Schumer Remarks on the Need for Proper Vetting of Trump’s Cabinet Nominees

“We now have reports in the media that under Rex Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon conducted business with Iran, potentially in violation of U.S. sanctions law. These are serious questions that need to be answered. In this case, Mr. Tillerson should release all of this tax returns and answer any questions on the Iran dealings that members ask. This is too serious a subject to have questions ducked. It demands a completely open airing of all the relevant information.”

“For Rex Tillerson to answer all of these questions is the only way for the Senate to do its Constitutional job to advise and consent.” 

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today spoke on the Senate floor about the updated confirmation hearing schedules for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees as well as the ongoing concern for their proper vetting. Below are his remarks:

As hearings for the President-Elect's nominees get under way starting today, I wanted to reiterate that a fair and thorough investigating process is a top priority not only for my caucus, but for the American people.

Chief to achieving that is a fair hearing schedule and process.

• That means that hearings are sufficiently spaced out so that members that sit on multiple committees can actually attend all the hearings.

• It means that only holding hearings after the full committee paperwork, OGE review, FBI background check and full divestment plan has been received and senators have adequate time to review the information.

• And it means if there are senators with remaining questions that weren't covered in a first hearing, they can have the nominee come back for a second day.

Mr. President, our caucus and much of America was alarmed and disappointed by the announcements of the hearing schedule this week which did not meet the best practices and the basic courtesies that have always been extended in the past.

However, Mr. President, I’m happy to say that after negotiating with my friend, the Majority Leader, and his respective committee chairs, we've been able to make some progress on a fair hearing process. I appreciate the Majority Leader's openness and effort to accommodate our caucus in the last few days.

Originally, there were six hearings scheduled for this Wednesday. All especially important cabinet posts: Secretary of State, Attorney General, Education, Transportation, Homeland Security, CIA. That was largely unprecedented. We've looked back in history and can only find one instance where there were that many hearings of important cabinet members on one day like that.

But after negotiations with the Majority Leader, we've moved around so that there are now only three hearings scheduled for Wednesday:  for the Secretary of State, AG, and Transportation. All three of these nominees have their paperwork in.

The nominee for Secretary of Education who does not yet have a signed ethics agreement and whose paperwork is not close to complete was moved. That hearing will take place next week pending that our paperwork is submitted with time for senators to review. So it's still a busy week. A little too busy for my personal taste, but it's a good first step.

I hope we can continue to negotiate in good faith to sort out the schedule in a way that is acceptable to both of our caucuses.

Mr. President, I also want to make clear that this progress does not mean that our caucus is any less intent on having the President-Elect's nominees complete the standard ethics forms, questionnaires and FBI background checks required of every nominee.

To have all this information come in after the hearing is sort of like Alice in Wonderland. It makes no sense; things are upside-down. I'm still concerned, for example, that we don't have a completed FBI background check for the nominee for Secretary of State. His hearing starts tomorrow.

And today, there are reports in the media that under Rex Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon conducted business with Iran, potentially in violation of U.S. sanctions law. So there are really serious questions that need to be answered. In this particular case, Mr. Tillerson should release all his tax returns and promise to answer any questions on the Iran dealings that members ask.

This is too serious a subject to have questions ducked. It demands a completely open airing of all relevant information.

Did Mr. Tillerson go around our Iran sanctions simply to line Exxon’s pockets? That would be a very bad thing. The American people ought to know about it before the Senate has to vote to confirm.

For Rex Tillerson to answer the questions -- and particularly questions about Exxon setting up a separate subsidiary to get around our Iran sanctions -- is what the founding fathers wanted us to do when they enumerated in the advise and consent process.

Mr. President, this is not a partisan game. We're not doing this for sport. These aren't obscure procedural complaints. This is standard process. And as I reminded my friend, the Majority Leader, yesterday, this is the same exact process my counterpart demanded in 2009 when the shoe was on the other foot. Just as then-Minority Leader McConnell laid out in his 2009 letter to then-Majority Leader Reid, Democrats expect each nominee to have all the prerequisites with time to review before we move forward with the hearings. President Obama’s nominees completed all of their paperwork in 2009 before the hearings.

We expect nothing less from President-Elect Trump's nominees. Particularly, we expect that the paperwork to be all in with time to review. Having the paperwork in at 7:00 a.m. and holding a hearing at 10:00 a.m. is unacceptable, and we expect there will be adequate time for follow-up questions on a second day of hearings if senators are unable to finish their questions.

Now, today my colleague, the Majority Leader, said well, most of the cabinet nominees were in already when this letter came out, but the letter doesn't specify who. It includes cabinet members, and there were future cabinet members that would come forward. It's a good standard. We're all for it. We're asking our friends on the other side of the aisle to stick with it. What was good for them in 2009 is good for the country in 2017.

So, Mr. President, we are insistent on the process because it's the right thing to do.

It's the American thing to do. We don't hide nominees and rush them through. They have huge power, huge power.

If President-Elect, our Republican colleagues are as proud of the nominees as they state, then they should be happy to have them answer a lot of questions in a hearing that is not rushed. It's how we'll ensure that cabinet officials who are imbued with an immense power in our government are ethically and substantively qualified for these positions.

And, Mr. President, if there is any group of cabinet nominees that cries out for this process, it's this group of nominees. This proposed cabinet is unlike any other. It is wealthier than any other. It has a complex web of corporate connections.

So many of the nominees that pose huge potential conflict of interest problems. And frankly, it is the most hard right cabinet in its ideology. Quite different from the way President-Elect Trump campaigned.

The potential conflicts of interest for multimillionaires like Rex Tillerson or Betsy DeVos or Steve Mnuchin are enormous.

As I have said, the nominees have views so far to the right of what the President-Elect campaigned on.

The most glaring example is Representative Price. His whole career has been focused on ending Medicare as we know it. My colleague, the Majority Leader, said the American people want us to move forward and give President-Elect Trump his nominees.

If they knew that one of the nominees had been dedicated to basically getting rid of Medicare, would they want us to vote for him? I’ll bet not. But it sure explains why they want to rush these nominees through.

They don't want all of these things brought to life, but that is the wrong thing to do, and we're going to fight for the right thing to do.

The American people have a right to know if they voted for a president who might be going back on one of his key campaign promises. They deserve nothing less than open and deliberate hearings going forward.

Will Representative Price stick with what President-Elect Trump said? No cuts to Medicare, Medicaid? Or will he pursue his lifelong dream of privatizing and limiting them? We’ll see. But we need answers at hearings before we vote, and the American people are entitled to it.

So once again, I thank the Majority Leader for dealing in good faith and trying to address our concerns. I hope for the sake of the national interest that our two parties can come together on an agreement for the remainder of the process as we have for the process so far.

Now, on a separate matter, ACA, Mr. President, last night, Senate Democrats held the floor late into the night to demonstrate our commitment and solidarity to defending ACA, to defending the tens of millions of Americans who have been afforded the opportunity to access care for the first time and the tens of millions more whose coverage is fairer, more generous, more affordable because of the law.

More than 35 members participated here on the floor or on Facebook live, Snapchat or Twitter. I thank each and every one of the members on my side, the vast majority of our caucus, for participating.

Many of them discussed the threat the Republican plan to ‘Make America Sick Again’ poses to the health care of 300 million Americans, but beyond that, the Republican budget resolution calls for a massive increase in the federal debt.

Yesterday, Sean Donovan, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a letter explaining that this budget resolution would allow publicly held debt to increase by $9.5 trillion. From $14.2 trillion in 2016 to $23.7 trillion in 2026.

Our colleagues have talked about being deficit hawks and Democrats bring up ideas. They say can't do it, it increases the deficit.

Well, is that going to apply to this [budget resolution] which increases the deficit by massive amounts? The deficit would exceed $1.3 trillion in 2026. That's almost as high as the $1.4 trillion at the depths of that recession and financial crisis that president Obama had to meet. Are my colleagues now going to do a 180-degree reversal and say that now the debt increase of such dramatic numbers is okay? I hope not. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be consistent.

Mr. President, many of my republican colleagues like to claim they care about the deficit. During President Obama’s administration, there was an obsession over deficit and deficit reduction, and, by the way, no praise for the President for reducing the debt by a dramatic amount -- the deficit by a dramatic amount.

Now many of those same members who chastised President Obama for much smaller deficits than those proposed in our budget are supporting this budget resolution. Well, I’d say to my colleagues, you can't claim to be a fiscal hawk and support a budget that piles on trillions in additional debt. That’s not being fiscally conservative. It's being fiscally hypocritical in the extreme.

So far, my friend, Senator Paul of Kentucky, has made this point forcefully. My question is --will other Republicans stand with him and stand up against this fiscal hypocrisy?

Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. 

###