[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 146 (Monday, September 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6395-S6396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the second time in a week, I come
to the floor to implore my Democratic colleagues to stop partisan
obstruction of public safety officials. We have 10 highly qualified
nominees on the Senate floor right now waiting for confirmation.
Several have blue slips from Democratic Senators. All were reported to
the floor by voice vote. There is no reason that we shouldn't get them
to work for the American people today.
As I explained just a few days ago, communities around our country
are in desperate need of U.S. attorneys to protect the public and
uphold the rule of law. Eighty-one percent of Americans think that
crime in large cities is a major problem. If we can agree to put
partisanship aside, this body can take a tangible step to address this
today by confirming 10 qualified law enforcement officers to their
posts.
I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have chosen to place
partisan obstruction over public safety. I am here again today to give
my colleagues a chance to do the right thing.
This blanket obstruction of all nominees is a misguided attempt to
score political points. I know that several of my Democratic colleagues
agree with me because just a few months ago, some of them stood on the
Senate floor and made the same argument that I am making today.
In one speech last Congress, the Democratic whip and chairman of the
Judiciary Committee said:
Don't stand up and say you're for law and order, you're for
law enforcement, and then turn around and stop the
appointment of U.S. attorneys.
In another speech, the same Senator said:
Our communities desperately need top federal prosecutors in
place. Interested in stopping fentanyl? I am. Thousands of
people are dying. Who's going to prosecute these cases? The
U.S. Attorneys--93 of them across the United States. But you
can't prosecute the case if you don't have the U.S. Attorney
there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with other
branches of government.
My Democratic colleagues continue to claim that their obstruction is
justified because two Republican Senators placed holds on some U.S.
attorneys in the last administration.
This compares apples with oranges. One of the Senators relented on
his hold and allowed U.S. attorneys to be confirmed by voice vote. The
other Senator ultimately blocked five U.S. attorneys. A handful of U.S.
attorneys being held last Congress, which I opposed, isn't comparable
to the blanket hold on all 93 U.S. attorneys that we are facing today.
The strategy this Congress is orchestrated by Senate Democratic
leadership and is part of a broader, Senate-wide assault on the
functioning of the executive branch.
At the end of the day, we can just look at the numbers. During the
Biden administration, nearly 94 percent of his U.S. attorney nominees
were confirmed by voice vote. So far in the second Trump
administration, zero percent of his U.S. attorney nominees have been
confirmed by voice vote.
For months, I have repeatedly tried to engage my Democratic
colleagues to end their obstruction. I have warned that their tactics
ultimately hurt the American people and will lead to lasting damage to
the Senate as an institution. I have even offered a compromise where we
hold five rollcall votes to compensate for the five nominees returned
to the President at the end of March. To my great disappointment, my
colleagues haven't relented from their strategy, and I hope they will
relent today with my unanimous consent requests.
I mentioned last week that one of the U.S. attorneys being held up is
Daniel Rosen, nominated for the District of Minnesota. Mr. Rosen was
reported out of committee by voice vote. He is supported by his home
State Senators Klobuchar and Smith, both Democrats. He is a qualified
nominee. He should be responding to the horrific mass shooting of
children at the Annunciation Catholic Church but instead is languishing
here on the Senate floor as a pawn of partisan obstruction.
This needs to end, and it needs to end today. So I now will ask
unanimous consent to confirm 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported
out of committee. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will allow these
nominees to get to work. Debate and disagreement about policy is to be
expected but should never be at the expense of public safety.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of
the following nominations en bloc: No. 176, David Charles Waterman,
Iowa; No. 183, Ronald A. Parsons, South Dakota; No. 257, David Metcalf,
Pennsylvania; No. 258, Bart McKay Davis, Idaho; No. 316, Kurt Alme of
Montana; No. 317, Nicholas Chase, North Dakota; No. 318, Lesley Murphy,
Nebraska; No. 319, Daniel Rosen, Minnesota; No. 320, Erik Siebert,
Virginia; and No. 321, Kurt Wall, Louisiana; that the Senate vote on
the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The minority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, first, let the public
know what they are talking about as obstruction: 2 hours of debate and
a vote on some of the worst nominees we have ever seen. They want to
pile them all together. Some of these nominees are--the people who know
them in their States are appalled that they would be nominated.
Trump has chosen his U.S. attorneys for one reason only: blind
obeisance to him. That is it. No rule of law. No independence.
So of course our friends are afraid of 2 hours of debate and a vote
because so many of these nominees are so bad. Historical bad nominees
deserve a historical response.
So we wanted to come to an agreement with our colleagues to let some
of the better ones through, but we couldn't--not because of our Senate
colleagues. Senator Grassley was involved, and Senator Thune was
involved. We were close to an agreement, and what happened? Donald
Trump, who wants these horrible nominees--so many of them--said:
Go to hell.
[[Page S6396]]
That is what he said. So instead of our Republican colleagues telling
Donald Trump ``No, we can work out an agreement that is fair,'' they
said ``OK.'' They pedaled back.
Now what is their alternative? They are ready to detonate Senate
precedent altogether and go nuclear on all the nominees. So much for
oversight. And before they even do that, now they want to rubberstamp
another round of nominees--no scrutiny, no debate.
Two hours of debate and a vote for someone as powerful as a U.S.
attorney. Most Americans would agree that is the least we could do--the
least we could do. So no scrutiny, no debate, and no consent from us.
I want to be very clear. If my colleague from Iowa, who is a good
man, wants to resume our negotiations, which we were ready to do--and
he knows it. He was part of it. If he is willing to back off threats to
go nuclear, we will be open to having a conversation about a nominees
package, including the ones on his list. We will be open to
negotiations, just as we were at the end of July when we were in that
room right across the hall from here and ready to have an agreement,
when all of a sudden, Donald Trump says ``Go to hell'' and the
Republican leadership says ``OK. We won't do it because he doesn't like
it'' even though he has historically bad, reprehensible nominees.
So if Republicans are dead set on going nuclear, we will not grant
consent today.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, obviously, I am disappointed that my request has
been objected to. I had hoped today we could set a new direction and
put the interests of the American people over partisanship.
I want to offer to the Democratic leader an offer he shouldn't object
to because it has both Republican and Democrat support. If we can't
agree to allow 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported out of
committee to be confirmed today, I am going to make a more modest
request.
David Waterman is my pick to be U.S. attorney for the Southern
District of Iowa--highly qualified. He was reported out of committee by
voice vote, no recorded objections. My State needs him to get to work.
I initially recommended him to President Biden during the last
administration, and he was nominated and reported out of committee last
Congress.
My Democratic colleagues have tried to justify their obstruction by
pointing to the hold by then-Senator Vance last Congress. Well, Mr.
Waterman was one of the five U.S. attorneys returned to the President
from that hold.
So are we going to confirm a nominee who has been submitted to the
Senate by two different Presidents and reported out of committee
twice--seems to me like something the Democrats should not object to--
or are my Democratic colleague going to continue the objection?
Now, here is another one. They have confidence, surely, in their two
Democratic Senators from Minnesota. I have already spoken about Daniel
Rosen. Like Mr. Waterman, Mr. Rosen is well qualified to serve as U.S.
attorney for the District of Minnesota. He, too, was reported out of
committee by voice vote, and he is supported by both home State
Senators Klobuchar and Smith. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues
to send a clear signal to the people of Minnesota that they think they
ought to have a law enforcement person at their side.
The District of Minnesota needs its top Federal prosecutor in place
to preserve law and order, so we need to confirm Mr. Rosen. So I am now
going to ask unanimous consent to confirm Mr. Waterman as U.S. attorney
for the Southern District of Iowa and Mr. Rosen to be U.S. attorney for
the District of Minnesota.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of the following nominations en bloc: No. 176, David Charles Waterman,
Iowa, and No. 319, David Rosen, Minnesota; that the Senate vote on the
nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I would with respect
remind my colleague that all three of these people were on our list
that we were negotiating and could have been passed with our agreement.
Donald Trump said:
Go to hell.
You and the Republican leader backed off. So you could have it done
with an agreement, a bipartisan agreement--not a partisan agreement
where the Republicans just choose whoever they want, no matter.
So the bottom line, once again, is simple: You want to get these
things done? Negotiate an agreement in a bipartisan way. Don't bow down
to Donald Trump, who, as I said, has nominated for U.S. attorney in
many other places some of the worst nominees, the most conflicted
nominees, the least qualified nominees we have ever seen.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. You can see the weakness of that objection because here
is somebody that has been nominated by President Biden and President
Trump, and you have two Democratic Senators supporting him. At least in
those 2 instances, out of 93 that are potentially on hold, they could
go do their jobs.
I want to make one final request before I yield the floor. The Senate
Judiciary Committee--in that committee, it is common practice to report
certain nominees by voice vote. We have been doing it for decades--
particularly for noncontroversial U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshal
nominees. Under my chairmanship, we only conduct voice votes with
explicit consent of the ranking member, and we don't do them if there
are any objections to so doing.
Recently, I have heard concern that nominees reported out of
committee by voice vote may be challenged or face additional
obstruction on the floor to further derail the functioning of the
executive branch. I sincerely hope this isn't the case.
Voice votes are a longstanding practice of our committee and involve
complete cooperation between the majority and minority parties on the
committee.
On the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite our differences, the
ranking member and I have a good working relationship. When we reach a
bipartisan agreement about how to manage our committee consistent with
our norms, I hope that every Member of this body will respect this
agreement.
So this is my unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that
no point of order lie with respect to the following U.S. attorney
nominees reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote
pursuant to explicit agreement between the offices of the chairman and
ranking member, whether those nominations are offered individually or
pursuant to a resolution: David Charles Waterman, Ronald A. Parsons,
David Metcalf, Bart McKay Davis, Kurt Alme, Nicholas Chase, Lesley
Murphy, Daniel Rosen, Erik Siebert, and Kurt Wall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, once again, negotiate in
a fair, bipartisan way with us, and many of these things could be
resolved. Do it in a partisan way. Bow down to Donald Trump--no way.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.