[Pages S872-S873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Trump Cabinet Nominations

  Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on a 
couple of nominees. The first one is Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director 
of the DNI. The second one will be a cloture vote to proceed to the 
nomination of Bobby Kennedy to be the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services.
  What I observe--it is interesting about both of these nominees--is 
that both are former Democrats. In fact, a year ago--a year ago--they 
were Democrats. I would argue they have seen the light. They have 
become Republicans and now they have been nominated by President Trump 
to fill important roles within his administration.
  But I made that observation only because there is a lot of talk these 
days about loyalty oaths and allegiance and saliva purity tests for 
people to be considered good enough to be in the so-called MAGA 
movement--in other words, the Republican Party.
  Yet when it comes to Democrats, a very different standard seems to be 
applied here because both of these people were former Democrats. In 
fact, frankly, they probably agree with the Democratic Party here in 
the Senate on a lot of positions that they hold.
  And yet they have the temerity to come out and support positions 
that, perhaps, run contrary to some of the positions held by, 
particularly, the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in this 
country--in the case of RFK, coming out for positions that run counter 
to the orthodoxy of the healthcare so-called establishment, or in the 
case of Ms. Gabbard, different views, perhaps, about national security 
matters than those held by a lot of Democrats, certainly here in this 
Chamber, and progressive movement in the country.
  It harkens back to two other Democrats who pretty much got pushed out 
of their party here in the U.S. Senate for holding views that ran 
contrary to the majority view of the progressive wing of the Democrat 
Party. Those two Democrats were Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
  In the case of Kyrsten Sinema, she was viewed, I think, by Democrats 
as, perhaps, too free market. She was viewed as pro-business, as pro-
investment, and as pro-jobs, lighter regulatory touch, lighter tax 
policy, pro-energy policy.
  In the case of Joe Manchin, he had--I should say he had what I would 
say are accurate views with respect to energy development in this 
country--in other words, making America energy dominant, a view shared 
by many in our party, including our President. And for that, he was 
viewed as too conservative to be a true Democrat.
  So Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema ended up getting pushed out of the 
Democratic Party here in the U.S. Senate.
  Their ultimate cardinal sin, however--in the case of Manchin, as I 
said, he was pro-energy in a party that is dominated by climate, green, 
all those--whatever adjectives you want to use to characterize it or 
describe it--his views ran contrary. In fact, he tried to cut a deal 
with the Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act only to find out they 
kind of went back on it, and the deal wasn't what he thought he had 
agreed to.
  So his views were out of step, out of the mainstream of the 
Democratic Party, as were Kyrsten Sinema's. But their cardinal sin--
their cardinal sin--was that they voted against getting rid of the 
legislative filibuster, a view that was held by--up until just a few 
years ago--a majority of Democrats here in the U.S. Senate. There was a 
letter signed, which I shared the other night, that had 32 Democratic 
signatures on it pleading with the leadership here in the Senate not to 
abandon the Senate tradition and heritage with respect to the Senate 
filibuster; to maintain the heritage and tradition that the Senate has 
for open debate and for representation of the minority; for the 
requirement of collaboration and bipartisanship when it comes to moving 
consequential legislation. Those are the things that the filibuster 
traditionally was about.
  And up until a few years ago, most of my colleagues on the other 
side--a majority on the other side--signed a letter articulating their 
views that it ought to be the position of the U.S. Senate.
  Well, they tried to push it because they weren't getting the outcomes 
they wanted on a couple of pieces of legislation when they had the 
majority a couple of years ago. And they forced a vote on changing the 
rules--breaking the rules--to get rid of the legislative filibuster and 
be able to map an agenda that is more consistent with their liking.
  There were two people that voted against it on their side, Kyrsten 
Sinema and Joe Manchin. And for that cardinal sin, they were 
essentially ostracized. And to this day, the Democratic Party continues 
to hold a position now, very contrary to the one they held just a few 
years ago, about getting rid of the legislative filibuster.
  Why do they want to do that? Because they want to enact an agenda--a 
progressive leftist agenda--which the American people voted against in 
November.
  As recently as last summer at the Democratic convention, the Democrat 
leader basically laid out the things they want to do. First he said: We 
are going to get rid of the filibuster because we have the votes now. 
Manchin and Sinema are gone. I talked to the Democrats that we think we 
are going to elect, and we will have 51. At that time, he was 
predicting a clean sweep--they were going to win the House, the Senate, 
and the White House. They would get rid of the legislative filibuster, 
and the first thing they would do is they would Federalize our 
elections. That was the first thing they would do.
  Then they said they would enshrine abortion rights in law. That was 
one thing they would do. There were many on their side who talked about 
packing the Supreme Court, about allowing statehood for Puerto Rico and 
for Washington, DC--all elements of the agenda they want to accomplish 
through getting rid of the legislative

[[Page S873]]

filibuster. That was articulated by the Democrat leader as recently as 
the Democrat convention last summer--intentions that they had to get 
rid of the legislative filibuster so they--their party is in control--
they could do the things they wanted to do that they felt that the 
American people were asking them to do.
  Well, it turns out there was an election between last summer and now 
in which the American people spoke otherwise. And they had a very 
different view than the Democrats on a whole range of issues; issues on 
which, I think, the left and Democrat Party are completely out of step 
with the American people, not the least of which is allowing boys to 
play girl sports. That is a 90-percent issue with the American people.
  The House passed legislation on it. We will vote on it at some point 
in the future. And I just can't imagine--I speak as a dad of daughters 
who were both female athletes, one of whom is in her high school and 
college hall of fame. I don't know how anybody--this is where I say I 
think there is just a certain intuitive common sense the American 
people have, and they voted for that, and made that abundantly clear in 
the election just this last fall.
  So I say to that, again, just to remind people, when you hear this 
perspective about how Republicans don't have any room for dissent, they 
all have to be in lockstep--believe me, we have a lot of dissent on our 
side. Try leading the Republican conference. The Democrats, on the 
other hand, if you have a dissenting view, particularly on something 
like the filibuster--sorry, you are out of here.
  Mr. President, today, it is ironic to me that we are going to vote on 
two nominees--President Trump's nominees--to be Secretary of Department 
of Health and Human Services and to be Director of National 
Intelligence who are former Democrats. And I will be surprised--I would 
like to be surprised--but I don't believe there is going to be a single 
Democrat that votes for either of the two people who, less than a year 
ago, were members of their party--in some cases, members of their party 
that go back decades. The Kennedy family--the Kennedy family--
Democratic politics in America.
  You have two nominees who were Democrats a year ago, but because they 
articulate views now or demonstrate a dissent from the ideology of the 
Democrat Party, no longer can get even one Democrat to vote for them 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Again, I am hoping to be surprised. That vote is going to happen in 
about 30 minutes on Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National 
Intelligence. And then shortly after that, we will have a cloture vote 
on Robert F. Kennedy to be Secretary of Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  In each of those cases, you have Democrats in good standing as 
recently as a year ago who have been pushed out, come now--their 
nominees brought by President Trump for positions within his 
administration--and you are not going to see a single Democrat vote for 
them. But we will confirm them, and we will get these people into these 
positions as soon as possible. And in answer, I think, to the mandate 
that was given by the American people in November--and that is they 
want a different track in this country, a different direction. They 
have a different set of priorities than is being articulated here in 
the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, we also had just recently a vote on Laken Riley. That 
was probably the most glaring example, again, of Democrats' willingness 
to filibuster, something they wanted to get rid of 2 years ago. They 
wanted to get rid of the legislative filibuster.
  We get the majority, first time we put a bill on the floor, what do 
they do? They filibuster. Here we are, slowing down these noms--full 30 
hours on Tulsi Gabbard. I assume they will do the same thing on RFK. 
But these are people that are going to be confirmed and going to be, 
again, working in this administration to implement the agenda that the 
President of the United States has articulated and the one that he 
carried to the voters in this last election, an election in which the 
voters gave him a decisive majority at the polls.
  Mr. President, I hope, again, I am wrong. I hope we have a bipartisan 
vote today on either or both of these nominees. But I will tell you 
that based on my assessment of where the party is, the Democratic Party 
in this country, it would come as a great surprise to me if that is the 
case.
  I yield the floor.