Unanimous Consent Request—Executive Calendarby Senator Chuck Grassley
Posted on 2013-01-02
GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, I would point out that the majority has had this
nomination pending since May 17 when it was reported out of the
Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. Not only for myself, but I
think for a lot of people on my side of the aisle, this nomination is
controversial and should not be moved via unanimous consent in the
waning hours of this Congress. If this nomination were as important as
the majority now seems to believe it is, this would have warranted
debate and negotiations earlier in the session. Instead, the majority
now seeks to raise this nomination in order to avoid having to resubmit
the nomination for consideration.
I think I have shown a very different willingness to accommodate the majority even on controversial nominations. For example, we agreed to remove William Baer just last week despite the controversy surrounding his nomination, and he was subsequently confirmed. So I am not opposed to discussing controversial nominations, including this one, but they need to be done in a way that allows debate and discussion prior to a vote.
Given the controversial responses to written questions this nominee provided, there is need for debate and discussion on this nomination by the full Senate, not unanimous consent here at the last minute. Therefore, I object to the nomination being considered at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.