By
There’s a qualitative difference between using legislative tools and abusing legislative tools. Watching some senators take advantage of the chamber’s informal rules on “procedural holds” clearly offers evidence of the latter.
Revisiting our recent coverage, the most indefensible example, is Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who has imposed a blockade against U.S. military promotions, as part of a tantrum over abortion policy. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is standing in the way of EPA nominees, because he’s upset about how an environmental policy he helped write is being implemented.
Republican Sen. J.D. Vance recently joined the misguided parade, announcing blanket holds on Justice Department nominees in response to federal prosecutors having the audacity to charge Donald Trump with multiple felonies, just because they have extensive evidence of alleged criminal wrongdoing. (The Ohioan recently tried to justify his tactics. It didn’t go well.)
Alas, the list keeps growing. The Wall Street Journal reported:
A pair of Republican senators have thrown up roadblocks to the confirmation of dozens of U.S. ambassadors, marking the latest effort by lawmakers to delay President Biden’s nominees until their demands are addressed. Sens. J.D. Vance (R., Ohio) and Rand Paul (R., Ky.) — citing concerns about progressive political ideology and Covid-19 research records respectively — have put holds on State Department appointees, primarily career foreign-service officers.
Vance told The Wall Street Journal he’s placed holds on roughly 30 nominees, including the White House’s nominee to the African Union, career diplomat Stephanie Sullivan, because the senator considers her “woke.”
Kentucky’s Paul, meanwhile, is standing in the way of State Department nominees, including nominees for ambassadors, because he’s looking for evidence related to his Covid theories.
Not to be outdone, the same report added that Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has held up a would-be assistant secretary of state.
Taken together, Foreign Policy magazine last week summarized, “Dozens of important national security posts are now sitting empty at a dangerous era in U.S. foreign policy due to Republican congressional holds as threats proliferate, from Russia’s war in Ukraine to China’s rise as a global superpower.”
Imagine trying to explain all of this to officials abroad. I’m imagining a conversation that would unfold something like this:
“You have a Senate that’s responsible for approving these officials before they’re able to take office.”
“Right.”
“And a majority of the Senate supports these nominees.”
“Yep, that’s correct, too.”
“But they’re nevertheless stuck, and your government is still filled with vacancies, even in matters related to your own country’s foreign policy and national security.”
“Exactly.”
“And that’s because...”
“Well, the Senate has a bizarre tradition related to ‘procedural holds,’ and voters elected some members who don’t mind being irresponsible, so here we are.”
“Won’t voters retaliate against senators undermining their own country’s needs?”
“You might think so, but these guys more or less assume there will be no consequences, in part because most voters won’t hear anything about this. Those assumptions are probably correct.”
When I wrote about this last month, I heard from a handful of readers who pushed back against the idea that “holds” matter: All they do, critics said, is require senators to jump through some procedural hoops ahead of a confirmation vote, by standing in the way of the usual “unanimous consent” steps that allow the institution to function. It’s not as if individual senators can block nominees indefinitely, right?
It’s not quite that simple. As a recent Washington Post editorial explained, “Holds cannot ultimately stop confirmations, but breaking through them requires significant and valuable Senate floor time — typically two or three days per nomination.”
Given the number of nominees conservative senators are now holding up, we’re talking about a confirmation process that should take hours, but which would instead take several months.
The obvious solution would be for senators to be more responsible, but if that’s not going to happen, and consequential abuses are going to become more common, it’s apparently time for a larger conversation about reforming the way the chamber does business.
The Hill recently reported that some Senate Democrats “say they’re ready to take another look at rules reform.” It’s an effort worth watching.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.