[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5767-5772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF LAEL BRAINARD TO BE AN UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Lael Brainard, 
of the District of Columbia, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, with the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, controlling 15 minutes of the time 
controlled by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I probably will not take the 15 minutes 
but somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Lael Brainard to be 
Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.
  I do not think it is unreasonable for the American people to expect 
nominees to important posts in the Treasury Department to have a clean 
record in the payment of their taxes. After all, Treasury is 
responsible for collecting taxes. Treasury nominees have a special 
responsibility to live up to the same high standards the Department 
demands from ordinary citizens. But the American people deserve much 
more than just someone with a clean tax record. They deserve a nominee 
who is honest, trustworthy, and straightforward.
  The Finance Committee's bipartisan investigation of Ms. Brainard 
revealed she does not have a clean tax record. At worst, she refuses to 
be straightforward and honest about her tax records.
  The Finance Committee looks into the tax record of every nominee who 
comes before the committee. A routine examination of Ms. Brainard's 
past few tax returns revealed many problems. When asked if she has paid 
all her taxes on time, she did not reveal several cases in which she 
had failed to pay her taxes on time.
  When she was asked, on her nomination questionnaire, if she was 
current with all her taxes at the time she was nominated, she replied 
yes. But, in fact, that was not true. She was well overdue on paying 
county property taxes and DC employment insurance taxes at the time.
  There were also several problems with the forms she was supposed to 
file to prove that her household employee was legally able to work in 
this country. On one form, there was a serious problem with a space 
that the household employee is required to sign. It appears Ms. 
Brainard filled in that space with her own signature, and she could not 
provide an explanation of why she did so.
  On another form, dates appear to have been written over to change the 
year. She could provide no explanation of why this was done.
  On two different forms, Ms. Brainard missed the deadline for 
completing the employer portion of the form. On another form, the 
employer portion was filled in 1 month before the employee portion, but 
the law requires the employee portion to be filled in first.
  On yet another form, the employee certification section lists her 
husband's name, but the signature is hers.
  On another form, the employee section is filled in, but the required 
employer certification section was left blank.
  There was another problem of the home office deduction which she 
claimed in the past several years. She could not provide a clear and 
consistent reason for taking a home office deduction of one-sixth of 
her household expenses. She was unable to provide a credible reason for 
the size of the deduction. She reduced her home office deduction to 
one-twelfth of household

[[Page 5768]]

expenses on her 2008 tax return. However, she did not reduce the 
deduction on her 2005, 2006 or 2007 tax return, all of which had the 
inflated deduction.
  Some Senators might come to the conclusion that these tax problems 
alone should not disqualify the nominee. They may say that, at worst, 
this is simply a pattern of sloppiness. Do we want someone who is so 
sloppy in her tax responsibilities to be in charge of international 
affairs at the Treasury Department?
  But this is not just a matter of sloppiness. This is a matter of 
total lack of candor with the Finance Committee and, by extension, with 
the Senate and, by extension, with the American people.
  Ms. Brainard spent 9 months stonewalling the Finance Committee over 
all these tax issues. She gave evasive and incomplete answers to the 
staff of the committee. The level of evasiveness of this nominee 
appears to be unprecedented. The committee had to submit 10 rounds of 
questions to clarify inconsistencies and incomplete answers Ms. 
Brainard had given. Several of those questions have been left 
unanswered.
  The many tax problems of this nominee and the extreme difficulty the 
Finance Committee had in getting straight answers about these problems 
was outlined in a bipartisan memo Senator Grassley entered into the 
Congressional Record on December 23 of last year. If we cannot trust 
Ms. Brainard to be truthful and straightforward when she is a nominee, 
how can the American people trust her to be straightforward and honest 
when she is confirmed and serving in the Obama administration?
  As Under Secretary for International Affairs, she would be involved 
in some highly sensitive issues, such as the determination of whether 
China is manipulating its currency.
  Do we want someone with such an abysmal record on truthfulness 
serving in this high position in the Treasury Department representing 
our country?
  This is not just a matter of taxes. It is a matter of trust. The 
American people deserve a person we can trust in this very important 
position. That person is not Lael Brainard. We cannot trust someone who 
gives evasive, inconsistent, and incomplete answers to routine 
questions. We cannot trust someone who spends 9 months refusing to come 
clean about her record. We cannot trust someone who refuses to be 
straightforward about her tax problems because she is so desperate to 
be confirmed.
  Mr. President, someone with this record is a terrible choice to serve 
in the Treasury Department. I urge my fellow Senators and my colleagues 
to consider this record before they vote on this nomination. I urge a 
``no'' vote on this nomination.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request.
  Mr. BUNNING. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk not about 
obstructionism but, rather, about transparency and the rules. And the 
rule I am going to talk about is a rule that, in fact, we embraced in 
the last Congress. When I first came to the Senate, we embraced this 
rule by a vote; I think it was 92 to 6. We said we are going to change 
the way we do business around here when it comes to transparency. I 
thought it was a great moment. I was excited that we were making these 
bold changes about the way the Senate works, to open the doors and let 
the sun shine in.
  Imagine my disappointment some 2 years later when I realized that for 
many Members of this body, that was a meaningless exercise because in 
the area of secret holds, we are doing no better today than we were 
before we passed S. 1 in those early weeks of my time in the Senate, in 
2007.
  Section 512 of that bill deals with secret holds. What we tried to do 
in that bill was to make sure that if a Senator wanted to oppose 
somebody, no problem; if he or she wanted to hold somebody, that is 
their right as a Senator. But own it. Own it. We are not here to be in 
a back room making a deal to leverage something for some kind of pork 
we may want in our district. What we are here to do is the people's 
business. If a Senator has an objection to a nominee, they should tell 
the public they have an objection and, frankly, they owe the public an 
explanation as to why. We are here working for them. We are doing the 
people's business here. We are not doing some backroom deal. We are 
doing the people's business.
  So transparency is what this is about today, and section 512 lays out 
the exact steps that are necessary in order to make sure all of the 
holds become public. The process begins pretty simply: by someone 
making a unanimous consent request to move the nomination. When that 
motion is made, then the Senator who has the secret hold must submit a 
notice of intent specifying the reasons for the hold, and within 6 days 
that must be printed in the Congressional Record.
  Why do Senators hold secretly? Well, I can't think of a good reason. 
I mean, sometimes it is that they want to slow things down, and they do 
not want to be honest about it. Sometimes it is that they want to 
leverage it for a deal in their State from that agency, and they do not 
want to be forthcoming about that. That seems a little unseemly, to 
say: I am going to block an unrelated nomination in order to get a 
deal. And that is the kind of stuff people are sick of. That is the 
kind of stuff they do not want us to do anymore. They want us to be 
upfront. If a Senator wants to block a nomination in an agency because 
that agency is not doing their will, then they need to be proud of 
that.
  Here is the tricky part about this rule. Once the motion is made and 
therefore the clock starts ticking and a Member has to admit they have 
a secret hold and they have to own that hold, then what they can do is, 
before the 6 days, they can withdraw their hold, and that is when we 
start seeing an imitation of the World Wrestling Federation tag-team 
match. That is when another Senator comes in and tags up and says: 
Well, I will do a secret hold now. And then a motion is once again 
made, and guess what. That Senator backs out after 6 days and somebody 
else takes his or her place with the secret hold. So we get secret 
holds forever, ad nauseam--secret hold, secret hold, secret hold.
  So I come to the floor today to begin the running of the clock. We 
have over 80 nominations pending. In a comparable time in the Bush 
administration, we had five. We have around 80. I am now going to begin 
to make a motion on these 80. Why this particular group? I will tell 
you why this particular group. No objection has been made to these 
nominees in committee. Let me say that again. Every single one of the 
names I am going to move this morning had no objection in committee. So 
we have literally had every Member of this body on one of these other 
committees, and nobody objected. Nobody said a word. So right now, it 
is very difficult for the public to figure out why all these important 
nominees are not moving forward.
  Vote no. I am sure there have been nominees on whom I have voted no. 
There is a nominee on whom I put a hold. I put a hold on a nominee, but 
I was very upfront and put in the record at committee why I put a hold. 
I wrote a letter on why I put a hold. I wanted everyone to know why 
this nominee was being held. I thought it was an important part of my 
duty as a Senator to explain why I was doing what I was doing.
  So vote no. Hold a nominee. But don't do it under cover of darkness 
unless you have something to be ashamed of. If a Senator has something 
to be ashamed of, then they can do the tag team. The law lets them do 
it. They can just keep playing tag and getting another secret hold and 
then tag off again and get another secret hold.
  If we want to know why the country doesn't trust us, it is because of 
this kind of nonsense, these kinds of secret hold shenanigans or, as my 
mother would say, this poodle dog. That is her word for nonsense. I 
don't think she means to insult all the poodle owners in the world, but 
it is a good phrase--

[[Page 5769]]

poodle dog--for what this is. It is nonsense.
  Mr. President, when I have 1 minute left, if you will notify me, I 
will begin making the motions on these people whose nominations are 
being secretly held by Senators and who are not being allowed their 
time to even respond to whatever might be the secret reason why they 
are being held.


   Nomination of Stuart Gordon Nash to be an Associate Judge of the 
               Superior Court of the District of Columbia

  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 333; that the 
nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements 
relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  There being no objection, the nomination considered and confirmed is 
as follows:


                             the judiciary

       Stuart Gordon Nash, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
     Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia for the term of fifteen years.

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
404, the nomination of Warren Miller, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, Department of Energy; that the nomination be 
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and any statements relating to the 
nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I will make the same brief 
statement I made with Senator Whitehouse. Some of these nominees are 
subject to discussion between the two leaders, working out time 
agreements for their consideration--at least some of the court 
nominees.
  Now, I don't know about this specific nominee. I would say that I 
have no secret holds on anyone, so this is not on my own behalf. But in 
order to preserve the deliberation between the two leaders, on behalf 
of the minority I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes, I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona suggested that 
the leaders--meaning the Democratic and Republican leaders--wanted 
these held. Is the Senator from Missouri able to represent to the body 
that Senator Reid would like to see all the names she is calling moved 
forward today, at this moment; that he is not asking for a delay in the 
consideration of any of these nominations?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. All of these nominees have secret holds. The purpose 
of my exercise today is to begin to enforce the rule around here that 
everybody voted for, with the exception of a handful of people, that we 
weren't going to do secret holds anymore.
  I am certainly aware that the leader supports us doing this; that the 
secret hold has brought the nomination process not only to a halt but, 
more importantly, it has done it without the public even understanding 
why.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will ask a further question, through the Chair. So the 
representation that these names or nominations are being held because 
of the leaders--meaning the Democratic and Republican leaders--is not 
accurate? There is no intention of the Democratic leader to hold any of 
these nominations; is that not true?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. That is true.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 500, which is the 
nomination of Julie Reiskin, member of the LSC; that the nomination be 
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and any statements relating to the 
nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I am trying to follow the 
numbers as my colleague is going down through the unanimous consent 
requests, and I think my colleague skipped over the name of John J. 
Sullivan, of Maryland, Calendar No. 208, to be a member of the Federal 
Election Commission. Is there some objection on the other side or might 
we have an explanation as to why that name was skipped over?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I would be happy to----
  Mr. DURBIN. Regular order.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Regular order, but let me explain how this list was 
compiled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has made a unanimous 
consent request. Is there objection to that request?
  Mr. KYL. I would be happy to object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. By the way, just for the edification of the Senator 
from Arizona, there is one of these nominees on here who I believe is 
being secretly held by a Democrat. And by the way, I want to point out 
that the rule that does try to bring transparency to this process was 
one that was sponsored by Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley in a 
bipartisan way. The Wyden-Grassley effort that spanned a number of 
years was a bipartisan attempt to change and reform the way the Senate 
worked to provide more transparency. So this is really about 
transparency and this is about secret holds, and my criticism for 
secret holds is a bipartisan criticism. I don't think anybody should do 
a secret hold. I don't care if they are a Republican, a Democrat, an 
Independent, or any other party label, secret holds have no place in a 
public body.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 501; that the 
nomination of Gloria Valencia-Weber of New Mexico, Legal Services 
Corporation, be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and any statements 
related to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
556; that the nomination be confirmed--that is, the nomination of 
Benjamin Tucker for the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the 
motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, no further 
motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action, and any statements relating to the nominee be printed 
at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 581, the nomination 
of John Laub to be Director of the National Institute of Justice; that 
the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and any 
statements related to the nominee be printed in the Record at the 
appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. For reasons stated earlier, Mr. President, I object.

[[Page 5770]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
589, the nomination of Anthony Coscia; that the nomination be 
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, 
no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action, and any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
590, the nomination of Albert DiClemente, of Delaware, to be a director 
of the Amtrak board of directors; that the nomination be confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no 
further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
592, Mark R. Rosekind, of California, to be a member of the National 
Transportation Safety Board; that the nomination be confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no 
further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
618, P. David Lopez, of Arizona, to be general counsel of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission; that the nomination be confirmed, 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, 
no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee 
be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
620, Victoria A. Lipnic, of Virginia, to be a member of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission; that the nomination be confirmed, 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, 
no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee 
be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
628, Jill Long Thompson, of Indiana, to be a member of the Farm Credit 
Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration; that the nomination 
be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements 
relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
640, Eric L. Hirschhorn, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Export Administration; that the nomination be confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no 
further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
643, Steven L. Jacques, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development; that the nomination be confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no 
further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
647, Jim R. Esquea, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health 
and Human Services; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further 
motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be 
printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
648, Michael W. Punke, of Montana, to be a Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative, with the rank of ambassador; that the nomination be 
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to 
the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 
649, Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, with the rank of 
ambassador; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in 
order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, 
and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, let me just sum up. I had 20 I was 
going to try to do today. There are 80 of them.

[[Page 5771]]

I will be back. This is not about trying to rush through nominations, 
this is about trying to make the rules work the way we wrote them. That 
means that beginning immediately, all of the motions I just made, the 
Members who are holding those nominees have an obligation under the 
law--under the law they have an obligation to ``submit a notice of 
intent specifying the reasons for his or her objection to a certain 
nomination,'' and not more than 6 session days after today, that must 
be printed in the Congressional Record.
  These are the first 15 or so. I will continue to get them all on the 
record, hopefully by the end of the week, so that everyone knows next 
week, and maybe we will figure out why all these people are being held 
secretly. This is not about saying you should not vote no on these 
people. This is not even about not debating these people. This is about 
transparency and open government. That should be a bipartisan value, an 
all-American value in which we can all believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired.
  The Chair will clarify for the record that Executive Calendar No. 
333, Gordon Nash of the District of Columbia, to be an associate judge 
of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, has been confirmed.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I saved us a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Lael Brainard, 
of the District of Columbia, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury?
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Ex.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Inhofe
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, the Senate yesterday, by a vote of 84 to 
10, invoked cloture to end a Republican filibuster of President Obama's 
nomination of Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary at Treasury. As I 
said before that vote, the majority leader has taken a significant step 
to address the nominations crisis created by Senate Republican 
obstruction. Regrettably, that obstruction made it necessary for the 
Senate majority leader to file five cloture petitions to bring an end 
to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to carry out its advice 
and consent responsibilities.
  The refusal by Republicans month after month to come to agreements to 
consider, debate, and vote on nominations is a dramatic departure from 
the Senate's traditional practice of prompt and routine consideration 
of noncontroversial nominations. Their practices have led to delayed 
up-or-down votes for more than 100 nominations stalled from final 
Senate action. The American people should understand that these are all 
nominations favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction and 
are mostly nominations that were reported without opposition or with a 
small minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing 
Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's entire 
Presidency.
  Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the 
Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being 
favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as 
last November.
  To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's 
Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district 
court judges, on its way to confirming 100 judicial nominations by the 
end of his first 2 years in office. I know, I was the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee during much of that time, and worked hard to 
make sure that President Bush's nominees were not given the same unfair 
treatment given President Clinton's judicial nominees by Senate 
Republicans. Senate Democrats made real progress with respect to 
judicial vacancies. We did treat President Bush's judicial nominees 
more fairly than Republicans had treated President Clinton's and 
confirmed 100 during the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 
2001 and 2002.
  President Obama began sending us judicial nominations 2 months 
earlier than President Bush had and still only 18 Federal circuit and 
district court confirmations have been allowed. If Republicans would 
agree to allow the Senate to act on the additional 25 judicial 
nominations reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on 
which Senate Republicans are preventing Senate action, we could be at a 
comparable figure to the pace we attained in 2001 and 2002. As it 
stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved during President 
Bush's first 2 years.
  Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations despite 
vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of which are 
``judicial emergencies,'' as caseloads and backlogs grow and vacancies 
are left open longer and longer.
  I understand and share the frustration of the Senator from Rhode 
Island who came before the Senate earlier today to speak about this 
obstruction. In the time he had, he asked the Senate to consider 5 of 
the 25 judicial nominees stalled on the calendar, and each time there 
was a Republican objection. He made the point that these judicial 
nominations have not only been waiting a long time, but they were 
approved unanimously or nearly unanimously by all Republican and 
Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Still, after weeks, and 
in some cases months, Republicans will not consent to their 
consideration. They were nominees who are supported by home State 
Senators, including Republican home State Senators. Still, Republicans 
will not enter into agreements for their consideration.
  I began urging the Republican leadership last December to allow the 
Senate to make progress on these nominations by agreeing to immediate 
votes on those judicial nominees that were reported by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee without dissent, and to agree to time agreements to 
debate and vote on the others. Presently, there are 18 judicial 
nominations being stalled from

[[Page 5772]]

Senate consideration by Republican objection even though when they were 
considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee no Republican Senators on 
the committee voted against a single one. This is the Republican 
strategy of delay and obstruction--delay and obstruct even those 
nominees they support. They delayed confirmation of Judge Beverly 
Martin of Georgia to the eleventh circuit until this year. They delayed 
confirmation of Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the third 
circuit. They delayed and filibustered the nomination of Judge Barbara 
Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit, who was then unanimously 
approved.
  I further call upon Republicans to agree to time agreements on each 
of the other seven judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. 
Only one Republican Senator in the Judiciary Committee voted against 
Judge Wynn of North Carolina; only three voted against Judge Vanaskie 
of Pennsylvania; only four voted against Ms. Stranch of Tennessee, who 
is supported by the senior Senator from Tennessee, a Republican and a 
member of the Senate Republican leadership. Senate Republicans should 
identify the time they require to debate the nominations of Justice 
Butler of Wisconsin, Judge Chen of California, Judge Pearson of Ohio, 
and Judge Martinez of Colorado, who are all well-qualified nominees for 
district court vacancies, which are typically considered and confirmed 
without lengthy debate. They should not now be held up because they 
were targeted unfairly in committee by Republicans applying a new 
standard for district court nominees never used with President Bush's 
nominees, whether we were in the majority or the minority.
  Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm 
fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress--not the 100 we 
confirmed in 2001 and 2002. Last year, only 12 circuit and district 
court judges were confirmed. That was the lowest total in more than 50 
years. So far this year, only six more have been considered.
  The majority leader was required to file cloture on the nomination of 
Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the fourth circuit. Judge Keenan's 
nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the time-consuming process 
of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to 0. There was no reason or 
explanation given by Senate Republicans for their unwillingness to 
proceed earlier or without having to end their filibuster on that 
nominee either.
  Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority 
leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of 
Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the third circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the 
second circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court 
judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle 
District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the 
Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records, 
and both were reported by the Judiciary Committee last year with 
bipartisan support. Judge Chin, who was the first Asian-Pacific 
American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the ninth 
circuit, and if confirmed would be the only active Asian-Pacific 
American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court, was reported by 
the committee unanimously.
  This obstruction and delay is part of a partisan pattern. Even when 
they cannot say ``no,'' Republicans nonetheless demand that the Senate 
go exceedingly slow. The practice is continuing. The majority leader 
has had to file cloture 22 times already to end the obstruction of 
President Obama's nominees. That does not count the many other nominees 
who were delayed or are being denied up-or-down votes by Senate 
Republicans refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even 
noncontroversial nominees. That is the frustration I share with Senator 
Whitehouse and many others. If Republicans wish to oppose a nomination 
they can, but they are stalling noncontroversial nominations that they 
support.
  The Senate should be better than this. These Republican practices are 
destructive. When we see that Americans are frustrated with Congress, 
it is these kinds of practices that contribute to that frustration. I 
urge the Senate Republican leadership to change its ways. Agree to 
prompt consideration of noncontroversial nominees and enter into time 
agreements to debate and vote on those nominees that they oppose. Quit 
wasting the time of the Senate. The American people want us to act on 
Wall Street reform, not be bogged down in delaying tactics for the sake 
of delay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action with respect to the 
confirmation of the Brainard nomination.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes and that I be followed by Senator Burris for 5 minutes, at 
which point the Senate will recess for the party caucuses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________