February 27, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 36 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[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.