[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18624-18625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last December President Obama appointed a 
person by the name of David Medine to

[[Page 18625]]

serve as the chairman of the bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Board. After 9/11, Congress created this five-member board to make 
recommendations to protect the civil liberties of all Americans during 
a time of war.
  Mr. Medine is well suited to lead this board. He currently works on 
financial privacy issues for the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
Previously, he was a partner in a huge law firm by the name of Wilmer 
Hale and he worked at the Federal Trade Commission on Internet privacy 
and financial privacy laws.
  Earlier this summer, we worked out an agreement with Senate 
Republicans to confirm the part-time members of the board, two 
Republicans and two Democrats. Republicans agreed that Mr. Medine, the 
Democratic nominee for chairman and the only full-time board member, 
would be confirmed during the lameduck session. It is my understanding 
that Republicans have encountered an issue that prevented the Senate 
from including Mr. Medine in our nominations package. So I will ask 
unanimous consent on this nomination at this time. I know there will be 
a Republican objection. Early in the next Congress, I plan to schedule 
a majority vote on this nomination and I look forward to the 
cooperation and good faith from Senate Republicans.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider Calendar Nos. 721 and 722; that the nominations be confirmed, 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in 
order, and any statements be printed in the Record; that the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then 
resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object, I would point out that the majority has had this 
nomination pending since May 17 when it was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. Not only for myself, but I 
think for a lot of people on my side of the aisle, this nomination is 
controversial and should not be moved via unanimous consent in the 
waning hours of this Congress. If this nomination were as important as 
the majority now seems to believe it is, this would have warranted 
debate and negotiations earlier in the session. Instead, the majority 
now seeks to raise this nomination in order to avoid having to resubmit 
the nomination for consideration.
  I think I have shown a very different willingness to accommodate the 
majority even on controversial nominations. For example, we agreed to 
remove William Baer just last week despite the controversy surrounding 
his nomination, and he was subsequently confirmed. So I am not opposed 
to discussing controversial nominations, including this one, but they 
need to be done in a way that allows debate and discussion prior to a 
vote.
  Given the controversial responses to written questions this nominee 
provided, there is need for debate and discussion on this nomination by 
the full Senate, not unanimous consent here at the last minute. 
Therefore, I object to the nomination being considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________