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.
“JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S6992-S6994 on Nov. 2, 2017.
The Department is primarily focused on food nutrition, with assistance programs making up 80 percent of its budget. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, said the Department implements too many regulations and restrictions and impedes the economy.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join several of my colleagues in raising concerns about nominations to the Federal judiciary and the Senate's role in carrying out its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. From my vantage point as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can see all too clearly that an alarming trend of more and more extreme judicial candidates appearing before us is growing, that more extreme judicial candidates are being nominated, and that the safeguards here in the Senate that are important to our vetting process are being threatened.
Let me start by giving a simple overview of what has happened, first in terms of the speed at which we are considering critical lifetime appointments to some of the most central courts in our whole Federal judicial system.
Just this week, my Republican colleagues have brought forward four circuit court nominees--four nominees in one week--beginning to end. That is more than the number of circuit court nominees than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Obama's Presidency.
More important to me than the speed is the quality of our process of reviewing these important nominations. The American Bar Association has issued unanimous ``not qualified'' ratings for two current judicial nominees. That hasn't happened in over a decade--since 2006. The American Bar Association is not a partisan or a political group. Founded in 1878, the ABA is a national professional organization with over 400,000 attorney members. The ABA's uncontroversial objectives are to serve its members, improve the legal profession, enhance diversity, and advance and secure the rule of law in our Nation. Its contributions to the legal profession are significant. It is the ABA that accredits law schools and establishes model ethical codes.
Additionally, since 1953, when President Eisenhower invited the ABA to provide specific, timely input on candidates for Federal judgeships, the ABA has evaluated nominees for professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. This is a rigorous process that involves collecting impartial, peer-review evaluations of candidates.
It is startling that less than a year into this administration, two nominees have already received ``not qualified'' ratings from the ABA, and two more nominees are under consideration of what is called a second evaluator. This is concerning. You see, the ABA does not take giving a ``not qualified'' rating lightly. Any time an evaluator is considering recommending ``not qualified,'' a second evaluator is brought in to conduct an independent review. I believe all nominees to lifetime article III appointments on the Federal bench should have the competence, integrity, and temperament to do the important work that Federal judges are called on to perform.
The nominees we are seeing not only raise concerns about professional qualifications and the speed with which they have been processed. Many of the President's recent candidates are notable for their polarizing, divisive, even offensive rhetoric, rather than the depth of their legal experience or the quality of their judicial temperament. I will give just a few selections from a broad range.
We have recently considered candidates on the Judiciary Committee who had blogged at length in support for birtherism, the discredited and untrue conspiracy theory that suggested that our immediate past President wasn't born in the United States. Another suggested that
``Mama Pelosi'' should be ``gagged.'' Another called Supreme Court Justice Kennedy a ``judicial prostitute,'' compared abortion to slavery, complained that Americans overreacted to Sandy Hook, repeated anti-gay slurs, and said transgender children are proof that ``Satan's plan is working.'' Many alarming, even extreme comments are in the records of folks brought forward for confirmation--a startling number of them.
Frankly, this isn't about party allegiance--being a Republican or a Democrat, being a conservative or a liberal. This is about having the judgment and the temperament to be a Federal judge.
The mechanisms we have for completely evaluating nominees are today being strained. The American Bar Association has been cut out of some of the White House's efforts, its prenomination vetting process. That means that when the ABA conducts an evaluation and seeks feedback from a candidate's peers, they discover the nomination has already been announced by the White House. The candidate has already been chosen. Understandably, lawyers are reluctant to provide candid feedback when they know a potential judge has already been nominated. Additionally, it is concerning that we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee before the ABA rating process is completed. When that happens, it prevents the ABA, our professional organization of attorneys, from being called to testify to explain a ``not qualified'' rating at a hearing where a nominee is considered. In fact, just earlier today, we had two judicial nominees listed on our agenda who do not yet have an ABA rating.
I am not suggesting that every Senator needs to vote in lockstep with the ABA rating, but I feel strongly that the ABA's evaluation must be available to Senators before they are asked to vote on a nominee for a lifetime position as a Federal judge.
Another tool that is under attack that is a century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee is the so-called blue slip. This is a practice that allows the two home-State Senators to give a positive or negative recommendation on a nominee before they receive a hearing and are considered for lifetime tenure. It allows each Senator to approve the judicial nominations for vacancies in their home States or in the circuit courts where a seat is traditionally associated with that home State. By requiring that blue slips be returned before a nominee is considered, each Senator is afforded the courtesy to evaluate whether a judicial nominee will meet the needs of his or her constituents and the priorities and values of their home State. It is an important tool for ensuring that the White House of either party consults with Senators about the judicial candidates the President is considering for nomination. In the end, this tool promotes consensus candidates by ensuring all Senators' views are taken into account, without respect to partisan registration.
As a Senator from Delaware--a State with two current judicial vacancies in one of the busiest district courts in America, which only has four active judgeships--I have been focused on working collaboratively with the White House in a productive manner that ensures that my State gets qualified consensus nominees from the White House. I am pleased to report that Senator Carper and I have had a very positive experience so far working with the White House on these potential nominations, and it is my hope that we will soon see nominees I can support without reservation. But the blue slip process ensures that this consultative, constructive experience is the rule, not the exception. It is unfortunate that this blue slip practice--this century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee--is under sustained attack. I believe we should maintain it for all Senators, in the best interests of this institution and our Federal judiciary.
Article III judges, as I have said, serve with lifetime tenure. They decide issues of civil rights, of personal freedom, commercial disputes of enormous value, and even life and death. These judges can and should, on occasion, also serve as checks on Presidential power overreach. Just in the past few months, article III judges have enjoined executive orders, including the so-called travel ban, the transgender military ban, and the decision to strip funding from sanctuary cities.
We should be advancing nominees who can earn broad support from Members of both parties, nominees with the experience to handle some of the most complex and demanding judicial issues of our time, nominees who have demonstrated the temperament to administer justice fairly. These nominations matter. The nominees who will fill the 140 current judicial vacancies on district and circuit courts across our country will play a critical role in either protecting or undermining the constitutional rights that are the bedrock of our Republic. Our courts must continue to be the place where everyone is treated fairly and the legal rights of our citizens can be vindicated.
I wish to close by calling on my colleagues to reconsider how we are conducting the judicial nominee process. This race to confirm as many nominees as possible is not how we respect the rule of law--one of the most treasured American values.
I have come to the floor multiple times since the beginning of this Congress to convey and speak about the importance of bipartisanship, and I will continue to do that today.
As we have seen in important public policy matters, from the healthcare debate to the current debate on tax reform, Republicans and Democrats need to work together to get things done. Purely partisan processes will not succeed in this or future Congresses. We have to work together to protect our democracy and our rule of law.
I would also like to note that today Sam Clovis withdrew as a nominee for Chief Scientist at the USDA.
I am not here to comment on any connection to any ongoing investigations or other social issues but, rather, would like to comment on a simple concern I have had since his nomination; namely, that Mr. Clovis is unqualified to serve as Chief Scientist, lacking any professional training in the hard sciences. This is not just my opinion but a matter of statutory requirement. It is a requirement in statute to have a background in science. Science is critically important to agriculture, and this is another Federal agency that depends on good science.
Given the serious challenges facing America's farmers and our food system--from pollinator declines, to deteriorating soil health, to a changing climate--USDA's science mission is extremely important. As someone whose home State university has a vibrant department of agriculture, as someone who knows the very broad range of Federal funding for USDA that supports agriculture-related scientific research--the USDA is critical in helping provide our farmers with the information they need to improve plant and animal resilience, to be more effective stewards of the land, and to adopt new technologies and practices on their farms. This could all be at risk if the agency's head of science has no relevant scientific training and even rejects current scientific thinking.
I believe that science, not mere opinion or partisan attitude, should underpin our decisions when it comes to our Nation's agricultural policy.
It is my hope that the administration will now go back and recommend a nominee who is scientifically trained and who cares deeply about the role of science in our Nation's agriculture.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
