[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 65 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Page S1965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Motion to Discharge

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today in opposition to this 
illegitimate motion to discharge the nomination of Vanita Gupta to 
become the Associate Attorney General of the United States.
  I say that this motion to discharge is illegitimate because it was--
because the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman decided 
unilaterally to ram through a vote on Ms. Gupta in violation of the 
rules and precedents of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  As has been the longstanding tradition in the Judiciary Committee, 
members were debating the nomination of Vanita Gupta and expected that 
everyone would be given the opportunity to speak.
  But in the middle of a speech being delivered by one of the Judiciary 
Committee's members, Senator Cotton from Arkansas, the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Durbin, cut him off and unilaterally proceeded to a 
vote, effectively nuking the committee rules that should have allowed 
Senator Cotton and others to speak.
  Never, in the more than 10 years that I have served on the Judiciary 
Committee, have I seen a chairman of that committee so blatantly, 
brazenly violate rule and principle and precedent in this way. This 
behavior is not only unusual, but it is inexcusable.
  Lengthy debate in committee markups is actually much more common than 
some in this Chamber might have you believe. For example, Democrats 
filibustered the nomination of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions 
for so long that then-Chairman Chuck Grassley was forced to delay a 
consideration of his nomination until the next markup.
  You have got that right. Chairman Grassley actually followed the 
committee rules and allowed for all of our colleagues to speak, 
notwithstanding the fact that they disagreed with him, notwithstanding 
the fact that it was contentious, notwithstanding the fact that he 
didn't like what they were saying.
  And by doing so, he was forced--because he was complying with the 
rules and the precedents of the Senate--to delay the consideration of 
Attorney General Sessions' nomination. But that is what he did. He did 
that instead because it was preferable to an act of unilaterally 
forcing a vote and thereby nuking the Judiciary Committee's rules.
  Now, to put this in context, we need to understand that Judiciary 
Committee rule IV states:

       The Chair shall enter a non-debatable motion to bring a 
     matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection 
     to bringing a matter to a vote without further debate, a roll 
     call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall 
     be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote 
     without further debate passes with twelve votes in the 
     affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

  Rule IV essentially preserves the right of minority members to speak.
  Chairman Durbin decided to nuke that part of rule IV in particular 
because he knew that he didn't have 12 votes to prematurely end debate.
  Now, when you are in the majority, it can be tempting to run right 
past certain rules, knocking things over in the process in order to get 
your party's nominees confirmed. But I think it is important for us to 
resist that temptation in order to protect the rules of our institution 
from partisan passions.
  Following these rules, respecting minority prerogatives, is precisely 
what allows us to maintain bipartisan cooperation in the Senate and 
lower the partisan tensions in our country. This is all the more 
important when we consider that there is no true majority in the 
Senate, and there is no majority at all on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.

  Unfortunately, with this breach, it looks like some of my colleagues 
might prefer convenience over debate. I find that most unfortunate, 
especially because I have worked with so many of them on a bipartisan 
basis on so many issues.
  Now, some of my colleagues may claim that Republicans have done this 
very thing many times. That, however, is not the case. On multiple 
occasions, we allowed for extended debate and even delayed reporting of 
matters before the committee, like Attorney General Sessions' 
nomination and the Crossfire Hurricane subpoenas, until the next 
markup. When we set votes with the consent of the majority, the 
chairman followed committee precedent and did so through a rollcall 
vote--again, consistent with committee precedent.