[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2441-S2446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF LAEL BRAINARD TO BE AN UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Lael Brainard,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12
noon will be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from
Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, with the
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, controlling 15 minutes of the time
controlled by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I probably will not take the 15 minutes
but somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.
I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Lael Brainard to be
Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.
I do not think it is unreasonable for the American people to expect
nominees to important posts in the Treasury Department to have a clean
record in the payment of their taxes. After all, Treasury is
responsible for collecting taxes. Treasury nominees have a special
responsibility to live up to the same high standards the Department
demands from ordinary citizens. But the American people deserve much
more than just someone with a clean tax record. They deserve a nominee
who is honest, trustworthy, and straightforward.
The Finance Committee's bipartisan investigation of Ms. Brainard
revealed she does not have a clean tax record. At worst, she refuses to
be straightforward and honest about her tax records.
The Finance Committee looks into the tax record of every nominee who
comes before the committee. A routine examination of Ms. Brainard's
past few tax returns revealed many problems. When asked if she has paid
all her taxes on time, she did not reveal several cases in which she
had failed to pay her taxes on time.
When she was asked, on her nomination questionnaire, if she was
current with all her taxes at the time she was nominated, she replied
yes. But, in fact, that was not true. She was well overdue on paying
county property taxes and DC employment insurance taxes at the time.
There were also several problems with the forms she was supposed to
file to prove that her household employee was legally able to work in
this country. On one form, there was a serious problem with a space
that the household employee is required to sign. It appears Ms.
Brainard filled in that space with her own signature, and she could not
provide an explanation of why she did so.
On another form, dates appear to have been written over to change the
year. She could provide no explanation of why this was done.
On two different forms, Ms. Brainard missed the deadline for
completing the employer portion of the form. On another form, the
employer portion was filled in 1 month before the employee portion, but
the law requires the employee portion to be filled in first.
On yet another form, the employee certification section lists her
husband's name, but the signature is hers.
On another form, the employee section is filled in, but the required
employer certification section was left blank.
There was another problem of the home office deduction which she
claimed in the past several years. She could not provide a clear and
consistent reason for taking a home office deduction of one-sixth of
her household expenses. She was unable to provide a credible reason for
the size of the deduction. She reduced her home office deduction to
one-twelfth of household expenses on her 2008 tax return. However, she
did not reduce the deduction on her 2005, 2006 or 2007 tax return, all
of which had the inflated deduction.
Some Senators might come to the conclusion that these tax problems
alone should not disqualify the nominee. They may say that, at worst,
this is simply a pattern of sloppiness. Do we want someone who is so
sloppy in her tax responsibilities to be in charge of international
affairs at the Treasury Department?
But this is not just a matter of sloppiness. This is a matter of
total lack of candor with the Finance Committee and, by extension, with
the Senate and, by extension, with the American people.
Ms. Brainard spent 9 months stonewalling the Finance Committee over
all these tax issues. She gave evasive and incomplete answers to the
staff of the committee. The level of evasiveness of this nominee
appears to
[[Page S2442]]
be unprecedented. The committee had to submit 10 rounds of questions to
clarify inconsistencies and incomplete answers Ms. Brainard had given.
Several of those questions have been left unanswered.
The many tax problems of this nominee and the extreme difficulty the
Finance Committee had in getting straight answers about these problems
was outlined in a bipartisan memo Senator Grassley entered into the
Congressional Record on December 23 of last year. If we cannot trust
Ms. Brainard to be truthful and straightforward when she is a nominee,
how can the American people trust her to be straightforward and honest
when she is confirmed and serving in the Obama administration?
As Under Secretary for International Affairs, she would be involved
in some highly sensitive issues, such as the determination of whether
China is manipulating its currency.
Do we want someone with such an abysmal record on truthfulness
serving in this high position in the Treasury Department representing
our country?
This is not just a matter of taxes. It is a matter of trust. The
American people deserve a person we can trust in this very important
position. That person is not Lael Brainard. We cannot trust someone who
gives evasive, inconsistent, and incomplete answers to routine
questions. We cannot trust someone who spends 9 months refusing to come
clean about her record. We cannot trust someone who refuses to be
straightforward about her tax problems because she is so desperate to
be confirmed.
Mr. President, someone with this record is a terrible choice to serve
in the Treasury Department. I urge my fellow Senators and my colleagues
to consider this record before they vote on this nomination. I urge a
``no'' vote on this nomination.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request.
Mr. BUNNING. Yes, I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk not about
obstructionism but, rather, about transparency and the rules. And the
rule I am going to talk about is a rule that, in fact, we embraced in
the last Congress. When I first came to the Senate, we embraced this
rule by a vote; I think it was 92 to 6. We said we are going to change
the way we do business around here when it comes to transparency. I
thought it was a great moment. I was excited that we were making these
bold changes about the way the Senate works, to open the doors and let
the sun shine in.
Imagine my disappointment some 2 years later when I realized that for
many Members of this body, that was a meaningless exercise because in
the area of secret holds, we are doing no better today than we were
before we passed S. 1 in those early weeks of my time in the Senate, in
2007.
Section 512 of that bill deals with secret holds. What we tried to do
in that bill was to make sure that if a Senator wanted to oppose
somebody, no problem; if he or she wanted to hold somebody, that is
their right as a Senator. But own it. Own it. We are not here to be in
a back room making a deal to leverage something for some kind of pork
we may want in our district. What we are here to do is the people's
business. If a Senator has an objection to a nominee, they should tell
the public they have an objection and, frankly, they owe the public an
explanation as to why. We are here working for them. We are doing the
people's business here. We are not doing some backroom deal. We are
doing the people's business.
So transparency is what this is about today, and section 512 lays out
the exact steps that are necessary in order to make sure all of the
holds become public. The process begins pretty simply: by someone
making a unanimous consent request to move the nomination. When that
motion is made, then the Senator who has the secret hold must submit a
notice of intent specifying the reasons for the hold, and within 6 days
that must be printed in the Congressional Record.
Why do Senators hold secretly? Well, I can't think of a good reason.
I mean, sometimes it is that they want to slow things down, and they do
not want to be honest about it. Sometimes it is that they want to
leverage it for a deal in their State from that agency, and they do not
want to be forthcoming about that. That seems a little unseemly, to
say: I am going to block an unrelated nomination in order to get a
deal. And that is the kind of stuff people are sick of. That is the
kind of stuff they do not want us to do anymore. They want us to be
upfront. If a Senator wants to block a nomination in an agency because
that agency is not doing their will, then they need to be proud of
that.
Here is the tricky part about this rule. Once the motion is made and
therefore the clock starts ticking and a Member has to admit they have
a secret hold and they have to own that hold, then what they can do is,
before the 6 days, they can withdraw their hold, and that is when we
start seeing an imitation of the World Wrestling Federation tag-team
match. That is when another Senator comes in and tags up and says:
Well, I will do a secret hold now. And then a motion is once again
made, and guess what. That Senator backs out after 6 days and somebody
else takes his or her place with the secret hold. So we get secret
holds forever, ad nauseam--secret hold, secret hold, secret hold.
So I come to the floor today to begin the running of the clock. We
have over 80 nominations pending. In a comparable time in the Bush
administration, we had five. We have around 80. I am now going to begin
to make a motion on these 80. Why this particular group? I will tell
you why this particular group. No objection has been made to these
nominees in committee. Let me say that again. Every single one of the
names I am going to move this morning had no objection in committee. So
we have literally had every Member of this body on one of these other
committees, and nobody objected. Nobody said a word. So right now, it
is very difficult for the public to figure out why all these important
nominees are not moving forward.
Vote no. I am sure there have been nominees on whom I have voted no.
There is a nominee on whom I put a hold. I put a hold on a nominee, but
I was very upfront and put in the record at committee why I put a hold.
I wrote a letter on why I put a hold. I wanted everyone to know why
this nominee was being held. I thought it was an important part of my
duty as a Senator to explain why I was doing what I was doing.
So vote no. Hold a nominee. But don't do it under cover of darkness
unless you have something to be ashamed of. If a Senator has something
to be ashamed of, then they can do the tag team. The law lets them do
it. They can just keep playing tag and getting another secret hold and
then tag off again and get another secret hold.
If we want to know why the country doesn't trust us, it is because of
this kind of nonsense, these kinds of secret hold shenanigans or, as my
mother would say, this poodle dog. That is her word for nonsense. I
don't think she means to insult all the poodle owners in the world, but
it is a good phrase--poodle dog--for what this is. It is nonsense.
Mr. President, when I have 1 minute left, if you will notify me, I
will begin making the motions on these people whose nominations are
being secretly held by Senators and who are not being allowed their
time to even respond to whatever might be the secret reason why they
are being held.
Nomination of Stuart Gordon Nash to be an Associate Judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 333; 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 at the appropriate place in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection.
There being no objection, the nomination considered and confirmed is
as follows:
[[Page S2443]]
the judiciary
Stuart Gordon Nash, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia for the term of fifteen years.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
404, the nomination of Warren Miller, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, Department of Energy; 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 any statements relating to the
nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I will make the same brief
statement I made with Senator Whitehouse. Some of these nominees are
subject to discussion between the two leaders, working out time
agreements for their consideration--at least some of the court
nominees.
Now, I don't know about this specific nominee. I would say that I
have no secret holds on anyone, so this is not on my own behalf. But in
order to preserve the deliberation between the two leaders, on behalf
of the minority I would object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?
Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes, I will.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona suggested that
the leaders--meaning the Democratic and Republican leaders--wanted
these held. Is the Senator from Missouri able to represent to the body
that Senator Reid would like to see all the names she is calling moved
forward today, at this moment; that he is not asking for a delay in the
consideration of any of these nominations?
Mrs. McCASKILL. All of these nominees have secret holds. The purpose
of my exercise today is to begin to enforce the rule around here that
everybody voted for, with the exception of a handful of people, that we
weren't going to do secret holds anymore.
I am certainly aware that the leader supports us doing this; that the
secret hold has brought the nomination process not only to a halt but,
more importantly, it has done it without the public even understanding
why.
Mr. DURBIN. I will ask a further question, through the Chair. So the
representation that these names or nominations are being held because
of the leaders--meaning the Democratic and Republican leaders--is not
accurate? There is no intention of the Democratic leader to hold any of
these nominations; is that not true?
Mrs. McCASKILL. That is true.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 500, which is the
nomination of Julie Reiskin, member of the LSC; 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 any statements relating to the
nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I am trying to follow the
numbers as my colleague is going down through the unanimous consent
requests, and I think my colleague skipped over the name of John J.
Sullivan, of Maryland, Calendar No. 208, to be a member of the Federal
Election Commission. Is there some objection on the other side or might
we have an explanation as to why that name was skipped over?
Mrs. McCASKILL. I would be happy to----
Mr. DURBIN. Regular order.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Regular order, but let me explain how this list was
compiled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has made a unanimous
consent request. Is there objection to that request?
Mr. KYL. I would be happy to object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. By the way, just for the edification of the Senator
from Arizona, there is one of these nominees on here who I believe is
being secretly held by a Democrat. And by the way, I want to point out
that the rule that does try to bring transparency to this process was
one that was sponsored by Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley in a
bipartisan way. The Wyden-Grassley effort that spanned a number of
years was a bipartisan attempt to change and reform the way the Senate
worked to provide more transparency. So this is really about
transparency and this is about secret holds, and my criticism for
secret holds is a bipartisan criticism. I don't think anybody should do
a secret hold. I don't care if they are a Republican, a Democrat, an
Independent, or any other party label, secret holds have no place in a
public body.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 501; that the
nomination of Gloria Valencia-Weber of New Mexico, Legal Services
Corporation, 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 any statements
related to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
556; that the nomination be confirmed--that is, the nomination of
Benjamin Tucker for the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the
motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, no further
motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and any statements relating to the nominee be printed
at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 581, the nomination
of John Laub to be Director of the National Institute of Justice; 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 any
statements related to the nominee be printed in the Record at the
appropriate place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. For reasons stated earlier, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
589, the nomination of Anthony Coscia; that the nomination be
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table,
no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified
of the Senate's action, and any statements relating to the nominee be
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
590, the nomination of Albert DiClemente, of Delaware, to be a director
of the Amtrak board of directors; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[[Page S2444]]
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
592, Mark R. Rosekind, of California, to be a member of the National
Transportation Safety Board; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
618, P. David Lopez, of Arizona, to be general counsel of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
620, Victoria A. Lipnic, of Virginia, to be a member of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
628, Jill Long Thompson, of Indiana, to be a member of the Farm Credit
Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration; 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 at the appropriate place in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
640, Eric L. Hirschhorn, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce
for Export Administration; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
643, Steven L. Jacques, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
647, Jim R. Esquea, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health
and Human Services; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
648, Michael W. Punke, of Montana, to be a Deputy U.S. Trade
Representative, with the rank of ambassador; 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No.
649, Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural
Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, with the rank of
ambassador; 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 at the
appropriate place in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, let me just sum up. I had 20 I was
going to try to do today. There are 80 of them. I will be back. This is
not about trying to rush through nominations, this is about trying to
make the rules work the way we wrote them. That means that beginning
immediately, all of the motions I just made, the Members who are
holding those nominees have an obligation under the law--under the law
they have an obligation to ``submit a notice of intent specifying the
reasons for his or her objection to a certain nomination,'' and not
more than 6 session days after today, that must be printed in the
Congressional Record.
These are the first 15 or so. I will continue to get them all on the
record, hopefully by the end of the week, so that everyone knows next
week, and maybe we will figure out why all these people are being held
secretly. This is not about saying you should not vote no on these
people. This is not even about not debating these people. This is about
transparency and open government. That should be a bipartisan value, an
all-American value in which we can all believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired.
The Chair will clarify for the record that Executive Calendar No.
333, Gordon Nash of the District of Columbia, to be an associate judge
of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, has been confirmed.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I saved us a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 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. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S2445]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Lael Brainard,
of the District of Columbia, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury?
Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 119 Ex.]
YEAS--78
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--19
Barrasso
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Hutchison
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Roberts
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Bennett
Byrd
Inhofe
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, the Senate yesterday, by a vote of 84 to
10, invoked cloture to end a Republican filibuster of President Obama's
nomination of Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary at Treasury. As I
said before that vote, the majority leader has taken a significant step
to address the nominations crisis created by Senate Republican
obstruction. Regrettably, that obstruction made it necessary for the
Senate majority leader to file five cloture petitions to bring an end
to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to carry out its advice
and consent responsibilities.
The refusal by Republicans month after month to come to agreements to
consider, debate, and vote on nominations is a dramatic departure from
the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration
of noncontroversial nominations. Their practices have led to delayed
up-or-down votes for more than 100 nominations stalled from final
Senate action. The American people should understand that these are all
nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction and
are mostly nominations that were reported without opposition or with a
small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing
Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's entire
Presidency.
Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the
Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being
favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as
last November.
To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's
Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district
court judges, on its way to confirming 100 judicial nominations by the
end of his first 2 years in office. I know, I was the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee during much of that time, and worked hard to
make sure that President Bush's nominees were not given the same unfair
treatment given President Clinton's judicial nominees by Senate
Republicans. Senate Democrats made real progress with respect to
judicial vacancies. We did treat President Bush's judicial nominees
more fairly than Republicans had treated President Clinton's and
confirmed 100 during the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in
2001 and 2002.
President Obama began sending us judicial nominations 2 months
earlier than President Bush had and still only 18 Federal circuit and
district court confirmations have been allowed. If Republicans would
agree to allow the Senate to act on the additional 25 judicial
nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on
which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we could be at a
comparable figure to the pace we attained in 2001 and 2002. As it
stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved during President
Bush's first 2 years.
Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations despite
vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which are
``judicial emergencies,'' as caseloads and backlogs grow and vacancies
are left open longer and longer.
I understand and share the frustration of the Senator from Rhode
Island who came before the Senate earlier today to speak about this
obstruction. In the time he had, he asked the Senate to consider 5 of
the 25 judicial nominees stalled on the calendar, and each time there
was a Republican objection. He made the point that these judicial
nominations have not only been waiting a long time, but they were
approved unanimously or nearly unanimously by all Republican and
Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Still, after weeks, and
in some cases months, Republicans will not consent to their
consideration. They were nominees who are supported by home State
Senators, including Republican home State Senators. Still, Republicans
will not enter into agreements for their consideration.
I began urging the Republican leadership last December to allow the
Senate to make progress on these nominations by agreeing to immediate
votes on those judicial nominees that were reported by the Senate
Judiciary Committee without dissent, and to agree to time agreements to
debate and vote on the others. Presently, there are 18 judicial
nominations being stalled from Senate consideration by Republican
objection even though when they were considered by the Senate Judiciary
Committee no Republican Senators on the committee voted against a
single one. This is the Republican strategy of delay and obstruction--
delay and obstruct even those nominees they support. They delayed
confirmation of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the eleventh circuit
until this year. They delayed confirmation of Judge Joseph Greenaway of
New Jersey to the third circuit. They delayed and filibustered the
nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit,
who was then unanimously approved.
I further call upon Republicans to agree to time agreements on each
of the other seven judicial nominees ready for final Senate action.
Only one Republican Senator in the Judiciary Committee voted against
Judge Wynn of North Carolina; only three voted against Judge Vanaskie
of Pennsylvania; only four voted against Ms. Stranch of Tennessee, who
is supported by the senior Senator from Tennessee, a Republican and a
member of the Senate Republican leadership. Senate Republicans should
identify the time they require to debate the nominations of Justice
Butler of Wisconsin, Judge Chen of California, Judge Pearson of Ohio,
and Judge Martinez of Colorado, who are all well-qualified nominees for
district court vacancies, which are typically considered and confirmed
without lengthy debate. They should not now be held up because they
were targeted unfairly in committee by Republicans applying a new
standard for district court nominees never used with President Bush's
nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority.
Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm
fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress--not the 100 we
confirmed in 2001 and 2002. Last year, only 12 circuit and district
court judges were confirmed. That was the lowest total in more than 50
years. So far this year, only six more have been considered.
The majority leader was required to file cloture on the nomination of
Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth
[[Page S2446]]
circuit. Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the
time-consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to 0.
There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for
their unwillingness to proceed earlier or without having to end their
filibuster on that nominee either.
Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority
leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of
Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the third circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the
second circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court
judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the
Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records,
and both were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year with
bipartisan support. Judge Chin, who was the first Asian-Pacific
American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the ninth
circuit, and if confirmed would be the only active Asian-Pacific
American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by
the committee unanimously.
This obstruction and delay is part of a partisan pattern. Even when
they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate
go exceedingly slow. The practice is continuing. The majority leader
has had to file cloture 22 times already to end the obstruction of
President Obama's nominees. That does not count the many other nominees
who were delayed or are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate
Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even
noncontroversial nominees. That is the frustration I share with Senator
Whitehouse and many others. If Republicans wish to oppose a nomination
they can, but they are stalling noncontroversial nominations that they
support.
The Senate should be better than this. These Republican practices are
destructive. When we see that Americans are frustrated with Congress,
it is these kinds of practices that contribute to that frustration. I
urge the Senate Republican leadership to change its ways. Agree to
prompt consideration of noncontroversial nominees and enter into time
agreements to debate and vote on those nominees that they oppose. Quit
wasting the time of the Senate. The American people want us to act on
Wall Street reform, not be bogged down in delaying tactics for the sake
of delay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be immediately notified of the Senate's action with respect to the
confirmation of the Brainard nomination.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes and that I be followed by Senator Burris for 5 minutes, at
which point the Senate will recess for the party caucuses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________