[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4201-S4209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN NOMINATIONS--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Rhode Island, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 522
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, because of the heavy fires that are
blazing in New Mexico, our colleague Senator Udall cannot be here
because he is out there dealing with forest fires. He has an amendment
he has filed to S. Res. 116, the bill now before us in the Senate, and
on his behalf, I will be calling it up. It is amendment No. 522, and I
want to take a couple of minutes to explain the amendment.
Mr. President, basically the amendment is very simple, and I will
read it in its entirety:
The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule
XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read
as follows:
Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be
brought to a close? And if that question shall be decided in
the affirmative
[[Page S4202]]
by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn--except
on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which
case the necessary or affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of
the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion,
or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished
business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion
of all other business until disposed of.
And this is already rule XXII. Here is the part that Senator Udall
would amend:
On a nomination to an Executive Branch position requiring
the advise and consent of the Senate, the necessary
affirmative vote shall be a majority of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn.
So the Udall amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would
basically say on executive branch nominations that come before the
Senate that when debate is brought to a close there would not need to
be 60 votes. You could have an affirmative 51 votes and that measure
would pass, that nomination would be passed by the Senate. So,
therefore, we would not need the supermajority of 60 votes to pass a
nominee.
Again, it comes as no surprise to Members of the Senate that Senator
Udall and I have worked together to try to reform the rules to reduce
to an absolute minimum, if not get rid of entirely, the filibuster.
Well, it is obvious we never accomplished that, but it seems to me as
we are changing the rules here on changing the policy on how we are
going to deal with nominees--and I think this is long overdue--this is
the proper time to address this point, that on a nomination to an
executive branch, it ought to be 51 votes, not 60 votes. So that is
what the amendment does. It basically says on a nomination that it only
requires 51 votes to pass the nomination and not 60 votes.
What is the pending business? Is it Coburn amendment 521?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Coburn amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 522.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, for himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment
numbered 522.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish a majority vote threshold for proceeding to
nominations)
At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
SEC. ___. ESTABLISHING MAJORITY VOTE THRESHOLD FOR PROCEEDING
TO NOMINATIONS.
The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule
XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read
as follows:
``Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be
brought to a close?'' And if that question shall be decided
in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the
Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote
shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then
said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the
Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished
business to the exclusion of all other business until
disposed of. On a nomination to an Executive Branch position
requiring the advise and consent of the Senate, the necessary
affirmative vote shall be a majority of the Senators duly
chosen and sworn.''.
Mr. HARKIN. Basically, again, what it repeats on nominations to the
executive branch is it would not require 60 votes but only 51 votes of
the Senators.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa is not relevant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order. The
amendment falls.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. This situation recalls the
debate we had at the beginning of the year when a number of Senators
felt as though we needed to make the Senate a more effective
institution, which is always a noble goal, but we had some differences
of opinion about how to do that. One group of Senators, including
Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others, renewed the effort to
basically say the Senate would be a majoritarian body which would
decide questions with 51 votes. To most Americans, that sounds like the
normal order of business, and it is. We grow up in the first, second,
and third grades selecting the class president. If someone gets a
majority of the votes, that person wins. But in the Senate, over its
history, we have had a different process because the Senate serves a
different function.
The House is a majoritarian institution. If a party wins a majority
in the House, a freight train rolls through the House and the bill is
passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate, throughout its history, has
been the saucer into which the tea is poured to cool it a little bit.
In other words, it takes a little more deliberation here to pass
something. That can be very frustrating. It can slow things down, but
the process was designed that way. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any
need for two different bodies.
So we have one body which can change with every election every 2
years and pass something such as the health care law by a majority
vote. Let's take another example: Ending the secret ballot in union
elections, which the House of Representatives, under Democratic
control, did pass. But it didn't pass the Senate, because in the
Senate, there are rules in which we need 60 votes to pass most
important pieces of legislation. The shoe is on the other foot too. If
the Republican House of Representatives were to pass, let's say, a tort
reform bill that our Democratic friends didn't like, we would have a
hard time passing it over here. It would take 60 votes, and that would
mean that we 47 Senate Republicans, even if we were all for it, would
have to persuade 13 or 14 of our Democratic friends to join us.
The theory of the Senate is that it forces consensus. It doesn't
always work that way, but that is the idea. We have had a pretty good
example of it with the legislation we have been debating over the last
few days. We have a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who agreed
we needed to change the Senate nominations process and we had the
support of both the Democratic and Republican leaders. Because of this
coalition we were able to move the bill to the floor without the
cloture motion. We were able to allow any relevant amendment to come to
the floor. We were able to pass a bill earlier today and it looks as
though we are going to be able to pass a resolution this evening that
will complete our work. The bill this morning got 79 votes. I hope the
resolution this afternoon gets at least that many votes. That is the
way the Senate should work.
I am glad the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, on behalf
of Senator Udall, is out of order and not relevant to this discussion.
Even if it were relevant, I think it would be the wrong step for us to
take. I think it is better to have a Senate that forces consensus by
requiring 60 votes on big issues. That avoids what Alexis de
Tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority in his book ``Democracy
in America.'' He saw two great threats to the new American democracy at
that time; one was Russia, as he said, and he turned out to be
prescient on that. The other one was the possibility of the tyranny of
the majority--that the majority would get control and simply run over
minority rights. That cannot be done in the Senate because there have
to be 60 votes on big issues for the issues to pass. That means when
one sets out to pass most pieces of legislation, if one wants to do it
in a purely partisan way, one is not likely to succeed. If one wants to
do it in a way that gets a result, one is going to have to form a
coalition of Republicans and Democrats, as we have here with these
nominations reforms.
This discussion by Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others wasn't
for naught because it initiated a debate that ended up with some
changes in Senate procedures which we think are for the better. One of
these changes was the abolition of secret holds, which some Senators in
this body, including Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, have been
advocating for years--more than a decade. That was done. The
discussions earlier this year with Senator Harkin and Senator Udall
resulted in
[[Page S4203]]
the legislation we passed earlier today, which helps the Senate
exercise its constitutional duty to advice and consent by doing a
better job of deciding which nominations do not deserve advice and
consent. So we eliminated the requirement for advice and consent on 169
positions of the 1,400 that now require Senate confirmation. Most of
those were part-time advisory boards. We didn't need those to be
confirmed.
We eliminated nearly 3,000 advice-and-consent requirements on public
health officers and the NOAA Officer Corps. They are very valuable
Federal employees, but we were confirming them in groups of 300
nominees at times. No Senator knew whom he or she was confirming, and
that trivializes the whole constitutional duty of advice and consent,
which is in the Constitution of the United States in article II,
section 2.
Another reform we are making and will proceed with is reducing the
phenomenon of innocent until nominated. I have spoken about this
several times on the floor. It is a situation whereby we take an
unsuspecting citizen of the United States that the President recruits
to a position in the government. Then that person begins to go through
this gauntlet of complicated forms that have built up over the years.
It first started with the executive branch, where a person is asked to
fill out every place they have lived since they were 17 years of age
and define income three different ways. And by the time they get to the
Senate committee whose job it is to investigate and confirm that person
and they fill out all their forms, the person is bound to make some
mistake. Then they are hauled up in front of the Committee with the
spotlights on them and they have told a lie inadvertently.
I mentioned earlier today the former Senate majority leader, Howard
Baker, who was voted most admired Senator by Democrats and Republicans.
He had to spend $250,000 of his own money on lawyers when President
Bush nominated him to be the Ambassador to Japan--absolutely
ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats who have served in personnel
offices and Chiefs of Staff to the last several Presidents all have
said this practice of innocent until nominated is a great disservice to
the American Government.
I see Senator Schumer on the floor. He and I will be meeting with the
White House personnel director as soon as this legislation is approved
by the House and signed by the President. We hope the working group
that will be set up under the legislation will produce what we call a
smart form, so that if the President asks a citizen to serve their
government, that person can fill out a single form for most questions.
Then, the various offices of the executive branch that need the
information can get the same information. When the nomination is sent
to the Senate, perhaps even we can take some of that information and
use the same form to get it for us. It doesn't interfere with the
separation of powers. The executive can do whatever it wishes to do. We
in the Senate can do whatever we wish to do.
We have made some progress as a result of those discussions earlier
in the year. It is modest progress, but I think any time we eliminate
confirmation for 169 positions out of 1,400, any time we expedite about
270 more, any time we stop the practice of confirming box loads of
nominees without even knowing who is in there, then we have done
something to avoid the trivialization of our constitutional duty to
advice and consent. If we can make a further step with avoiding the
innocent until nominated phenomenon, the work Senator Harkin, Senator
Udall, and others have done will have made some progress. The work of
Senators Harkin, Udall and other will have made progress even though we
didn't adopt their rule to turn the Senate into a majoritarian
institution.
I appreciate the spirit with which Senator Harkin offered the
amendment. He and Senator Udall worked on the amendment. I think they
helped reduce some steps which will help make the Senate a more
effective institution. We still have a ways to go and we will continue
to work on those things.
I see Senator Schumer is here. I compliment him for his work on this
and in the way he has gone about it. He and I, working with the
majority leader and the Republican leader, have created an environment
for this bill that didn't require enforcement of a cloture motion. An
environment that allowed all relevant amendments to come to the floor,
that allowed all the debate Senators seemed to want and that passed the
bill. We hope we are coming to a point where we can pass the resolution
and take these steps to improve the effectiveness of the Senate.
I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:10
p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment
No. 521; that all other provisions of the previous order with respect
to the Coburn amendment remain in effect; that upon disposition of the
Coburn amendment, the managers' amendment, which is at the desk, be
agreed to; that following the disposition of the managers' amendment,
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended;
that there be no other amendments and no other motions or points of
order in order to the resolution other than budget points of order and
the applicable motions to waive; further, that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that Mr.
Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma, be given 5 minutes to speak on his
amendment just before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if my colleague from Tennessee has
yielded, I will read a brief statement about what we are voting on.
I encourage my colleagues to support S. Res. 116, which streamlines
certain nominations through the Senate. Once again, I wish to thank my
good friend and colleague, Senator Alexander, for his hard work on this
resolution and his insight into the nomination process. I am grateful
he is the ranking member of the Rules Committee. I thank the chairman
and ranking members of the Homeland Security Committee, Senators
Lieberman and Collins, for their steadfast dedication to the efforts to
reform the way the Senate conducts business. Additionally, Leader Reid
and Republican Leader McConnell gave their support in time to work
through this package.
Earlier today, we passed the first piece of the nomination reform
package, S. 679, which eliminates certain positions from Senate
confirmation. It is our hope this package thaws out this institution.
The resolution passed through our committee, the Rules Committee,
unanimously back in May--this resolution did--and it is a bipartisan
effort. Now we are considering the corresponding resolution which
streamlines other nominations. For certain nominations, once received,
they will be placed in a new category of the calendar. At that point,
the chair will send out the questionnaire. Once he or she certifies it
has been returned, the nomination will move to a second new category on
the calendar. It will sit there for 10 days. If there are no
objections, the nomination will then move directly to the Executive
Calendar, with the presumption that these noncontroversial positions
would be passed by unanimous consent.
At any time while the nomination is in either of these two
categories, anyone can object, including the chair, and have that
nomination referred back to the full committee, as with any other
nominee. We hope this will clear the way for confirmation of these
positions.
Additionally, this resolution will allow committees to turn their
focus to issues that affect the American voter. Time spent on
nomination hearings and markups can now be spent on other nominees or
on other legislation to improve the condition, for instance, of our
middle class. As I said earlier, we are in no way abdicating our advise
and consent duties, we are enhancing them.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution. I
encourage them to vote against the amendment of our good friend from
Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. With this resolution, the Senate and our
committees can turn our attention to pressing issues that affect us
all.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S4204]]
At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be
printed in the Record.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, 6 months ago, I joined
my colleagues and friends Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Harkin
of Iowa to push for fundamental reforms in how the Senate operates. The
reason we did that was simple: the Senate was broken. The unprecedented
abuse of the filibuster and of other procedural tactics was routinely
preventing the Senate from getting its work done. It was preventing us
from doing the job the American people sent us here to do.
Although the reform proposals we offered in January did not pass, I
thought some good came out of the process. We passed resolutions to
eliminate secret holds and the delaying tactic of forcing the reading
of amendments. We also agreed to consider legislation in the future
that would exempt many executive branch nominees from the Senate
confirmation process. Legislation that we are considering on this floor
today.
Although these were steps in the right direction, I believe there is
still a long way to go before this body can function as our Founders
intended. The unfortunate reality is that over the last six months,
this already broken institution has become even more dysfunctional.
Let's consider what the Senate has accomplished this year. A
Bloomberg article from last week notes that, ``just 18 measures have
cleared Congress and become law this year, and only four of those
originated in the Senate--including two that named courthouses.'' That
is simply unacceptable. At a time when our country needs us to act, we
do almost nothing.
A Washington Post article from June 9 discusses quorum calls in the
Senate. It states:
This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt
crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time
performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken
up about a third of its time since January.
That is the equivalent of more than 17 8-hour days wasted in quorum
calls. That article goes on to state that there have been just 87
rollcall votes as of June 9 compared to 205 in the same period in 2009.
I don't blame one party for these problems--both sides are at fault.
While Republicans use delaying tactics to slow down the floor calendar,
Democrats repeatedly try to avoid tough votes. It is no wonder
Congress's approval ratings are at an all-time low. Instead of working
to solve the major problems our country faces, we engage in partisan
warfare for political gain.
The Senate confirmation process for executive branch nominees is a
prime example of how our rules prevent this body from functioning as it
was intended. This used to be a fairly straightforward process.
When I was a kid, my father served in the Congress and later as
Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Once I
grew up and was elected to the Congress myself, I often talked with him
about the differences between his era in Washington and mine.
One of my biggest frustrations was the Senate's inability to bring
executive confirmations to an up-or-down vote. I told my dad, ``the
President and Cabinet Secretaries don't have their team. How can they
do the job the American people sent them here to do without a team to
back them up?'' Do you know what he said to me? He said, ``Tom, I had
virtually my whole team in place the first 2 weeks.'' Imagine today if
the whole team for the Department of the Interior, or any other
department, was confirmed in the first 2 weeks of the administration.
There have been many news articles about how the Senate has dragged
its feet in confirming President Obama's team. A New York Times article
from August 2009 stated that, ``Seven months into his presidency, fewer
than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.''
A February 2010 Washington Post article found that ``46 of Obama's
nominees have waited at least three months to be confirmed and nine
have waited twice that long. . . . Obama's nominee to head the General
Services Administration was confirmed only last week--by a 96-0 vote,
no less--after a hold stalled her nomination for nine months.''
Perhaps what is most disturbing to me is that many nominees are held
up purely because of their policy views, and not because they are
unqualified. I believe that the president has a right to appoint people
who share his policy views--it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise.
Unfortunately, many well-qualified nominees have been blocked because
of their policy views, and not because of their qualifications.
A perfect example is Dawn Johnson, who was President Obama's nominee
to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson was a
respected law professor and former top assistant in the Office of Legal
Counsel in the Clinton administration. But Republican's cited her
strong pro-choice views as grounds for blocking her nomination. After
more than a year of her nomination being stalled in the Senate, she
decided that she had had enough and withdrew from consideration.
Yesterday, more than 6 months after she was nominated, the Senate
confirmed Virginia Seitz to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Sadly,
she is the first Senate-confirmed head of OLC since 2004. For 7 years,
we have not confirmed a nominee to this position because of partisan
battles over the nominees' policy views. The last Senate-confirmed
nominee, Jack Goldsmith, recently said that, ``It's important that
there be a Senate-confirmed person at the head of the Office of Legal
Counsel, both because it helps secure the independence of the office
when it's making legal judgments and because it helps give the office
more authority, both within the Justice Department and throughout the
government.'' Yet we let it go 7 years without confirming a nominee to
lead the office.
Another recent example is the nomination of James Cole to be the
Justice Department Deputy Attorney General. Cole first joined the
department in 1979 as part of the Attorney General's Honors Program. He
served there for 13 years--first as a trial attorney in the Criminal
Division, and later as the Deputy Chief of the Division's Public
Integrity Section, the office that handles investigation and
prosecution of corruption cases against both Democratic and Republican
elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.
Although Cole's record is exemplary, his nomination was blocked for
over a year. Why? Because he believed it made sense to try some
terrorism suspects in Federal courts, rather than military commissions.
A view that I, and many legal scholars and constitutional experts,
happen to share with Mr. Cole.
In May, 353 days after his selection, Democrats forced a cloture vote
on Cole's nomination, but were unable to overcome the Republican
filibuster. This was the first time in history that a Deputy Attorney
General nominee was filibustered. Let's hope it's also the last.
After a few more weeks of negotiations, we were finally able to have
an up or down vote yesterday on the Cole nomination, and he was
confirmed 55-42. Because of the forest fires in my State, I
unfortunately missed this vote, as did two of my Democratic colleagues.
If we had all voted for Mr. Cole, he would have been confirmed
overwhelmingly 58-42, with bipartisan support.
How does a nominee get stuck in the Senate confirmation process for
over a year, only to be finally confirmed by a bipartisan majority?
Simple--our confirmation process is broken.
I will mention one final example, although there are many more.
Just this month, Peter Diamond withdrew as President Obama's nominee
to the Federal Reserve Board. Diamond's nomination was blocked because
a small minority of senators questioned whether he was qualified and
had enough experience in conducting monetary policy. I tend to believe
that he was qualified, as he won the Nobel Prize in economics last
year.
I give you all these examples because the bill we are considering
today would not have affected these nominations in any way. While I
appreciate the effort of the task force that produced this bill, it
does nothing to prevent the abuse of the Senate rules in the
confirmation process.
In order to have real change in the process, the Senate rules must be
[[Page S4205]]
amended. As such, I have filed an amendment that will restore the
proper role of the Senate's advise and consent responsibility.
My amendment is very simple. It would make the cloture threshold on
executive branch nominees a majority of Senators chosen and sworn--51
if all seats are filled. The result is exactly what our framers
intended--if the president nominates someone, and a majority of the
Senate approves, that person is confirmed. Our current rules lead to a
much more perverse result. Now, if the president nominates someone and
59 Senators approve and 41 object, the nomination fails. How can we
argue for this result?
My amendment only applies to executive branch nominees, so judicial
nominees are still subject to a 60 vote cloture threshold. While I
don't believe judicial nominees should be filibustered either, I know
many of my colleagues are reluctant to give up the supermajority
cloture requirement because judges are appointed for life.
I know some will ask me about what happens when we are in the
minority and the president is a Republican--won't I want to be able to
block an extreme nominee? The short answer is no. While I might want to
block a nominee, I don't believe the Constitution gives me that right
if a majority favors his or her confirmation.
If the American people elect a Republican president and the
Republicans become the majority party in the Senate, I would expect
some executive branch nominees that I disagree with on policy grounds.
But I believe that we must afford the President a significant degree of
deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit. If those nominees are
qualified, I do not believe a minority of the Senate should be able to
block them.
Many of my Republican colleagues have said the same thing in the
past. When speaking on the floor about the nomination of Alberto
Gonzales to be Attorney General, Senator Kyl said that, ``When someone
is qualified and has the confidence of the President . . . unless there
is some highly disqualifying factor brought to our attention--[we]
should accede to the President's request for his nomination and confirm
the individual.'' Senator Hatch, a highly regarded constitutional
scholar and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in 2003:
The advice and consent clause [of the Constitution] is
clearly an up or down vote--a majority vote--on the floor of
the Senate. The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority
vote was. . . . If they had wanted it to be a 60-vote margin
. . . they would have said so.
Senator Hatch also said on the floor in 2007:
Under the Constitution, the President has the primary
appointment authority. We check that authority, but we may
not hijack it. We may not use our role of advise and consent
to undermine the President's authority.
I hope that we can agree that our confirmation process is broken and
that we need significant reforms to restore the democratic process in
this body. Many of us have said as much when we are in the majority and
our president's nominees are being held hostage by a small minority.
It's time for us to put partisanship aside and amend our rules so
that the President, regardless of his or her party affiliation, can get
a team in place and govern. I'm proud today to join once again with
Senator Harkin and offer an amendment that will do just that. I
strongly encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. The Senate
is broken and the only way we are going to fix it--to make it work once
again for the American people--is through substantive reform of the
rules.
I ask that the news articles I mentioned be printed in the Record.
The information follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 9, 2011]
Senate Legislation May Slow, But Quorums Continue
(By David A. Fahrenthold)
In the U.S. Senate, this is what nothing sounds like.
``Mr. Akaka.''
At 9:36 a.m. on Thursday, a clerk with a practiced monotone
read aloud the name of Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii). The
chamber was nearly deserted. The senator wasn't there. Not
that she was really looking for him.
Instead, the clerk was beginning one of the Capitol's most
arcane rituals: the slow-motion roll calls that the Senate
uses to bide time.
These procedures, called ``quorum calls,'' usually serve no
other purpose than to fill up empty minutes on the Senate
floor. They are so boring, so quiet that C-SPAN adds in
classical music: otherwise, viewers might think their TV was
broken.
This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt
crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time
performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken
up about a third of its time since January, according to C-
SPAN statistics: more than 17 eight-hour days' worth of dead
air.
On Thursday, the Senate was at it again. At least on
``Seinfeld,'' doing nothing came with a flunky bass line.
``It's not even gridlock. It's worse than that,'' said
Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University
who once ran for the Senate himself as a Democrat. He said
``gridlock'' implies that somebody was at least trying to get
legislation passed.
Instead, he said, this year ``they're not even trying to
get something done.''
To an outsider, a quorum call looks like a serious--if
dull--piece of congressional business. A clerk reads out
senators' names slowly, sometimes waiting 10 minutes or more
between them.
But it's usually a sham. The senators aren't coming. Nobody
expects them to. The ritual is a reaction to what the chamber
has become: a very fancy place that senators, often, are too
busy to visit.
This is what happened: Decades ago, senators didn't have
offices. They spent their days at their desks on the Senate
floor. So clerks really needed to call the roll to see if a
majority was ready for business.
Now, senators spend much of their time in committee rooms,
offices and elsewhere. If no big vote is on the horizon,
often nothing at all is happening on the Senate floor.
But Senate rules don't allow for nothing to happen. That
would require a formal adjournment, which would mean lots of
time-consuming parliamentary rigamarole.
Instead, the last senator to speak asks clerks to fill the
time by calling the roll.
``It's just a matter of keeping the store lights on when
the customers aren't there,'' said Donald A. Ritchie the
Senate's official historian. The procedures are much less
common in the House, where the rules allow for a pause in
activity without a formal adjournment.
On Thursday morning, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) finished
talking about an airman who was killed in Afghanistan. He
looked around, realized he was alone, and suggested a quorum
call. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk intoned.
Hatch left the floor. Minutes passed. It was so quiet that,
when a page carried out a glass of water, the clink of the
ice cubes could be heard up in the gallery. Tourists watched
blank-faced. Ten minutes passed. Some of the visitors got up
to leave.
After 12 minutes, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) showed up.
``I ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed
with,'' he said. That's how quorum calls usually end: The
next senator who wants to speak asks for a halt.
After Warner gave a brief speech on the value of federal
workers, it happened again. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk said.
Twenty-one minutes of silence.
At a deli in the Senate's basement, it was clear this was
wearing on people. One Capitol employee asked another: Where
are you working today? ``Senate chamber,'' his buddy replied.
``Shoot myself in the head.''
These sham roll calls have been a feature of Senate debate
for decades, but this year has been special: According to C-
SPAN, the Senate has spent more than 32 percent of its time
in quorum calls. That's more than in any comparable period
dating to 1997.
The main reason seems to be the bare-bones agenda pursued
by the Senate's Democratic leaders: There have been just 87
roll-call votes so far, compared with 205 in the same period
during 2009. Senate Democrats have not even proposed an
official budget; the strategy appears to be to shield
vulnerable incumbents from controversial votes on spending.
``Why are we here?'' asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a
critic of the large number of quorum calls this year. ``The
Senate is not operating the way it was designed, because
politicians don't want to be on record.''
Democrats, on the other hand, say they haven't brought up
much legislation because they think Republicans will just
block it.
``You always hope it'll get better,'' said Jon Summers, a
spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
It might. There is an upcoming deadline to lift the
national debt ceiling, and that could produce major
legislation later this summer.
But not yet. This year, in fact, C-SPAN worries that its
library of classical background music has been over-used. It
is trying to expand its options, within a set of strict
conditions: The music must be ``calm and benign.'' No cannon-
booming ``1812 Overture.'' No funeral marches.
And it must not imply any comment on the nothingness
happening onscreen. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call
recently suggested Lady Gaga's ``Bad Romance.'' Non-starter.
C-SPAN has also started using a graphic showing tweets from
members of Congress. It's a signal that lawmakers are doing
something. Just not here.
[[Page S4206]]
____
[From Bloomberg, June 21, 2011]
Snail's Pace in U.S. Senate Poses Hurdle to Effort To Reduce Deficit
(By Laura Litvan and James Rowley)
Just 18 measures have cleared Congress and become law this
year, and only four of those originated in the Senate--
including two that named courthouses.
About one-third of the chamber's time has been taken up by
inactive ``quorum calls.'' Debate on one small-business
measure took a month, and a handful of languishing White
House nominees withdrew their names because of delayed Senate
action, including Nobel Laureate and Federal Reserve board
pick Peter Diamond.
``It looks like the pace has slowed to a crawl,'' said
former North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, a onetime
Democratic leader who retired in January. ``Whether it's
nominations or legislation, it seems there's very little
effort by some to meet in the middle and compromise.''
The Senate was devised by the nation's founding fathers to
move slowly. This year, its inaction is especially notable,
and overcoming Senate dysfunction will be one of the final
hurdles confronting lawmakers seeking a deal to lift the
ceiling to avoid a default on more than $14 trillion in U.S.
debt.
Beyond the debt limit, the chamber faces unfinished
business on energy, immigration, transportation and
education.
Senators offer various reasons for their chamber's slow
pace, including increased partisanship, re-election politics,
and the decline of centrists willing to compromise.
All in Play
Each of those elements can play a role in slowing the
legislative calendar. The major challenge facing this Senate
is that all of them are in play.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a first-term Republican, said
he's surprised to see the Senate spending so much time doing
so little. ``It's what someone could perhaps call filler,''
he said. ``I'm not calling all of it that, but it's odd to me
that given the enormity of what we're facing that we're not
having more debate and discussion focused on the debt.''
He rejects the criticism of those who say Tea Party-backed
freshmen--including himself--won't bend on policy and are the
logjam's chief cause. ``Compromise has two sides,'' he said.
``If the Democrats'' idea of compromise is that we have to
move and they don't, that's not going to work for me.''
Gang Efforts
In an effort to jumpstart legislation, some senators have
formed small, bipartisan ``gangs,'' which tend to begin with
vows to reach agreements and end in acrimony. The so-called
``Gang of Six,'' created to broker a deal on lifting the debt
ceiling, stalled amid disagreements and has been superseded
by the bipartisan group of Senate and House members working
with Vice President Joe Biden.
Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said both
parties bear blame for the Senate's inaction. He also said
negotiations over deficit reduction and lifting the debt
ceiling are taking ``all of the oxygen'' out of the air.
``Neither side of the aisle really wants there to be a robust
debate, tough votes to be taken on where we go as a
country,'' Corker said. ``Basically, we are cooling our
heels.''
In 2010, the Senate's record included passage of a health-
care overhaul, a rewrite of financial-services rules and a
$60 billion measure funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
This January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada
Democrat, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican, heralded changes designed to speed
Senate work and forge a bipartisan truce.
Gentleman's Agreement
They hatched a ``gentleman's agreement'' to curb the
minority party's use of the filibuster--endless debate--to
block legislation. In exchange, Reid agreed to allow more
debate on Republican amendments to bills. They also pushed
through a measure to abolish the secret ``holds'' that allow
a single senator to anonymously block a nominee.
Those moves, Republicans said, are being undermined by
Reid's decision to embrace a timid agenda.
With the seats of 23 Democratic senators up for election
next year, and only 10 Republicans, Reid has shielded
Democrats from taking tough votes, said Senator Charles
Grassley, an Iowa Republican. After criticizing a House-
passed budget blueprint that included $6 trillion in spending
cuts and a plan to privatize Medicare, Democrats never
introduced their own plan, sparing their side criticism over
fiscal choices and preventing Republicans from offering
amendments that might be used against Democrats, he said.
It's Irresponsible
``The less votes the Democrats cast, the less they can be
challenged in the next election,'' Grassley said. ``It's no
way to run a railroad and it's irresponsible not to do things
that are more beefy.''
Democrats say such criticism is unfair. The Senate has
approved a $34.6 billion measure for the Federal Aviation
Administration, an overhaul of patent law and other measures
that are awaiting House action. Republicans also continue to
obstruct some legislation and slow action on others, said Jon
Summers, a Reid spokesman.
The Senate ``is not functioning well, the way it should,
obviously, when you've got threats of filibuster, preventing,
slowing down or obstructing,'' said Senator Carl Levin, a
Michigan Democrat.
The Reid-McConnell accord on filibusters had limits: It
didn't address efforts to block legislation on a final vote
and didn't end the ability of a single senator to hold up
action.
Patriot Act
That happened last month when freshman Senator Rand Paul, a
Kentucky Republican, stalled renewal of the Patriot Act,
which gives law enforcement powers for terrorism
investigations, until Reid and McConnell agreed to allow him
to introduce two amendments. Those amendments failed and the
new version of the Patriot Act passed just hours before the
old law expired.
Republican leaders are continuing to thwart a vote on
former Edison International Chief Executive Officer John
Bryson, Obama's choice for Commerce Department Secretary
until the White House forwards pending trade deals for South
Korea, Panama and Colombia. They also say they won't approve
anyone to head a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
part of the financial overhaul, until the bureau's powers are
restructured.
The stalemate is a relief to some, coming after Democratic
passage of major initiatives in 2009 and 2010. ``If the
legislature must be in session, be thankful when it doesn't
do much,' said David Boaz, executive vice president of the
Cato Institute in Washington, which promotes limited
government.
David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina, said Senate inaction is driven in
part by the departure in recent elections of political
moderates such as Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode
Island and Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.
``The reason that the Senate has become more polarized is
that less extreme members have been replaced by more extreme
members,'' Rohde said.
The lack of Senate action poses risks for Democrats, said
Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University in
New York, because they aren't offering policy alternatives,
he said.
``The difference between the two parties is that the
Republicans have a program--an ambitious and controversial
one,'' said Brinkley. ``The Democrats don't really have any
goals as far as I can see, besides stopping the
Republicans.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I advise the senior Senator from New York
that I will ask unanimous consent, if it is agreeable to him, that when
I finish my few words, we go directly to the vote.
Mr. SCHUMER. In the agreement, the vote is to occur at 6:10 p.m.
Mr. COBURN. Fine. You do not want to move it up?
Mr. SCHUMER. No. We need it at 6:10 p.m. So if the Senator wants to
speak beyond 5 minutes, that is OK with us.
Mr. COBURN. OK. Great. I will withdraw my unanimous consent request.
Amendment No. 521
Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. The people
who vote against this rule change, what they are going to be telling
you is they do not want you to know what is going on in the Senate, and
they do not want us to know what is going on in the Senate. Because all
this rule does is make it a force of habit of the Senate that before we
look at legislation, we ought to determine whether it duplicates what
is already out there in the government, and we ought to determine if it
is overlapping to other programs.
Had this amendment been in effect, a third of what we passed in the
past would not have passed because we would then have seen--which we
are ignorant of today--all the other programs that were available and
out there that accomplished the same purpose for which we passed
another new program.
In one of my committees last year colleagues offered amendments--well
intentioned, with good motives--to accomplish a good purpose. But they
lacked knowledge. What they did not know was--and both amendments were
ultimately withdrawn when it was explained to them--that, in fact, we
already had programs that did exactly the same thing.
So what we have is, we have over $200 billion worth of duplication
now within the Federal Government. This is a simple, straightforward
amendment that says before we consider things on the floor--it is less
than 700 bills over 2 years--that the CRS would, in fact, tell us: Here
is what you are doing, here is what the government is already doing in
these areas, so we do not end up with duplication, so we do not end up
with overlapping, and that we actually get results from what we are
doing.
[[Page S4207]]
I remind my colleagues that we have, just in the last GAO report,
multitudes of duplicative programs, and I will repeat them so people
will know. I also would state, this is a bipartisan amendment in the
spirit of what the Senator from New York and the Senator from Tennessee
have done. This amendment has Senator Udall, Senator McCaskill, Senator
Burr, and Senator McCain, as well as Senator Collins, Senator Paul, and
Senator Scott Brown. So this is not a partisan move. This is a move
about information and knowledge so we make informed decisions.
But for the record, what the GAO told us, less than 5 months ago, is
that we have 101 programs across four different agencies for surface
transportation. That is 101 sets of bureaucracies. Nobody has ever gone
and said: Which ones work and which ones do not? Which ones do exactly
the same thing versus what somebody else does?
We have 82 teacher programs for teacher quality across 10 different
agencies, 9 of which are not in the Department of Education. We have 88
economic development programs spending $6.5 billion a year across 4
different agencies. We have 47 job training programs across 9 different
agencies, and we are spending $18 billion a year, and the GAO said
every one of them overlaps, with the exception of 3. Yet we have not
had the first move in the Senate this year in spite of all of our
problems economically to streamline, eliminate duplication, eliminate
overlap, and put metrics on what we are doing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this list of duplicative programs identified by GAO.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED BY GAO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Purpose programs agencies Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation....................... 101 4 not provided
Teacher Quality.............................. 82 10 not provided
Economic Development......................... 88 4 $6.5 billion
Transportation Provided for the Disadvantaged 80 8 $314 million
Financial Literacy........................... 56 21 not provided
Employment and Training...................... 47 9 not provided
Homeless Assistance.......................... 21 7 not provided
Food and Nutrition Assistance................ 18 3 $62.5 billion
Homeland Security grants..................... 17 1 $2.7 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. COBURN. Again, I will state, if you are against this amendment,
you are against eliminating the very cause of our problems in this
country, which is duplication, redundancy, overlap, and you are against
doing the proper oversight so we make informed decisions.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congratulating the University of South Carolina Gamecocks
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there is a lot going on in this world. We
have a mountain of debt and wars and rumors of wars, and people are
nervous throughout the country. But I thought I would take a few
minutes of the time of the Senate to acknowledge something that is a
very big deal where I come from.
The University of South Carolina has won back-to-back College World
Series. They defeated the Florida Gators last night 5 to 2. Florida
played a great series, and they left a lot of men on base. I am sure
they are going to look at the tape and talk about next year how to get
some runs in.
But Coach Tanner and the Gamecock team repeated. They were only the
sixth team in NCAA history to do this, to win back-to-back titles. It
was very rewarding and poetic.
The University of South Carolina won the last series in Rosenblatt
Stadium. This was the first series to be held in the TD Ameritrade Park
in Omaha, NE, in front of 26,000 people. They set a record for the NCAA
with 16 consecutive post-season wins, 11 consecutive wins in the
College World Series, dating back to the 2010 season. The pitching
staff had a 1.31 ERA. The bullpen was 6-0. Great hitting. Great
coaching. More than anything else, big hearts.
So to the Gamecock nation, congratulations on back-to-back titles.
You make us all proud. And if you are watching Gamecock baseball, and
you have a bad heart, you need to turn the channel because they win in
the most dramatic fashion. They never give up. They believe in
themselves.
Michael Roth, the winning pitcher of the last game, said: We don't
have the most talented people at every position. But we play together
with heart. We believe in each other.
Maybe the country could learn something from Gamecock baseball. If we
all work together for a common purpose and put our differences aside,
maybe we could achieve greatness too.
So congratulations to Coach Tanner for back-to-back titles. We are
very proud of your team. Not only did you win two titles, you did it
with style, grace, and dignity. You won with honor. I look forward to
meeting the team when they come up to the White House. And I know
Columbia is rocking tonight.
Congratulations to the Gamecocks. You won in fine style, and we are
all proud of you.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
vote on Coburn amendment No. 521.
Under the previous order, a two-thirds vote is required for adoption.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--34
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
[[Page S4208]]
Sanders
Schumer
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Inhofe
Udall (NM)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are
34. Two-thirds of those voting not having voted in the affirmative, the
amendment is rejected.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made
and laid upon the table.
The clerk will report the managers' amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Carper,
proposes an amendment numbered 523.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To add positions for expedited consideration and for other
purposes)
On page 5, line 2, strike ``15 to 21'' and insert ``6''.
On page 6, after line 24, insert the following:
(31) Chief Financial Officer, from the following:
(A) Department of Agriculture.
(B) Department of Commerce.
(C) Department of Defense.
(D) Department of Education.
(E) Department of Energy.
(F) Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
(G) Department of Health and Human Services.
(H) Department of Homeland Security.
(I) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(J) Department of the Interior.
(K) Department of Labor.
(L) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(M) Department of State.
(N) Department of Transportation.
(O) Department of the Treasury.
(P) Department of Veterans Affairs.
(32) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the
Air Force.
(33) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the
Army.
(34) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of Navy.
(35) Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget.
(36) Assistant Secretaries or other officials whose primary
responsibility is legislative affairs from the following:
(A) Department of Agriculture.
(B) Department of Energy.
(C) Department of Defense.
(D) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(E) Department of Commerce.
(F) Department of Treasury.
(G) Department of State.
(H) Department of Health and Human Services.
(I) United States Agency for International Development.
(J) Department of Education.
(K) Department of Labor.
(L) Department of Justice.
(M) Department of Veterans Affairs.
(N) Department of Transportation.
(37) Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services Administration,
Department of Education.
(38) Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth, and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
(39) Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans,
Department of Health and Human Services.
(40) Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects.
(41) Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
Commerce.
On page 7, strike line 5 and insert the following:
SEC. 4. COMMITTEE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.
The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a
public character reported by any committee shall contain an
evaluation and justification made by such committee for the
establishment in the measure being reported of any new
position appointed by the President within an existing or new
Federal entity.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 523 is
agreed to.
The question is now on agreeing to the resolution, as amended.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: 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 89, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--8
Crapo
DeMint
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Lee
Paul
Risch
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Inhofe
Udall (NM)
The resolution (S. Res. 116), as amended, was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 116
SECTION 1. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION.
(a) Privileged Nominations; Information Requested.--Upon
receipt by the Senate of a nomination described in section 2,
the nomination shall--
(1) be placed on the Executive Calendar under the heading
``Privileged Nominations--Information Requested''; and
(2) remain on the Executive Calendar under such heading
until the Executive Clerk receives a written certification
from the Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction under
subsection (b).
(b) Questionnaires.--The Chairman of the committee of
jurisdiction shall notify the Executive Clerk in writing when
the appropriate biographical and financial questionnaires
have been received from an individual nominated for a
position described in section 2.
(c) Privileged Nominations; Information Received.--Upon
receipt of the certification under subsection (b), the
nomination shall--
(1) be placed on the Executive Calendar under the heading
``Privileged Nomination--Information Received'' and remain on
the Executive Calendar under such heading for 10 session
days; and
(2) after the expiration of the period referred to in
paragraph (1), be placed on the ``Nominations'' section of
the Executive Calendar.
(d) Referral to Committee of Jurisdiction.--During the
period when a nomination described in subsection (a) is
listed under the ``Privileged Nomination--Information
Requested'' section of the Executive Calendar described in
section (a)(1) or the ``Privileged Nomination--Information
Received'' section of the Executive Calendar described in
section (c)(1)--
(1) any Senator may request on his or her own behalf, or on
the behalf of any identified Senator that the nomination be
referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction; and
(2) if a Senator makes a request described in paragraph
(1), the nomination shall be referred to the appropriate
committee of jurisdiction.
SEC. 2. NOMINATIONS COVERED.
The following nominations for the positions described
(including total number of individuals to be appointed for
the position) shall be considered under the provisions of
this resolution:
(1) The Chairman and the Members of the Advisory Board for
Cuba Broadcasting (9 Members including Chairman).
(2) The Chairman and the Members of the Corporation for
National and Community Service (15 Members including
Chairman).
(3) The Chairman and the Members of the Federal Retirement
Thrift Investment Boards (5 Members including Chairman).
(4) The Members of the Internal Revenue Service Oversight
Board (7 Members).
(5) The Members of the Board of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (4 Members).
(6) The Members of the National Council on the Arts (18
Members).
(7) The Members of the National Council for the Humanities
(26 Members).
(8) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation (8 Members).
(9) The Members of the Peace Corps National Advisory
Council (15 Members).
(10) The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the Members of the
Board of Directors for the United States Institute of Peace
(12 Members including Chairman and Vice Chairman).
(11) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (5 Members).
[[Page S4209]]
(12) The Members of the Board of Directors of the National
Consumer Cooperative Bank (3 Members).
(13) The Members of the Board of Directors of the National
Institute of Building Sciences (6 Members).
(14) The Members of the Board of Directors of the
Securities Investor Protection Corporation (5 Members).
(15) The Members of the Board of Directors of the
Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (3 Members).
(16) The Members of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation Advisory Board (5 Members).
(17) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K.
Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation (9 Members).
(18) The Members the Board of Trustees of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (2 Members).
(19) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal
Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and Disability Insurance
Trust Fund (2 Members).
(20) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund (2 Members).
(21) The Members of the Social Security Advisory Board (3
Members).
(22) The Members of the Board of Directors of the African
Development Foundation (7 Members).
(23) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Inter
American Foundation (9 Members).
(24) The Commissioners of the United States Advisory
Commission on Public Diplomacy (7 Members).
(25) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Barry
Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
(8 Members).
(26) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Harry
Truman Scholarship Foundation (8 Members).
(27) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the James
Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation (6 Members).
(28) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Legal
Services Corporation (11 Members).
(29) The Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission (2 Members).
(30) The Members of the Board of Directors of the State
Justice Institute (11 Members).
(31) Chief Financial Officer, from the following:
(A) Department of Agriculture.
(B) Department of Commerce.
(C) Department of Defense.
(D) Department of Education.
(E) Department of Energy.
(F) Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
(G) Department of Health and Human Services.
(H) Department of Homeland Security.
(I) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(J) Department of the Interior.
(K) Department of Labor.
(L) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(M) Department of State.
(N) Department of Transportation.
(O) Department of the Treasury.
(P) Department of Veterans Affairs.
(32) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the
Air Force.
(33) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the
Army.
(34) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of Navy.
(35) Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget.
(36) Assistant Secretaries or other officials whose primary
responsibility is legislative affairs from the following:
(A) Department of Agriculture.
(B) Department of Energy.
(C) Department of Defense.
(D) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(E) Department of Commerce.
(F) Department of Treasury.
(G) Department of State.
(H) Department of Health and Human Services.
(I) United States Agency for International Development.
(J) Department of Education.
(K) Department of Labor.
(L) Department of Justice.
(M) Department of Veterans Affairs.
(N) Department of Transportation.
(37) Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services Administration,
Department of Education.
(38) Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth, and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
(39) Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans,
Department of Health and Human Services.
(40) Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects.
(41) Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
Commerce.
SEC. 3. EXECUTIVE CALENDAR.
The Secretary of the Senate shall create the appropriate
sections on the Executive Calendar to reflect and effectuate
the requirements of this resolution.
SEC. 4. COMMITTEE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.
The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a
public character reported by any committee shall contain an
evaluation and justification made by such committee for the
establishment in the measure being reported of any new
position appointed by the President within an existing or new
Federal entity.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This resolution shall take effect 60 days after the date of
adoption of this resolution.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to reduce the amount of duplication
and overlap in federal agencies and I am prepared to vote to eliminate
duplicative programs. That is my responsibility as a Senator. However,
I believe this must be done in a responsible manner and not passed off
to a third party. I opposed the Coburn amendment because it would cause
needless delay to the consideration of important legislation by the
Senate. It would give additional power to the staff of the
Congressional Research Service. It would increase Congressional
spending when we are working to reduce our Federal budget deficit and
our Federal debt.
The amendment would change the Standing Rules of the Senate to
require the Congressional Research Service--CRS--to complete a study to
examine the potential for duplicative programs for every bill that is
passed out of committee before it is in order to be considered by the
full Senate.
This amendment will not end duplication of government programs. But
it will make it more difficult for the Senate to do the Nation's
business. The Coburn amendment will allow any Senator to block floor
consideration of a bill if the CRS assessment has not been completed.
The amendment does not place any time limits on the CRS to make the
assessment of whether the programs included in legislation are
duplicative. The amendment does not define key terms such as
``program'' or ``initiative'' that are crucial to performing the
assessment.
The amendment states that every bill that comes to the floor must
contain a full evaluation and report by CRS. The CRS report must
examine every potential Federal program that might overlap with the one
proposed.
How long would CRS have to do such a report? I don't know because the
amendment does not include time limits for the CRS to provide these
reports. Therefore, CRS could block consideration of important
legislation by simply not meeting its responsibilities.
We have always been very careful in making changes to the Standing
Rules of the Senate. This proposal has not come before the Rules
Committee in any way and thus has not been considered or vetted by the
committee of jurisdiction. If we are serious about such a change, it
should receive the appropriate review before being adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
____________________