Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the unprecedented obstruction that has faced President Trump's nominees for the past 26 months--and counting--and to announce that the Senate is going to do something about it.

The systematic, across-the-board delay and obstruction that have crippled this administration's nominations are unique in American history.

Every Presidential election since Adams beat Jefferson in 1796 has left some Senators disappointed that their side lost. There is always a losing side, and they are never happy about it. But the past 2 years have been the first time--the first time ever--that the unhappy party has used Senate procedure to systematically blockade the new President's nominees and prevent him from even staffing up his administration. Let me say that again. Since January 2017, for the first time in the 230-year history of the U.S. Senate, a minority of Senators have used Senate procedure to systematically prevent the President of the United States from putting a full team in place.

During the first 2 years of the last six Presidential administrations before President Trump, 24 total cloture votes had to be held to advance a nomination, but in President Trump's first 2 years, there were 128 cloture votes on nominees.

For 42 different executive branch positions, cloture votes have been required for the first time in history--the first time ever. Uncontroversial Assistant Secretaries and Agencies' general counsels never required cloture votes before--ever--until this particular Democratic minority.

Just compare President Trump's first 2 years to President Obama's. Overall, we have confirmed 22 percent fewer nominations for President Trump and sent more than twice as many back to the White House.

Take just the Foreign Relations Committee as one example. The share of nominees sent to the Foreign Relations Committee who were still not confirmed after President Trump's first 2 years was more than three times--three times--what it was for President Obama.

To be clear, the lion's share of all of these are not controversial, high-profile figures. In most cases, they are unambiguously well- qualified nominees for critical but lower profile jobs.

For example, it took more than 6 months--6 months--and several tragic railroad accidents that made national news before a minority of Senators would allow us to confirm the President's nominee to head the Federal Railroad Administration. That is 6 months and several railroad accidents to get us to confirm the President's nominee to head the Federal Railroad Administration.

He had worked in railroads as an engineer, manager, and executive for 45 years. Our colleagues on the Commerce Committee voice-voted him out of committee. Actually, when Democrats finally allowed his nomination to come to the floor--when they finally allowed that--he was confirmed by voice vote. Despite the fact that nobody actually objected to this nominee, this important job was held empty for 6 long months. It is obstruction for obstruction's sake.

It is the same story with even the least controversial judicial nominees. Last January, it took more than a week of floor time to confirm four district judges, all of whom had been voice-voted out of the Judiciary Committee the previous autumn, but there were still months of delays. Then cloture votes were required for each, but once we finally plowed through to the confirmation votes, they were all confirmed unanimously.

There were months of delays and procedural roadblocks for four bipartisan nominees whom not a single Senator actually opposed.

This is not a principled maneuver, not thoughtful use of minority powers, but obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction.

This historic campaign isn't fair to our duly elected President, and, more importantly, it is not fair to the American people. The American people deserve the government they elected. They deserve important positions to be promptly filled with capable individuals, not held open indefinitely out of political spite.

As we all acknowledge, from an institutional perspective, this is completely unsustainable, but if we allow it to persist, it seems guaranteed to become standard operating procedure for every administration going forward.

Let's assume 2 years from now that my side is in the minority, and there is a Democratic President. If we allow this to persist, we will be doing the same thing to those guys that they have been doing to us. It will be the new norm.

Some of our colleagues who are leading the systematic obstruction are actually running for President themselves. Well, these tactics will virtually guarantee that any future Democratic administration is subjected to the same paralysis. Everybody will be doing it.

Is this how the American Government is supposed to work from here on out--whichever party loses the White House basically prohibits the new President from standing up an administration?

We can't accept this. This just can't be allowed to continue. We need to restore the Senate to the way it functioned for literally decades.

Remember, the idea that nominees would regularly require cloture votes was completely foreign to the Senate until this sad chapter began during the administration of President Bush 41, in the early 2000s.

As of 1968--1968--cloture had never been required for any nomination--any nomination. As of 1978, it had been required for two-- two as of 1978.

Until 2003, in no conference--none--had more than 12 cloture motions ever been needed for nominations. But now, again, President Trump's chosen nominees faced 128 cloture votes in the Congress that just past. So this entire conversation is a modern aberration. This hasn't been going on forever. This is a fairly recent thing. This behavior is new. We need to restore the Senate's tradition in this area. Fortunately, we have a clear roadmap to do just that.

In 2013, immediately after President Obama's reelection, 78 Senators, including me, passed a bipartisan standing order to speed up the consideration of many Presidential nominees. Seventy-eight Members of this body passed a standing order to help President Obama speed up the Executive Calendar.

It reduced the postcloture time for most nominations without touching the Supreme Court, circuit courts, or the highest levels of the executive branch. Essentially everything else got

a more streamlined process so nominees could be confirmed more efficiently.

Again, President Obama had just been inaugurated for the second time days earlier. You better believe Republicans were disappointed we had lost, but we did not throw a systematic tantrum. Instead, a sizable number of us came over and joined the Democrats to help the Senate process noncontroversial nominations, as it had for the vast bulk of the history of the Senate. I was a Republican leader in the minority, and I still supported it. We judged if it was the right thing to do, and we did it. The standing order passed 78 to 16.

So, today, I am filing cloture on a resolution that takes that bipartisan effort as its blueprint. This resolution from Senator Blunt and Senator Lankford would implement very similar steps and make them a permanent part of the Senate going forward.

The Supreme Court, circuit courts, Cabinet-level executive positions, and certain independent boards and commissions would not change, but for most other nominations--for literally the hundreds of lower level nominations that every new President makes--postcloture debate time would be reduced from 30 hours to 2 hours.

This would keep the floor moving. It would facilitate more efficient consent agreements, and, most importantly, it would allow the administration--finally, 2 years into its tenure--to staff numerous important positions that remain unfilled with nominees who have been languishing.

This resolution has come up through the regular order, through the Rules Committee, and next week we will vote on it. It deserves the same kind of bipartisan vote that Senator Schumer and Senator Reid's proposal received back during the Obama administration.

I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues have indicated they would be all for this reform as long as it doesn't go into effect until 2021, when they obviously hope someone else might be in the White House, but they are reluctant to support it now. Give me a break. That is unfair on its face.

My Democratic colleagues were more than happy to support a similar proposal back in 2013 under President Obama. They whisper in our ears privately that they would support it now if it took effect in 2021, oh, but they can't support it now, especially under these unprecedented circumstances, simply because we have a Republican President.

Fair is fair. Members of this body should only support reforms that they would be as ready to support in the minority as they are in the majority.

Put another way, if my side is in the minority 2 years from now, I don't think this will be unfair, and it will not disadvantage us in the wake of a new Democratic President. This is a change the institution needs--a change the institution made already, basically, with a 2-year experiment when President Obama was in office. This is reform that every Member should embrace when their party controls the White House and when it does not control the White House.

I urge every one of my colleagues: Let's get the Senate back to a normal historical pattern for handling Presidential nominations. Let's give President Trump, as well as all future Presidents, a functional process for building their administrations. Let's give the American people the government they actually elected, and let's seize this chance to do so through the bipartisan regular order that we are pursuing here, both in committee and now on the floor.

The status quo is unsustainable for the Senate and for the country. It is unfair to this President and to future Presidents of either party. It cannot stand, and it will not stand.

I still have the floor.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 24, S. Res. 50.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar Nos. 130 through 156 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Oregon is propounding a question. If he would repeat it, I would appreciate it.

Is the Senator asking me a question?

Mr. President, let me say that we have had a number of bills that were brought to the floor open for amendment. One of the things we devolved into here, another unfortunate precedent, is Members objecting to time agreements on amendments from either side. So even if the majority leader calls up a bill and has it open for amendment, unless Members of the Senate in both parties will allow there to be time agreements so that we can actually have votes on amendments, it gets bogged down.

I think the complaint of my friend from Oregon is legitimate. I have been very frustrated by the fact that when I

call up a bill and open it up for amendments, I have Members on both sides preventing each other's amendments from getting a vote. I share the frustration of my colleague from Oregon, but I assure him that when I call up a bill and say that it is open for amendment, it is open for amendment. It is just that it requires Senatorial bipartisan cooperation to set time agreements to actually have such votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I think I have a UC agreement, a UC pending.

Mr. President, in order to guarantee a particular amendment would get a vote without consent, we would have to be able to get 60 votes and vote cloture to advance the amendment.

I will just reiterate to my friend from Oregon that his complaint is legitimate, but it does require, no matter what the majority leader says with regard to openness of the bill, some level of bipartisan cooperation in order to process amendments. We have tried that on numerous occasions, and Members on both sides have sort of hunkered down and objected to each other's amendments, thereby making the amendment process, in an open fashion, simply impossible.

I do have a consent agreement pending. I don't know whether the Senator from Oregon wants to continue to object to all of these--

--nominations, which would include people from the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army. I was seeking the military promotions of these people who are serving our country in the Armed Forces.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 276 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 69.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; the Burr amendment to the preamble at the desk be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 100.

I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that 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 Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 118 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, 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 Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res 124 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, 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 filing deadline for first-degree amendments with respect to the cloture motions filed during today's session relating to H.R. 268 be at 4 p.m., Monday, April 1, 2019.

Madam President, yesterday, my Democratic colleagues in this body offered the American people a crystal-clear picture of what the Democratic Party stands for in 2019 and whom it represents. Nearly all of our Democratic colleagues wrapped their arms around the radical policy they have marketed to the public as the Green New Deal.

I am sure we will be hearing carefully crafted spin about the transparent political maneuvering behind voting present instead of voting yes. Not exactly ``Profiles in Courage.'' Not exactly ``Profiles in Courage.''

I am also certain that we will hear more indignant claims that I somehow sabotaged the legislation they said they support by actually bringing it to a vote. That is a fascinating sight in the Senate--the cosponsors of a policy complaining bitterly that they actually had to go on record to actually vote for a bill they supposedly support, but go on record they did. They can call it voting present. They can call it voting yes. But when every single Senate Democrat running for President has signed on as a cosponsor, when all of the energy and momentum in the Democratic Party is behind this, when just a tiny handful of Democratic Senators could bring themselves to vote against it on the floor, what we have is a Democratic Party that is fixated on satisfying the far left, even at the cost of crushing--crushing-- working-class and middle-class American life as we know it.

Yesterday, the vast majority of Senate Democrats could not dismiss something as crazy as ending the production of American oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy within a decade. They couldn't vote against that.

Senate Democrats could not dismiss something as absolutely ludicrous as a federally mandated overhaul of every building in America to meet the greenness--greenness--standards of Washington bureaucrats.

Senate Democrats could not reject a plan to take more control over where Americans choose to live, how they

choose to get around, and how they earn a living.

Senate Democrats could not even reject a plan that, according to rough estimates, could raise families' utility bills by hundreds of dollars a month and cost the U.S. Government more than the entire 2017 GDP of the whole world. They couldn't vote against that.

American manufacturing, American agriculture, industries, jobs, houses, farms, buildings, and cars that make up daily life for millions of working Americans--Democrats want Washington, DC, to declare war on all of that because it doesn't comply with the latest fashions in Brooklyn or San Francisco. They want to march the entire country toward extreme environmentalist goals that even President Obama's former Secretary of Energy has dismissed as impossible. That is what the Democratic Party of 2019 apparently has become.

Remember, their last Presidential nominee bragged, after her loss, that at least she had won all the places in America that are ``optimistic, diverse, dynamic, [and] moving forward.'' We can fill in the blanks and see how they view all the other places that millions of Americans call home, those places that just aren't enlightened enough to vote for Democrats, places where farm jobs and factory jobs really matter, places where expensive high-speed rail and electric cars and trucks simply will not get the job done, places where soaring electric bills represent a kitchen-table crisis and not just a minor inconvenience, and places that are actually home to the workers who would be, as the resolution breezily puts it, ``affected by the transition''--in other words, jobs shipped overseas and workers out in the cold. In Democrats' eyes, all of us in these places are just backward and out-of-date. People who live in those areas are just backward and out-of-date. Our lives need to be transformed by Washington, DC, bureaucrats, whether we like it or not.

The disruption isn't limited to just environmental and energy issues; there are so many more things Washington Democrats want to get their hands around.

Democrats are pushing Medicare for None, a scheme that would make it unlawful to provide the private health insurance policies that American families rely on and force everyone into a brandnew government scheme designed, of course, right here in Washington. It is ironic that this approach would mean long waiting lists for people with preexisting conditions and cause over 180 million Americans to lose the coverage they choose and rely on. Republicans are dedicated to protecting Americans with preexisting conditions. Republicans are the ones fighting for American families as they try to navigate the unaffordable wreckage of ObamaCare.

The story is the same on every issue: Democrats aren't interested in security and stability for American families; they are interested in Washington redesigning middle-class Americans' lives from scratch so they can conform better to leftwing dreams.

Forty-plus--forty-plus--of our Democratic colleagues, including all of their Presidential candidates, could not even bring themselves to vote against the obviously absurd socialist wish list we considered yesterday. This is what the modern Democratic Party wants to be. These are their plans for the country. At least the American people are certainly offered a very, very clear contrast.

Disaster Funding

Madam President, on an entirely different matter, in recent months, natural disasters have occupied an outsized share of headlines across our country. We have seen counties in Alabama and Georgia bear the blows of a vicious tornado, and we support the loved ones of those 23 people whose lives it claimed. We have seen a spate of powerful hurricanes tear across the shores of Florida and the Carolinas, leaving tens of billions of dollars in damage behind. Flooding has repeatedly caused damage in my home State of Kentucky, and, of course, it is currently at major disaster levels in communities across the Midwest.

In some places, the process of rebuilding has already dragged on for months. Families have faced the daily struggle of getting things back to normal.

Others are still literally--literally--underwater. Residents are wading through the wreckage of homes and businesses. Normal seems a long way away.

From the gulf coast to the heartland, there are Americans calling for our help. Here in Congress we must have their back. We must take swift and comprehensive action. I am pleased to say, a number of our colleagues have crafted legislation that would allow us to answer these calls for help from our people.

The supplemental funding measure advanced by the Senate yesterday would deliver over $13 billion to help American communities recover and rebuild following recent natural disasters. It would mean more help for victims of tornadoes in our Southern States, victims of hurricanes from North Carolina to Puerto Rico, and the families in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, who are still, as we speak, waiting for the waters of a truly catastrophic flood to recede. The legislation before us would equip the Department of Defense to conduct urgent repairs to bases and installations damaged by storms. It would help America's farmers and ranchers cover storm-related losses, and it would help get local schools, healthcare facilities, and major infrastructure back on track more quickly.

I am proud of the work put in by many Members to prepare this latest package so swiftly and thoroughly on behalf of our communities in need. We owe thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shelby, along with the efforts of Senator Perdue, Senator Isakson, Senator Scott, Senator Rubio, and others who made this effort possible. Thanks to them, the Senate can take action soon on a comprehensive measure to support our fellow citizens.

Madam President, reserving the right to object. As I mentioned yesterday, when a similar unanimous consent proposal was propounded, I have consistently supported the proposition that the special counsel should be allowed to complete his work without interference, and I have consistently supported the proposition that his report ought to be released, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law and with the need to protect sources and methods and the need to preserve the integrity of ongoing investigations, including investigations the special counsel has referred to others.

The Attorney General has committed to as much transparency as possible in the release of the report, and he is working with the special counsel toward that end. I think we should be consistent in letting the special counsel actually finish his work and not just when we think it may be politically advantageous to one side or the other for him to do so.

Therefore, Madam President, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 28, the Senate proceed to executive session and consideration of Executive Calendar No. 9; further, that there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

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

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 Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 590 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.