[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9756-9758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on the Executive Calendar, I ask unanimous 
consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc 
Executive Calendar Nos. 427, 493, 494, 688, 500, 501, 521, 556, 581, 
588, 589, and a number of others that the minority, I am sure, is aware 
of, and it includes all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air 
Force, Army, Foreign Service, Marine Corps and Navy--these are military 
people waiting to get their increases in rank. They have all been 
cleared and they need to be cleared so they can get their increases in 
rank--that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to 
reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, that no further motions be in 
order, that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in 
the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action and the Senate resume legislative session.
  These are nominees, as I said. First of all, they are military people 
waiting for their increase in rank. But it is also people such as Brian 
Hayes, a member of the NLRB; Mark Pearce, member of the NLRB, et 
cetera, et cetera.
  Craig Becker, member of the NLRB; Anthony Coscia, Amtrak board of 
directors; Mark Rosekind, member of the NTSB. Here is David Lopez, 
general counsel of the EEOC. Here is Michael Punke, Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative; Islam Siddiqui, Chief Ag Negotiator for the U.S. Trade 
Representative; Jeffrey Moreland, director of Amtrak; Carolyn Radelet, 
Deputy Director of the Peace Corps; Lana Pollack, Commissioner of U.S. 
International Joint Commission for the U.S. and Canada. And there are a 
number of others. I will not go through them all. They are a number of 
people who need to be in place to make our government work and run. 
That is who we are trying to ask unanimous consent that we can get them 
confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would say to my good friend from 
Iowa, the majority leader and I have been working on a package of 
nominations. Unfortunately, we are snagged over one particular 
nomination which has already been defeated by the Senate, and that was 
the nomination of Craig Becker to be on the NLRB. The President then 
recessed Mr. Becker and recessed a Democratic nomination to the NLRB 
but not a Republican nominee to the NLRB. There is a fundamental lack 
of equity and fairness involved, and that has been a significant 
hindrance in coming to a consent agreement.
  Obviously, before we leave we will clear the military nominations. 
Those are really not in dispute. But typically what happens here before 
a recess, the majority leader and I get together and we try to work out 
as many of these as we can. To just clear the whole calendar involves, 
in addition, clearing judges who just got out of committee this week. 
We have a way that we sequence those who have been acceptable to both 
sides.
  In short, I have not seen every single name on the list of the 
Senator from Iowa, but it is simply not the way we are going to go 
forward, certainly not this evening.
  Accordingly, I would now ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following list of 
nominations that I will send to the desk. This is a list of 
approximately 60 nominations from the Executive Calendar.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en 
bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Kentucky, fairness and equity? 
OK. Let's talk about fairness and equity. Let's talk about this. Mr. 
Becker was brought up in our committee last fall, along with Mark 
Pearce and Mr. Brian Hayes. They all went through our committee--
bipartisan. Mr. Enzi, the ranking Republican on our committee, voted 
for that, and so did the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
  The names were then forwarded to the Senate. They came to the Senate, 
and the leadership on the Republican side decided to filibuster--
decided to filibuster. We had an agreement to move this package forward 
on the National Labor Relations Board.
  Fairness and equity? Since 1985, we have never had a hearing for a 
member to be on the National Labor Relations Board who wasn't nominated 
for Chair because when the Republicans were in power, they would have 
their people, we would have ours, we would agree, and they would go 
through. That is what we did last fall with Mr. Becker and Mr. Pearce 
and Mr. Hayes. And I thought things were fine. That is the way we have 
always done things. We agreed. We came out on the floor. And then the 
Republican leadership decided to filibuster--decided to filibuster.
  Well, what happened then was that at the end of the year--I want to 
set the record straight here--what happens is at the end of the last 
session, there is always a unanimous consent to carry over the 
calendar, the Executive Calendar, from one session to the next.
  One Senator, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, objected to Mr. 
Becker. Under the rules of the Senate, then Mr. Becker had to go back 
to the White House and get renominated and sent back to the Senate.
  The Republicans asked for a hearing on Mr. Becker. Now, mind you, we 
have never had a hearing on one of these people since 1985. As the 
chair of the relevant committee, I did not have to have a hearing. But 
I decided, Mr. Becker has nothing to hide. He is willing to confront 
and answer all questions in open session. So I agreed to have a 
hearing.
  I could have had a hearing on Mr. Hayes, also, the Republican, but I 
said: No, we do not have to do that.
  So I had a hearing. We brought Mr. Becker before the committee, in 
open session, to answer any questions anyone asked him. If I am not 
mistaken, I think only three people showed up to ask him questions. But 
what they did is they submitted questions in writing. The Republicans 
submitted 440 written questions to Mr. Becker, almost twice what they 
did for Justice Sotomayor going on the Supreme Court. There were 440 
written questions, and Mr. Becker obliged and answered all of those 
questions. Well, the Republicans still objected--still objected.
  Now the minority leader says he failed a vote in the Senate. That is 
not

[[Page 9757]]

true because there was a filibuster. We needed 60 votes to overcome the 
filibuster. When we brought up Mr. Becker's name, he got 52 votes on 
the Senate floor. Quite frankly, he would have had more, but there were 
several Senators who were absent because of weather conditions. I know 
who said on the Record that they would have supported him. So it is not 
quite right when the minority leader says Mr. Becker did not get 
approved on the Senate floor. He did. He just could not get the 60 
votes to overcome the Republican filibuster.
  So, again, you know, Mr. Becker is well qualified. Even my Republican 
colleagues freely admitted that in the committee, that he was well 
qualified. Do you know what their objection was? He comes from a union 
background. He comes from a union background. To the Republicans, that 
is a mortal sin. Well, if you are Catholic, you know what that means. 
That is a mortal sin. That is unforgivable to Republicans to have a 
union background.
  As I said, he was willing to answer any questions. He did, in 
writing. I have heard nothing--nothing from the Republican side 
pointing to some answer he gave that would disqualify him from being on 
the NLRB. They have simply drawn a line in the sand and said that 
because he has a union background, they are not going to support him 
and they are going to filibuster.
  So here we are. We wanted to get through all of those nominations 
tonight. I read some of them. I did not read them all. Ambassador to 
the Slovak Republic, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Ambassador 
to Niger, Deputy Director of the Peace Corps--they will not let them go 
through. Why? Because of one person--Mr. Becker--who has a union 
background and they do not want him on the NLRB.
  Well, Mr. Becker has a recess appointment. He did get a recess 
appointment from the President. But they will not let him get a full 
appointment by the President. And they are willing to stop everything, 
stop every nomination because of their objections to Craig Becker even 
through Craig Becker got 52 votes here on the Senate floor.
  So when the minority leader talks about fairness and equity, well, I 
think the fairness and equity is on this side of the aisle on this one. 
I am sorry to say that a lot of these people will not get their 
nominations. But, again, the Republicans do not care. They do not care. 
They would just as soon the government stop everything.
  Do they care whether we have enough people in the Peace Corps to run 
the Peace Corps? They do not care. Do they care whether we have an 
Ambassador to the Slovak Republic? They do not care. Do they care if we 
have members on the TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, board of 
directors? Obviously not. They have been holding up these nominees for 
a long time. This is not the first time they have held up these 
nominees.
  So fairness and equity? Well, I wish the minority side would show a 
little fairness and equity when it comes to decency and to abiding by 
agreements. We had an agreement. We had an agreement to move these 
people through as a package. We did that in committee. That agreement 
was broken by the Republicans, not by the Democrats.
  I am sorry to have to take this time on the floor to correct my 
friend from Kentucky on fairness and equity, but I think the public has 
a right to know why we are where we are right now and who is 
responsible for the fact that we cannot get nominations through here on 
the Senate floor.
  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. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was trying to get down here when Senator Harkin was 
completing his remarks, to join him, because I am as concerned as he is 
about the impact of these nominations that still remain on our 
Executive Calendar here at the Senate.
  This publication comes out on a daily basis to tell us which 
nominations have been sent to the floor of the Senate by the 
committees. They do not reach the floor of the Senate until a process 
is followed which involves nomination by the President of the United 
States, an investigation of the nominee by agencies of the government 
and by our committees, and then consideration of those nominees.
  Many committees have hearings where the nominees are called before 
them. Questions can be asked. They certainly are in the Judiciary 
Committee where I serve. Then, at the end of the day the committee 
decides whether to submit this nominee's name for the consideration of 
the full Senate.
  So the fact that Senator Harkin came to the floor this evening is an 
indication of the frustration many of us feel about what has happened.
  So far since President Obama took office last year, the Senate has 
had rollcall votes on 51 nominations. There are others who have been 
approved without rollcalls. But of those 51 nominations which were 
subjected to rollcall votes, 22 were confirmed with more than 90 votes 
and 18 were confirmed with 70 votes or more. That means that almost 80 
percent of those nominees have passed with overwhelming support.
  Many of those votes took place after lengthy delays. In other words, 
these men and women who agreed to serve our Nation and to serve the 
President and made personal sacrifices to do that went through the long 
and arduous process, made it to the Senate calendar, and then had to 
wait. On average, the President's nominees have languished on this 
Senate calendar for over 105 days, with many taking much longer; more 
than 3 months for those who were sent to the Senate floor. I know 
because some of these nominees are people I have met and worked with, 
even people I have recommended to the President. It is an uneasy 
feeling to be nominated, to be waiting for your opportunity to serve in 
positions large and small, and then to be told, day after weary day, 
that the Senate just did not get around to it.
  This week the Executive Calendar contains more than 107 names of 
nominees. More than 85 percent of those nominees came through the 
committee process with overwhelming support. Point of comparison for 
those who will say: The Republicans may be playing games now with 
nominations, but I am sure you Democrats did the same thing to 
President Bush.
  Not true. At this time in President George W. Bush's Presidency, 
there were exactly 13 nominees on the calendar. There are over 107 
nominees on the calendar at this moment. There is no comparison.
  It is time for the Republicans to stop abusing the Senate's 
responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's well-
qualified nominees. If I take a look at some of these nominees, it is 
troubling because they are overwhelmingly qualified for the jobs for 
which they have been recommended.
  The Illinois nominees currently on the calendar include Craig Becker 
to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He was recess-
appointed after waiting for 16 weeks on the calendar. Mary Smith to be 
Assistant Attorney General, she has been on the calendar for more than 
16 weeks. Gary Scott Feinerman, to be U.S. district judge for the 
Northern District of Illinois, has been waiting 6 weeks. He is a man 
eminently qualified who was passed out of the Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote. Sharon Johnson Coleman, another nominee from Illinois to be 
U.S. district judge, again approved by voice vote unanimously, has been 
sitting on the calendar for 6 weeks. Robert Wedgeworth to be a member 
of the National Museum and Library Services Board, has been waiting for 
4 weeks; Carla D. Hayden, to be a member of the National Museum and 
Library Services Board, another 4 weeks; and Darryl McPherson, who we 
would

[[Page 9758]]

like to have serve as a U.S. marshal in the Northern District of 
Illinois. He was just sent to the calendar. This is an indication. In 
the Northern District of Illinois, several years ago, we had the tragic 
murder of the family of a U.S. district court judge. So when we talk 
about filling the position of U.S. marshal in that particular district, 
it is because we know that there is a vulnerability for the men and 
women serving the government as judges, a vulnerability which resulted 
in a tragedy for one of our more celebrated and liked Federal judges in 
Chicago.
  Why would we hold up this man's nomination? Wouldn't we want the U.S. 
marshal in place doing his job? It is an important responsibility 
administratively, but it is equally important to protect the men and 
women in the judiciary. Why would we want to delay that when we have 
been through the tragic murder of a family in the Northern District of 
Illinois?
  That is why I wanted to join Senator Harkin. We are leaving now for a 
little over a week over Memorial Day. Many of us will be back home for 
Memorial Day, then moving around in different places. This calendar 
will sit here for another 10 or 12 days. The men and women whose names 
are in nomination will wait another 12 days or 2 weeks before they can 
be considered. In the meantime, their lives are on hold. Their service 
to our country is delayed. The President's ability to put his team 
together has been diminished by this strategy from the Republican side.
  Tonight Senator Harkin tried to move 51 of these nominees. Senator 
McConnell objected. It is unfortunate, truly unfortunate, that we don't 
step forward and give these men and women a chance to serve the 
government and give the President a chance to have those in place who 
will make his administration complete. That is the only fair thing for 
us to do.
  I hope when we return we will come to our senses and take a different 
strategy. More than 107 men and women whose names are on this calendar 
are waiting for us to make that decision. In fairness to the President 
and to the Nation, I hope we make it with dispatch.

                          ____________________