Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I think the motives ascribed by the Senator from New Mexico are improper. I do not think it is so people can't get into a job to cause President Obama problems. I reject that motive. With any administration, there is a very big difference of opinion. That is why we have elections. That is why things move like this in our country. It is about whether somebody objects to somebody's either philosophical bent or qualifications for a certain job. I make the point again that at the same time under a Republican Congress, President Bush had fewer numbers approved than President Obama does at this time. I hope we would not ascribe that motive. I want President Obama to have, in fact, the people he needs to have in place to effectively run our government. I will give the numbers again. To this date, President Obama has 596 of his nominees confirmed. At the same time, President Bush had 570. In the two previous administrations, President Bill Clinton had 740 and President George H.W. Bush had 700. I think what my colleagues are fighting for is fine. I agree with them. I am on the team as far as that is concerned. But I think we ought to be careful with the motives we ascribe. I really do not think it is to try to handcuff the administration. I think it is different. Of course, the sign that is being put up is about who is pending. I understand that. Let's be careful on the ascribing of motives. As I talk with my colleagues, I do not really find that motive. Even though they may not be out front with it as I have been, that does not mean they necessarily want the administration to not be effective.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to make an inquiry of the Chair as to the interpretation of the rule we passed, because it is my understanding that the rule doesn't require you to publish, but it does say the majority and minority leader are no longer obligated to honor your request for a hold if you have not. I ask for the Chair's opinion on that.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 15 minutes as in morning business for myself.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I pay tribute to one of my staff members today. She recently left. She had a child and is being a mom and a civic activist. But she was a trusted adviser and, more than that, a dedicated patriot. Jane Treat, who has been with me since the earliest parts of 2004, is leaving to become a full-time mother. It is hard to lose her. But I understand the attraction as well as the commitment for a much more important job. She first came to work for me as a volunteer, fresh off her studies at Patrick Henry College. Since that time she has played a key role on my Judiciary Committee through many intense legislative battles. She spent many long days in the Dirksen Building poring through briefing materials, preparing background notes for me, and negotiating on my behalf with other offices. She was there during the Roberts and Alito hearings. For a time she also served as my interim chief counsel on the committee, since I had no attorneys and she was a nonattorney as well, which was a rare occasion. Her dedication has never wavered. The fact is, she worked the day she delivered her first child. She prepared negotiations that day for a bill that threatened the second amendment of the Constitution and how it interacted with our veterans. We prevailed that day in no small part because of her efforts. One would be hard pressed to find anyone who cherishes the Constitution and who knows its principles as well as Jane Treat. My legislative director jokes: Although Jane did not actually write the Constitution, she is its fiercest defender. I would have to agree. For the past 2 years, and after the birth of her daughter, Jane has managed a correspondence team that works in my office, ensuring that every letter that reached my desk was treated with the utmost concern and professionalism. She cared for each constituent as if it were written to a close relative or a neighbor. In that, she has done a terrific job. There is one last quality of Jane that I commend to everyone in the room, and that is courage. Jane has a keen sense of right and wrong and will not allow an injustice to stand, whether it is policy related or simply human. She fights for everybody. When she disagrees--I am laughing about this because when she disagreed with me, I was always sure I would hear about it later. She would come to the office and knock on the door, and say: Now we need to have a talk. You were wrong. Of course, I would remind her that she was not elected and I was and there is some interpretation to the Constitution. But the quality of having the courage to confront on things that are strongly held beliefs is a great quality that built our country, and she distinguishes herself in it. That is in contrast to what usually happens in this town where we avoid difficult issues rather than confront them. True to her principles, she will turn her attention toward her new community in Broken Arrow, OK, where she will be a full-time mom. It will not be long, for sure, before she is volunteering again for a cause close to her heart. Jane, we appreciate you. We thank you for your service, and we thank you for the modeling of your behavior. Secret Holds Now, I just want to spend a few minutes because what we have just gone through is a challenge to a process that has been ongoing for a long period of time. The President knows I am in agreement with sunshine. As a matter of fact, the President and I created the Transparency and Accountability Act so that everything we do gets published in terms of what we spend and how we spend it. I agree we ought to be forthright with the reasons we hold individuals. But let's talk about what a hold is. A hold is saying you do not agree to a unanimous-consent request to pass out an individual. In other words, what is a hold? What does it really say? It really says, first of all, I either may have some very significant concerns with this individual or I may want to study this individual for a period of time and their record before I agree to it or I may want to debate it, the qualifications of the individual. I agree on the transparency. But I think it is very important that we go back to say--and not necessarily attune the motive. But when I read the sign about those who are being held now versus in the Bush administration, I am reminded that there were over 100 U.S. attorneys and marshals and 50 judges at the same time who were blocked in committee so they could not even get to the floor at that time. So it depends on where one takes the snapshot. There are lots of reasons to not agree to people being confirmed. I have no problem with stating my reasons, and I will publish my reasons. I do not have any problem even publishing them. But I am not sure that we want to necessarily impugn the motives of somebody who takes advantage of that. I agree with the Senator from Missouri. I have no problems with putting it out in the open. But I did ask the question, and at some point in time I think it would be wise for those who think that, that we get a parliamentary ruling on what the rule really means because I think there is some discussion. I do not doubt that the intent of what was passed was exactly what we intended: to put it out there. But I think the interpretation or how it may be read is subject to some debate, and it would be great to have a Parliamentarian rule on that. Finally, I would say, the other side of this issue, which comes back to things that are dear to my heart, is the fact that 94 percent of everything that passes in this body passes by that very process, unanimous consent. Unanimous consent says: We will not have debate. We will not have an amendment. Things will pass because nobody objects to it passing. There is a real disadvantage for our country in that. The disadvantage is that the American people never know what we are doing. They do not get a hearing. They do not get to hear the policy debates on both sides of the issue. It is good that we work some things out, but if you watch the floor, what we know is 40 percent of the floor time is spent in a quorum call. The real issue we are fighting is the moving, is the reason the majority leader does not move them, because it takes time to move them. Right? That is our problem. Time is our biggest enemy in the Senate. But yet that is exactly what our Founders intended. They wanted it to be very difficult to change what they had put in place, and they set in motion this system that says: We are going to make things thoughtfully, under full consideration, with open debate. We hear our colleagues all the time say this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. It is, but not all of the deliberation goes on on the Senate floor. I have no doubt there are abuses on both sides. I do not know what the motives are. When I hold somebody, I hold them because I think they are either not qualified for the job, I think they have a past record that would question their character, or I think, in fact, they will do a terrible job at the position even if they are qualified. And I have the right, as an individual Senator, to say I am not going to support that nomination. So I am all for moving and giving Presidents what they want, but I am not for doing it without the debate and the consideration that needs to be there. So I am very supportive of people standing up and saying why they are holding up people. Through the courtesy of the Senator from Missouri, she did not list one of the judges that I am sure she was going to ask unanimous consent on because I was the lone Senator in the Judiciary Committee to vote against him. Now, I do not know who is holding him. But the fact is, I do not think he is qualified. I want him to be debated. I want to have a chance to inform the American people why I think he should not be a circuit court judge. And that is my right. To say we are just going to move him without a debate, without anything but a vote, I am not going to do that on people I think are not truly qualified. So it is not as straightforward as we think. I think we ought to think about how the process is working, that the leaders do work on this process. They move a lot of them forward. I understand the frustration, and I would be giving the same speech if it was turned around. As a matter of fact, I have before. So I concur with my colleagues. I think sunlight is a wonderful thing. I think there are times where we have the problem, and I will give you three specific examples. I publish all of my holds. Under the Emmett Till bill, I was immediately accused of being a racist. I held the bill because I wanted it paid for, but as soon as I put out that I was holding the bill, I was accused of being a racist. So there are reasons for people to work behind the scenes to be able to work on things, to solve the problem with their concerns, without it becoming public, so that you get the ultimate action but do not impugn the integrity of people because they may not agree. So the potential of letting go of all of this idea that we cannot negotiate before we come, and that we have to expose everything--what happened was the special interest groups attacked me ferociously. I ended up becoming best friends with a very significant individual who drove that. What has happened today is we still have not done it because we did not put the money in to pay for it, which is what I wanted. There is still no special provision. There is still no action. We passed it 2 years ago. Next thing was the Veterans Caregiver Act. I hated veterans because I thought we ought to pay for it, and I thought it ought to apply to every veteran who had that kind of injury who served this country. But yet there was a ferocious attack by the interest groups. I am willing to take that heat. That comes with the job. But it is certainly not fair to put yourself in that position. I understand why other Senators will not stand up and say every time why they are holding a bill when we see that kind of attack coming at us. Same thing on breast cancer. My sister-in-law, a cousin, all with breast cancer, two-time cancer survivor myself, but I hated breast cancer patients. You can see why the idea of objecting to a unanimous consent and then immediately putting it out there will end up with the attack of the special interest groups in this country, because you are trying to make something better but your motives are impugned because you don't agree with the special interest that is running the bill in the first place or, in the case of a nomination, the special interest of the administration. They think this is the individual. I don't defend. I put it out. I am willing to take that. But I understand that is not always the best way to get something accomplished, because you end up burning a lot of energy defending yourself on something you are totally innocent of in the first place. You want a different result for a different reason, but that never gets covered. This morning has been great. It is interesting that we have had this debate. My hope is we will have people who will stand up and speak and put up why they believe what they believe, fight for the principles they believe in. I think I can defend my principles to the hilt. In front of 100 commonsense folks in this country, I can get 85 of them to decide with me. I am not afraid to do that. I am willing to be honest and transparent and straightforward. But the impugning of motives worries me, because it has nothing to do with not wanting President Obama to have his people. It has to do, in many instances, with people who are truly unqualified or truly are divergent on what their past has been versus what they say. Those are legitimate reasons to have debate on individuals who are going to serve a function in this government. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. I object.