Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last night the Senate had an opportunity to pass an important package of disaster relief funding for communities all across our country. Unfortunately, it didn't happen. Our Democratic colleagues voted down the efforts of Chairman Shelby and Senator Perdue to put together a comprehensive package, and it remains unfinished business.

As recently as 1 month ago, some congressional Democrats had expressed a clear commitment to immediate, bipartisan action on disaster relief, and the package considered yesterday represented a long list of priorities from actually both sides of the aisle--the only such list that had the President's explicit support.

It would have helped local schools, hospitals, and transportation infrastructure get back up and running, farmers and ranchers recoup losses, and our Nation's military restore readiness at bases and installations in harm's way. It would have been an immediate and significant step forward for the coastal communities of Florida and the Carolinas that are still picking up the pieces after a devastating hurricane season and for the western communities, as well, besieged by wildfires, for the families in Puerto Rico who rely on nutrition assistance that is dwindling, for those in the path of last month's tornadoes in Alabama and Georgia, and for large swathes of the heartland still grappling with floodwaters.

So I am disappointed that political games carried the day yesterday, but I assure the American people that our work on this subject is far from finished.

Nominations

Madam President, on another matter, 217 days--217 days--is how long has elapsed between President Trump's sending the Senate his nomination for a Federal Railroad Administrator and

this body's confirming him. For 217 days, a 45-year veteran of the railroad with unquestioned expertise sat and sat on the Senate calendar. He wasn't controversial. He had been voice-voted out of committee. He was the kind of nominee on which even the prospect of having to file cloture should have been laughable, but my Democratic colleagues wouldn't let him get a vote.

Finally, after about 7 months and several high-profile railway accidents, our colleagues across the aisle finally relented and let this nominee go forward. After all those months of obstruction, not a single one of them ended up recording a vote against him. No one voted against him. So it was 217 days for an unquestionably qualified nominee for a seriously important job whom literally no one really opposed.

Call it a case study in the Senate's dysfunction when it comes to President Trump's nominees. If anything, the case study actually is not extreme enough because at least this person was eventually confirmed without a completely pointless cloture vote, followed by even more time supposedly debating a nominee on whom Senators do not actually disagree.

Perhaps more illustrative might be the cases of unobjectionable district court nominees whose nominations were slow-walked through months of idle time, only to receive unanimous support when it finally came for confirmation votes.

Last January, four such nominations came before the Senate. Each was noncontroversial. Each was well-qualified. Each, nevertheless, required a cloture vote. Yet after weeks on the calendar, each passed without drawing a single ``no'' vote. No one opposed them, and yet it took a week.

These were four of the historic 128 cloture votes on nominations we had to hold on nominations in this administration's first 2 years--128. This is comprehensive, across-the-board heel-dragging like nobody in this body has ever seen before. It is more than five times--five times--as many cloture votes on nominations as in the comparative periods--listen to this--for Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama combined--combined. In other words, it is systematic obstruction, not targeted, thoughtful opposition to a few marquee nominations or rare circumstances but a grinding, across-the-board effort to delay and obstruct the people this President puts up, even if they have unquestionable qualifications and even if the job is relatively low-profile.

As I said last week, I am sure every Presidential election this side of George Washington has left some Senators unhappy with the outcome, but never before, to my knowledge, has the unhappy group so comprehensively tried to stop a new President from assembling the very basics of an administration--hundreds and hundreds of days in Senate purgatory for uncontroversial nominees to mid-level posts and months of delay for lower court nominees who go on to receive unanimous confirmation votes.

This behavior is novel. It is a break from Senate tradition, and it is something this body needs to address, not just for the sake of this President but for future Presidents of any party, because at this rate, the Senate is flirting with a dangerous new norm.

Today it may be Senate Democrats who are intent on endlessly relitigating the 2016 election and holding up all of these qualified people, but absent a change, these tactics seem guaranteed to become standard practice for Senate minorities on both sides. I don't think any of us want that future.

We need to stop things from deteriorating further. We need to fix this. We need to let the President assemble his team and let the American people have the government they actually voted for. We need to turn back toward the Senate's institutional tradition in this vital area for the sake of the Nation's future.

My Republican colleagues and I joined with Democrats back in 2013 and supported the same sort of modest changes to our nominations process through the same sort of standing order. Were we overjoyed that President Obama had just won reelection? No, but we still thought he deserved to stand up a government. So a big bipartisan majority--I voted for it--including the leaders of both parties agreed to trim the postcloture time on lower-level nominees. I was the minority leader. It was a Democratic President. I voted for it.

Supreme Court nominees weren't touched, nor circuit courts, nor top executive branch posts, but for district court judges and lower-level executive jobs, even as Republicans were in the minority, many of us agreed to test out an abbreviated process for President Obama's nominees.

The process that we agreed to then is very similar to the resolution the Senate will vote on later today. As I have discussed, Senators Blunt and Lankford have proposed a similar set of changes to fix the current mess that would also become permanent going forward. Their resolution would make the Senate more functional and more consistent. The rules that were good enough for President Obama's second term would also apply under President Trump and every other President into the future.

I would submit to my colleagues that a modest reform like this is either a good idea or it isn't. The answer can't be flip-flop back and forth depending upon which party occupies the White House.

So I will conclude this way. I believe that every one of my colleagues knows that our present situation is unhealthy for this body and for any administration. I believe every Member of this body knows that the precedent that is being set is unsustainable.

So, look, I would urge all of our colleagues on both sides: Why don't we do the right thing for the Senate? Let's show the country that partisanship is not poison to absolutely everything. Let's demonstrate that the U.S. Senate can still take a modest step to improve its own workings on a strong bipartisan vote and do it through regular order. We did it in 2013 when the roles were reversed. We should do it again this week.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 87.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer, I send to the desk a resolution on documentary production by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs recently conducted an investigation into the Equifax data breach. The Subcommittee has now received a request from the Federal Trade Commission seeking access to records that the Subcommittee obtained during the investigation.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1839.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 132 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 138, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 139, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 3; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Kessler nomination, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.