Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to spend a few moments to talk about this amendment. We have voted on this amendment before, although we have made a couple of changes: exempting moneys that are being spent on contingency operations for our military overseas and lowering the vote threshold for emergencies where we need to go beyond the spending cap. But this is the bottom line: On kitchen tables all across this country families are cutting their budgets. In county courthouses all over this country people are cutting budgets. In State legislatures all over this country people are cutting budgets. In city council chambers all over this country people are cutting budgets. Then we get to Washington, and what we are trying to do here is not cut a budget. That is the amazing part about this. This does not cut a penny. All it does is curb the growth. Are we going to say to this country that we are unable to cap the growth of this government over the next 3 years? This is a baby step. This is not a major assault on the spending of the Federal Government. This is a baby step.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, today, once again, the Senate is going to consider the Sessions-McCaskill discretionary spending cap. I wish to take a couple of minutes and try to, once again, talk some common sense about Congress and our spending habits and about this very modest baby step we must take if we are ever going to do the right thing when it comes to spending in the U.S. Government. What is this amendment about? Well, at its heart, this amendment is about trying to regain the trust of the American people. We have had to do big, bold things because of an economic crisis. No question this President inherited a mess, and that we had to do some big, bold things to try to get out of the ditch. But in the process, we have also, I hope, begun to realize that there is a two-step here. One is, big, bold things we had to do to get the economy back on track, and the other is beginning to recognize, maybe for the first time in a long time, that the path we are on is unsustainable. Chairman Bernanke said it yesterday. It is unsustainable, the path we are on, in terms of spending in Washington, DC. What this amendment does is something that is very responsible and, frankly, modest. It is not a cut in spending. In this economy, I understand many economists would argue it is not the time to cut spending, but is it not time we capped growth? Think about it for a minute. Everywhere in America, whether it is at a family's kitchen table or whether it is at a school board meeting or whether it is at a city council meeting or a county legislative body meeting or a State legislative budget hearing, everywhere in America they are having to trim their sails, cut their budgets, try to find a meaningful way to do more with less. And what are we doing here? We cannot agree to cap growth? Are you kidding me? We cannot even say to the American people, we are not going to grow by as much over the next 3 years? This does not even try to cut spending, it tries to cap growth. There are actually people in this body who think we cannot take this small modest step to say we are not going to grow as quickly or by as much over the next several years? How on Earth can we do hard stuff? How on Earth can we live up to our responsibility as Members of the Senate, when it comes to fiscal policy? How can we ever in the future do what we are going to have to do to rein in this government if we cannot even cap spending at a time when everybody in America is cutting? Reining in growth should not be a hard vote. It should not be a hard vote. There are people, and I understand this, I understand there are a lot of people in this body who have made it their work to appropriate, and that has been the committee everybody wants to get on. It has been the powerful committee. Everybody knows around here, if you spend the money, you have power. I understand this is like the Earth shifting a little bit, that all of a sudden people who appropriate around here are going to have to take a different view of what their job is. It is inevitable that that happens. Whether it happens this year, next year, or the next decade, anybody knows we cannot sustain the course we are on. But what is frustrating to me is that some of the people who are so anxious to defeat this amendment are using such old- fashioned fear tactics it is almost insulting. There are talking points that are being circulated against this amendment that I think you ought to blush if you are responsible for. The notion is that we are going to make these cuts in our most important programs. There is a talking point going around that this would make us have to cut Border Patrol. Come on. That we are going to have to cut the priorities of this government right now. No, we are not. We may have to cut back on some of the earmarking? Yes, probably. And cut that money from the budget. Would we have to maybe cut out some low-performing government programs? Yes, we would. In fact, the President announced that he wants everyone in the executive branch to identify 5 percent of their low- performing programs. Then the next step would be that he would cut half of that, 2\1/2\ percent. He is asking them to find cuts in government. All this amendment is doing is saying, we are going to curb growth. So this amendment is not going as far as the President has asked his executive branch to do. The other thing about this is I keep getting pushed at, well, these are priorities, our domestic discretionary spending--and this is from a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. But this amendment is not just about domestic discretionary spending. It is about defense discretionary spending. It exempts out $50 billion a year for our overseas contingency operations. It clearly exempts out emergencies, and there have always been more than 67 votes when we have appropriated for emergencies in this country. It is not as though 67 votes are hard to get after a Katrina, after some kind of emergency that demands we respond to it. The notion that we have now for the first time gotten the kind of support this amendment has received from Republican Senators to freeze the growth on defense spending is huge. It is huge. Anybody who has spent any time looking around at contracting in the Department of Defense, which I have spent a lot of time on, or the way money is spent at the Pentagon, knows there are savings there. To curb the growth in spending, in discretionary spending in the Defense Department is a wonderful step forward. So it is not just domestic that is impacted by this amendment, it is both domestic spending and defense spending, and it is time. It is time. I hope everyone who has voted against this amendment in the past does a gut check this time and thinks of themselves in front of a bunch of people they work for in their home State, explaining to them why they could not vote to curb growth in the Federal Government's budget. I am telling you what, that is one explanation I would not want to have to give right now at home. I would not want to tell the people in Missouri that it was impossible for us to even put a lid on the growth of the Federal Government, right now at this time in this Nation's history, with all of the economic issues that are swirling around. I think it would have a positive impact on our economy, to send this signal. I think it would have a positive effect on our markets. I think it would have a positive global effect as we look at what is going on in Europe, that the Federal Government is finally acknowledging we have got to begin to curb the growth of our expenditures. These votes have been close. We got 56 the first time. We got 59, and then everybody got nervous because we got 59 votes. Then the next time we got 57. Three more votes. Three more votes, and we will send the right signal to the American people that we get it. I hope today is the day we send the signal to the American people that we know there are hard decisions ahead and we are beginning to take some modest steps to show we have the guts and the fortitude to make those decisions. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to spend a couple minutes talking about Judge Audrey G. Fleissig, one of the nominees we will hopefully be voting on within the hour. This is a woman I have known for many years who has an outstanding career in the legal community in Missouri. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri and went on to be the first woman to hold the position of U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri. Currently, she serves as U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District. I could go on about her background as a litigation attorney for 11 years in one of the most respected law firms in Kansas City. I could spend some time talking about how much she loves to teach and how she has been a trial advocacy teacher for a good deal of the last 20 years. She has taught pretrial practice, trial advocacy, and now evidence at the Washington University School of Law, one of the finest universities in the country. She was also a student intern to the Honorable Edward Filippine, who was a U.S. district judge in the Eastern District of Missouri 30 years ago. She has a J.D. degree, a Dean's Honor Scholar and an Order of the Coif from Washington University Law School and was magna cum laude from Carleton College for her undergrad years. She has been one of the stars of the legal community in Missouri, but she has also been a mom. She has managed her career while she raised children, and her children are now in their twenties. I have such deep respect for someone who has done well with the demands of a legal career and a judicial career and also done very well on the family front. She is somebody who believes very much that putting on a robe does not mean one exits the community. We have a lot of judges who take that particular attitude, especially on the Federal bench, that once they become a Federal judge, then they no longer participate in community activities that are so important to the health and vibrancy of our country, our States, and certainly of our metropolitan areas. When she worked with her children as they were growing up, she was very active in their schools and tried to instill in them a love of reading. Now that her children are grown, she has for the last 10 years worked with Ready Readers, a charitable organization that works with low-income preschool children, ages 3 to 5, to inspire them to want to read. Think about that. She is a U.S. magistrate with a full-time job, with a prestigious black robe. With that kind of career, anyone could, frankly, take a deep breath and say: I am here. Instead, she has spent the last 10 years continuing to volunteer with a charitable organization that tries to inspire young children to love to read. I have to tell the truth--this is the kind of person we need on the Federal bench. Will she be respectful to litigants? Of course. Will she understand the rules of evidence? She teaches them at one of the best law schools in the country. Does she understand the pressures of litigation? Yes. She has been one. But most importantly, does she understand there are other needs in the community outside of what goes on in the courtroom, and does that inform her as a judge? She will be fair. She will work extremely hard. She is known as one of the hardest workers in the Federal courthouse in St. Louis. It was an honor to recommend her to the President. I am so pleased that she reaches this moment in her career where she can become a U.S. Federal district judge and provide the kind of atmosphere for justice that we hold so dear in this Nation. I know she will be impartial. I know she will never let politics dictate a decision. I know the law will be her master and that she will listen carefully to the evidence and never think she knows best--let the litigants try their cases and let the law reign supreme. I am proud of her accomplishments. I am proud to support her. I have a feeling she will be confirmed by a very wide margin. Don't ask me why she had to sit around on the calendar for 60 days. I won't go into one of my rants about secret holds. I will save that for another day. Today, I will say it is time that we take this vote, and I make a prediction it won't even be close because there is absolutely no reason this woman should not have been on the bench months ago. I look forward to her confirmation today. I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there are many issues that are pending on this bill that we are currently considering; unfortunately, many of them that we will not get to. But I did want to take a minute to sound the alarm about a very important topic that is, in all likelihood, not going to get addressed but something that everyone needs to be aware of because it is a subprime mess in the making. That is the area of reverse mortgages. You cannot turn on TV these days without seeing an advertisement from someone about an important government benefit that you should take advantage of, get cash out of your home now and participate in a reverse mortgage. Senator Kohl has been great to work with on the Committee on Aging. We had an oversight hearing on reverse mortgages. In fact, we conducted one of them in St. Louis. These are tricky financial vehicles. Keep in mind to whom these are being marketed. They are being marketed to seniors. So seniors are being told: Enter into a reverse mortgage and you can get all of the money out of your house, and you never have to worry about paying it back and everything is great. The problem is, they are very expensive and not everyone is well suited for a reverse mortgage. In some instances, a reverse mortgage might be appropriate. But, frankly, they are certainly not appropriate if someone is selling you a reserve mortgage when you are 80 years old and turns around and sells you an annuity in the same sales pitch. Believe it or not, we had testimony from families saying that is exactly what had happened to them. There is not enough consumer protection in the area of reverse mortgages. Here is the other shoe that is going to drop. Unlike the subprime mess which occurred because people were selling mortgages to people who were not suited for them, and they were trying to sell them because they had no skin in the game, they did not care if they were ever paid back, they were making money by selling the mortgages and had no risk if the loans were not paid back. Guess what. Same thing. The people selling these mortgages have no risk. Now, in the subprime mess, the risk was transferred to all of these financial institutions that sliced and diced these mortgages and securitized them and sold them short, sold them long. Guess who takes the risk in a reverse mortgage, every stinking dime. The Federal Government, which is shorthand for the taxpayers of this great country. So if someone does a phony appraisal on a reverse mortgage and says the property is worth more than it is, and they get the money out of there or if property values were to drop again in 15 or 20 years when these mortgages came due, guess what happens. The Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers get left holding the bag for every darn dime. Clearly, this is a problem. The amendment I had was going to address some of the deficiencies in this area as it relates to consumer protection and would put in a suitability standard. Here is the other scary part about this cautionary tale. They have started securitizing reverse mortgages. Securitizing is the process that we saw in subprime where they gathered all of those subprime mortgages together and said: OK, let's slice them all up, and we will do it at levels. This top level is not very risky, and we will slap a AAA on that. Then we will slap another AAA on the second tranche, and maybe down here at the bottom we will get a AA. Then the different tranches will pay different rates. Guess what is happening now to reverse mortgages because that market has dried up because of the subprime mess. All of a sudden we are seeing an explosion in the securitization of reverse mortgages. In the security market for these mortgages, in the past year, the security market for reverse mortgages went--in 1 year--from $1.5 billion to $13 billion--in the last 12 months. In 1 year. That gives you some indication of what is happening. I know we may not be the brightest lights in the marquis sometimes around here, and I know sometimes we may not get it. But, goodness gracious, that ought to set off some alarm bells somewhere. So I urge my colleagues to take a look at the reverse mortgage problem. I urge them to convey to their seniors in their States, through the senior centers and other ways that you can communicate with your constituents, to be careful of reverse mortgages. They are very expensive. I did not really make a true confession, and I probably ought to do that. There is a reason this place likes reverse mortgages. We are busy trying to find pay-fors in our budget. We are busy trying to find ways to pay for things. Well, guess who gets a cut of the initial fees on a reverse mortgage. The Federal Government. So one part of this place loves the idea that more reverse mortgages are occurring. In fact, we took the cap off how many could occur for this year because we can count that money and spend it in the appropriations process, just hoping that maybe we are not around when we have to pay the piper at the end of the rainbow when perhaps the value of that home is not sufficient when sold to pay off the loan. So I am disappointed it appears that we are not going to get to this amendment. I will continue to work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. I will say this: If this body tries to lift the cap--the cap will go back on in September--if this body tries to lift the cap and allow unlimited reverse mortgages out there this year, under the guise of, oh, we need to be doing this because it helps the economy, or it is going to help the--no. No. No. No. I say no. We need to go back to a cap on reverse mortgages so we have a firm handle on what potential liabilities down the road could be to the taxpayers of the country for this program. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to be recorded as opposing the Ensign amendment. Whether I have been speaking to community banks, consumer advocates, or businesses, I have been clear that the purpose of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. I said I would not support carve- outs. It was clear from the initial drafts of the Ensign amendment that this was intended to exempt certain lending by casinos from the jurisdiction of the bureau. The underlying bill already clearly exempts sellers of nonfinancial products who offer financing in support of those sales. It is my belief that the Ensign amendment could undermine that goal and I therefore oppose it.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I commemorate the work and commitment of the Pujols Family Foundation. We all know Albert Pujols as one of today's most notable baseball players and, of course, the first baseman for my home team, the St. Louis Cardinals. However, in addition to his commitments as a professional athlete, Albert has chosen to invest his time and compassion for the past 5 years in the Pujols Family Foundation. In its efforts to provide education, medical relief, and supplies to impoverished children, the Pujols Family Foundation has funded Haitian disaster relief, family-oriented events in St. Louis, and mission trips to the Dominican Republic. Through their efforts and service, the Pujols Family Foundation has become a saving grace for families living with Down's syndrome, disabilities, and life-threatening illnesses without means to afford many of the necessities we take for granted. Albert Pujols also uses baseball as a way to bring new joy and relief to children in the Dominican Republic. Batey Baseball is a new joint venture for 2010 and is spearheaded by Albert Pujols, the Pujols Family Foundation, and Compassion International. Its mission is to teach responsibility, teamwork, and leadership to young men in the Dominican Republic through the sport of baseball. Set to launch in the summer of 2010, this program will bring joy and hope to many young baseball enthusiasts in the Dominican Republic. It is a welcome occurrence when I have the honor to come before this body and acknowledge the selfless and tireless work done by Missourians on behalf of those less fortunate. On behalf of myself and the people of Missouri, I would like to recognize and congratulate Albert Pujols, his wife Derdre, and the Pujols Family Foundation on their 5 years of service to the people of St. Louis, MO, and the world.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, is there still a unanimous-consent request pending that the Senator from Connecticut made some while back that there was never an objection heard on?

Mrs. McCASKILL. OK. So based on that consent request, I would like to talk about amendment No. 4072, the Grassley-McCaskill IG amendment. This amendment is about having a cop on the beat. We have talked a lot about a cop on the beat as it relates to a consumer agency. But in internal workings of these agencies, there are people who are very special in our government who have eyes and ears inside agencies who can find problems, who in fact are our inspectors general. This amendment will strengthen the independence and the working role of the inspectors general in these agencies that have such an important power over our financial sector. In fact, it was the failure, in some ways, of appropriate oversight that got us into this mess in the first place. Senator Grassley has been a champion of inspectors general for many years, and since I came to the Senate, I have tried to focus on this because I came here from being a government auditor. For 8 years, I did nothing but government auditing, and I have deep and abiding respect for the professional auditors in our Federal Government who are the watchdogs for taxpayers inside the halls of our government. This amendment will do a couple of important things. One, it is going to create a council of inspectors general in the financial sector, the SEC and the CFTC and the FDIC, and they will have to meet four times a year. At that meeting, they are going to have a forced opportunity to compare notes, to talk about the investigations they are doing, to make sure they are not duplicating each other's work, and, most importantly, to talk about systemic risk and are they getting at it in a collective way. It does not cost anything. It is just smart. That is one part of this amendment. The other part of the amendment has to do with how these inspectors general are selected. There are different kinds of inspectors general in our government. Some are appointed by the President. Some are appointed by the agencies. I will say that anybody who thinks those appointed by the President are the most independent is wrong. Anybody who thinks those appointed by the agencies is the most independent is wrong. I believe the independence of inspectors general has everything to do with whether someone is selected who is professional and who is going to be independent of any influence. Here is my reason for supporting this amendment so fully. It is a bad idea to change right now how these inspectors general are selected. We need continuity right now. We need consistency. What we have done in this amendment is change it so these inspectors general will now report to the entire boards they serve and not to just the head of the agency. That is where you can get the cozy relationship and get into trouble. That is why, in fact, this amendment is needed. It also requires that two-thirds of these boards will be required to fire an inspector general. So this amendment will, in fact, make sure we have continuity, we have a cop on the beat in terms of these inspectors general right now and going forward, and it strengthens their independence and their ability to work with each other. I will say we have lots of nominations pending, and the notion that we would decide we need five more nominations pending with, I am afraid, secret holds that might come about--we have one inspector general who has a secret hold now--I certainly do not want the inspectors general for these agencies to be held up with secret holds over the next couple years and us have a lack of continuity and certainty in terms of leadership at these important organizations as we move forward to clean up this mess that has occurred in our financial sector. So I urge my colleagues to support the Grassley-McCaskill amendment, amendment No. 4072. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know someone is going to be able to use the figleaf and stand behind the argument that the amendment that was offered at the very last moment this afternoon was about something they cared about and something we need to vote on. It is a subject matter we care about that we need to work on. But really? It is pretty transparent what is going on here: that at the very last moment, when all of a sudden we were this close for everyone having to go on record about secret holds, that someone shot it out of the sky like a clay pigeon. That is what this amendment did. So the argument is: Well, the Wyden-Grassley amendment on secret holds is not really about the financial reform bill. Why does it get a chance to be voted on? It is very simple. The reason the Wyden-Grassley amendment should be considered germane to every bill we debate in this body is because it is about the way we do business. Every day that goes by that we do not try to reform this nasty habit of secret holds, we diminish the shine and the glory that is our democracy. We diminish what this body should stand for and what our priorities should be. Every day we allow the secret hold process to continue to take root and grow and flourish, we are failing in our job as Senators who are here to do the public's business. We are not here to go in back rooms and get something for our secret hold. We are not here to go in back rooms and leverage our secret hold for something else we want. We are not here to go in back rooms and have secret holds to keep this administration from succeeding or filling the jobs that need to be filled. We are here to be accountable. Of all the amendments out there that can be second degreed, this amendment that would reform our process is selected to slow it down and obviously, hopefully, kill it. Well, I have bad news for my friends across the aisle who want to kill the longstanding attempts of Senators Wyden and Grassley at reform, and my recent attempts, along with Senator Bennet, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Udall, Senator Warner, and others who have come to the floor and spoken on secret holds: We are not going anywhere. It is probably a fault I have, but I am pretty darn stubborn. In fact, I am probably stubborn to a fault. I think this is something we all ought to be stubborn about. We have different kinds of Senators. We have some who are kind of feeling as though they are being marched to the gallows as they grudgingly support cleaning up secret holds. We have others who want to pound their chests and shout from the rooftops about trying to get rid of secret holds. And we have others who are hiding in the crevices, the little, bitty, tiny dark places, who are trying to keep secret holds without anybody knowing who they are. I will say this. One can make the assumption that whoever offered this amendment to try to kill this amendment probably is a big fan of secret holds. Because it seems to me if they wanted this amendment to pass, they would have at least talked to the sponsors before they offered the second-degree amendment. That is the common courtesy around here; they would have at least given everyone some notice. But they saw this amendment speeding toward the finish line. They realized they were going to be called for the yeas and nays on reforming the Senate, and they decided to take the path of least resistance and that is try to kill the bill another way. But along with my colleague and mentor on this subject, Senator Wyden, and Senator Grassley, whom I have met with a number of times over the last week, we are going to stay with it. I know I speak for my colleagues who have been here 4 years or less, the freshmen and sophomores in this body. I know how strongly we feel about this. I wish to remind my colleagues, if I am wrong about you, if you are against secret holds, the letter is still open. We have 60 Members who have signed the letter. Sixty Members of this body, all of the Democrats but one, both of the Independents, and now two Republicans have signed the letter saying we will not exercise a secret hold and we want to abolish secret holds. I look forward to seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, more Republicans joining in the signing of this letter. It is available. I hope they will contact us. Senator Warner, Senator Whitehouse, and I are the lead signators on this letter. But it is time for everyone--by the way, if we get to 67 signatures, guess what we can do. We can amend the standing rules of this place. We could say that an objection will not be in order if it is anonymous. We could do that with 67 votes. What a great day that would be. Wouldn't that be a wake-up call to the American people that maybe we get it. Maybe we get why our approval ratings of Congress are near historic lows for all the nonsense, ridiculous games that get played around here. Let's do the public's business and let's do it in public and let's end the secret holds, the nasty habit we can no longer afford. I will look forward to visiting with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and see if we can prevail upon them to withdraw their second-degree amendment so we can go forward or find some other way forward. But make no mistake, we will find a way forward and we will end the secret hold. I am confident it will happen. So you can fight as long and as hard as you want, but we are not going to give up. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, first, let me say how grateful I am to Senator Cornyn for his patience. I will try to be very brief because I know he is waiting to address the underlying bill. I think everything that needs to be said has been said. I will be interested in this vote because there is a group of people right now who voted for a rule that simply said: You have to disclose your secret holds if a certain procedure takes place. There are a bunch of people who voted for that who are not doing it. I do not know how that computes in the mind of a U.S. Senator. I do not know how you vote for a rule that requires you to disclose and then you knowingly continue to keep a hold secret. I had a colleague tell me the other day they had talked with a colleague across the aisle about a couple of judges they desperately wanted to get released from the land of secret holds. This colleague visited with a Republican about it, and the Republican told her: The leader says he has to get something for it. You have to get something for it? Have we come to that, that you get to hold on to someone whose life is in limbo to be a U.S. district judge until you get something for it? That is not the way the American people want us to operate around here. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden have toiled in this field for a long time. I appreciate their efforts. I thank all my colleagues who have been helpful in us bringing this to the attention of the American people. We now have 60 Senators who have signed a letter saying they will never engage in secret holds and they want them completely abolished. The Wyden-Grassley approach is almost as good as never. It is a very limited window, and I pray that it will work. I had been wildly optimistic it would work right after I voted for the rule back in 2007. I thought, this is all it is going to take. I am not as optimistic, frankly, right now. Games may still be played. I think we have to get to 67 names on that letter. The American people have to rise with their pitch forks, the way they are in so many other ways, and say: Enough already. Stop this incredibly bad habit of thinking you can hold up nominations just because you feel like it and never have to own it. I encourage everyone to vote for the Wyden-Grassley amendment. I appreciate Senator Cornyn's patience with us this morning. I look forward to a vote on this amendment. I really want to find out who is secretly holding right now, who votes for this amendment, and how they reconcile those two things.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague from Oklahoma, and I understand it is difficult to listen to any of us put motives on something when we don't know what the reason is, and ascribing motives is unfair when you don't know. But sometimes my experience as a mother pops up in my brain, and I think of my kids when they were little--and especially as they became teenagers--and I remember one time catching one of my kids. He had sneaked out of the house at night in the dark. I caught him and I said: You know, you are in big trouble, buster. He said: Well, mom, I wasn't doing anything wrong. We just walked around the block. We weren't doing anything you would get mad about. We weren't drinking, we weren't smoking, we weren't chasing down girls. We just walked around the block. I said: Well, you know, if you do it in the dark and you are not willing to tell me about it, then you know what I am going to assume? I am going to assume you are doing something sneaky and underhanded, and you just need to bank on that; that if you think you have to hide something from me, you have to assume I am going to think you are doing something wrong. If you are not willing to talk about it, you are not willing to own it, you are not willing to tell me about it, you are in trouble. End of discussion. That is why we are ascribing motives. It is only logical to assume. After voting for a bill that clearly says once the unanimous consent motion is made you have to come out of the darkness, you have to explain what you are doing, the fact that these people are not coming forward--I have to tell you, if they were my kids, I would assume this--they are doing something they aren't proud of. I would assume that, if they were doing the sneaky, and that is what this is. This is sneaky, because they are not stepping up--like the Senator from Oklahoma has. Step up, own it, hold for as long as you like. Some of us may agree with your reasons and join you in your hold. But there are literally names on this list where no one knows why they are being held. The White House does not know, the nominee does not know, maybe Leader McConnell doesn't even know. It is nonsense. It is plain and simple nonsense. My friend from Oklahoma is absolutely correct, we should not ascribe motives. But it is only human nature, if people are not looking at the plain language of the ethics bill they proudly voted for and doing what the plain language says you are supposed to do, people are going to start thinking something underhanded is happening. The only way to fix that is to step up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 648, Michael W. Punke, of Montana, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 649, Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 799, Carolyn Hessler Radelet, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Director of the Peace Corps; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 800, Elizabeth L. Littlefield, of the District of Columbia, to be president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 801, Lana Pollack, of Michigan, to be a Commissioner on the part of the United States on the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 809, Bisa Williams, of New Jersey, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Niger; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 810, Raul Yzaguirre, of Maryland, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Dominican Republic; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 811, Theodore Sedgwick, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Slovak Republic; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 812, Robert Stephen Ford, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Syrian Arab Republic; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record.