issues and the tax bill last year, but following on what
Senator Perdue said, I want to, first of all, compliment him for not
only this speech but several times he has talked about how the Senate
has stalled time after time on nominees.
I want to bring to my colleagues' attention that at one time, there
was a lot of concern by President Obama that his nominees were not
being confirmed fast enough. We started hearing that in January 2013.
All of a sudden, there was a feeling that we ought to have a bipartisan
solution to this issue to speed along President Obama's nominees. At
one time, the Democratic leader then was talking about using a nuclear
option to accomplish a change in rules. Both Republicans and Democrats
thought that wasn't a very good idea, so Republicans and Democrats got
together and agreed to reduce postcloture debate time for the rest of
the 113th Congress, although, before that Congress ended, Senator Reid
decided to use the nuclear option anyway, and he did that at a later
time.
If Republicans and Democrats could get together in the 113th Congress
to speed up the time and have less postcloture debate time, why can't
we do it now? The problem, of course, is for the Trump nominees being
held up in the Senate, the time is far worse than it was under
President Obama or, for that matter, any other President before that.
It seems to me, as we are talking about changing the post-debate time
again--because there is a resolution out of our Rules Committee--I
think it is about time that we think that what is good for the goose is
good for the gander, and we ought to reinstate that bipartisan
agreement. I hope we can get the support of Democrats to do that like
they had the support of Republicans to do that when we had a Democratic
President.
I thank Senator Perdue for what he spoke about on a longer basis than
I just did, but I want to back him up fully.