Rules Change

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as expected, there has been some commentary on the process I initiated Monday--a process to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what was once understood to be standard practice, and that is the Senate's acting expeditiously on Presidential nominees to allow a President to get his team in place.

I will say that the commentary has felt somewhat muted so far, and I suspect that is because Democrats know they don't have a leg to stand on here. After years of partisanship and slowly eroding the confirmation process, they finally went all the way and broke it, and they have to know that. So it is no surprise that they aren't exactly able to mount a compelling defense of their position or a compelling attack on the Republicans' move to fix the Senate.

On top of that, I suspect it is even possible that some Democrats are secretly relieved that we are restoring Senate precedent. After all, I suspect Democrats would prefer not to reap what they have sowed this Congress. The prospect of the blanket obstruction of every single nominee of a Democrat President can't look that attractive.

Of course, the Democrat leader has made an attempt to attack Republicans' measure and defend his party's historic obstruction, and one thing he is fixated on is his claim that Democrats' historic obstruction is justified because President Trump has put forward ``historically bad'' nominees. But I would just like to ask, if these nominees are as historically bad as the Democrat leader claims, why are Democrats voting for them in committee or on the Senate floor? Why have 62 of the 139 civilian nominees the Senate has confirmed so far been confirmed with Democrat support? Why are Trump nominees emerging from committee with bipartisan support? Is the Democrat leader suggesting that his own Members are supporting historically bad nominees?

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman came down to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to confirm a nominee for U.S. attorney who was reported from committee by voice vote and who has the support of the two Democrat Senators from his State. Is the Democrat leader suggesting that the senior Democrat from Minnesota and the junior Democrat from Minnesota are conspiring with President Trump to put in place historically bad nominees?

I completely respect Democrats' right to dislike some or, for that matter, many of President Trump's nominees and to oppose nominees they consider to be historically bad. I have opposed more than one Democrat nominee in my time. But let's get real here. This obstruction is not about historically bad nominees. The scores of nominees who have emerged from committee with bipartisan support are not historically bad.

The U.S. attorney candidate for Minnesota, supported by the senior Democrat Senator from Minnesota and the junior Democrat Senator from Minnesota, is not a historically bad nominee, and the only reason--the only reason--the Democrat leader objected to his confirmation by voice vote Monday, along with the confirmation of a Trump nominee who had previously been nominated by President Biden, is petty partisanship-- petty partisanship that is well on its way to turning the Senate from a legislative body into, in the words of the senior Democrat from Minnesota, a ``full-time employment agency.''

Before I close, I also want to mention one other complaint from the Democrat leader yesterday, and that is his claim that Republicans' attempt to restore Senate precedent on the en bloc consideration of nominees is somehow going to eliminate transparency.

To hear the Democrat leader tell it, you would think the Senate was going to start approving nominees in the dead of night, behind closed doors in the Capitol basement. I didn't notice the Democrat leader objecting to a lack of transparency when we approved packages of Biden nominees, some of which probably did happen in the dark of night, albeit in the full light of the C-SPAN cameras.

Of course, I should also mention that, before any floor consideration, all of these nominees will have gone through the committee process, which will have provided still another forum for Members to air concerns.

The amendment to the rules Republicans are proposing is an idea with a bipartisan pedigree. It would restore Senate precedent, and it would restore sanity to a confirmation process that Democrats and Republicans alike have complained is broken.

Despite their historic blockade, I think a lot of my Democrat colleagues are well aware that we can't continue as we are. So I say to those colleagues, many of whom I know do care about this institution: Join us. Let's protect decades of Senate precedent on confirmations and get this institution fully functioning again.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source