[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10181-10190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN NOMINATIONS--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Rhode Island, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 10182]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 522

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, because of the heavy fires that are 
blazing in New Mexico, our colleague Senator Udall cannot be here 
because he is out there dealing with forest fires. He has an amendment 
he has filed to S. Res. 116, the bill now before us in the Senate, and 
on his behalf, I will be calling it up. It is amendment No. 522, and I 
want to take a couple of minutes to explain the amendment.
  Mr. President, basically the amendment is very simple, and I will 
read it in its entirety:

       The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule 
     XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read 
     as follows:
       Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be 
     brought to a close? And if that question shall be decided in 
     the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
     and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate 
     rules, in which case the necessary or affirmative vote shall 
     be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said 
     measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, 
     or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business 
     to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

  And this is already rule XXII. Here is the part that Senator Udall 
would amend:

       On a nomination to an Executive Branch position requiring 
     the advise and consent of the Senate, the necessary 
     affirmative vote shall be a majority of the Senators duly 
     chosen and sworn.

  So the Udall amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would 
basically say on executive branch nominations that come before the 
Senate that when debate is brought to a close there would not need to 
be 60 votes. You could have an affirmative 51 votes and that measure 
would pass, that nomination would be passed by the Senate. So, 
therefore, we would not need the supermajority of 60 votes to pass a 
nominee.
  Again, it comes as no surprise to Members of the Senate that Senator 
Udall and I have worked together to try to reform the rules to reduce 
to an absolute minimum, if not get rid of entirely, the filibuster. 
Well, it is obvious we never accomplished that, but it seems to me as 
we are changing the rules here on changing the policy on how we are 
going to deal with nominees--and I think this is long overdue--this is 
the proper time to address this point, that on a nomination to an 
executive branch, it ought to be 51 votes, not 60 votes. So that is 
what the amendment does. It basically says on a nomination that it only 
requires 51 votes to pass the nomination and not 60 votes.
  What is the pending business? Is it Coburn amendment 521?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 522.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Udall of New 
     Mexico, for himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 522.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To establish a majority vote threshold for proceeding to 
                              nominations)

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ESTABLISHING MAJORITY VOTE THRESHOLD FOR PROCEEDING 
                   TO NOMINATIONS.

       The second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule 
     XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be 
     brought to a close?'' And if that question shall be decided 
     in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly 
     chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the 
     Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote 
     shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--then 
     said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the 
     Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished 
     business to the exclusion of all other business until 
     disposed of. On a nomination to an Executive Branch position 
     requiring the advise and consent of the Senate, the necessary 
     affirmative vote shall be a majority of the Senators duly 
     chosen and sworn.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Basically, again, what it repeats on nominations to the 
executive branch is it would not require 60 votes but only 51 votes of 
the Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa is not relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order. The 
amendment falls.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. This situation recalls the 
debate we had at the beginning of the year when a number of Senators 
felt as though we needed to make the Senate a more effective 
institution, which is always a noble goal, but we had some differences 
of opinion about how to do that. One group of Senators, including 
Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others, renewed the effort to 
basically say the Senate would be a majoritarian body which would 
decide questions with 51 votes. To most Americans, that sounds like the 
normal order of business, and it is. We grow up in the first, second, 
and third grades selecting the class president. If someone gets a 
majority of the votes, that person wins. But in the Senate, over its 
history, we have had a different process because the Senate serves a 
different function.
  The House is a majoritarian institution. If a party wins a majority 
in the House, a freight train rolls through the House and the bill is 
passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate, throughout its history, has 
been the saucer into which the tea is poured to cool it a little bit. 
In other words, it takes a little more deliberation here to pass 
something. That can be very frustrating. It can slow things down, but 
the process was designed that way. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 
need for two different bodies.
  So we have one body which can change with every election every 2 
years and pass something such as the health care law by a majority 
vote. Let's take another example: Ending the secret ballot in union 
elections, which the House of Representatives, under Democratic 
control, did pass. But it didn't pass the Senate, because in the 
Senate, there are rules in which we need 60 votes to pass most 
important pieces of legislation. The shoe is on the other foot too. If 
the Republican House of Representatives were to pass, let's say, a tort 
reform bill that our Democratic friends didn't like, we would have a 
hard time passing it over here. It would take 60 votes, and that would 
mean that we 47 Senate Republicans, even if we were all for it, would 
have to persuade 13 or 14 of our Democratic friends to join us.
  The theory of the Senate is that it forces consensus. It doesn't 
always work that way, but that is the idea. We have had a pretty good 
example of it with the legislation we have been debating over the last 
few days. We have a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who agreed 
we needed to change the Senate nominations process and we had the 
support of both the Democratic and Republican leaders. Because of this 
coalition we were able to move the bill to the floor without the 
cloture motion. We were able to allow any relevant amendment to come to 
the floor. We were able to pass a bill earlier today and it looks as 
though we are going to be able to pass a resolution this evening that 
will complete our work. The bill this morning got 79 votes. I hope the 
resolution this afternoon gets at least that many votes. That is the 
way the Senate should work.
  I am glad the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, on behalf 
of Senator Udall, is out of order and not relevant to this discussion. 
Even if it were relevant, I think it would be the wrong step for us to 
take. I think it is

[[Page 10183]]

better to have a Senate that forces consensus by requiring 60 votes on 
big issues. That avoids what Alexis de Tocqueville called the tyranny 
of the majority in his book ``Democracy in America.'' He saw two great 
threats to the new American democracy at that time; one was Russia, as 
he said, and he turned out to be prescient on that. The other one was 
the possibility of the tyranny of the majority--that the majority would 
get control and simply run over minority rights. That cannot be done in 
the Senate because there have to be 60 votes on big issues for the 
issues to pass. That means when one sets out to pass most pieces of 
legislation, if one wants to do it in a purely partisan way, one is not 
likely to succeed. If one wants to do it in a way that gets a result, 
one is going to have to form a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, 
as we have here with these nominations reforms.
  This discussion by Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others wasn't 
for naught because it initiated a debate that ended up with some 
changes in Senate procedures which we think are for the better. One of 
these changes was the abolition of secret holds, which some Senators in 
this body, including Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, have been 
advocating for years--more than a decade. That was done. The 
discussions earlier this year with Senator Harkin and Senator Udall 
resulted in the legislation we passed earlier today, which helps the 
Senate exercise its constitutional duty to advice and consent by doing 
a better job of deciding which nominations do not deserve advice and 
consent. So we eliminated the requirement for advice and consent on 169 
positions of the 1,400 that now require Senate confirmation. Most of 
those were part-time advisory boards. We didn't need those to be 
confirmed.
  We eliminated nearly 3,000 advice-and-consent requirements on public 
health officers and the NOAA Officer Corps. They are very valuable 
Federal employees, but we were confirming them in groups of 300 
nominees at times. No Senator knew whom he or she was confirming, and 
that trivializes the whole constitutional duty of advice and consent, 
which is in the Constitution of the United States in article II, 
section 2.
  Another reform we are making and will proceed with is reducing the 
phenomenon of innocent until nominated. I have spoken about this 
several times on the floor. It is a situation whereby we take an 
unsuspecting citizen of the United States that the President recruits 
to a position in the government. Then that person begins to go through 
this gauntlet of complicated forms that have built up over the years. 
It first started with the executive branch, where a person is asked to 
fill out every place they have lived since they were 17 years of age 
and define income three different ways. And by the time they get to the 
Senate committee whose job it is to investigate and confirm that person 
and they fill out all their forms, the person is bound to make some 
mistake. Then they are hauled up in front of the Committee with the 
spotlights on them and they have told a lie inadvertently.
  I mentioned earlier today the former Senate majority leader, Howard 
Baker, who was voted most admired Senator by Democrats and Republicans. 
He had to spend $250,000 of his own money on lawyers when President 
Bush nominated him to be the Ambassador to Japan--absolutely 
ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats who have served in personnel 
offices and Chiefs of Staff to the last several Presidents all have 
said this practice of innocent until nominated is a great disservice to 
the American Government.
  I see Senator Schumer on the floor. He and I will be meeting with the 
White House personnel director as soon as this legislation is approved 
by the House and signed by the President. We hope the working group 
that will be set up under the legislation will produce what we call a 
smart form, so that if the President asks a citizen to serve their 
government, that person can fill out a single form for most questions. 
Then, the various offices of the executive branch that need the 
information can get the same information. When the nomination is sent 
to the Senate, perhaps even we can take some of that information and 
use the same form to get it for us. It doesn't interfere with the 
separation of powers. The executive can do whatever it wishes to do. We 
in the Senate can do whatever we wish to do.
  We have made some progress as a result of those discussions earlier 
in the year. It is modest progress, but I think any time we eliminate 
confirmation for 169 positions out of 1,400, any time we expedite about 
270 more, any time we stop the practice of confirming box loads of 
nominees without even knowing who is in there, then we have done 
something to avoid the trivialization of our constitutional duty to 
advice and consent. If we can make a further step with avoiding the 
innocent until nominated phenomenon, the work Senator Harkin, Senator 
Udall, and others have done will have made some progress. The work of 
Senators Harkin, Udall and other will have made progress even though we 
didn't adopt their rule to turn the Senate into a majoritarian 
institution.
  I appreciate the spirit with which Senator Harkin offered the 
amendment. He and Senator Udall worked on the amendment. I think they 
helped reduce some steps which will help make the Senate a more 
effective institution. We still have a ways to go and we will continue 
to work on those things.
  I see Senator Schumer is here. I compliment him for his work on this 
and in the way he has gone about it. He and I, working with the 
majority leader and the Republican leader, have created an environment 
for this bill that didn't require enforcement of a cloture motion. An 
environment that allowed all relevant amendments to come to the floor, 
that allowed all the debate Senators seemed to want and that passed the 
bill. We hope we are coming to a point where we can pass the resolution 
and take these steps to improve the effectiveness of the Senate.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:10 
p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment 
No. 521; that all other provisions of the previous order with respect 
to the Coburn amendment remain in effect; that upon disposition of the 
Coburn amendment, the managers' amendment, which is at the desk, be 
agreed to; that following the disposition of the managers' amendment, 
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended; 
that there be no other amendments and no other motions or points of 
order in order to the resolution other than budget points of order and 
the applicable motions to waive; further, that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that Mr. 
Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma, be given 5 minutes to speak on his 
amendment just before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if my colleague from Tennessee has 
yielded, I will read a brief statement about what we are voting on.
  I encourage my colleagues to support S. Res. 116, which streamlines 
certain nominations through the Senate. Once again, I wish to thank my 
good friend and colleague, Senator Alexander, for his hard work on this 
resolution and his insight into the nomination process. I am grateful 
he is the ranking member of the Rules Committee. I thank the chairman 
and ranking members of the Homeland Security Committee, Senators 
Lieberman and Collins, for their steadfast dedication to the efforts to 
reform the way the Senate conducts business. Additionally, Leader Reid 
and Republican Leader McConnell gave their support in time to work 
through this package.
  Earlier today, we passed the first piece of the nomination reform 
package, S. 679, which eliminates certain positions from Senate 
confirmation. It is our hope this package thaws out this institution. 
The resolution passed through our committee, the Rules

[[Page 10184]]

Committee, unanimously back in May--this resolution did--and it is a 
bipartisan effort. Now we are considering the corresponding resolution 
which streamlines other nominations. For certain nominations, once 
received, they will be placed in a new category of the calendar. At 
that point, the chair will send out the questionnaire. Once he or she 
certifies it has been returned, the nomination will move to a second 
new category on the calendar. It will sit there for 10 days. If there 
are no objections, the nomination will then move directly to the 
Executive Calendar, with the presumption that these noncontroversial 
positions would be passed by unanimous consent.
  At any time while the nomination is in either of these two 
categories, anyone can object, including the chair, and have that 
nomination referred back to the full committee, as with any other 
nominee. We hope this will clear the way for confirmation of these 
positions.
  Additionally, this resolution will allow committees to turn their 
focus to issues that affect the American voter. Time spent on 
nomination hearings and markups can now be spent on other nominees or 
on other legislation to improve the condition, for instance, of our 
middle class. As I said earlier, we are in no way abdicating our advise 
and consent duties, we are enhancing them.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution. I 
encourage them to vote against the amendment of our good friend from 
Oklahoma, Senator Coburn. With this resolution, the Senate and our 
committees can turn our attention to pressing issues that affect us 
all.
  I yield the floor.
  At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be 
printed in the Record.
 Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, 6 months ago, I joined 
my colleagues and friends Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Harkin 
of Iowa to push for fundamental reforms in how the Senate operates. The 
reason we did that was simple: the Senate was broken. The unprecedented 
abuse of the filibuster and of other procedural tactics was routinely 
preventing the Senate from getting its work done. It was preventing us 
from doing the job the American people sent us here to do.
  Although the reform proposals we offered in January did not pass, I 
thought some good came out of the process. We passed resolutions to 
eliminate secret holds and the delaying tactic of forcing the reading 
of amendments. We also agreed to consider legislation in the future 
that would exempt many executive branch nominees from the Senate 
confirmation process. Legislation that we are considering on this floor 
today.
  Although these were steps in the right direction, I believe there is 
still a long way to go before this body can function as our Founders 
intended. The unfortunate reality is that over the last six months, 
this already broken institution has become even more dysfunctional.
  Let's consider what the Senate has accomplished this year. A 
Bloomberg article from last week notes that, ``just 18 measures have 
cleared Congress and become law this year, and only four of those 
originated in the Senate--including two that named courthouses.'' That 
is simply unacceptable. At a time when our country needs us to act, we 
do almost nothing.
  A Washington Post article from June 9 discusses quorum calls in the 
Senate. It states:

       This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt 
     crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time 
     performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken 
     up about a third of its time since January.

  That is the equivalent of more than 17 8-hour days wasted in quorum 
calls. That article goes on to state that there have been just 87 
rollcall votes as of June 9 compared to 205 in the same period in 2009.
  I don't blame one party for these problems--both sides are at fault. 
While Republicans use delaying tactics to slow down the floor calendar, 
Democrats repeatedly try to avoid tough votes. It is no wonder 
Congress's approval ratings are at an all-time low. Instead of working 
to solve the major problems our country faces, we engage in partisan 
warfare for political gain.
  The Senate confirmation process for executive branch nominees is a 
prime example of how our rules prevent this body from functioning as it 
was intended. This used to be a fairly straightforward process.
  When I was a kid, my father served in the Congress and later as 
Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Once I 
grew up and was elected to the Congress myself, I often talked with him 
about the differences between his era in Washington and mine.
  One of my biggest frustrations was the Senate's inability to bring 
executive confirmations to an up-or-down vote. I told my dad, ``the 
President and Cabinet Secretaries don't have their team. How can they 
do the job the American people sent them here to do without a team to 
back them up?'' Do you know what he said to me? He said, ``Tom, I had 
virtually my whole team in place the first 2 weeks.'' Imagine today if 
the whole team for the Department of the Interior, or any other 
department, was confirmed in the first 2 weeks of the administration.
  There have been many news articles about how the Senate has dragged 
its feet in confirming President Obama's team. A New York Times article 
from August 2009 stated that, ``Seven months into his presidency, fewer 
than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.''
  A February 2010 Washington Post article found that ``46 of Obama's 
nominees have waited at least three months to be confirmed and nine 
have waited twice that long. . . . Obama's nominee to head the General 
Services Administration was confirmed only last week--by a 96-0 vote, 
no less--after a hold stalled her nomination for nine months.''
  Perhaps what is most disturbing to me is that many nominees are held 
up purely because of their policy views, and not because they are 
unqualified. I believe that the president has a right to appoint people 
who share his policy views--it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise.
  Unfortunately, many well-qualified nominees have been blocked because 
of their policy views, and not because of their qualifications.
  A perfect example is Dawn Johnson, who was President Obama's nominee 
to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson was a 
respected law professor and former top assistant in the Office of Legal 
Counsel in the Clinton administration. But Republican's cited her 
strong pro-choice views as grounds for blocking her nomination. After 
more than a year of her nomination being stalled in the Senate, she 
decided that she had had enough and withdrew from consideration.
  Yesterday, more than 6 months after she was nominated, the Senate 
confirmed Virginia Seitz to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Sadly, 
she is the first Senate-confirmed head of OLC since 2004. For 7 years, 
we have not confirmed a nominee to this position because of partisan 
battles over the nominees' policy views. The last Senate-confirmed 
nominee, Jack Goldsmith, recently said that, ``It's important that 
there be a Senate-confirmed person at the head of the Office of Legal 
Counsel, both because it helps secure the independence of the office 
when it's making legal judgments and because it helps give the office 
more authority, both within the Justice Department and throughout the 
government.'' Yet we let it go 7 years without confirming a nominee to 
lead the office.
  Another recent example is the nomination of James Cole to be the 
Justice Department Deputy Attorney General. Cole first joined the 
department in 1979 as part of the Attorney General's Honors Program. He 
served there for 13 years--first as a trial attorney in the Criminal 
Division, and later as the Deputy Chief of the Division's Public 
Integrity Section, the office that handles investigation and 
prosecution of corruption cases against both Democratic and Republican 
elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.

[[Page 10185]]

  Although Cole's record is exemplary, his nomination was blocked for 
over a year. Why? Because he believed it made sense to try some 
terrorism suspects in Federal courts, rather than military commissions. 
A view that I, and many legal scholars and constitutional experts, 
happen to share with Mr. Cole.
  In May, 353 days after his selection, Democrats forced a cloture vote 
on Cole's nomination, but were unable to overcome the Republican 
filibuster. This was the first time in history that a Deputy Attorney 
General nominee was filibustered. Let's hope it's also the last.
  After a few more weeks of negotiations, we were finally able to have 
an up or down vote yesterday on the Cole nomination, and he was 
confirmed 55-42. Because of the forest fires in my State, I 
unfortunately missed this vote, as did two of my Democratic colleagues. 
If we had all voted for Mr. Cole, he would have been confirmed 
overwhelmingly 58-42, with bipartisan support.
  How does a nominee get stuck in the Senate confirmation process for 
over a year, only to be finally confirmed by a bipartisan majority? 
Simple--our confirmation process is broken.
  I will mention one final example, although there are many more.
  Just this month, Peter Diamond withdrew as President Obama's nominee 
to the Federal Reserve Board. Diamond's nomination was blocked because 
a small minority of senators questioned whether he was qualified and 
had enough experience in conducting monetary policy. I tend to believe 
that he was qualified, as he won the Nobel Prize in economics last 
year.
  I give you all these examples because the bill we are considering 
today would not have affected these nominations in any way. While I 
appreciate the effort of the task force that produced this bill, it 
does nothing to prevent the abuse of the Senate rules in the 
confirmation process.
  In order to have real change in the process, the Senate rules must be 
amended. As such, I have filed an amendment that will restore the 
proper role of the Senate's advise and consent responsibility.
  My amendment is very simple. It would make the cloture threshold on 
executive branch nominees a majority of Senators chosen and sworn--51 
if all seats are filled. The result is exactly what our framers 
intended--if the president nominates someone, and a majority of the 
Senate approves, that person is confirmed. Our current rules lead to a 
much more perverse result. Now, if the president nominates someone and 
59 Senators approve and 41 object, the nomination fails. How can we 
argue for this result?
  My amendment only applies to executive branch nominees, so judicial 
nominees are still subject to a 60 vote cloture threshold. While I 
don't believe judicial nominees should be filibustered either, I know 
many of my colleagues are reluctant to give up the supermajority 
cloture requirement because judges are appointed for life.
  I know some will ask me about what happens when we are in the 
minority and the president is a Republican--won't I want to be able to 
block an extreme nominee? The short answer is no. While I might want to 
block a nominee, I don't believe the Constitution gives me that right 
if a majority favors his or her confirmation.
  If the American people elect a Republican president and the 
Republicans become the majority party in the Senate, I would expect 
some executive branch nominees that I disagree with on policy grounds. 
But I believe that we must afford the President a significant degree of 
deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit. If those nominees are 
qualified, I do not believe a minority of the Senate should be able to 
block them.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have said the same thing in the 
past. When speaking on the floor about the nomination of Alberto 
Gonzales to be Attorney General, Senator Kyl said that, ``When someone 
is qualified and has the confidence of the President . . . unless there 
is some highly disqualifying factor brought to our attention--[we] 
should accede to the President's request for his nomination and confirm 
the individual.'' Senator Hatch, a highly regarded constitutional 
scholar and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in 2003:

       The advice and consent clause [of the Constitution] is 
     clearly an up or down vote--a majority vote--on the floor of 
     the Senate. The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority 
     vote was. . . . If they had wanted it to be a 60-vote margin 
     . . . they would have said so.

  Senator Hatch also said on the floor in 2007:

       Under the Constitution, the President has the primary 
     appointment authority. We check that authority, but we may 
     not hijack it. We may not use our role of advise and consent 
     to undermine the President's authority.

  I hope that we can agree that our confirmation process is broken and 
that we need significant reforms to restore the democratic process in 
this body. Many of us have said as much when we are in the majority and 
our president's nominees are being held hostage by a small minority.
  It's time for us to put partisanship aside and amend our rules so 
that the President, regardless of his or her party affiliation, can get 
a team in place and govern. I'm proud today to join once again with 
Senator Harkin and offer an amendment that will do just that. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. The Senate 
is broken and the only way we are going to fix it--to make it work once 
again for the American people--is through substantive reform of the 
rules.
  I ask that the news articles I mentioned be printed in the Record.
  The information follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 9, 2011]

           Senate Legislation May Slow, But Quorums Continue

                       (By David A. Fahrenthold)

       In the U.S. Senate, this is what nothing sounds like.
       ``Mr. Akaka.''
       At 9:36 a.m. on Thursday, a clerk with a practiced monotone 
     read aloud the name of Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii). The 
     chamber was nearly deserted. The senator wasn't there. Not 
     that she was really looking for him.
       Instead, the clerk was beginning one of the Capitol's most 
     arcane rituals: the slow-motion roll calls that the Senate 
     uses to bide time.
       These procedures, called ``quorum calls,'' usually serve no 
     other purpose than to fill up empty minutes on the Senate 
     floor. They are so boring, so quiet that C-SPAN adds in 
     classical music: otherwise, viewers might think their TV was 
     broken.
       This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt 
     crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time 
     performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken 
     up about a third of its time since January, according to C-
     SPAN statistics: more than 17 eight-hour days' worth of dead 
     air.
       On Thursday, the Senate was at it again. At least on 
     ``Seinfeld,'' doing nothing came with a flunky bass line.
       ``It's not even gridlock. It's worse than that,'' said 
     Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University 
     who once ran for the Senate himself as a Democrat. He said 
     ``gridlock'' implies that somebody was at least trying to get 
     legislation passed.
       Instead, he said, this year ``they're not even trying to 
     get something done.''
       To an outsider, a quorum call looks like a serious--if 
     dull--piece of congressional business. A clerk reads out 
     senators' names slowly, sometimes waiting 10 minutes or more 
     between them.
       But it's usually a sham. The senators aren't coming. Nobody 
     expects them to. The ritual is a reaction to what the chamber 
     has become: a very fancy place that senators, often, are too 
     busy to visit.
       This is what happened: Decades ago, senators didn't have 
     offices. They spent their days at their desks on the Senate 
     floor. So clerks really needed to call the roll to see if a 
     majority was ready for business.
       Now, senators spend much of their time in committee rooms, 
     offices and elsewhere. If no big vote is on the horizon, 
     often nothing at all is happening on the Senate floor.
       But Senate rules don't allow for nothing to happen. That 
     would require a formal adjournment, which would mean lots of 
     time-consuming parliamentary rigamarole.
       Instead, the last senator to speak asks clerks to fill the 
     time by calling the roll.
       ``It's just a matter of keeping the store lights on when 
     the customers aren't there,'' said Donald A. Ritchie the 
     Senate's official historian. The procedures are much less 
     common in the House, where the rules allow for a pause in 
     activity without a formal adjournment.
       On Thursday morning, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) finished 
     talking about an airman who was killed in Afghanistan. He 
     looked around, realized he was alone, and suggested

[[Page 10186]]

     a quorum call. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk intoned.
       Hatch left the floor. Minutes passed. It was so quiet that, 
     when a page carried out a glass of water, the clink of the 
     ice cubes could be heard up in the gallery. Tourists watched 
     blank-faced. Ten minutes passed. Some of the visitors got up 
     to leave.
       After 12 minutes, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) showed up. 
     ``I ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed 
     with,'' he said. That's how quorum calls usually end: The 
     next senator who wants to speak asks for a halt.
       After Warner gave a brief speech on the value of federal 
     workers, it happened again. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk said. 
     Twenty-one minutes of silence.
       At a deli in the Senate's basement, it was clear this was 
     wearing on people. One Capitol employee asked another: Where 
     are you working today? ``Senate chamber,'' his buddy replied. 
     ``Shoot myself in the head.''
       These sham roll calls have been a feature of Senate debate 
     for decades, but this year has been special: According to C-
     SPAN, the Senate has spent more than 32 percent of its time 
     in quorum calls. That's more than in any comparable period 
     dating to 1997.
       The main reason seems to be the bare-bones agenda pursued 
     by the Senate's Democratic leaders: There have been just 87 
     roll-call votes so far, compared with 205 in the same period 
     during 2009. Senate Democrats have not even proposed an 
     official budget; the strategy appears to be to shield 
     vulnerable incumbents from controversial votes on spending.
       ``Why are we here?'' asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a 
     critic of the large number of quorum calls this year. ``The 
     Senate is not operating the way it was designed, because 
     politicians don't want to be on record.''
       Democrats, on the other hand, say they haven't brought up 
     much legislation because they think Republicans will just 
     block it.
       ``You always hope it'll get better,'' said Jon Summers, a 
     spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
       It might. There is an upcoming deadline to lift the 
     national debt ceiling, and that could produce major 
     legislation later this summer.
       But not yet. This year, in fact, C-SPAN worries that its 
     library of classical background music has been over-used. It 
     is trying to expand its options, within a set of strict 
     conditions: The music must be ``calm and benign.'' No cannon-
     booming ``1812 Overture.'' No funeral marches.
       And it must not imply any comment on the nothingness 
     happening onscreen. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call 
     recently suggested Lady Gaga's ``Bad Romance.'' Non-starter.
       C-SPAN has also started using a graphic showing tweets from 
     members of Congress. It's a signal that lawmakers are doing 
     something. Just not here.
                                  ____


                    [From Bloomberg, June 21, 2011]

  Snail's Pace in U.S. Senate Poses Hurdle to Effort To Reduce Deficit

                   (By Laura Litvan and James Rowley)

       Just 18 measures have cleared Congress and become law this 
     year, and only four of those originated in the Senate--
     including two that named courthouses.
       About one-third of the chamber's time has been taken up by 
     inactive ``quorum calls.'' Debate on one small-business 
     measure took a month, and a handful of languishing White 
     House nominees withdrew their names because of delayed Senate 
     action, including Nobel Laureate and Federal Reserve board 
     pick Peter Diamond.
       ``It looks like the pace has slowed to a crawl,'' said 
     former North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, a onetime 
     Democratic leader who retired in January. ``Whether it's 
     nominations or legislation, it seems there's very little 
     effort by some to meet in the middle and compromise.''
       The Senate was devised by the nation's founding fathers to 
     move slowly. This year, its inaction is especially notable, 
     and overcoming Senate dysfunction will be one of the final 
     hurdles confronting lawmakers seeking a deal to lift the 
     ceiling to avoid a default on more than $14 trillion in U.S. 
     debt.
       Beyond the debt limit, the chamber faces unfinished 
     business on energy, immigration, transportation and 
     education.
       Senators offer various reasons for their chamber's slow 
     pace, including increased partisanship, re-election politics, 
     and the decline of centrists willing to compromise.


                              All in Play

       Each of those elements can play a role in slowing the 
     legislative calendar. The major challenge facing this Senate 
     is that all of them are in play.
       Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a first-term Republican, said 
     he's surprised to see the Senate spending so much time doing 
     so little. ``It's what someone could perhaps call filler,'' 
     he said. ``I'm not calling all of it that, but it's odd to me 
     that given the enormity of what we're facing that we're not 
     having more debate and discussion focused on the debt.''
       He rejects the criticism of those who say Tea Party-backed 
     freshmen--including himself--won't bend on policy and are the 
     logjam's chief cause. ``Compromise has two sides,'' he said. 
     ``If the Democrats'' idea of compromise is that we have to 
     move and they don't, that's not going to work for me.''


                              Gang Efforts

       In an effort to jumpstart legislation, some senators have 
     formed small, bipartisan ``gangs,'' which tend to begin with 
     vows to reach agreements and end in acrimony. The so-called 
     ``Gang of Six,'' created to broker a deal on lifting the debt 
     ceiling, stalled amid disagreements and has been superseded 
     by the bipartisan group of Senate and House members working 
     with Vice President Joe Biden.
       Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said both 
     parties bear blame for the Senate's inaction. He also said 
     negotiations over deficit reduction and lifting the debt 
     ceiling are taking ``all of the oxygen'' out of the air. 
     ``Neither side of the aisle really wants there to be a robust 
     debate, tough votes to be taken on where we go as a 
     country,'' Corker said. ``Basically, we are cooling our 
     heels.''
       In 2010, the Senate's record included passage of a health-
     care overhaul, a rewrite of financial-services rules and a 
     $60 billion measure funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
       This January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada 
     Democrat, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a 
     Kentucky Republican, heralded changes designed to speed 
     Senate work and forge a bipartisan truce.


                         Gentleman's Agreement

       They hatched a ``gentleman's agreement'' to curb the 
     minority party's use of the filibuster--endless debate--to 
     block legislation. In exchange, Reid agreed to allow more 
     debate on Republican amendments to bills. They also pushed 
     through a measure to abolish the secret ``holds'' that allow 
     a single senator to anonymously block a nominee.
       Those moves, Republicans said, are being undermined by 
     Reid's decision to embrace a timid agenda.
       With the seats of 23 Democratic senators up for election 
     next year, and only 10 Republicans, Reid has shielded 
     Democrats from taking tough votes, said Senator Charles 
     Grassley, an Iowa Republican. After criticizing a House-
     passed budget blueprint that included $6 trillion in spending 
     cuts and a plan to privatize Medicare, Democrats never 
     introduced their own plan, sparing their side criticism over 
     fiscal choices and preventing Republicans from offering 
     amendments that might be used against Democrats, he said.


                           It's Irresponsible

       ``The less votes the Democrats cast, the less they can be 
     challenged in the next election,'' Grassley said. ``It's no 
     way to run a railroad and it's irresponsible not to do things 
     that are more beefy.''
       Democrats say such criticism is unfair. The Senate has 
     approved a $34.6 billion measure for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, an overhaul of patent law and other measures 
     that are awaiting House action. Republicans also continue to 
     obstruct some legislation and slow action on others, said Jon 
     Summers, a Reid spokesman.
       The Senate ``is not functioning well, the way it should, 
     obviously, when you've got threats of filibuster, preventing, 
     slowing down or obstructing,'' said Senator Carl Levin, a 
     Michigan Democrat.
       The Reid-McConnell accord on filibusters had limits: It 
     didn't address efforts to block legislation on a final vote 
     and didn't end the ability of a single senator to hold up 
     action.


                              Patriot Act

       That happened last month when freshman Senator Rand Paul, a 
     Kentucky Republican, stalled renewal of the Patriot Act, 
     which gives law enforcement powers for terrorism 
     investigations, until Reid and McConnell agreed to allow him 
     to introduce two amendments. Those amendments failed and the 
     new version of the Patriot Act passed just hours before the 
     old law expired.
       Republican leaders are continuing to thwart a vote on 
     former Edison International Chief Executive Officer John 
     Bryson, Obama's choice for Commerce Department Secretary 
     until the White House forwards pending trade deals for South 
     Korea, Panama and Colombia. They also say they won't approve 
     anyone to head a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
     part of the financial overhaul, until the bureau's powers are 
     restructured.
       The stalemate is a relief to some, coming after Democratic 
     passage of major initiatives in 2009 and 2010. ``If the 
     legislature must be in session, be thankful when it doesn't 
     do much,' said David Boaz, executive vice president of the 
     Cato Institute in Washington, which promotes limited 
     government.
       David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University in 
     Durham, North Carolina, said Senate inaction is driven in 
     part by the departure in recent elections of political 
     moderates such as Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode 
     Island and Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.
       ``The reason that the Senate has become more polarized is 
     that less extreme members have been replaced by more extreme 
     members,'' Rohde said.
       The lack of Senate action poses risks for Democrats, said 
     Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University in 
     New York, because they aren't offering policy alternatives, 
     he said.

[[Page 10187]]

       ``The difference between the two parties is that the 
     Republicans have a program--an ambitious and controversial 
     one,'' said Brinkley. ``The Democrats don't really have any 
     goals as far as I can see, besides stopping the 
     Republicans.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I advise the senior Senator from New York 
that I will ask unanimous consent, if it is agreeable to him, that when 
I finish my few words, we go directly to the vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In the agreement, the vote is to occur at 6:10 p.m.
  Mr. COBURN. Fine. You do not want to move it up?
  Mr. SCHUMER. No. We need it at 6:10 p.m. So if the Senator wants to 
speak beyond 5 minutes, that is OK with us.
  Mr. COBURN. OK. Great. I will withdraw my unanimous consent request.


                           Amendment No. 521

  Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. The people 
who vote against this rule change, what they are going to be telling 
you is they do not want you to know what is going on in the Senate, and 
they do not want us to know what is going on in the Senate. Because all 
this rule does is make it a force of habit of the Senate that before we 
look at legislation, we ought to determine whether it duplicates what 
is already out there in the government, and we ought to determine if it 
is overlapping to other programs.
  Had this amendment been in effect, a third of what we passed in the 
past would not have passed because we would then have seen--which we 
are ignorant of today--all the other programs that were available and 
out there that accomplished the same purpose for which we passed 
another new program.
  In one of my committees last year colleagues offered amendments--well 
intentioned, with good motives--to accomplish a good purpose. But they 
lacked knowledge. What they did not know was--and both amendments were 
ultimately withdrawn when it was explained to them--that, in fact, we 
already had programs that did exactly the same thing.
  So what we have is, we have over $200 billion worth of duplication 
now within the Federal Government. This is a simple, straightforward 
amendment that says before we consider things on the floor--it is less 
than 700 bills over 2 years--that the CRS would, in fact, tell us: Here 
is what you are doing, here is what the government is already doing in 
these areas, so we do not end up with duplication, so we do not end up 
with overlapping, and that we actually get results from what we are 
doing.
  I remind my colleagues that we have, just in the last GAO report, 
multitudes of duplicative programs, and I will repeat them so people 
will know. I also would state, this is a bipartisan amendment in the 
spirit of what the Senator from New York and the Senator from Tennessee 
have done. This amendment has Senator Udall, Senator McCaskill, Senator 
Burr, and Senator McCain, as well as Senator Collins, Senator Paul, and 
Senator Scott Brown. So this is not a partisan move. This is a move 
about information and knowledge so we make informed decisions.
  But for the record, what the GAO told us, less than 5 months ago, is 
that we have 101 programs across four different agencies for surface 
transportation. That is 101 sets of bureaucracies. Nobody has ever gone 
and said: Which ones work and which ones do not? Which ones do exactly 
the same thing versus what somebody else does?
  We have 82 teacher programs for teacher quality across 10 different 
agencies, 9 of which are not in the Department of Education. We have 88 
economic development programs spending $6.5 billion a year across 4 
different agencies. We have 47 job training programs across 9 different 
agencies, and we are spending $18 billion a year, and the GAO said 
every one of them overlaps, with the exception of 3. Yet we have not 
had the first move in the Senate this year in spite of all of our 
problems economically to streamline, eliminate duplication, eliminate 
overlap, and put metrics on what we are doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this list of duplicative programs identified by GAO.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED BY GAO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of       Number of
                   Purpose                        programs        agencies                    Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation.......................             101               4  not provided
Teacher Quality..............................              82              10  not provided
Economic Development.........................              88               4  $6.5 billion
Transportation Provided for the Disadvantaged              80               8  $314 million
Financial Literacy...........................              56              21  not provided
Employment and Training......................              47               9  not provided
Homeless Assistance..........................              21               7  not provided
Food and Nutrition Assistance................              18               3  $62.5 billion
Homeland Security grants.....................              17               1  $2.7 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. COBURN. Again, I will state, if you are against this amendment, 
you are against eliminating the very cause of our problems in this 
country, which is duplication, redundancy, overlap, and you are against 
doing the proper oversight so we make informed decisions.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Congratulating the University of South Carolina Gamecocks

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there is a lot going on in this world. We 
have a mountain of debt and wars and rumors of wars, and people are 
nervous throughout the country. But I thought I would take a few 
minutes of the time of the Senate to acknowledge something that is a 
very big deal where I come from.
  The University of South Carolina has won back-to-back College World 
Series. They defeated the Florida Gators last night 5 to 2. Florida 
played a great series, and they left a lot of men on base. I am sure 
they are going to look at the tape and talk about next year how to get 
some runs in.
  But Coach Tanner and the Gamecock team repeated. They were only the 
sixth team in NCAA history to do this, to win back-to-back titles. It 
was very rewarding and poetic.
  The University of South Carolina won the last series in Rosenblatt 
Stadium. This was the first series to be held in the TD Ameritrade Park 
in Omaha, NE, in front of 26,000 people. They set a record for the NCAA 
with 16 consecutive post-season wins, 11 consecutive wins in the 
College World Series, dating back to the 2010 season. The pitching 
staff had a 1.31 ERA. The bullpen was 6-0. Great hitting. Great 
coaching. More than anything else, big hearts.
  So to the Gamecock nation, congratulations on back-to-back titles. 
You make us all proud. And if you are watching Gamecock baseball, and 
you have a bad heart, you need to turn the channel because they win in 
the most dramatic fashion. They never give up. They believe in 
themselves.
  Michael Roth, the winning pitcher of the last game, said: We don't 
have the most talented people at every position. But we play together 
with heart. We believe in each other.

[[Page 10188]]

  Maybe the country could learn something from Gamecock baseball. If we 
all work together for a common purpose and put our differences aside, 
maybe we could achieve greatness too.
  So congratulations to Coach Tanner for back-to-back titles. We are 
very proud of your team. Not only did you win two titles, you did it 
with style, grace, and dignity. You won with honor. I look forward to 
meeting the team when they come up to the White House. And I know 
Columbia is rocking tonight.
  Congratulations to the Gamecocks. You won in fine style, and we are 
all proud of you.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
vote on Coburn amendment No. 521.
  Under the previous order, a two-thirds vote is required for adoption.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Inhofe
     Udall (NM)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
34. Two-thirds of those voting not having voted in the affirmative, the 
amendment is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The clerk will report the managers' amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr. 
     Alexander, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Carper, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 523.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To add positions for expedited consideration and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 5, line 2, strike ``15 to 21'' and insert ``6''.
       On page 6, after line 24, insert the following:
       (31) Chief Financial Officer, from the following:
       (A) Department of Agriculture.
       (B) Department of Commerce.
       (C) Department of Defense.
       (D) Department of Education.
       (E) Department of Energy.
       (F) Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
       (G) Department of Health and Human Services.
       (H) Department of Homeland Security.
       (I) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (J) Department of the Interior.
       (K) Department of Labor.
       (L) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (M) Department of State.
       (N) Department of Transportation.
       (O) Department of the Treasury.
       (P) Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (32) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the 
     Air Force.
       (33) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the 
     Army.
       (34) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of Navy.
       (35) Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       (36) Assistant Secretaries or other officials whose primary 
     responsibility is legislative affairs from the following:
       (A) Department of Agriculture.
       (B) Department of Energy.
       (C) Department of Defense.
       (D) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (E) Department of Commerce.
       (F) Department of Treasury.
       (G) Department of State.
       (H) Department of Health and Human Services.
       (I) United States Agency for International Development.
       (J) Department of Education.
       (K) Department of Labor.
       (L) Department of Justice.
       (M) Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (N) Department of Transportation.
       (37) Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services Administration, 
     Department of Education.
       (38) Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth, and 
     Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
       (39) Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (40) Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
     Projects.
       (41) Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of 
     Commerce.
       On page 7, strike line 5 and insert the following:

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.

       The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee shall contain an 
     evaluation and justification made by such committee for the 
     establishment in the measure being reported of any new 
     position appointed by the President within an existing or new 
     Federal entity.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 523 is 
agreed to.
  The question is now on agreeing to the resolution, as amended.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

[[Page 10189]]



                                NAYS--8

     Crapo
     DeMint
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Inhofe
     Udall (NM)
  The resolution (S. Res. 116), as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

                              S. Res. 116

     SECTION 1. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION.

       (a) Privileged Nominations; Information Requested.--Upon 
     receipt by the Senate of a nomination described in section 2, 
     the nomination shall--
       (1) be placed on the Executive Calendar under the heading 
     ``Privileged Nominations--Information Requested''; and
       (2) remain on the Executive Calendar under such heading 
     until the Executive Clerk receives a written certification 
     from the Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Questionnaires.--The Chairman of the committee of 
     jurisdiction shall notify the Executive Clerk in writing when 
     the appropriate biographical and financial questionnaires 
     have been received from an individual nominated for a 
     position described in section 2.
       (c) Privileged Nominations; Information Received.--Upon 
     receipt of the certification under subsection (b), the 
     nomination shall--
       (1) be placed on the Executive Calendar under the heading 
     ``Privileged Nomination--Information Received'' and remain on 
     the Executive Calendar under such heading for 10 session 
     days; and
       (2) after the expiration of the period referred to in 
     paragraph (1), be placed on the ``Nominations'' section of 
     the Executive Calendar.
       (d) Referral to Committee of Jurisdiction.--During the 
     period when a nomination described in subsection (a) is 
     listed under the ``Privileged Nomination--Information 
     Requested'' section of the Executive Calendar described in 
     section (a)(1) or the ``Privileged Nomination--Information 
     Received'' section of the Executive Calendar described in 
     section (c)(1)--
       (1) any Senator may request on his or her own behalf, or on 
     the behalf of any identified Senator that the nomination be 
     referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction; and
       (2) if a Senator makes a request described in paragraph 
     (1), the nomination shall be referred to the appropriate 
     committee of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 2. NOMINATIONS COVERED.

       The following nominations for the positions described 
     (including total number of individuals to be appointed for 
     the position) shall be considered under the provisions of 
     this resolution:
       (1) The Chairman and the Members of the Advisory Board for 
     Cuba Broadcasting (9 Members including Chairman).
       (2) The Chairman and the Members of the Corporation for 
     National and Community Service (15 Members including 
     Chairman).
       (3) The Chairman and the Members of the Federal Retirement 
     Thrift Investment Boards (5 Members including Chairman).
       (4) The Members of the Internal Revenue Service Oversight 
     Board (7 Members).
       (5) The Members of the Board of the Millennium Challenge 
     Corporation (4 Members).
       (6) The Members of the National Council on the Arts (18 
     Members).
       (7) The Members of the National Council for the Humanities 
     (26 Members).
       (8) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation (8 Members).
       (9) The Members of the Peace Corps National Advisory 
     Council (15 Members).
       (10) The Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the Members of the 
     Board of Directors for the United States Institute of Peace 
     (12 Members including Chairman and Vice Chairman).
       (11) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Federal 
     Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (5 Members).
       (12) The Members of the Board of Directors of the National 
     Consumer Cooperative Bank (3 Members).
       (13) The Members of the Board of Directors of the National 
     Institute of Building Sciences (6 Members).
       (14) The Members of the Board of Directors of the 
     Securities Investor Protection Corporation (5 Members).
       (15) The Members of the Board of Directors of the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (3 Members).
       (16) The Members of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation Advisory Board (5 Members).
       (17) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. 
     Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 
     Policy Foundation (9 Members).
       (18) The Members the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (2 Members).
       (19) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund (2 Members).
       (20) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund (2 Members).
       (21) The Members of the Social Security Advisory Board (3 
     Members).
       (22) The Members of the Board of Directors of the African 
     Development Foundation (7 Members).
       (23) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Inter 
     American Foundation (9 Members).
       (24) The Commissioners of the United States Advisory 
     Commission on Public Diplomacy (7 Members).
       (25) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Barry 
     Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation 
     (8 Members).
       (26) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the Harry 
     Truman Scholarship Foundation (8 Members).
       (27) The Members of the Board of Trustees of the James 
     Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation (6 Members).
       (28) The Members of the Board of Directors of the Legal 
     Services Corporation (11 Members).
       (29) The Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement 
     Commission (2 Members).
       (30) The Members of the Board of Directors of the State 
     Justice Institute (11 Members).
       (31) Chief Financial Officer, from the following:
       (A) Department of Agriculture.
       (B) Department of Commerce.
       (C) Department of Defense.
       (D) Department of Education.
       (E) Department of Energy.
       (F) Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
       (G) Department of Health and Human Services.
       (H) Department of Homeland Security.
       (I) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (J) Department of the Interior.
       (K) Department of Labor.
       (L) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (M) Department of State.
       (N) Department of Transportation.
       (O) Department of the Treasury.
       (P) Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (32) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the 
     Air Force.
       (33) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of the 
     Army.
       (34) Assistant Secretary for Financial Management of Navy.
       (35) Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       (36) Assistant Secretaries or other officials whose primary 
     responsibility is legislative affairs from the following:
       (A) Department of Agriculture.
       (B) Department of Energy.
       (C) Department of Defense.
       (D) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (E) Department of Commerce.
       (F) Department of Treasury.
       (G) Department of State.
       (H) Department of Health and Human Services.
       (I) United States Agency for International Development.
       (J) Department of Education.
       (K) Department of Labor.
       (L) Department of Justice.
       (M) Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (N) Department of Transportation.
       (37) Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services Administration, 
     Department of Education.
       (38) Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth, and 
     Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
       (39) Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (40) Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
     Projects.
       (41) Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of 
     Commerce.

     SEC. 3. EXECUTIVE CALENDAR.

       The Secretary of the Senate shall create the appropriate 
     sections on the Executive Calendar to reflect and effectuate 
     the requirements of this resolution.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.

       The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee shall contain an 
     evaluation and justification made by such committee for the 
     establishment in the measure being reported of any new 
     position appointed by the President within an existing or new 
     Federal entity.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This resolution shall take effect 60 days after the date of 
     adoption of this resolution.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to reduce the amount of duplication 
and overlap in federal agencies and I am prepared to vote to eliminate 
duplicative programs. That is my responsibility as a Senator. However, 
I believe this must be done in a responsible manner and not passed off 
to a third party. I opposed the Coburn amendment because it would cause 
needless delay to the consideration of important legislation by the 
Senate. It would give additional power to the staff of the 
Congressional Research Service. It would increase Congressional 
spending when

[[Page 10190]]

we are working to reduce our Federal budget deficit and our Federal 
debt.
  The amendment would change the Standing Rules of the Senate to 
require the Congressional Research Service--CRS--to complete a study to 
examine the potential for duplicative programs for every bill that is 
passed out of committee before it is in order to be considered by the 
full Senate.
  This amendment will not end duplication of government programs. But 
it will make it more difficult for the Senate to do the Nation's 
business. The Coburn amendment will allow any Senator to block floor 
consideration of a bill if the CRS assessment has not been completed. 
The amendment does not place any time limits on the CRS to make the 
assessment of whether the programs included in legislation are 
duplicative. The amendment does not define key terms such as 
``program'' or ``initiative'' that are crucial to performing the 
assessment.
  The amendment states that every bill that comes to the floor must 
contain a full evaluation and report by CRS. The CRS report must 
examine every potential Federal program that might overlap with the one 
proposed.
  How long would CRS have to do such a report? I don't know because the 
amendment does not include time limits for the CRS to provide these 
reports. Therefore, CRS could block consideration of important 
legislation by simply not meeting its responsibilities.
  We have always been very careful in making changes to the Standing 
Rules of the Senate. This proposal has not come before the Rules 
Committee in any way and thus has not been considered or vetted by the 
committee of jurisdiction. If we are serious about such a change, it 
should receive the appropriate review before being adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

                          ____________________