[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 134 (Saturday, August 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5492-S5493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Nominations

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, it is 2:20 on Saturday afternoon, not a 
usual time for the Senate to be in business, especially leading into 
the August State work period when Senators are home meeting with their 
constituents, hearing their concerns, sharing news about what was 
worked on. So you can say it is unusual, for sure, that we are here.
  I want to take a brief trip down memory lane to explain why we are 
here for the benefit of Senators, especially Senators who haven't been 
here until recently, and for the benefit of our friends who are 
visiting in the Gallery.
  We are here for one reason. We are here because of the actions of one 
man: Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader. We are here voting, as you 
have probably seen and wondered about, on a series of nominees. These 
are not household names. For some of you, you may not even have known 
the job existed. No offense. I am sure it is important to them and 
their parents.
  But for over 200 years, these kind of nominees didn't get a vote on a 
procedural question and then 2 hours of debate and then another vote on 
confirmation; they were voice-voted or they were adopted by what is 
called unanimous consent of the Senate--for over 200 years.
  You can see the evidence here in front of me on this chart. This is 
the percentage of civilian nominees who have been confirmed by voice 
vote or by unanimous consent going back to George Bush 41 and to the 
day of President Trump's second term, through about the first 6 months 
of the administration.
  George Bush 41: 98 percent. Bill Clinton. Some people thought Bill 
Clinton's Presidency started at a more polarized time of politics. 
Nope. Ninety-eight percent for Bill Clinton as well. George W. Bush, 
Bush 43: Well, it is a 5X increase in the number of record votes we 
needed but still 90 percent.
  I would note that Senator Schumer was elected in 1998. So he showed 
up here about 2 years before George W. Bush did.
  Obama--despite the treatment of George W. Bush by the Democratic 
Senators--stayed steady, 90 percent. Ninety percent of all of Barack 
Obama's nominees through his first 6 months were confirmed by voice 
vote or unanimous consent.
  Look at this huge drop here--from 90 percent with Barack Obama to not 
even two-thirds for Donald Trump in his first term.
  And yes, it does decline by another 8 percent to Joe Biden. As is 
often said, what goes around comes around. The shoe will be on the 
other foot, and you might not like how it feels.
  But look now at the unprecedented break from the customs of the 
Senate under these Senate Democrats and Chuck Schumer: from 57 percent 
to zero--zero--not a single one. Not a single nominee of Donald Trump's 
has been confirmed by voice vote or by unanimous consent in the first 
6-plus months of his administration--a totally unprecedented blockade.
  And we are not talking about the Secretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of the Treasury. Again, we are talking about jobs like the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the SBA. I would bet most of you didn't 
even know that job existed. They do important work, but does the Senate 
really need to spend 2 hours and two votes on it? I would suggest not, 
based on historical customs.
  So when did this all start? Did it happen when TV cameras got in the 
Senate and Senators could come down here and perform for the TV camera? 
No. In fact, there are ample examples and precedent of highly 
controversial nominations not even requiring a 60-vote threshold.
  Think about Clarence Thomas, maybe the best example--Clarence Thomas 
in 1991: The most consequential nomination we consider, a lifetime 
appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the most, 
if not the most, controversial nominees in history because of the lies 
and calumnies that Democratic Senators made against him, I would add--
he was confirmed on a record vote of 52 to 48.
  Now, you may say: Well, how did he get confirmed? He didn't have 60 
votes. And that is because, as late as 1991, it was considered 
unprecedented for a Senator to require what we call a cloture motion--a 
motion to end debate at a 60-vote threshold on a nominee--on any 
nominee, to include a Supreme Court Justice.
  Think about some of the Senators who were here in 1991 who could 
have, on their own accord, irrespective of the wishes of another 99 
Senators, demanded that Clarence Thomas get 60 votes before he be 
confirmed: Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, John Kerry--lions of 
the Democratic Senate. Not a single one of them came down here and 
said: I want to demand a 60-vote threshold for Clarence Thomas.
  Maybe there were conversations about it, but maybe people like Teddy 
Kennedy and Robert Byrd said: We don't do that. That is not the way 
things are done here--until 1999 when

[[Page S5493]]

Chuck Schumer shows up, and he and other liberals in the Senate and a 
bunch of liberal law professors begin circulating the idea: No, we 
should require 60-vote thresholds for nominees.
  And then, a couple of years into the Bush administration, they began 
to demand it, most notably on nominees to the court of appeals for the 
DC Circuit and, most notably of all those, on Miguel Estrada, a young 
Latino lawyer that they were afraid George Bush was going to later 
elevate to be the first Latino on the Supreme Court.
  They took unprecedented actions. And that, led by Chuck Schumer, is 
what brought us to this moment today. That is one reason why this says 
90 percent and not 98 percent.
  By 2013, Harry Reid, then-majority leader of the Senate, voted to 
change the rules of the Senate and said there will no longer be 60-vote 
thresholds on any office other than the Supreme Court. He did it right 
there at that desk. Mitch McConnell stood at that desk, then the 
Republican leader, and said: What goes around comes around. The shoe 
may be on the other foot, and it may be sooner than you might think. 
And sure enough, 4 years later, in 2017, Republicans used the Harry 
Reid precedent and extended it to the Supreme Court. So now Supreme 
Court nominees, as was the case throughout history, only require a 
simple majority vote.
  And then the Democrats engaged in the dilatory practices that they 
are using now, which is why this number was at 65, to demand 30 hours 
of debate. And I say ``30 hours of debate'' in air quotes because 
nobody comes down here in those times and debates the nominee pending 
on the floor. They talk about climate change or they recognize someone 
celebrating their 100th birthday back home, but nobody comes down here 
and has a serious debate on the merits of a nominee.
  So, in 2019, Republicans used the Harry Reid precedent again to cut 
time for debate for most offices in the sub-Cabinet--not for courts of 
appeal, not for Cabinet members, not for the Supreme Court--from 30 
hours to 2 hours. And that is why we spend 2 hours in between each one 
of these votes.
  But Democrats, having lost again last year in the White House and the 
Senate, have brought us to this point: zero nominees confirmed by voice 
vote or by unanimous consent, an unprecedented blockade, all traced 
back to Chuck Schumer's decision when he got into the Senate to break 
the norms, the practices, the traditions of the U.S. Senate.
  Well, this is not going to stand for much longer. It is up to our 
Democratic friends to decide how they would like to proceed. Do they 
want to follow Chuck Schumer off the cliff? Because, if so, we will be 
happy to use the Harry Reid precedent again. We will eliminate 2 hours 
of debate time. We will eliminate motions to go in and out of executive 
session. We will eliminate cloture motions entirely for nominees that 
currently take 2 hours of debate.
  For today, maybe we will make a motion to adjourn. And when the House 
returns and votes on that motion, then Donald Trump can appoint this 
backlog of more than 150 nominees in a recess appointment.
  It is the Democrats' choice. They have a third choice. They could 
return to historical precedent. They could agree to voice vote today in 
the next few minutes--more than 150 nominees at this point, most of 
whom came out of our committee on a bipartisan basis, many of whom are 
nominated to offices that have literally never had a recorded vote on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The question is up to the Democrats. Do you want to do this the easy 
way or do you want to do it the hard way? Because Republicans are 
prepared to finish what Chuck Schumer started 22 years ago, and what it 
will do is return the U.S. Senate to those practices, customs, and 
traditions that prevailed here from the 18th century to 2003 for both 
parties, for Presidents of both parties. I think our Republic was just 
fine from the 19th century--I am sorry--the 18th century to 2003. But 
one way or another, I promise you, this is going to stop.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.