[Congressional Record: April 20, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S2463-S2466]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUESTS--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, earlier today I came to the floor to
talk about transparency and the bright sunshine of public service and
how foundational it is to that service being open. It is impossible to
do the people's business if we do not allow the people to see what we
are doing.
I remember sound and fury coming from some of my friends on the other
side of the aisle when they believed there were decisions being made
about the health care bill behind closed doors, sound and fury that
somehow someone wasn't telling the public everything that was going on.
Meanwhile, dozens and dozens of nominees to do the work of our
government have piled up under the heading of a ``secret hold.''
I don't really understand how the secret hold came about. I don't
really understand why one would ever need a
[[Page S2464]]
hold to be secret. Why does it need to be a secret? Is there something
going on that you are not proud of? Is there a problem you don't want
people to find out about?
I have to tell my colleagues, I kind of admire the Senator from
Louisiana, who boldly spoke out that he is holding a general and not
allowing this general to get another star, after a unanimous vote of
the Armed Services Committee, because he wants a special project for
his State that hasn't been authorized and hasn't been appropriated--
bold but not unheard of, unfortunately, around here. People are
constantly making deals for pork. Pork is an important part of the
dealmaking around this place. Way too much of it goes on behind closed
doors. But at least the Senator from Louisiana and I think earlier the
Senator from Alabama--at least they were willing to publicly say they
were holding a nominee because they wanted some pork for their States.
What I am most worried about is how many people out there are holding
these nominees for secret reasons, and there are secret negotiations
going on about what they want to get in order to release the hold. That
is what everyone should be uncomfortable with.
Because we were uncomfortable with it, the Senate passed a bill. We
passed a bill that was signed into law by President Bush, and I think
this bill was passed 90-something to 4. In that bill, in section 512,
it lays out what we thought was going to be an end to the secret hold.
In the bill, it says that once someone makes a unanimous-consent
request for a nomination to proceed, then that is the starting gun. The
clock begins ticking. In that law, it says that when the motion is
made, the Member of the Senate who has a secret hold must notify their
party leader of the reasons why the nomination is being held; further,
that the hold must be published, and the reasons for it, in the
Congressional Record within 6 days.
Well, this morning I began the process of making that clock tick so
that secret holds come out in the open where we can all identify them.
Keep in mind that all of the names I am trying to begin the clock
ticking for under secret holds came out of committee without an
objection. In fact, we even went so far as to go back in the record and
see if there was a voice vote, and even if there was a voice vote
against the nominee, we didn't include them in this list. So these
literally are people who have been nominated to do important things in
our government, such as putting criminals in jail, sitting on the
bench, moving prisoners around the country, an ambassador to a country
that is incredibly important to the stability of the Middle East and
our national security. All of these people have not had anyone speaking
out in opposition to them. Yet they are held in secret.
So it is important to begin this process so that Senators can proudly
explain what exactly--I think there are many examples, probably, of
what the Senator from Louisiana was trying to do. The man he is holding
has nothing to do with the project he wants. The man he is holding
can't even deliver the project he wants. He is just telling that
agency: You are not going to get what you want until I get what I want.
I have to tell my colleagues that is not the way the American people
want this place run.
While the vast majority of these are secret holds by our friends from
across the aisle, there are also a handful that are being held by
Democrats, and that is just as wrong. This is a bipartisan issue. It is
about good government, transparency, and doing the people's business in
public instead of in secret.
I wish to clarify a point made earlier today in an exchange I had
with the Senator from Arizona. The Senator asked why I did not include
Calendar No. 208, John Sullivan, a member of the FEC, on my list. As I
stated earlier, my list consists of those nominees who have secret
holds. It is my understanding that the Democratic Senator from
Wisconsin raised his objection to Mr. Sullivan publicly and put out a
public statement on his opposition to Mr. Sullivan on June 30, 2009.
If any of these names I am going to proceed to try to get unanimous
consent on--if any Member has, in fact, put out a public statement on
their opposition, then obviously they just need to speak up. That is
what we are looking for here. We are looking for people to speak and
own up to their objection. There is nothing wrong with holding a
nominee if you have an objection. There is something wrong if it is
secret. There is nothing wrong with debating a nominee. There is if it
is secret. There is nothing wrong with voting no on a nominee. That is
public. It is the secrecy we have to get at here.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive
session to consider Calendar No. 652, the nomination of Michael
Mundaca, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; that the nomination be
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately
notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to
the nominee be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, and I will simply make a
couple of comments at this point because, as my colleague has said, it
is her intention to make further unanimous-consent requests, and much
of what I say will be linked to them as well. So with her indulgence,
let me just make a couple of points.
I don't know whether there are, in fact, holds on all of the
individuals for whom there will be a unanimous-consent request made or
whether in some cases there was just a failure to clear on what we call
around here a hotline; that is to say, a request made by the clerks on
both the Republican and Democratic side.
I don't know who has holds on these individuals. If there are, I
haven't looked it up. There are some, clearly, who are not
objectionable who are on the Executive Calendar. I think, for example,
of U.S. Marshals and, as far as I know, there will be no objection on
our side. Those are simply to be worked out, in terms of when the votes
will occur, between the two leaders. There is a process for that to
occur. We just voted for a judge, and that process was done.
I understand there is an agreement for a Department of Justice
Assistant Counsel who will be voted on tomorrow and two judges--I think
both circuit court judges--which has been worked out by the leaders.
I only say, if my colleague from Missouri intends to ask unanimous-
consent requests that each of the individuals she names be approved by
unanimous consent, I will have to object to that because I think it is
more appropriate for our leaders to determine a time for debate, if
there needs to be debate, and a vote, if there needs to be a vote.
Short of that, I will have to object to the unanimous-consent request.
Therefore, with respect to the specific request just made,
respectfully, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, when someone fails to clear someone
they are holding--and they have a right to do that--this is not a
debate over whether people have a right to hold. I assure the Senator
from Arizona that the leader is very aware these motions are being
made. These motions are being made simply for the purpose to allow the
rule to operate the way we wrote the law. We have a bad habit. I can
just whisper into somebody's ear and hold a nomination. That is why we
put these provisions in the law--to stop the bad habit of somebody
saying: If you give me that bill, I will let that guy go or, if you
give me that levee, I will let that guy go or, if you give me something
I want, I will let the guy go. That is why this law was written--to
stop the bad habit of somebody being able to stop a nomination without
having to say why or even who.
So this is only an attempt--this is not to say all of these nominees
will go through. I am not naive. I know they all will not move through
this afternoon by unanimous consent, but this is notice to the American
people that we are going to try to begin to enforce the law we wrote.
It has been pointed out to me: Well, you didn't put an enforcement
mechanism in there. Do we have to make it a misdemeanor for a Senator
to claim a hold? Do we have to say you can go to jail if you don't
identify your hold? You would think that Senators passing
[[Page S2465]]
by a large margin and signed by a Republican President of 90-some to
something, that that alone would be enough that people would, in fact--
I would hope the people I named this morning--the people holding them
have already notified the Senator from Arizona or the Senator from
Kentucky that they are, in fact, the ones holding these nominations and
why. This is the only purpose of this exercise--to make the law work
that we voted for, that I am confident the Senator from Arizona voted
for, and that the leader from Kentucky voted for and the entire
Republican leadership voted for.
Mr. KYL. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate my colleague's
comments, which I consider well taken. It is my practice if I have a
hold on someone, it is for a very specific purpose that I consider to
be legitimate, and I will notify whoever may be involved in it. When I
talked about clearing the so-called hotline, I meant this: Sometimes
either a piece of legislation or a nominee will be hotlined--usually in
the evening after all business has expired and most of us have gone
home--and I have on occasion, because my staff will then be informed of
that, and sometimes they will respond to that hotline by saying Senator
Kyl does not approve of that bill or nominee because I know nothing
about it. The next morning we will take a look at it, and 9 times out
of 10 say: OK, no problem. Let it go.
Technically, I think that could be deemed a hold under the
legislation to which we referred. I don't think any of us are getting
to that objection. About 1 time out of 10, there is usually something
you say: I don't like X in the bill. And frequently that gets cleared
up. I think sometimes the practice of hotlining can be a good practice,
but it means everybody needs to look at what is being hotlined and have
an opportunity to register an objection or get it worked out or maybe
the objection would stand.
To the point of my colleague about the so-called secret holds, I
totally agree. The fact is, there are different reasons some people
might be on the calendar my colleague is reading, but I don't know
those reasons. I need to object on behalf of the minority tonight, and
I will do that.
To the extent they are secret and being used for some of the purposes
my colleague described, I agree those are improper, and that happens
around here.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I appreciate my friend's comments. I understand he is
not someone making secret holds, and he is objecting on behalf of
others. There is not a problem with that. I want to make the point
that, under the law, it is technically not a hold until this unanimous-
consent request is made. So there is no obligation under the law for
someone to identify their hold until this request is made. I would
think that after these requests are made, everybody will be on notice
to follow the law and stop with the secret hold business because it is
going to slow us down to have to constantly come to the floor and make
these unanimous-consent requests.
Wouldn't it make more sense for everybody to own it, if they are
going to stop somebody's life--a lot of these people have given up
other jobs and are out there in limbo. Wouldn't it make more sense to
own it and not go through these games?
At this time in the Bush administration we had five backed up. We
have 80-some now.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider Calendar No. 705, the nomination of James
P. Lynch, to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics; that the
nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any
statements regarding the nomination be printed in the Record as if
read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 722, the
nomination of Judith Ann Stewart Stock, to be Assistant Secretary of
State; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be
in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed
in the Record, as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 726, the
nomination of Patricia A. Hoffman, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy;
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements
relating to the nominee be printed in the Record as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
Mr. KYL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 728, the
nomination of Gloria M. Navarro, to be U.S. district judge for the
District of Nevada; that the motions to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any
statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record as if
read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I might
inquire of my colleague. I gather there will be several individual
unanimous-consent requests made for the purpose of getting on the
record the objection as to each name on the calendar. I believe we can
accomplish that purpose by an en bloc request. If my colleague were to
make such a request, it would be deemed that the request was made for
each of the individual names, and perhaps my colleague would read the
numbers on the calendar. I can then interpose an objection. If my
colleague's purpose is beginning the clock, as it were, or requiring
the person with the hold on the individual having to come forward, that
could be achieved. I would be happy to spare the time of my colleague
and the Senate from going through each individual name. I can object en
bloc and that process can then commence, if that is acceptable.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Pardon me while I consider the irony that the
assistant leader of the other party wants to save time. I find that
slightly ironic under the circumstances of how many of these
nominations have been blocked up all these months.
Having said that, it is my understanding that this law requires the
motion to be made on each individual. I don't want there to be any
question as to whether each individual unanimous-consent request has
been made, so that everyone understands that the clock is ticking. I
think it is very important that there is a very clear signal. I don't
believe this procedure has ever been undertaken before under the new
law we passed in January of 2007. I want to make sure after the fact--
because I am worried that perhaps somebody is going to think if we
didn't make the request, they can tag team and withdraw their secret
hold and put another one in. I am trying to make sure that doesn't
happen.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate that concern, and I would think by a unanimous-
consent agreement, which specifically stated the reason for it, as both
of us have said, that it would be our intention that the process would
be invoked by an en bloc request, if the Chair would rule on the
matter, perhaps that would be sufficient to move forward on it, and we
could know at that point that the process had been invoked for
everybody.
Might I inquire whether the Chair would consider the process to be
invoked for all of the names considered in the Senator's request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. An en bloc unanimous-consent request will
satisfy the procedural requirements.
[[Page S2466]]
Mr. KYL. I would be happy to have the Senator proceed whatever way
she would prefer and for me to object appropriately for that purpose.
Mrs. McCASKILL. In the spirit of moving things along and getting
cooperation to move things along, which I hope is something that
becomes a trend, I will be happy to read off all the names and then
make the motion en bloc, with one objection to be heard for the record,
and we hopefully will get letters flowing into the office from the
persons having secret holds. I will begin to read the names:
Calendar No. 729, Jon E. DeGuilo, to be U.S. district judge for the
Northern District of Indiana;
Calendar No. 730, Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, to be U.S. district
judge for the Eastern District of Missouri;
Calendar No. 731, Lucy Haeran Koh, to be U.S. district judge for the
Northern District of California;
Calendar No. 732, Tanya Walton Pratt, to be U.S. district judge for
the Southern District of Indiana;
Calendar No. 740, Marilyn A. Brown, to be a member of the board of
directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;
Calendar No. 741, William B. Sansom, to be a member of the board of
directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;
Calendar No. 742, Neil G. McBride, to be a member of the board of
directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;
Calendar No. 743, Barbara Short Haskew, to be a member of the board
of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority;
Calendar No. 759, Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, to be U.S. district judge
for the Souther District of Indiana;
Calendar No. 775, Brian Anthony Jackson, to be U.S. district judge
for the Middle District of Louisiana;
Calendar No. 776, Elizabeth Erny Foote, to be U.S. district judge for
the Western District of Louisiana;
Calendar No. 777, Mark A. Goldsmith, to be U.S. district judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan;
Calendar No. 778, Marc Treadwill, to be U.S. district judge for the
Middle District of Georgia;
Calendar No. 779, Josephine Staton Tucker, to be U.S. district judge
for the Central District of California;
Calendar No. 780, William N. Nettles, to be U.S. attorney for the
District of South Carolina;
Calendar No. 781, Wilfredo A. Ferrer, to be U.S. attorney for the
Southern District of Florida;
Calendar No. 782, Michael Peter Huerta, to be Deputy Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration;
Calendar No. 783, David T. Matsuda, to be Administrator, Maritime
Administration;
Calendar No. 784, Michael F. Tillman, to be member, Marine Mammal
Commission;
Calendar No. 785, Daryl J. Boness, to be member, Marine Mammal
Commission, reappointment;
Calendar No. 787, Earl F. Weener, member, National Transportation
Safety Board;
Calendar No. 788, Jeffrey R. Moreland, to be director, Amtrak board
of directors;
Calendar No. 789, Larry Robinson, to be Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce.
Calendar No. 790, VADM Robert J. Papp, Jr., to be Commandant of the
U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of admiral;
Calendar No. 791, RADM Sally Brice-O'Hare, to be Vice Commandant of
the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;
Calendar No. 792, RADM Manson K. Brown, to be Commander, Pacific Area
of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;
Calendar No. 793, RADM Robert C. Parker, to be Commander, Atlantic
Area of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral;
Calendar No. 794, Arthur Allen Elkins, inspector general,
Environmental Protection Agency;
Calendar No. 795, David A. Capp, U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of Indiana;
Calendar No. 796, Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. attorney for the Western
District of North Carolina;
Calendar No. 797, Kelly McDade Nesbit, U.S. marshal for the Western
District of North Carolina;
Calendar No. 798, Peter Christopher Munoz, U.S. marshal for the
Western District of Michigan;
Calendar No. 799, Carolyn Hessler Radelet, Deputy Director of the
Peace Corps;
Calendar No. 800, Elizabeth Littlefield, president of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation;
Calendar No. 801, Lana Pollack, to be Commissioner on the part of the
United States on the International Joint Commission, United States and
Canada;
Calendar No. 802, Victor H. Ashe, member, Broadcasting Board of
Governors;
Calendar No. 803, Walter Isaacson to be a member and chairman of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors;
Calendar No. 805, Michael Lynton, member, Broadcasting Board of
Governors;
Calendar No. 806, Susan McCue, member, Broadcasting Board of
Governors;
Calendar No. 807, Dennis Mulhaupt, member, Broadcasting Board of
Governors;
Calendar No. 808, S. Enders Wimbush, member, Broadcasting Board of
Governors;
Calendar No. 809, Bisa Williams, Ambassador to the Republic of Niger;
Calendar No. 810, Raul Yzaguirre, Ambassador to the Dominican
Republic;
Calendar No. 811, Theodore Sedgwick, Ambassador to the Slovak
Republic;
Calendar No. 812, Robert Stephen Ford, Ambassador to the Syrian Arab
Republic;
Calendar No. 814, Gary Scott Feinerman, U.S. district judge for the
Northern District of Illinois;
Calendar No. 815, Sharon Johnson Coleman, U.S. district judge for the
Northern District of Illinois;
Calendar No. 816, Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. attorney for the Eastern
District of New York;
Calendar No. 817, Noel Culver March, U.S. marshal for the District of
Maine;
Calendar No. 818, George White, U.S. marshal for the Southern
District of Mississippi;
Calendar No. 819, Brian Todd Underwood, U.S. marshal for the District
of Idaho.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the calendar numbers as read; that the nominations be
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that any statements
relating to the nominees be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, for the reasons indicated, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, finishing up, hopefully, we do not
have to do this again. Hopefully, we have turned a page on a new day
and secret holds are going to go away.
Let me once again give kudos to Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley.
They worked on this issue for years trying to clean up secret holds and
thought they got it done when we passed S. 1 back in 2007. Similar to a
bad habit that is hard to break, this one evidently has been very hard
to break in the numbers I just went through. Those are all the people
who have secret holds right now. Hopefully, by the end of the week, we
will learn who it is in the Senate who does not want them to be
nominated, who it is who does not want them to be confirmed, and that
they are willing to speak out about their objections so we can answer
them, move forward, and get these people to work for the people of this
great country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senate is in
morning business.
____________________
