The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Motion to Discharge (Executive Session)” mentioning Tom Cotton was published in the Senate section on pages S1958-S1959 on April 15.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Motion to Discharge
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now, I just want to speak about the motion to discharge as opposed to whether people should vote for or against Gupta.
I am opposed to this effort to discharge Gupta from the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it is not properly in order. In theory, we are moving this nomination because it failed in Committee by an even, tie vote. But that vote should never have been called, and it was improper when it was.
Under the committee rules, members have a right to unlimited debate. This can only be stopped either by a bipartisan vote to end debate under the rules or by a vote of the majority of the committee to set a time certain to vote under precedent. Because Republicans at Ms. Gupta's markup wanted to talk, there couldn't have been a bipartisan vote to end debate. In fact, some, like my colleagues from North Carolina, didn't have a chance to speak and were still waiting their turn. And because the Democrats don't have a majority in the committee, they couldn't have set a time certain.
Under the rules and precedents of the committee, then, they had to let Republicans talk, and if it took more than one markup, so be it. The Democrats did this talkathon when I was chairman. During our second markup of 2017, in order to delay Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, Democrats filibustered in the Judiciary Committee. When it happened, I didn't interrupt anyone or break any rules. I simply continued the markup the next day, checking to see who would want to be recognized and for how long.
The fact is that the Democrats frequently used these filibuster tactics against us over the past 4 years. We simply dealt with them from a position of confidence in the rules and precedents of our committee. Sometimes being chairman and moving nominees takes hard work, but we did the job we needed to do.
That is not what happened in the discussion of Gupta. Instead, my colleague from Arkansas was interrupted and the roll was called while he was still speaking.
This was not the power of the majority being used. It was the power of the chairman. What is the point of having rules if you can just ignore them--just ignore them when you find yourself dealing with an unfamiliar situation.
So I don't think the even vote--the tie vote--in committee even properly happened. As far as I am concerned, Senator Cotton had the floor. That rollcall vote was illegitimate under committee rules, and so the one that we are going to have in the Senate this afternoon is just as illegitimate.
And why did the Chairman scrap the committee rules for this nominee? This isn't a Supreme Court nomination. The nominee is a sub-Cabinet official at the Justice Department. So I have to wonder why. I think it is because the Democrats know how really powerful she will be in the Justice Department
As Judge Garland told us during his hearing, he didn't pick Ms. Gupta. He only got to know her after they were both picked. That is quite a position for a subordinate to be in.
The late Congressman Dingell famously said this--and I will clean it up a bit: ``You let me write the precedent, and I'll [beat] . . . you every time.''
The Judiciary Committee has done him one better: Now there is no procedure.
If the rules are not respected, the Senate is an institution that loses every time.
I urge my colleagues to vote no and protect the traditions of the body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know that there is another Republican Senator that I have worked with as much and as effectively and with as much pleasure as Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa--and I mean it. We have done some good things together.
We sometimes started off in opposing positions and tried to find some common ground. The First Step Act was a good illustration of that, but it is not the only demonstration, and I trust that there will be more. I am sorry we disagree today.
Two points I will make. Rule 4, as described by Senator Grassley, is virtually, as I mentioned earlier, a doomsday filibuster. There is just no way out of it, particularly with an evenly divided committee. I am not the first to discover that as chairman.
I will make as part of the Record, and I am going to share with my colleague from Iowa, the four or five instances when previous Republican chairs of the committee did exactly what I did with this nomination and said: We are moving forward; we are not going to pay attention to rule 4.
Senator Graham, Senator Grassley, and others have done just exactly that in the past. So I think we adopted that as a rule because it was already in the rules, and we were evenly tied in committee. But it sure ties the hands of a chairman or anyone who is trying to accomplish anything if there is one person who just stands and objects and objects and objects. It is a very difficult situation.
The second thing I will mention is--I am going to make this a part of the Record, and I don't have it at hand as I stand here--the quote from Merrick Garland in his nomination hearing when someone raised the question about Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke, another nominee working her way through the committee. Merrick Garland may not have known either one of them personally beforehand. He could have, but I am not sure. But he made it abundantly clear that this is the team he wanted to manage the Department of Justice--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. He totally committed and believed that each of them brought a perspective in the law and by their own legal experience valuable to him and the Department of Justice and to the Nation. So I don't think there is any question that he is committed to Vanita Gupta, as he should be.
I will yield back at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sorry that I missed the incredibly thoughtful comments of the Democratic whip, who I think spoke on the topic--one of the topics--that I am going to speak about.
I think I have 10 minutes. Is that right?
OK. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Clarification: The Senator may use whatever time he needs to.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank the--I want to thank the brilliant ruling of the Parliamentarian on that subject.
Mr. DURBIN. Excuse me. If I can have a clarification. As I understand it, we are in measured time, 2 hours to a side. Any speakers on our side will be taken from that 2-hour total.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much
Alerts Sign-up