Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order for the votes to begin at 11 a.m., there now be 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the votes; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; finally, that all rollcall votes after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will take the 5 minutes on our side.

Madam President, I rise and join my colleagues in strong support of the nominations reform package before us today. This bipartisan bill and resolution which we will vote on a bit later will effectively change the way the Senate does business, and it is long past time to do just that. It is not often that this body voluntarily takes steps to curb its own power. But for the good of our democracy, the Senate must become more efficient.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander, who has been a driving force behind this effort and has been steadfast in his resolve to make a change to this body. We have worked in a bipartisan way to resolve all the differences in a way that I would hope the Senate could work more often on more pieces of legislation.

I also thank the chair and ranking members of the Homeland Security Committee, Senators LIEBERMAN and COLLINS, for their input and expertise in drafting this piece of legislation and moving it quickly and productively through committee. Their impact on this process cannot be understated.

I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Back in January, when we were negotiating the reforms to the body, they set up our working group to look into the problem of executive nominations, and they supported and were an active part of our effort.

The Senate has always been known as a cooling saucer, but as of late it has become a subzero freezer. Nominees of impeccable qualifications and indisputable support have been frozen out of the confirmation process, and the backup in nominations also gridlocks other important legislative business. That is why the Senate, often known as the cooling saucer, is too often now a subzero freezer.

Today, we will be taking a meaningful and important step toward changing this. The rapid growth of the executive branch has put unanticipated burdens on the Senate, whose job it is to confirm the President's appointees. There is nothing wrong with the Senate doing a little prioritizing of its pending business.

Today, about one-third of the current Senate confirmable positions will now either not require confirmation at all or will enjoy a streamlined confirmation. By now we all know what S. 679 and S. Res. 116 do, but what will their impact be?

In short, this package of reform will help our government function better. One example of this is the working group that the bill creates to examine a ``smart form'' to streamline the paperwork submitted by a nominee. A nominee may now, today, have to complete three separate financial disclosure forms for the executive and legislative branches. Hopefully, the idea of not having to fill out mountains of paperwork will be appealing to prospective government servants.

Additionally, this bill and resolution we are voting on will help the Senate focus more like a laser beam on issues affecting the average American, such as jobs. The less time committees have to spend on nominees, the more time they can spend on improving the everyday life of Americans.

Over the last several decades we have seen an amazing increase in the nominees we have had to confirm. It has gotten out of hand, and that is something on which both sides can agree.

We are not abdicating our advice and consent duty, we are strengthening it. We are focusing on the positions that truly need it according to the Constitution.

This package represents the final piece to the reform deal that was set forth in January.

Last spring, motivated by the good work of Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, the Rules Committee undertook a detailed examination of the history and the application of the Senate rules, especially the filibuster.

After six hearings, and many conversations, we reached a historic point in January when something needed to be done.

Change happens slowly, we all know that, particularly in the Senate, and sometimes it is a product of compromise and deliberation. We all know this institution, as grand and wonderful as it is, could always benefit by change. Today, we have some of that change. Is it everything we want? No, far from it. But it will make a difference in the institution's effectiveness.

I wish, for a minute, to thank the chairs of our Senate committees and the ranking members as well. When we first spoke of this back in January to the introduction of the bill in March, through markup and now today, the chairmen have had a great impact on our efforts. We have listened to them and made changes they have suggested which, on reflection, we thought were worthwhile. We have listened to both the chairmen and ranking members, understood their positions, and wanted their ideas. All the while, however, they understood what we were attempting to do, and we appreciate their support.

In conclusion, before final passage of this bill, we will be voting on four amendments. It is our hope we can adopt Senators Portman, Udall, and Cornyn's amendment and Senator Toomey's amendment by voice vote. At the same time, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the two amendments offered by Senator DeMint. One of the amendments he has offered would have harmful consequences if passed and could disrupt how the IMF does business. The other, while couched in transparency, essentially removes legislative affairs and public affairs positions from the bill. We have already agreed to remove the legislative affairs positions. The Senate should have some say in determining who is going to give information the Senate and others need, but we don't think the public affairs positions should have to go through Senate confirmation. All of these spokespeople report to Senate-confirmed individuals, where we have oversight. So we don't agree with that half of Senator DeMint's proposal.

I wish once again to thank my colleague and friend Senator Alexander. I wish also to thank Senators Lieberman and Collins. In a few minutes, we will vote on final passage of S. 679 and S. Res. 116, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make a strong statement for more effective government by voting aye.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source