[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1227-1239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF MARTHA N. JOHNSON TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES 
                             ADMINISTRATION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 hours of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the Johnson nomination, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between the leaders or their designees.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Martha N. Johnson, of 
Maryland, to be Administrator, General Services Administration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues in the 
strongest terms to vote for cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson 
to be Administrator of the General Services Administration. The point 
of cloture is to allow this critical agency to finally have a permanent 
leader. It would be the first time in nearly 2 years and could 
potentially save America's taxpayers billions of dollars in the 
bargain.
  Let me give a few examples of what is at stake, which is to say what 
the General Services Administration can do for us. Last year, Federal 
agencies bought $53 billion worth of goods and services, and they did 
so through contracts negotiated by the General Services Administration, 
the GSA. Having GSA negotiate these procurements lets the individual 
agencies focus on their core missions, doing what we or previous 
Congresses created them to do. It also allows the Federal Government to 
leverage our buying power because if the buying is occurring from one 
central agency, we can get, in conventional terms, volume discounts, 
leading to lower costs and, therefore, savings to the taxpayers.
  We need strong leadership at GSA to ensure these savings are a 
reality. For example, in 2007, GSA awarded the NETWORX contracts to 
provide telephone network and information technology services to all 
Federal agencies. That is a program estimated to be valued at, at 
least, $68 billion in the course of its 10-year lifetime. These 
contracts will allow agencies to take full advantage of the new 
technologies their colleagues in the private sector use every day to 
increase efficiency and lower costs. But without a permanent 
Administrator at GSA, agencies have been slow to move to the NETWORX 
services, costing taxpayers more than $150 million to date and an 
additional $18 million every month.
  Given GSA's wide responsibilities in providing information technology 
and telecommunications services, I am concerned that we lack a 
confirmed Administrator at a time when we are also trying, of course, 
to strengthen our cyber-defenses. Government Web sites, such as private 
Web sites, are constantly under attack. GSA needs to play and can play 
a very important role in ensuring that our Federal IT systems are 
resistant to those cyber-attacks. Furthermore, because of the 
government's buying power, GSA's purchases will have a natural positive 
spillover effect in the private sector.
  In other words, GSA, by its own requirements associated with 
purchases,

[[Page 1228]]

can drive technologies that then become more available to the general 
public, and I am thinking here specifically of technologies that can 
defend against cyber-attack on private companies as well as on public 
Web sites.
  Here is another example about another function of the GSA. GSA is 
effectively the government's landlord, with 8,600 buildings and assets 
under its control that are valued at more than $500 billion. It is one 
of the largest, if not the largest, property management organizations 
in the world.
  Another of GSA's roles is to help other agencies dispose of buildings 
and property they no longer need. Across the government, these numbers 
are both stunning and unsettling. There are different agencies that own 
thousands of buildings worth about $18 billion that are not being used.
  Every day I hear Members come to the floor saying we need to work 
hard to trim the fat from the Federal budget so we can cut the deficit. 
I agree. Yet the GSA--the very agency established to help make 
government operations more cost efficient--has been languishing without 
a leader for over half a year and I think in that sense is losing some 
opportunities to save some money.
  What is frustrating is that a hold has been placed on this nominee 
for reasons that have nothing to do with her qualifications or her 
personal history. That is why I am glad Senator Reid filed a cloture 
motion and we have forced this nomination to the floor. It is 
important, in a totally nonpartisan way, that we get a full-time 
Administrator in here at GSA.
  Martha Johnson's nomination received the unanimous support of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June of last 
year--more than half a year ago. So that says she had total bipartisan 
support in our committee based on her experience and qualifications, 
and I am confident she has wide bipartisan support in the full Senate 
as well. I hope and trust we will see that when the vote occurs on 
cloture and final confirmation at around 3 o'clock.
  I hope this nomination is a call to action and common sense--and not 
only bipartisan cooperation but the cooperation of every Member here 
who has the right to hold up nominations but ought to think about the 
public interest and the national interest when they do this--that we 
cannot continue the practice of holding nominees ``hostage,'' as 
President Obama said yesterday, for reasons that are parochial and 
unrelated to the nominee's ability to do the job they have been 
nominated for. I think these kinds of actions damage the Senate as an 
institution and further reduce the public's respect for how we do our 
business.
  I wish to remind my colleagues at this point how well qualified this 
nominee is. To begin with, Ms. Johnson is a former Chief of Staff of 
the GSA. So she already knows the agency inside and out and will be 
ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work on day one--no on-the-job 
training needed. This is crucial both to the efficiency and morale of 
an agency that has not had a permanent Administrator since April of 
2008--almost 2 years. April 2008 was the time when the former Director 
was asked to resign by the previous administration. GSA has since been 
run by five acting Administrators who could not act with the same 
authority as a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed person in 
that top job.
  But both before and after her government service, Martha Johnson's 
career shows a quite extraordinary mix of work in the public, private, 
and academic sectors that we should want in government service. Ms. 
Johnson holds a BA in economics and history from Oberlin College and an 
MBA from Yale Business School. She also taught some classes during this 
time.
  After graduating from Yale, Ms. Johnson began her career in the 
private sector as a manager at Cummins Engines Company. She then had a 
series of other management positions in the private sector and was 
asked by President Clinton to become Associate Deputy Secretary of 
Commerce, and then Chief of Staff of GSA from 1996 to 2001.
  Since leaving government service in 2001, Ms. Johnson has served as a 
vice president for the Council for Excellence in Government--a 
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the 
effectiveness of government at all levels--and, most recently, she 
served as a vice president for Computer Sciences Corporation.
  This is an extraordinarily experienced and qualified nominee, and 
that is why I think she deserves--and I think will receive--broad 
bipartisan support when this matter comes to a vote at around 3 
o'clock.
  It is past time for GSA to finally have a permanent Administrator, 
and we happen to have a nominee here who is remarkably well suited for 
the job. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote ``yes'' on cloture, 
and then we can have a final vote and get this able person on the job 
working for the American people and I think help us not only manage the 
Federal Government's activities better but to save billions--literally 
billions--of dollars for the American taxpayers.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I would yield, if I might, to my friend and colleague from Louisiana 
whatever time she needs to speak at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the Senator 
from Connecticut for yielding the remainder of his time. I understand 
he has an hour under his control, and I intend to take the full measure 
of the hour that is left, first speaking in favor of the nominee who he 
has so eloquently described in terms of her background and experience 
and the arguments he is making about trying to bring more civility and 
bipartisanship to this body and the importance of getting some of these 
very important Federal officials appointed so government can work 
better and more efficiently.
  It has been my pleasure to serve with the chairman now for several 
years on the Homeland Security Committee, and I am familiar with the 
work he and his ranking member, Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, 
have done together. They have shown a real example of bipartisanship, 
and I would hope his calls for this nominee to move forward without 
delay and not be held up would be heeded.


                         Louisiana FMAP Formula

  Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak about a different subject, 
one that is very important to the State of Louisiana and the people of 
our State--an issue that has been mischaracterized for months now in 
all sorts of venues--and I thought taking an opportunity today, for a 
couple of hours, to go through the request by the State of Louisiana 
for a change or realignment of our FMAP formula, the formula that funds 
our Medicaid system, would be good to do.
  It is good to do for several reasons, the most important of which is 
not to bring up this subject again for further review to try to clear 
anything that people have said about me. I have been in public office 
now for 30 years. People have said all sorts of things about me as a 
public official. I would venture to say every Member of this body has 
been called some very choice names. That is actually not why I am here, 
to defend myself. The Record will do that.
  What I am here to do is to defend the people of Louisiana and to 
express clearly and strongly why and how our delegation came forward, 
united in a very public way, to press our case here in Washington--the 
only place this can be fixed--why we felt as a delegation, strongly 
united Democrats and Republicans, to press this case to the Federal 
Government to get some immediate and necessary and urgent relief for 
the people of our State.
  I make no apologies for leading this effort. I do not back up an inch 
from the yearlong effort we have undertaken. I am here today because I 
actually do not have any idea at the moment what will happen to the 
health care bill we have worked on for the better part of a year. I do 
not know if we are going to have a bill. I do not know if it is going 
to be the Senate version or the House version. I do not know if it is 
going to be a bill passed by 60-plus

[[Page 1229]]

people or more on the Senate side and a wide majority in the House. I 
do not know if there is going to be reconciliation that is used. Those 
discussions are happening actually right now above my pay grade.
  But what is in my pay grade, what I actually do get paid to do here, 
is to represent the people of Louisiana, and I intend to do that for 
the better part of this hour and for the rest of the day because there 
has been some great misunderstanding about this in the national media--
not much in the mainstream media but on the fringes; but sometimes 
those fringes can be quite loud, and I would like to try my best to 
silence them a little bit at this point. The mainstream media has been, 
for the most part, taking their time to understand, and I appreciate 
it.
  I most certainly appreciate the newspapers in my State that actually 
know more about this than any media outlets. They would because they 
have covered it longer, have editorialized generally in my favor and 
the favor of our delegation that has stood strong, except two members 
who have folded on this issue.
  So I want to start to try to take everyone through chronologically 
the timeframe. First of all, I have been, and the State of Louisiana 
has been, criticized for a ``secret'' deal, for something that happened 
at the very end of the process that people did not know about.
  I wish to call everyone's attention to a Times-Picayune headline--
this is the newspaper in New Orleans--a Times-Picayune headline, dated 
January 11, 2009. We are in February of 2010, so this was a year ago. 
This was a year ago. I also would call to the attention of my critics 
that this date is actually almost 2 weeks before President Obama was 
ever sworn into office, just to remind people.
  This meeting, called by my Governor, who is a Republican Governor, 
happened in a public place, in the Governor's mansion in Baton Rouge 
and five members of our delegation were there, and the entire 
delegation was represented. It was reported at length in several 
papers. In the Times-Picayune, this is the headline: ``Jindal reviews 
wish list with LA delegation; aid for recovery, health care stressed.'' 
This is the other headline: ``Governor Jindal Stresses Urgent Need for 
Federal Government to Fix Faulty FMAP Rate.'' Let me repeat that: 
``Governor Jindal Stresses Urgent Need for Federal Government to Fix 
Faulty FMAP Rate.'' Not special FMAP rate, not FMAP rate problems that 
every State is fixing, but faulty FMAP. I will explain why we think it 
is faulty in a minute.
  ``The Advocate,'' August 29. This was in July. These meetings 
continued through the year: Jindal, Republican Governor; Landrieu, 
Democratic Senator, Pushed for Federal Funding Fix.
  So I wish to put my critics on notice. I am going to submit letters 
and documents and these articles. Nothing about this effort was secret. 
Nothing. If there is one Member of this body, either the junior Senator 
from Louisiana, or the great Senator from Arizona, or any other Senator 
who would like to come and talk to me about this ``secret'' effort, I 
would look forward to hearing their comments on the floor of this 
Senate sometime today because I am staying here today until 6 or 7 
o'clock, until we go out of session tonight. I thought it would be good 
to spend the better part of the day.
  If anyone, if any Senator, wants to come down and say they thought 
this was some kind of secret arrangement, I think the editors of our 
newspapers would be very interested since they have been reporting on 
it since the first meeting on January 11, 2009.
  Secondly, I wish to show a letter signed by our entire delegation to 
make another point. My critics have said: Oh, there she goes again, 
Senator Landrieu, just running off on her own making all sorts of 
terrible things and making the State of Louisiana look bad.
  I have spent 30 years of my life trying to represent the people of my 
State and make them look good. Even when they were wrong, I have 
defended them. When they were right, I praised them. When I was wrong, 
I apologized; and when I was right, I was very proud of my work. 
Never--never--in my life have I ever or will ever throw the people of 
my State under a bus to save my reputation or my job.
  I know who I am inside. I don't need anyone to remind me of the 
goodness I have inside. My parents do that. My husband does that. My 
children do that for me every day. I most certainly don't need anyone--
and I don't need this job badly enough; maybe some people do, I don't--
to throw the people of my State under a bus to protect myself 
politically.
  I wish to show everyone a letter dated May 4, and I am going to read 
every single signature because I am actually proud to lead this 
delegation. I only have one Democrat besides myself, but other than 
about one member of this delegation, we have some pretty extraordinary 
leaders. I am proud of them. Some are very conservative and some are 
very liberal and some are in the middle. We have a very diverse 
delegation.
  I signed this letter; Rodney Alexander signed this letter, a member 
of the Appropriations Committee; Charlie Melancon signed this letter, a 
Member of Congress; Bill Cassidy is a Member from Baton Rouge; David 
Vitter, the Senator; Charles Boustany from Lafayette; Steve Scalise 
from Jefferson Parish; and John Fleming from Shreveport and Joseph Cao, 
a Vietnamese-American Member of Congress from the New Orleans area 
signed this letter.
  This was made public. Actually, some Members put out their own press 
releases. The letter is to Secretary Sebelius, who was finally sworn in 
after being held up for months:

       We write to you today to follow up on an April 9 letter 
     your office received from Louisiana Secretary Alan Levine.

  That is our Secretary.

       While many states will face challenges to their Medicaid 
     programs in the coming years, we believe that Louisiana's 
     case is unique.

  We believe Louisiana's case is unique.

       As you may be aware, our state is still rebuilding from 
     Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 as well as Hurricanes 
     Gustav and Ike in 2008, including the rehabilitation of the 
     health care system in the New Orleans area. These extensive 
     recovery efforts have inflated Louisiana's per capita income, 
     but they were only temporary and do not accurately reflect 
     the increases to incomes in industries not related to the 
     hurricane recovery.
       Since the FMAP formula per capita to calculate how much 
     each state will receive, we are greatly concerned that the 
     post hurricane per capita income increase would significantly 
     impact our State's FMAP allocation. We ask that you meet with 
     Secretary Levine to develop a solution to the unique problem 
     that our state is facing.

  This is an example of one letter--I have many others--signed by our 
entire delegation asking the officials here, from the White House to 
Kathleen Sebelius to other powerful Members, to please look at 
Louisiana's situation because ours alone among the 50 States was 
unique, and I will explain why in a minute.
  So the fact that this was a secret is a lie. The fact that it wasn't 
supported by our delegation is a lie.
  Now I wish to explain what our problem is, and this map explains it--
or chart--better than I can. As anyone knows how this Federal formula 
works for Medicaid, Medicaid is a voluntary program to a certain extent 
that States can enter into to cover their very poor. The Federal 
Government says: If you want to do that, if you are a wealthy State, we 
will pick up 50 percent of your effort. If you are a moderately wealthy 
State, we will pick up 60 percent of your effort. And if you are one of 
the poorest States in the Union--not that Louisiana isn't an 
extraordinary State, but we have high poverty relative to other States, 
just like Mississippi and Alabama, West Virginia. We know who our 
cohorts are. We have been at this a long time.
  For us, the Federal Government says: If you try to cover your poor, 
we will pick up 70 percent for you, which is the right thing to do. The 
Federal Government should help the poorest States a little bit more 
than the wealthier States. It is actually what is taught in the Bible. 
I wish we would follow it a little bit more around here.

[[Page 1230]]

  So for years, this is what has occurred. In 1999, the Federal 
Government paid 70 cents of every dollar. You can see, basically, that 
it is done by an income calculation. Because our income--we have gotten 
a little bit richer here, you can see, a little bit richer, a little 
bit poorer, a little bit richer. But all of a sudden, because of a 
unique set of circumstances that happened because of Katrina and Rita 
and Ike and Gustav--not because of any politics here but because of 
hurricanes and levee breaks and a catastrophic flood and an influx of 
Federal dollars that came to help, which we are grateful for--our 
calculations were terribly distorted and skewed when the new 
calculation was made. As a result, the Federal Government's portion 
would have fallen to 63 percent. So from an average of about 70, we 
would have fallen to 63 percent. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it 
would have meant about a $400 million to $600 million--very roughly, 
$400 million to $600 million difference.
  Either the people of my State would have had to cut $400 million to 
$600 million out of programs today or they would have had to raise $400 
million to $600 million in taxes. That is a lot of money even in 
Washington where we throw around $1 billion and $1 trillion like it is 
nothing.
  I can promise you, there are people sitting around their kitchen 
tables in Louisiana way down in Tibido and way up in Mansfield, LA, 
thinking: Where are we going to come up with $500 million? This is 
terrible, Senator. We didn't do anything. We are not that much richer. 
We are actually still struggling from the recovery. Does anyone in 
Washington understand that we did not get--we are not 40 percent richer 
than we were 2 years ago? Does anybody know up there that we are still 
struggling with this recovery?
  I assured them I knew, and our delegation knew, and that I knew some 
people who might be understanding. I mentioned to them actually that I 
would bring this to Harry Reid, I said, because he is a good man. He 
has a good heart. I thought if I explained this to him and to Kathleen 
Sebelius, who is a very good Secretary, and got their staffs to look at 
it, perhaps they would agree with us that we needed some special 
assistance. I thought there might be one person--one person with a 
heart on the other side of the aisle. I still think there may be. But, 
I said, let's just try.
  So our delegation went to work and, lo and behold, then we have a 
health care bill coming along. It is a bill that some people like and 
some people don't, but it is most certainly germane to my subject. It 
is most certainly germane to my subject.
  So I say: This is nice. I know we are going to be on health care. 
Let's see what we can do to get this in this health care bill. I don't 
know what the bill is going to look like. I don't know if I can vote 
for it when it finally comes. I don't even know if I am going to be for 
it. But it is a health care bill. This is a health care amendment.
  Some people have actually criticized me and said: You know, the 
Senator put it on the wrong bill. The Senator discussed this at the 
wrong time. The Senator has ruined the efforts of the State to get help 
because she asked for this amendment.
  Was I supposed to ask for it on a transportation bill? Was I supposed 
to ask for a Medicaid fix on a jobs bill? Was I supposed to ask for it 
on a lands bill? Forgive me for asking for a health care amendment on a 
health care bill.
  So I did. We pursued it openly, we pursued it bipartisanly, and we 
pursued it intelligently and smartly on the health care bill. And I 
assured my Republicans privately and publicly: I know you are not for 
the bill. You don't have to vote for the bill. I may not vote for the 
bill. I didn't know I was going to vote for the bill until the very 
end. I am going to talk about why I decided to vote for the bill.
  I said: But no matter how we vote on this bill, let's really make a 
case as strong as we can that this should be fixed. We basically agreed 
to do that, and the record will show that.
  So at some point later, as the debate moved over to the Senate, I was 
asked to present, on any number of occasions, just as every Senator was 
asked, what are the things that I think are the most important in this 
health care bill as we begin the debate. I wasn't on the HELP 
Committee. I am not on Finance. So those of us not on HELP and not on 
the Finance Committee submitted our documents, which I am going to 
release today to the leader, and said: These are the things that we 
think are most important.
  This was always on that list. I am proud it was on the list, but what 
I want people to realize is it wasn't the only thing on the list. It 
wasn't the first thing on the list. It wasn't on the list in any letter 
or correspondence that said if this doesn't get on, I am not voting for 
the bill. In every correspondence, in every public meeting, and in 
every private meeting, I pressed for this issue, but never did I say at 
any time that if this wasn't in the bill, I wouldn't vote for it, or if 
it was in the bill that I would vote for it because I don't believe in 
that.
  As strongly as I feel about this provision and the merits of it, I 
would never have asked my colleagues--I did ask my colleagues to 
understand a few other things, and they can tell you that I said this 
in any number of meetings and, unfortunately, some of them were locked 
up with me for days. So they actually got to hear this over and over 
again.
  I said: I cannot vote for this bill unless it drives down costs. I 
cannot vote for this bill if there is a government-run, public delivery 
system. I will not vote for this bill if there is an employer mandate. 
I can only vote for this bill if it extends coverage to people who 
don't have it in a way they can afford it where they have choices in 
the private sector.
  I said that speech 100 times in my State. I was on the radio. I was 
on this floor. My colleagues have heard it any number of times. I said 
to my colleagues: If you are going to cover children who can stay on 
their parents' insurance--if the underlying bill, whether it comes from 
the Senate or the House, is going to cover children up to 26 years old, 
which is a very good reform--something I think the American people 
support, and most certainly the people in my State would love to be 
able to do until they are 26--I said I would be hard-pressed to vote 
for bills if you left out children who don't have parents. Since I am 
the cochair of the adoption caucus and cochair of the foster care 
caucus, with Chairman Grassley, I felt very empowered to speak those 
words to the leaders here. Part of my job that I have taken on myself 
is to try to represent children in foster care. I don't do a very good 
job every day, and sometimes I don't do the job I should do for them. I 
try my best. When we are in those meetings, when they have no one 
speaking for them--they most certainly don't have any money to hire a 
lobbyist. They most certainly have no parents here advocating for them. 
But I said if you are going to put that in the bill so every child in 
America gets to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 
26--do you all realize we have 22,000 children who graduate or come out 
of our foster care system who don't have any parents? I said: What are 
we going to do for them? They said: We don't know. We think we will 
leave them out. I said: If you want my support for this bill, that has 
to be in there.
  I said that on the floor and in meetings. This was not in that 
conversation. This was. We need it. We believe we have a $400 million 
to $600 million fix. We would love you to fix it all. We would love the 
full $600 million, but we would appreciate whatever you can do to help 
us. Frankly, the reason we should fix it is not only will it be good 
for Louisiana, but by chance if any other State--when the earthquake 
hits Memphis, and it will some day, or when it hits California, and it 
will some day--do you know what. If this is in the law, they will not 
have to pay double for their Medicaid 3 years after that disaster 
because there will be this adjustment that says, if your rates are 
arbitrarily or artificially distorted by the fact that you have an 
increase in public assistance coming into your State, we will not count 
you as having a 40-percent increase in income. It will help. Contrary 
to what the Senator

[[Page 1231]]

from Arizona says, it doesn't just affect Louisiana. For the time 
being, it does, but in the future it would affect a lot of other 
States. That is the right thing to do.
  Nobody should be punished for having a disaster. Why would you punish 
that? This money--this $400 million is to protect the poorest children 
in my State--children who lost their parents in floods, lost 
grandparents in floods, children who lost siblings in the floods, 
children who are still not back in their houses. Why would we punish 
these children, these disabled people, the poor people on Medicaid 
because the Federal Government's levees broke? Why would we do that? I 
don't think we want to.
  I am not going to stand by silently while the people of Louisiana are 
criticized for asking for something in a public way, describing our 
situation, expressing that we are unique among the States in this, and 
asking for assistance. I think the White House understands this. I know 
that Kathleen Sebelius understands this. I am most certainly confident 
the leadership on the Democratic side understands it. I am very 
interested in what the Republican leadership has to say about this. 
They have been very quiet.
  If this isn't the place to ask for it, where is the place? I would 
like to go there. If this isn't the time to ask for it, what is the 
time? This budget is being crafted right now by my legislators--not 2 
years from now but right now. They are either going to know they have 
$350 million to work with or they are not. They are either going to 
raise $350 million on the backs of my people who can hardly pay the 
taxes they are paying now or they are going to cut off more from the 
elderly, the poor or the disabled who rely on Medicaid. So if this 
isn't the time, when would I come?
  To close, because I have a few more minutes, I am going to leave with 
the one statement my Governor made publicly on this for the record. 
Being in public office takes more than being intelligent, more than a 
fancy resume--it takes guts. Some people have more of those than 
others. This is what my Governor said on November 20 to CNN:

       The bill is awful, but it is unfair to criticize Senator 
     Landrieu or the rest of our delegation for fighting to 
     correct this injustice to Louisiana. Our entire delegation is 
     working together across party lines to correct this flawed 
     formula.

  This is the one statement he made. I see my colleague from Missouri 
here to speak about other matters. I am going to rest for a moment. I 
will be on this floor until 6 o'clock today. I am not leaving. If any 
Senator from the Democratic side or the Republican side wants to debate 
me on any aspect of this, I kindly ask them to let's get this over with 
today. I look forward to seeing them. I will be here until 6 o'clock. 
If they don't come, then I hope they will keep their mouths shut about 
something they know nothing about.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to shed some light on the situation 
going on at the General Services Administration, the GSA, a tangled 
mess of bureaucracy I have been fighting for the last 5 years. In the 
past, I worked very cooperatively with GSA, but for some reason, 
somehow, they have gotten themselves and us into a situation that is 
untenable.
  Yesterday, the President accused me of holding hostage the nominee to 
be Administrator, Martha Johnson. I feel no joy in holding up this 
nominee, but the hostage I am concerned about is not the one looking 
for this distinguished position in Washington. Instead, the hostages I 
am worried about are the 1,000 people working in a Federal office 
building dump in Kansas City at the mercy of an agency that refuses to 
act to remedy a problem they acknowledge exists. Again, the hostage, 
with due respect, is not Martha Johnson; the hostages are the 1,000 
Kansas City workers at the Bannister Federal Complex.
  As Senators, we have a few tools at our disposal to carry out our 
responsibilities. One of these important responsibilities is oversight 
of the Federal Government. One of those tools is to force the Senate to 
debate and actually vote on an issue rather than be just a rubberstamp 
to the administration.
  While he has criticized me for using this oversight tool, the 
President wielded it himself when he was a Senator in this very 
Chamber.
  Senator Reid, our distinguished leader, shares some responsibility in 
delaying Martha Johnson's confirmation. You see, the Johnson nomination 
actually passed out of committee in May. Was she ever called up for a 
vote? No, because until July--when I formally placed a hold on the 
nominee--the Senator from Nevada, according to Congress Daily, delayed 
her confirmation to ensure that taxpayer dollars were still being used 
to send Federal employees to Las Vegas.
  Senator Reid has his priorities regarding the delay on this 
nomination, and I have mine. He wants more Federal employees able to 
come to Las Vegas, and I certainly understand his reason; it is very 
important for his State. I want Federal employees in Kansas City to 
work in a building with a roof that doesn't leak and doesn't have other 
risks of contamination.
  Some are complaining about the delay of this nominee. The truth is, 
the majority leader could have confirmed Martha Johnson in May, June or 
July. In addition, he waited until Thursday to file cloture, and he 
could have picked any date in the last 7 months to do so, but he waited 
until last Thursday. We had thought we made progress, and every time we 
thought we made progress, somebody in the administration pulled back 
that small step of progress.
  There are many reasons why a Senator might wish to place a hold on a 
nominee that are related to our oversight responsibilities. I think it 
is important to have debates such as this not only when the 
qualifications of the nominee are at stake but when a Federal 
bureaucracy stops being responsive and serving of the people in the 
communities in which they work. That is the real issue.
  Martha Johnson's qualifications are not in doubt. But as you will 
hear, the GSA is not being responsible to the people of Kansas City 
and, most specifically, to the Federal workers there.
  The history goes back about 5 years. It is part of a larger plan to 
move all tenants out of the dilapidated Bannister Federal Complex. GSA 
initiated a plan to construct a new building in downtown Kansas City in 
order to move the jobs out of the complex. That was a long time ago, 
and at the time they were looking for a lease-to-own process.
  The community of Kansas City--the leadership, elected officials, the 
employees, and Kansas City's financial community--had worked with the 
GSA to get a building--a new building to replace the Bannister Federal 
Complex.
  The existing building, by any stretch of the imagination, is 
extremely expensive to operate, will be sparsely occupied, is not 
conducive as a good workplace, and must be replaced.
  After 3 years, the plan brought together, with GSA's participation, 
the leadership of the Kansas City community at all levels, from the 
mayor to the council, to the business community, the Finance Committee 
that was going to put up the money. They came together, and they got a 
commitment that financing would be available to construct on a lease-
construction basis.
  What happened? With no warning, GSA called up the Environment and 
Public Works Committee the week of the markup, when it was supposed to 
be approved, and effectively put their own hold on the project they 
developed and approved, citing GSA's shift away from proceeding on a 
lease-construction basis.
  For anyone following the project, this latest move by GSA was very 
difficult to understand. After all, 3 months earlier, in June of 2008, 
GSA was holding roundtables with real estate developers on the value of 
lease-construction plans and telling them how they could seek and 
pursue such projects.
  In scrapping their own plan, GSA ensured that after all other tenants 
vacated the inefficient, 5.2-million-

[[Page 1232]]

square-foot complex, more than 1,000 Federal employees would be stuck 
working there.
  That is about 5,000 square feet per employee. This nonsensical plan 
would cost taxpayers $13 million to $15 million annually just to 
mothball unused space and operate shared heating and cooling equipment. 
That is $13,000 to $15,000 a year per employee for the unused space.
  GSA was so convinced this was the best path forward that for 9 
months, they even went so far as to conduct an analysis to justify the 
continued use of the Bannister Complex. But then, in a 60-day analysis, 
``GSA concludes that the Bannister Complex should be a mid-term hold 
(approximately 15 years).'' This translates into nearly 10 years of 
continuing to run a complex at 20-percent capacity. Does that make 
sense? I cannot figure any building manager, any responsible party in 
the private sector or in government who thinks that works out. It does 
not take a mathematician to figure out the numbers. They are not good 
for the taxpayers. Put pencil to paper on that. Pencil it out. Anybody 
can do that. However, yet again, GSA decided to change its mind in 
September of 2009. This time, GSA agreed to their original position 
that a new building in Kansas City was GSA's ``preferred option.''
  Bear with me. I know this is getting confusing because we have been 
confused.
  Imagine how the Kansas City community feels after being jerked around 
for 5 years, where we sat down and worked with the staff, and a very 
helpful staff decided--laid out the path forward. That sounds like a 
good idea. Everybody at home was on board. The Kansas City community 
was on board, the officials, and we said, fine. Then somebody in the 
administration, whether GSA or above, put a halt to every one of those 
steps forward--every single one of them. Every time they laid out 
something, nothing happened. We are beginning, quite honestly, to feel 
like Charlie Brown. Every time we get ready to kick the football, 
somebody in the administration moves it.
  Where are we now, now that the GSA went back to their original 
objective that they earlier rejected? Unfortunately, we are not one 
step closer to a new building for these workers. GSA has still taken no 
action, still has put nothing on paper, has made no commitments.
  Is there a way forward? What is their way forward? Let the people of 
Kansas City know what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, 
and when you are going to do it. We cannot even find that out from 
them. There is no official plan out of GSA. GSA clearly agrees that the 
new Federal building is needed, so it should not be asking too much for 
somebody who represents them and the community to be told their plan. 
Yet they have stubbornly refused to produce one.
  I met with Ms. Martha Johnson. I have worked with the PBS 
Commissioner. They are fine people, wonderful people. I think they are 
very qualified. But I have asked repeatedly that GSA come up with an 
official plan to move Kansas City forward. They refused. Bureaucracy 
has broken its word once again, and I want a chance to tell my 
colleagues what they have done.
  My bottom line, the reason I am on the floor today opposing this 
nomination is quite simple: As Missouri's senior Senator, my job is to 
fight on behalf of the people who sent me here. My job is to make sure 
bureaucrats in Washington do their job and serve the people across the 
Nation and in Kansas City.
  GSA continues to ignore the Kansas City community. My efforts have 
always been about keeping 1,000 jobs in Kansas City, not blocking one 
position in Washington.
  But my colleagues should be aware that there is more bad news at this 
very same Bannister Federal Complex. At the same time GSA has been 
unwilling to move forward on a new building, they have also apparently 
been unresponsive to the ongoing health concerns of their employees and 
tenants at the Bannister Federal Complex. In the next day or so, tests 
will come back on the levels of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a dangerous 
carcinogen, at the Bannister Complex. These tests were called for after 
a local TV station reported unexplained illnesses afflicting Bannister 
workers and a possible link to toxins, such as TCE and beryllium, at 
the complex. While the pending results of these tests are of great 
concern--they are of great concern to the employees and their families, 
but most of all, we are hearing from parents whose children were in a 
daycare center at the complex. They want to know to what their children 
might have been exposed.
  These scares and reports are coming more and more frequently to us 
from the Bannister Complex. It is alarming that I learned about this 
information not from GSA but from the media. Based on media reports, 
the implications for the health of these workers could be very serious, 
so I have called for an investigation. I even asked the inspector 
general of GSA to get to the bottom of these alarming health 
allegations.
  I will work with the proper authorities on all levels of government--
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources, the Missouri Department of Health, the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry--to uncover any additional information. 
It goes without saying that I will demand more transparent and 
comprehensive testing throughout the Bannister Complex. For the safety 
of the workers, we need to know what is going on, what is happening at 
Bannister, what has gone on in the past, who knew about it, why they 
did nothing about it, and how to move immediately to protect those 
potentially at risk.
  The bottom line is that these workers deserve answers. The situation 
at GSA tells the American people that all they can expect out of 
Washington right now is business as usual, keep going forward, don't 
listen to the people we are supposed to serve, a government that is out 
of touch with their concerns and slow to act. I do not support business 
as usual. For these reasons, I will vote against the nomination and ask 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                   Department of Defense Nominations

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to express my 
frustration and my dismay at the roadblocks which have been placed in 
the way of Senate nominations for key positions at the Department of 
Defense. These obstructions take place at a time when these nominees--
there are four of them--are critically needed by the Department of 
Defense. We are a nation at war. Our national security interests 
require us to end these obstruction tactics and immediately fill these 
four positions with highly qualified patriots.
  Each of these nominees has been favorably reported to the Senate by 
unanimous vote from the Committee on Armed Services. They responded to 
extensive advance policy questions. They appeared at a hearing of our 
committee. Nobody has informed me of any concern about the 
qualifications of any one of these four nominees. Yet there is an 
objection here on the floor of the Senate every time these nominations 
are considered for confirmation. If any Senator has a concern about any 
of these four Defense Department nominees, I wish they would let me 
know about those concerns so we can address those concerns. We have 
heard from nobody. We have unanimous approval by the Armed Services 
Committee of four Defense nominees. They have been sitting on our 
calendar since December 2--over 2 months--while these positions go 
unfilled and we are in the middle of two wars.
  One of these nominees is retired Marine Major General Clifford 
Stanley. He was nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. This position is critically important. It is 
responsible for our military readiness. It is responsible for our total 
force management. It is responsible for military and civilian personnel 
requirements that need to be filled. This position is responsible for 
pay and benefits. Let me repeat this. The pay and

[[Page 1233]]

benefits of our military personnel is the responsibility of the person 
who has been nominated for this position, and he has been sitting 
waiting for confirmation for 2 months. What kind of a message is this 
to the men and women who put on the uniform of this country? Military 
and civilian personnel training is the responsibility of this office, 
military and civilian family matters, exchange, commissary, 
nonappropriated fund activities, personnel requirements for weapons 
support, National Guard and Reserve personnel matters, and health care 
for the military and their families.
  General Stanley was the first African-American regimental commander 
in the Marine Corps. He has served with honor and distinction. He is 
now retired. We are lucky we can get someone such as General Stanley to 
come back into public service to fill this position. Yet there has been 
a hold on his nomination since December 2.
  The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff have both made personal appeals to me and to other Members, 
including, I think, the leadership of this body, to confirm General 
Stanley so he can perform those essential duties which I have outlined. 
His nomination, again, was unanimously supported by our committee. Our 
distinguished Presiding Officer is a wonderful member of our committee. 
No one, again, has brought any problem with this nomination to my 
attention. No one has said he is not qualified. I think there is 
unanimous consensus that he is extraordinarily well qualified.
  While we have servicemembers, who have volunteered to serve, and 
their families under great stress, they are fighting for our interests 
in two wars, we have a critically important person who is awaiting 
confirmation for a position which affects every one of their lives. It 
is unconscionable that these roadblocks were placed in the way of these 
nominees.
  Another critical nomination is that of Frank Kendall III, who was 
nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology. The individual confirmed to this position is responsible 
for assisting the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology 
and Logistics in supervising Department of Defense acquisition, 
establishing policies for acquisition, including the procurement of 
goods and services, research and development, developmental testing, 
and contract administration.
  We have all these problems with contracts, with testing, with 
development, with cost overruns. We reformed our law now so that we 
have much better acquisition rules in place to try to see if we can't 
get rid of some of these cost overruns.
  We have a nominee to fill the position of Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and our friends on the other 
side of the aisle--someone over there--have a hold on his nomination 
for, I know, no reason related to his qualifications. There has been no 
issue about his qualifications, about any of the four of these 
nominees. Again, we have a critical position. As I indicated, 
particularly we have acquisition reform which we just adopted. It is so 
essential to control the cost of our national defense. Mr. Kendall's 
nomination, like General Stanley's nomination, has been before this 
Senate since December 2, over 2 months.
  Another nomination is that of Erin Conaton to be the Under Secretary 
of the Air Force. We all know her. She is on the staff of the House 
Armed Services Committee. Nobody has raised an issue about her. We are 
lucky to have her. Yet there is a hold from the other side of the aisle 
for some unspecified reason, nothing to do with her. But here she is in 
a position which is so important to the Air Force.
  If designated by the Secretary, the Under Secretary of the Air Force 
serves as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space. She also 
serves as the chief management officer of the Air Force--we have all 
these problems, and our Presiding Officer knows about the problems of 
auditing and knows about the management and the business problems we 
have in our defense units. He knows it from experience in the Senate. 
He knows from his own personal life experience how important this is. 
And we cannot get the woman--who probably is as knowledgeable about 
this subject as anyone, based on all of her years over at the House 
Armed Services Committee--we cannot get her off the Senate calendar.
  Terry Yonkers has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force for Installations and Environment. This Assistant Secretary is 
responsible for overall supervision for all matters relating to Air 
Force installations, environment, and logistics, including planning, 
acquisition, sustainment and disposal of Air Force real property and 
natural resources, environmental program compliance, energy management, 
safety and occupational health of Air Force personnel.
  These are important, vital positions to the well-being of our men and 
women in uniform. It is unconscionable that one or more people on the 
other side of the aisle continue to put holds on these nominations. 
They cannot find any problem with their qualifications because there is 
none. It is just endless holds, endless filibuster threats, endless 
roadblocks that stop these and so many other nominations. But these are 
Defense Department nominations in the middle of two wars, and these 
roadblocks have to be removed.
  I hope we will take up all four of these nominations immediately. We 
have servicemembers volunteering to risk their lives in defense of the 
Nation. The least we can do--the least we can do--as a Senate is to 
confirm nominees for the critical positions to lead the Department of 
Defense.
  Again, finally--and I know my great friend from Illinois is sitting 3 
feet away from me and has made the same suggestion, as he has pressed 
so hard to get these roadblocks removed--if anybody has a problem with 
these nominees, would they please come to the floor and tell us. They 
can tell us, hopefully, publicly, but they could tell us privately. We 
have heard nothing. These nominees--all four of them--were unanimously 
approved in the Armed Services Committee. So we don't know of any 
problem. We know their qualifications, and they are extraordinary in 
every one of their cases.
  This filibustering that is going on around here and the threat of 
filibustering and the constant roadblocks that are thrown up in front 
of these nominees is unconscionable. It goes beyond anything I have 
ever seen around here in 32 years. We all know there are people who 
object to nominees, but, hopefully, usually because they have an 
objection against something the nominee has done or said. In this case, 
there is nothing like that. This is some unrelated matter, apparently, 
which has caused somebody to hold them hostage while they try to 
extract some concession out of somebody.
  It seems to me, as a body, we simply have to find a way where we can 
get our nominations back on a reasonably decent track. I say that, with 
greater emphasis, when in the middle of two wars we have four essential 
nominees.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would tell the Senator I am not 100 percent pure. I 
have held up a nomination in the past, but I always state my purpose. 
The two I can recall immediately were to get agencies to do things they 
said they would have done long before and, in fact, they did them and I 
released my hold immediately. It was issuing a report. It wasn't a 
matter of filling a job or a project or something such as that. So it 
has been done. But I think if it is done with transparency and in a 
timely way, we can live with it. In this situation, we are seeing our 
Executive Calendar stacked with nominations.
  There was one in particular, which I spoke about the other morning, 
that struck me--Dr. Stanley, who is trying to take a position with, if 
I am not mistaken, manpower and readiness.
  Mr. LEVIN. In charge of it; right.
  Mr. DURBIN. For the Department of Defense. If I remember correctly, 
this gentleman has served 33 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, was a 
major general, and he was the first African-American regimental 
commander in

[[Page 1234]]

the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. It is clear he is qualified. 
There is no question about his patriotism and love of this country. The 
fact he would go through this process--let them go through every aspect 
of every corner of his life to prepare him for this nomination--and 
then be held up on the floor by the Senator from Alabama, I would ask 
the Senator: When he was considered before your committee, did anyone 
question this man's ability or his service to our Nation?
  Mr. LEVIN. Quite the opposite. His references were superb. Not only 
was there no objection raised, it was quite the opposite. We were 
delighted he was willing to come out of retirement and serve. This is a 
real find. These nominees are performing a real public service, in many 
cases taking a lot less money in pay than they could get in the private 
sector.
  I agree with my good friend from Illinois too. Many of us--I will not 
say all of us--including myself, have placed holds on nominations. That 
is not unusual. But usually there is some reason you have that you are 
willing to disclose and you want to take up with the nominee or you 
want some report that has not been filed that was promised. You want 
something that relates to the nominee. The objections here, the 
roadblocks here have nothing to do with these nominees. There is no 
objection to these nominees.
  I see my good friend from Vermont has come to the floor. He has to 
live with this a lot more than I have to with this. This is probably 20 
percent of my time. He has roadblocks in front of the Judiciary 
Committee nominees that take up probably more than half Senator Leahy's 
time.
  Mr. LEAHY. If my two friends will yield on that point, it has gone 
way beyond anything I have seen in my 35 years in the Senate, by either 
Democrats or Republicans. It is ridiculous.
  I will give one example--not my committee, but I mentioned it the 
other day. During the height of the H1N1 flu, every morning you could 
pick up the paper or hear of children--little children--dying while 
there was an anonymous hold by the Republicans on the Surgeon General. 
You would think, particularly at a time such as that, you would want to 
have everybody you could have there. This was blocked for months and 
months and months. Finally, the hold was lifted and she was confirmed 
unanimously.
  We have had judges supported by both parties, and the nominations 
have come out of the committee. The distinguished deputy majority 
leader is a member of the committee, and he knows they have come out 
unanimously. Yet they are held up for months. We finally vote cloture, 
waste 3 days of the public's time--at a cost of tens of thousands, 
hundreds of thousands of dollars--only to then have a vote and it be 
virtually unanimous.
  I mean, this is being childish. It goes beyond misusing a 
parliamentary procedure. It becomes childish.
  I thank my two colleagues for letting me speak to this.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Vermont is going 
to take the floor, but I would ask for his indulgence.
  I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Farewell to Senator Kirk

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in my era in politics, one of the most 
frightening things you could ever hear when you were about to go into 
an event was when the host of that event called you to the side and 
said: You will be speaking following Ted Kennedy. That was the worst 
news you could receive. No one in the world wanted to follow Ted 
Kennedy. He was that good and well loved and a man who had given his 
life to public service and to the State of Massachusetts.
  Well, our friend, Paul Kirk, who is seeing his tenure in the Senate 
come to an end either today or this week had the unfortunate 
responsibility to follow that great man. But if there was ever a person 
who could stand and take the job, it was Paul Kirk. He came to the 
Senate not just as a former staffer of Senator Ted Kennedy after 
Senator Kennedy passed away but as truly a very close friend of Senator 
Kennedy.
  On the day he was sworn in, Senator Paul Kirk of Massachusetts said 
he assumed his duties feeling ``the profound absence of a friend'' but 
a ``full understanding of his devotion and understanding of public 
service.''
  Paul Kirk promised to be a voice and a vote for the causes which 
Senator Kennedy believed in, and for 4 months and 10 days he has 
honored that promise to his old friend and to the people of 
Massachusetts.
  I will tell you that Paul Kirk, in his short time here, has served 
with dignity and integrity. We thank him and his wife Gail, who made a 
personal sacrifice to let her husband come and take up this 
responsibility for this important chapter in his life and this 
important chapter in the history of the Senate.
  I think it is fair to say Paul Kirk never dreamed he would be a 
Senator. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1964. He worked as an 
assistant district attorney in Massachusetts. He came to Washington in 
1968 and worked on Senator Robert Kennedy's Presidential campaign. He 
considered quitting politics, as many people did, after Robert 
Kennedy's political assassination. But Ted Kennedy convinced him to 
pick up the fallen standard and carry on Bobby's work.
  For the next 8 years, Paul Kirk worked in this Senate as one of Ted 
Kennedy's closest aides. He was with Senator Kennedy in 1980, when the 
last of the Kennedy brothers ran for President. I remember that so well 
as the downstate coordinator of the Ted Kennedy for President campaign 
in Illinois.
  In 1985, Paul Kirk took on the challenge of chairing the Democratic 
National Committee in the middle of the Reagan era--quite a political 
challenge for any Democrat. He served as cochairman of the Commission 
on Presidential Debates, and he has been chairman of the John F. 
Kennedy Library Foundation since 1992.
  Paul Kirk is a good fellow, with a great sense of humor. I can tell 
you what has been said about him. He has never been known for 
excitement. One friend said of Paul Kirk several years ago: Behind that 
quiet exterior is a quiet interior. He is that sort of person--soft 
spoken but effective. He may not speak in a lion's roar, as Ted Kennedy 
did, but his reverence for America and his belief in this great Nation 
and his sense of justice is just as strong. On the Saturday before 
Thanksgiving, during the historic effort to break the filibuster on 
health care reform, Senator Paul Kirk came to the floor and told the 
story of a young woman from Somerville, MA, who had finished college, 
prepared for graduate school, and who suffered organ failure. In many 
States, that woman might have quickly found herself in a critical state 
and in medical debt and surely she wouldn't have been able to find 
insurance.
  But because of Massachusetts's first in the Nation, near universal 
health care program, Paul Kirk told us that young woman could still 
obtain affordable health care, even though she now has what is 
characterized as a preexisting condition that will require her to be on 
medication for the rest of her life.
  Senator Kennedy was proud of what Massachusetts, his home State, had 
achieved in health care. Ensuring that Americans in every State had 
decent, affordable health care, Paul Kirk said, was the ``cause of his 
life.'' It has been Senator Kirk's consuming goal in the Senate, and I 
hope it will soon become a reality. We are too close to a solution on 
health care--and the need is too great--for us to stop now.
  In 1968, when Ted Kennedy became majority whip--the position I now 
hold in the Senate--then-majority leader Mike Mansfield welcomed him to 
the leadership by saying: ``Of all the Kennedys, the Senator is the 
only one who was and is a real Senate man.'' Part of what made Ted 
Kennedy a real Senate man was his personality and his inexhaustible 
patience and optimism. Part of it was his knowledge of how the Senate 
works and part was his great staff.
  The Kennedy staff has always been known as the A-Team in the Senate. 
They are smart, they are talented,

[[Page 1235]]

they are dedicated, and after they leave Ted Kennedy, they go places 
unimaginable for most staffers because they are so highly regarded. 
Some have been with Senator Kennedy for decades and continue with 
Senator Kirk, including the legendary Carey Parker, the Senator's chief 
speech writer; Michael Myers, whom I know well from his activities on 
the floor, the Senator's staff director on the HELP Committee, who 
worked so hard on health care reform. He has been amazing.
  I wish to thank all the staffers for Senator Kirk, and previously for 
Senator Kennedy, for carrying on that standard of justice and fairness. 
I thank them as a group for their service to Massachusetts and to 
America. It is because of them, and countless others whom Senator 
Kennedy touched, myself included, we have been enlisted in the Kennedy 
causes and the Kirk causes with a great deal of pride.
  A special thank-you to the Kennedy family--especially Vicki, Kara, 
Ted, and Patrick, Caroline and Curran--for sharing so much of the man 
they loved with the Nation he loved.
  Finally, I wish to welcome to the Senate--and in a short time he will 
come to be sworn in--Senator Scott Brown. As Senator Kennedy would have 
said, if he were here: failte. He was always eager to reach across the 
aisle and find solutions to the problems we face. I look forward to an 
opportunity to do the same with Senator Brown in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Wyoming on the floor, 
and he has been recognized, but I ask unanimous consent that when he 
finishes, I be recognized for 10 minutes to speak about Vermonters who 
have been in Haiti helping with the devastation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of Senator 
Bond's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     New Climate Change Allegations

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, there has been significant attention 
given to efforts by the United Nations to establish a global climate 
change agreement. The effort has been based, in large part, on 
information contained in reports prepared by the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  Supporters repeatedly cite figures and conclusions in the U.N. 
reports to justify a complete overhaul of the world economy. Supporters 
have been steadfast in claiming the report is conclusive, in claiming 
the scientific data is solid, and in claiming the integrity of the 
findings are above reproach. Any mistakes identified and pointed out 
are minimized and ignored.
  They have been singing this song for years. The U.N.'s top climate 
official is Dr. R.K. Pachauri, and the chorus of defenders of the U.N. 
reports have grown louder in recent months as the house of cards they 
have built is falling apart.
  There have been disclosures of e-mails that show scientists 
manipulated the sciences; there have been nonscientific materials 
utilized to reach scientific conclusions; there has been scientific 
conclusions that are not properly peer reviewed. Each week, the list of 
errors grows. The excuses from Dr. Pachauri, the man in charge of the 
U.N. climate change reports, well, they have been wearing thin.
  I come to the floor as a Senator who serves on both the Energy 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. I come to the 
floor to tell you and our Nation the United Nations' scientists are 
manipulating data to further political goals--political goals of 
passing a climate change accord that will cost the world billions.
  This is not my accusation. The person making the charge is the person 
who verified the false conclusion.
  It is better to hear it in the person's own words:
  His name is Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. Lal is a retired Indian academic, now 
a consultant. He was one of the four lead authors of the Asia chapter 
of the U.N. report.
  He is also behind the bogus claim in United Nations climate change 
reports that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035.
  He admitted that this scientific ``fact'' as climate change 
supporters like to state, was included in the report ``purely to put 
political pressure on world leaders.''
  Let me repeat--he said this so called ``fact'' was included in the 
United Nations report ``purely to put political pressure on world 
leaders.''
  According to Dr. Lal, ``It related to several countries in this 
region and their water sources.''
  ``We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy 
makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete 
action.''
  The so called ``fact'' in the report is just not true.
  On January 21, the Economist stated that when informed about the 
error the United Nations ``did nothing'' and the claims were ``airily 
dismissed by Rajendra Pachauri.''
  The Times of the U.K. reports a second factually inaccurate 
conclusion. It reports that the United Nations wrongly linked global 
warming to natural disasters.
  In an article written by Jonathan Leake, he stated that: The United 
Nations climate panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global 
warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters 
such as hurricanes and floods.
  The original link between climate change and natural disasters was 
based on an unpublished report. According to the Times the report ``had 
not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny''--and ignored 
warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link 
was ``too weak.''
  Despite the warnings once again, the United Nations Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change included the fiction in its report.
  Today the claim by the U.N. that global warming is already affecting 
the severity and frequency of natural disasters is a large part of the 
political debate across this country.
  How many politicians made the claim that Hurricane Katrina was the 
result of climate change? Well now they know the inconvenient truth.
  According to the Times of the U.K., the actual authors of the claim 
on natural disasters withdrew the claim--but the United Nations did 
not.
  Every day new scandals emerge about the so called ``facts'' in the 
U.N. reports.
  Claims that ice is disappearing from the world's mountain tops were 
apparently based on a student dissertation and an article in a 
mountaineering magazine.
  It was revealed that green activists with little scientific 
experience were the source for unsubstantiated claims that global 
warming might wipe out 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest.
  These revelations are in addition to the released e-mails by the 
Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. These are the e-mails 
that first raised serious questions about the conduct of U.N. and even 
U.S. scientists.
  These e-mails demonstrate a coordinated effort by trusted climate 
scientists to suppress dissenting views and manipulate data and methods 
to skew the U.N. reports to reach a politically correct view of the 
impact of climate change.
  Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit said that they ``admitted 
throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their 
predictions of global warming are based.''
  The lack of any raw data prevents other scientists from checking 
their work and raises additional questions about the accuracy of the 
data used in the U.N. reports.
  The actions by scientists and others to suppress data that 
contradicts their conclusions is misleading, unethical and 
unacceptable.
  Their conduct needs to be investigated.
  Senator Inhofe and I have written U.N. Secretary Moon to have the 
U.N. conduct an independent investigation into the original climate 
gate revelations.

[[Page 1236]]

  That request has not been acted upon.
  Revelations of ongoing scientific fraud at the United Nations Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change is disturbing.
  Concrete action by world leaders is needed.
  The integrity of the data and the integrity of the science has been 
compromised.
  Today, I call for government delegations of the U.N.'s general 
assembly and U.N. Secretary Moon to pressure Dr. Rajendra Pachauri to 
step down as head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change.
  It is time to conduct an independent investigation into the conduct 
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  Dr. Pachauri should be removed from any involvement with the 
investigation.
  Recent reports over the weekend raise questions about whether or not 
Dr. Pachauri knew of the false information in the U.N. report months 
prior to the disclosure.
  These claims, first reported in the Times of the U.K., stated that:

       Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change assessment that glaciers would disappear by 
     2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it.

  If proved true, this would mean that Pachauri failed to alert the 
world to this mistake before the December Copenhagen conference.
  Investor's Business Daily in an editorial stated:

       If we're serious about restoring science to its rightful 
     place, the head of the UN's panel on climate change should 
     step down. Evidence shows he quarterbacked a deliberate and 
     premeditated fraud.

  Walter Russell Read, project director for Religion and Foreign Policy 
at the Pew Forum was quoted in Investor's Business Daily Tuesday 
February 2 as saying:

       After years in which global warming activists had lectured 
     everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific 
     evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in 
     the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data 
     and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, 
     no scientific basis at all.

  President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Rice 
need to apply all the necessary pressure to ensure that Dr. Pachauri is 
removed.
  I also call on President Obama to direct his cabinet to stop 
supporting any policies that relied in whole and in part on the 
fraudulent United Nations reports.
  It is time to have the scientific data behind such policies 
independently verified.
  Administration policies relating to climate change will cost millions 
of Americans their jobs.
  We need to get this right.
  To continue to rely on these corrupted U.N. reports is an endorsement 
of fraudulent behavior.
  It is a signal to the American people that ideology is more important 
than their jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                                 Haiti

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 22 I spoke in this Chamber about 
the earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12 and the unprecedented 
devastation it caused. We now know that an estimated 3 million people 
have been affected, including some 700,000 people displaced from Port-
au-Prince and living under plastic or other makeshift shelter. As many 
as 200,000 more may have died; tens of thousands have suffered 
injuries, including many whose limbs had to be amputated, some as the 
only way to save their lives and to extricate them from the rubble. 
Hundreds of thousands of children have lost one or both of their 
parents. It is hard to quantify the scale of human suffering.
  Think of it. Thousands of commercial buildings, 200,000 homes, the 
presidential palace, the national cathedral as well as the parliament 
building, the government ministries, U.N. headquarters were either 
heavily damaged or destroyed. Roads, ports, and communication 
infrastructure were extensively damaged.
  Ninety percent of the schools in Port-au-Prince have been destroyed. 
This rebuilding is going to take years, even with the help of the 
international community, the United States, working side-by-side with 
the people of Haiti.
  The generosity of the American people as well as people from so many 
other countries has been extraordinary. Hundreds of millions of dollars 
have been raised from private organizations, foundations, corporations, 
and individuals, including schoolchildren. There have been countless 
tons of donations of food, clothing, medicines, and other supplies. It 
is especially heartening to see the commitment and dedication of 
volunteers, many of whom after they received word of the earthquake 
immediately began to pack their bags to travel to Haiti to help any way 
they could--not sure of where they would stay but knowing they had 
skills that were needed.
  One such group is the Vermont Haiti Relief Team. It includes members 
of the Vermont Haiti Project and the Vermont Federation of Nurses and 
Health Professionals. They traveled to Haiti. I talked with some of 
them who helped with the recovery, I heard and read their stories, I 
have seen the photographs they sent back. Here is one photograph--the 
nurses are carrying, obviously, a patient on a stretcher.
  As a Vermonter, as an American, I could not be more proud of the 
lifesaving work they are doing. Our little State of Vermont, as far 
north from Haiti as it could be--right up there on the Canadian 
border--answered the call to help a neighbor in the hemisphere.
  On January 20, 11 volunteer doctors, nurses, and other health 
professionals from Vermont arrived in Jimani, Dominican Republic. That 
is a remote border town where some of the injured from Haiti were taken 
immediately after the earthquake and where many more have arrived.
  The Vermont health workers joined other doctors and nurses to care 
for hundreds of patients in the hospital. They coordinated helicopter 
and ambulance transports, they established clinics to evaluate and 
treat injuries. They cared for over 250 amputees. They worked 
tirelessly to meet the needs of the victims and their families.
  What they did helped immeasurably. I look at this one photograph--at 
one of the nurses helping this child. Some couldn't speak the language. 
None of them knew the people before they went there. All they knew was 
that the Haitians are fellow human beings, suffering, and they felt, as 
we do in Vermont and in so many other places: If your neighbor is 
hurting, you are hurting, and so you help your neighbor. They went and 
helped.
  It is life-saving work. But it is also life-changing work. These 
Vermonters will return home having endured, improvised, and made a 
difference through the experience of a lifetime. How many of us can say 
we have done something that made such a difference in someone's life? 
They have, but their own lives have also been changed.
  They were confronted with hundreds of injured people. They had just a 
handful of medical personnel, no supplies, and they worked around the 
clock with volunteers from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and many 
other countries. Sometimes the electricity worked, sometimes it did 
not. Death surrounded them. But many of those who would have died 
survived because of the care of these Vermonters.
  The team also traveled to Fond Parisien, Haiti, where a clinic was 
established. They worked with Haitians and other relief organizations 
to create a wound clinic, and a hospital for hundreds of displaced 
persons.
  After 2 weeks working in difficult conditions, the first team of 
Vermonters is coming home. They are exhausted physically and 
emotionally, but they are proud of the help they provided to their 
Haitian patients and of being able to represent Vermont in the relief 
effort. This Vermonter is proud of them and proud of a second team that 
has now arrived in Haiti and has begun working.
  The Vermont Haiti Relief Team hopes to continue to send volunteers

[[Page 1237]]

for 2-week rotations to support the hospital in Jimani and the clinic 
in Fond Parisien for the next 3 to 6 months.
  I have been to Haiti. I know what a poor country it is. My wife 
Marcelle is a registered nurse, now retired. She has gone to those 
hospitals. She has seen how little there is to work with. She knows 
that somebody coming with the equipment that's needed, the supplies 
that were lacking, what a difference that makes.
  Marcelle and I are very impressed with the commitment of those 
Vermont volunteers. It is emotionally and physically exhausting, but no 
less rewarding. I thank them for their hard work and dedication, for 
their selfless example.
  What happened in Haiti was as great a natural disaster as any one of 
us will ever hear of. But what it has done is spark the generosity of 
people everywhere. The help has to continue. I will make sure of that 
as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
  Thanks to this small group of Vermonters who went down there, lives 
were saved, lives were changed, children were rescued. We Vermonters 
are proud.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson occur 
at 2:45 p.m., with the time until then divided equally; with the 
provisions of the order governing this nomination remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask further unanimous consent that upon disposition of 
the nomination of Martha Johnson, and the Senate resuming legislative 
session, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business with 
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes, except when 
Senator Kirk is recognized, he be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time in the quorum call be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Black History Month

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we remember the giants of American 
history, those who led troops into battle, or rose to high office, or 
gave their lives for something greater than themselves; the warriors, 
the statesmen, the heroes who fought to defend our values and our 
freedoms.
  We quote their words and etch their names into stone. We rightfully 
honor their place in the annals of history.
  But the quiet moments of our history are often overlooked.
  There are many unsung heroes whose actions give shape to our national 
identity. Too frequently, these brave men and women are pushed to the 
margins or relegated to obscurity.
  That is why I am here today to honor one woman who did not fight in 
wars, give great speeches, or perish on the battlefield.
  Make no mistake: those pursuits are noble, and it is right that we 
honor them.
  But our quiet heroes have just as much claim to our national 
attention, and also deserve our respect and praise.
  So today I would ask my colleagues to pause and to think of just such 
a quiet American hero:
  She never wore a uniform, though in a sense she led a great and 
diverse army. She never rose to high office, although she paved the way 
for others, including myself to do so.
  Rosa Parks began her life in a world that largely considered her to 
be undeserving of equal rights. She knew the injustice of segregation, 
and was no stranger to racism and hatred.
  She grew up poor in Tuskegee, AL, where she wasn't even allowed to 
ride the bus to school.
  But, thanks to a life of principled activism, and a moment of quiet 
courage on a city bus in Montgomery, this poor country girl would grow 
into a strong woman whose name became synonymous with ``freedom'' and 
``equality.''
  And when she passed away, not on a foreign battlefield, but quietly 
in her home, at the age of 92, she was mourned by her friends and 
neighbors from back home in Alabama, but also by an entire nation, in a 
funeral held at the National Cathedral and lasting a full 7 hours.
  Such was the impact that Rosa Parks had on our social and political 
landscape.
  Such was the indelible mark left by her decision, on that first day 
of December in 1955, to say ``no.''
  To refuse to accept that she was a second-class citizen.
  To claim what was rightfully hers as an American, not by force, and 
not by attacking or degrading her fellow man, but by insisting, with 
quiet conviction: I am your equal. I am any man or woman's equal.
  On that day, she knew that her cause was just. She had unshakable 
faith not only in the righteousness of her beliefs but in the heart and 
soul of this great nation that its people would turn away from bigotry 
and hate, that unjust laws could be changed, and that the great promise 
of America lives not in the imperfect here and now, but in our ability 
to define who we wish to become, to chart our own course, and remake 
our destiny.
  Rosa Parks was not alone in this belief. There were many others, from 
all backgrounds and walks of life, who shared a similar faith in 
American ideals.
  But, by refusing to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery, Rosa 
Parks brought those ideals to life.
  She helped give wings to a movement that grew, and gathered steam, 
and inspired millions to work tirelessly on the side of justice and 
equality.
  Today, Rosa Parks would have celebrated her ninety-seventh birthday. 
Just this morning, I joined Leader Reid and our Congressional 
colleagues to commemorate this milestone.
  And as we observe Black History Month, I can think of no finer way to 
begin this time of remembrance and celebration than by honoring the 
legacy of a great American like Rosa Parks.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering this quiet pioneer 
and millions of others like her, ordinary people who are not afraid to 
reach for extraordinary things.
  Regular folks who see this country and this world as they are, but 
are not afraid to imagine what they can be.
  Few of these unsung heroes will ever see their names in print, or 
etched into our collective history, but all remind us of the enduring 
greatness of the United States of America and the fundamental goodness 
of our fellow human beings.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule

[[Page 1238]]

XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Martha N. Johnson, of Maryland, to be Administrator of 
     General Services.
         Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, Mark 
           Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Edward E. Kaufman, Barbara 
           Boxer, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert Menendez, Kay R. 
           Hagan, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jon 
           Tester, Blanche L. Lincoln, Roland W. Burris, Kirsten 
           E. Gillibrand, Bill Nelson, Mary L. Landrieu.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Martha N. Johnson, of Maryland, to be Administrator of 
the General Services Administration, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Ex.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Alexander
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Crapo
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennett
     Hutchison
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, with the storm fast approaching, I think 
it is to everyone's advantage we complete our work today. So I am 
convinced this will be the last vote of the day. Now, I would say this. 
I have been working with Senators Grassley and Baucus, and, of course, 
the Republican leader, trying to get something keyed up for Monday, and 
I think we are making a lot of progress in that regard.
  It appears we are going to have a cloture vote on a nominee on 
Monday. I already talked to the Republican leader about this several 
days ago. We are also going to move forward on a jobs package Monday. 
We are either going to do one on a bipartisan basis--I sure hope we can 
do that; it really would be good for the country and good for us--if 
not, we will have to do one that will be my amendment rather than an 
amendment of a bipartisan group of Senators. So I hope we can do that. 
But we will have that worked out later today more than likely. But this 
will be the last vote for the day.
  Madam President, we also are working on someone to replace Judge 
Alito in the New Jersey Circuit, and his name is Joseph Greenaway. We 
hope that can also be done on Monday.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in order to vote on the nomination of 
Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, the Senate 
was required to overcome the 15th filibuster of President Obama's 
nominations to fill important posts in the executive branch and the 
judiciary. That number does not include the many others who have been 
denied up-or-down votes in the Senate by the anonymous obstruction of 
Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even 
noncontroversial nominees. There have been as many filibusters of 
nominations as there have been confirmations of Federal judges in 
President Obama's first 2 years in office.
  This 15th filibuster is three times as many as there were in the 
entire first 2 years of the Bush administration. Was it not just a few 
years ago that Republicans were demanding up-or-down votes for 
nominees, and contending that filibusters of nominations were 
unconstitutional? Again, the 15 filibusters of nominations matches the 
total number of Federal judges confirmed in President Obama's first 2 
years in office.
  In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in the Senate 
proceeded to confirm 28 judges. By this date during President Bush's 
first term, the Senate had confirmed 31 circuit and district court 
nominations, compared to only 14 during President Obama's first 2 
years. In the second year of President Bush's first term, the 
Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 judicial 
nominations, and helped reduce the vacancies left by Republican 
obstructionism from over 110 to 59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 
17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during 
President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial 
nominees.
  The obstruction and delay does not only affect judicial nominees and 
our Federal courts. Martha Johnson is the second executive branch 
nominee this week that has been filibustered by Republicans. Her 
nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar since June 
8 due to the opposition of a single Republican Senator over a dispute 
with GSA about plans for a Federal building in his home State. The will 
of the Senate and the needs of the American people are held hostage by 
a single Senator.
  Overall, as of this morning, there were more than 75 judicial and 
executive nominees pending on the Senate Executive calendar.
  Yesterday, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issue retreat, I 
asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to 
the Senate as quickly as possible and to commit to work with us, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far 
since taking office, the President has reached across the aisle working 
with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations. 
Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President 
responded by stating:

       Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it's not just 
     judges, unfortunately, Pat, it's also all our federal 
     appointees. We've got a huge backlog of folks who are 
     unanimously viewed as well qualified; nobody has a specific 
     objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because 
     of some completely unrelated piece of business.
       On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of 
     Indiana, Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--
     Evan Bayh, Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended. 
     How long did it take us? Six months, six, seven months for 
     somebody who was supported by the Democratic and Republican 
     senator from that state. And you can multiply that across the 
     board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that this is 
     not how we should be doing business.
       Let's have a fight about real stuff. Don't hold this woman 
     hostage. If you have an objection about my health care 
     policies, then let's debate the health care policies. But 
     don't suddenly end up having a GSA administrator who is stuck 
     in limbo somewhere because you don't like something else that 
     we're doing, because that doesn't serve the American people.

  I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the 
way the Senate acts. Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated use of 
filibusters, and delay and obstruction have become the new norm for the 
Republican in the Senate. We have seen unprecedented obstruction by 
Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100

[[Page 1239]]

filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all 
Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, 
the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome 
a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said 
that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a 
nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, 
have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.
  The Republican minority must believe that this partisan playbook of 
obstruction will reap political benefit for them and damage to the 
President. But the people who pay the price for this political 
calculation are the American people who depend on the government being 
able to do its job. I hope that Republican Senators will rethink their 
political strategy and return to the Senate's tradition of promptly 
considering noncontroversial nominations so that we can work together 
to regain the trust of the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Martha N. Johnson, of Maryland, to be Administrator of General 
Services?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 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. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Coburn
     Hutchison
     Isakson
  The nomination was confirmed.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on rollcall 20, I voted ``no.'' It was 
my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote as it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 20, I voted ``no.'' My 
intention was to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that 
I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome 
of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above orders.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table, and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________