Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. We have now gone through the entire list, with the exception of about 10 judicial nominees on whom Senator Whitehouse will be making the requests. I was hopeful that this week we would know who is holding those folks. We still do not know. If I might make a suggestion, I am not confident it will be accepted, but if the leadership of the Republican caucus wants to hold these nominees, Senator McConnell can put his name on all of them. Then the people of America will know Senator McConnell is holding them and they will see him as the leader of the Republicans and they can judge accordingly. But if Senator McConnell does not have objections to them and is not willing to put his name on them, then the people who have the objections should put their names on the holds. We are going to break this bad habit. I do want to make a note that there were four judges I made requests on who inadvertently got on the list. They have been confirmed. We will provide for the record those four names so they can be appropriately noted. So instead of doing 69 today, we are only doing 65. I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I thank Senator Coburn for remaining on the Senate floor. As I said, Senator Whitehouse will be back to make a few more motions. Let's break a bad habit that the people of this country do not agree with.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I should note that this is a nominee who--once again, it was a voice vote. Senator Coburn did indicate some concerns with this nominee at the committee level.

Mrs. McCASKILL. On that nominee, the vote out of committee was 19 to 6--19 to 6. Five Republican colleagues supported this nominee and five Republican Senators opposed this nominee. So it was a 5-to-5 split of the Republicans on the committee to that nominee. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 703, Benita Y. Pearson, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on 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. I might note for the record that this nominee was voted out of committee by a vote of 15 to 4, with three Republican Senators supporting her in committee and four Republican Senators opposing her in the committee. The final vote was 15 to 4. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 588, Philip Coyle, to be Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table, that 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, there are some nominations on whom the request has not been made. My colleague from Rhode Island has a number of judicial appointments. He will return to the floor to make those unanimous consent requests later--I assume soon. There will be 64 total requests that will be made today that we cannot find opposition for--64 we cannot find opposition. I am going to now make five requests to which there was opposition. The ones I just made, by the way, the last group I just made, are new. They have been added to the calendar since I made the requests last week. This is going to continue. I am going to do my very best job at impersonating the tenacity of my colleague from Oklahoma. I am going to do my very best job of being a dog with a bone on secret holds. I am not going to give up. I am going to be out here every week, as often as I need to be out here. I am going to get as many colleagues to help me. We now have everybody on this side on board with the exception of Senator Byrd, and I am optimistic we will get Senator Byrd. I am hopeful the next time I will have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who agree secret holds are wrong, to help make these requests. The ones I just made were new. As notice to the Senators who may be holding those, they were not made last week. So I urge everyone to check the list and, if they have a hold on them, to notify Leader McConnell and let Leader McConnell know what their objection is and comply with the law they voted on. Let me make these last ones. I wanted the record to be clear, these are the first ones we made that anybody voiced opposition to--anybody. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 552, Jane Branstetter Stranch, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and any statements relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 835, Paul Ward, to be United States Marshal for the District of North Dakota; 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. 834, Clifton Timothy Massanelli, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas; 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 rise this morning in the cause of common sense in how the Senate works. We have had so many delays on nominations this year. Just as a quick review of where we stand, we have had over 51 rollcall votes on President Obama's nominations to serve in government under his Presidency. Of those 51 votes, over 80 percent of them were confirmed by overwhelming margins. Yet they sat on the calendar for more than 3 months, on average--overwhelming support, sitting on the calendar for 3 months, on average. Just for some comparison, at the similar point in the Bush administration, there were eight nominees on the calendar. Right now, we have 107 nominees on the calendar. As I look at the list, I am confused because, as to most of the people on the list, we do not know why they are sitting there. We do not even know who is making them sit there. Enter stage left the anonymous hold--or as I like to call it: Nobody can blame me because they don't know who I am. There is a law we passed that has a rule in it--very plain language, very easy to understand--that once a Senator makes a unanimous consent request to confirm a nominee, then you have to come out in the sunlight. After 6 session days, after those requests are made in terms of a unanimous consent for their confirmation, then the rule says you must notify your party leader of your hold that you have on the nomination, and it has to be published in the Congressional Record. So last week I came to the floor and made 74 unanimous consent requests on nominations. Who were those 74? This is the amazing part. This is very amazing. Not one of the nominations I made a unanimous consent request on last week had any opposition in committee--none--not a voice vote ``no.'' No one spoke out and said: I have a problem. They flew out of committee--all 74 of them. But no one knows why they are sitting there or who has put a hold on them. I made the request, and in the intervening week we have had a lot of activity in that regard. The first thing that happened is, my friend from Oklahoma followed the rule. He notified his party leader of the holds he had, and it was published in the Congressional Record. He has a great habit of reading what we are doing around here. When he read the rule, it was obvious to him the rule said, once the request had been made, you say who your holds are. He has never been afraid, my friend from Oklahoma. He has never been afraid to take accountability. I have seen him with great courage enrage this entire room because he had some principles he was standing on. He is a great role model in that regard--his principled stands; and he owns them. That is all we are talking about. We are talking about owning them. Nobody in America gets why this stuff has to be secret. I know he has an amendment he wants to offer on secret spending, and I would like, on the record, to say I would like to join him in that amendment. The secret spending that goes on through the hotline process, he is absolutely right--publishing this stuff for 72 hours. He is absolutely right. But this practice is absolutely wrong. Unlike his other colleagues, he stepped out of the dark and into the sunshine. But no one else did. So now, a week later, we still have 53 of those 74 names for which we have no idea who is holding them or why. Some of them have been confirmed of the 74 since then--a few. I think the Senator from Oklahoma identified a hold on, I believe, six or seven. So now we still have 53 names for which no one knows who is holding them by people who are avoiding the rule. I had somebody come up to me the other day and say: Well, there is no enforcement. I said: Who would have thought you would have to make it a misdemeanor for a Senator to identify their hold? They voted for the bill. The vote was 96 to 2, so they voted for it. They just do not want to live by it. Today, I come back to the floor with my colleagues--and there will be a number of us here--to once again try to trigger the rule. The unanimous consent requests will be made. Today, we have 69 names--the 53 from last week that are still out in the dark somewhere--we do not know who is holding them or why--and additional names that have been added to the calendar since then. Mr. President, 64 of the 69 nominees we will make a motion on today-- 64 of the 69 nominees--had no opposition in committee--none. As we will hear over the next hour or so, these are important jobs: National Traffic Safety Board, the inspector general for the EPA. Can you imagine right now not having an inspector general of the EPA with what is going on in the gulf? The other good news--let me just briefly talk about this. I am going to yield to my colleague from New Mexico. We have a letter going around, and the letter is very simple. Everyone who signs the letter is taking a pledge--a public pledge--that they will never again participate in a secret hold; and, further, they support abolishing secret holds. If you want to hold somebody, you have to put your name on it. I am very proud of the fact we now have 59 signatures on that letter, both Republicans--a Republican so far, 2 Independents, and all the Democratic Senators, except 1. I am optimistic we will get the last remaining Democratic Senator, Mr. Byrd, since he cosponsored a resolution in 2003, along with Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, who have done yeoman's work on this issue for years. Senator Lott and Senator Byrd, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden, sponsored a resolution back in 2003 to try to end secret holds, and here we are 7 years later with 53 nominees in the dark after the rule has been triggered. So I am optimistic. I certainly am hopeful we will have a lot more Republicans sign on the letter. I think we may. The iceberg is moving. We may actually bust up this thing. I am wildly optimistic--which is an unusual thing around here--about reform. It is hard to change the traditions of the Senate, especially when they are bad habits. Once again, my colleague from Oklahoma and I share the same view on earmarks and have tried from a principled position to not participate in those. I think that is also a bad habit. Clearly, we have a lot more people agreeing with us on secret holds than we do on earmarks. I look forward to making these motions today. I look forward to the Senators reading the rule, understanding the plain language, acknowledging they voted for it, and putting their name on these secret holds. Hold a nominee. The Senator from Oklahoma is holding some nominees. He has the right to do that. But the people we work for have the right to know why and who he is. That is all we are asking for today. We are not asking anybody to give up their holds; we are only asking people to identify who they are, to come into the sunshine for the transparency we all want to have as we serve the great people of this Nation. With that, for the unanimous consent requests, I will yield to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Udall.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am confused. This law was passed in the most bipartisan way possible: 96 to 2. Are we going to pretend this law doesn't say what it says? Let me make sure I put in the Record what it says: The majority and minority leaders of the Senate or their designees shall recognize a notice of intent of a Senator who is a member of their caucus to object to a proceeding or a measure only if the Senator-- (1) following the objection to a unanimous consent proceeding submits the notice of intent in writing to the appropriate leader or their designee; and (2) not later than 6 session days after the submission under paragraph (1), submits for inclusion in the Congressional Record and in the applicable calendar section described in subsection (b) the following notice: I, Senator ____ intend to object to proceedings to ____ dated ____ for the following reasons ____ . It says the majority and minority leader can recognize a hold only if the Senator first submits the notice of intent in writing after the unanimous consent request is made, and submits it to the Congressional Record. We are going to try to slice and dice the plain language of this about something as obvious and commonsensical as owning your hold? I know the Senator from Oklahoma doesn't agree with that. He has just said so. He is not doing this. I know he is here as a courtesy to his fellow Members. But with all due respect, it is 107 to 8 on the Executive Calendar. That is how many were on the calendar in the Bush administration at the same time--eight. There are 107 on the Executive Calendar in this administration. Honestly, we can do this forever. We can say when we were in the majority, we didn't do this and you did it; and when we were in the minority, we didn't do this and you did. We have a chance to stop it. We had 96 votes to stop it. Are we now going to stand on some kind of notion that the law doesn't say what the law says? I know part of the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is that he wants Senators to sign in writing that they have read what they are passing and that they understand the impact. I will be honest; I am going to cosponsor that, if he will let me, because I agree with the premise of it, although it is a little paternalistic to make Senators sign something saying they understand the impact. Does anybody believe Senators don't understand the impact of this language? Are we going to stand on some kind of formality that we don't have a way to enforce it. I guess the position the Senator is taking on behalf of the Republican caucus is that the law doesn't say what the law says. I have had a briefing this week on the standing rule versus the rule versus the law. That is what drives America crazy about this place. The secret hold is wrong. The Senator from Oklahoma knows it, and I guarantee you most of his colleagues do. You would be amazed how many Republicans have come up to me this week and said, ``I don't do it, Claire.'' I ask the Senator from Oklahoma to join our letter since he doesn't do it either. He has courage. He has guts. He is accountable to the people who voted for him. But to stand on behalf of the Republican caucus on some notion that this doesn't say what it says--that is all we are sent here to do, honestly. Believe me, I know the stuff that goes on here--the equal opportunities--and the Democrats are doing some of this in the majority. But we cleared all the secret holds this week. We had a few--the Democrats had a few--and we cleared them all. I had a couple Democrats come up to me complaining: ``I can't believe you made me give up my hold.'' They were not happy about it. We had some reluctant signatures on the letter. Do you know what is nice about the letter? I think this is important for the Senator from Oklahoma to understand. It doesn't say we are giving up secret holds for this administration. A lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle have a spring in their step now and think my party is on the ropes and there is a chance that, come next year at this time, Senator McConnell will be the majority leader or that Congressman Boehner will be the Speaker. Do you know what. All the names on this letter did not say ``while we are in charge.'' It says ``forever.'' We now have 58 members of this caucus--56 and 2 Independents who caucus with us--and 1 Republican so far who say it is forever; as long as we are Senators, we are not going to do secret holds. Frankly, my friend from Oklahoma doesn't have to worry next year about secret holds from this side of the aisle. I am proud we have done that. There may be a nomination a future President makes that is a Republican, and if the people of Missouri are good and kind enough to hire me again, I may not like it. But I guarantee I will have the guts to say so. Mr. President, I wanted to clarify the plain reading of the law and, obviously, what its intent was. I don't think anybody with a straight face can argue what the intent was. It was to stop this stuff. We can either ignore the intent and stand on a slicing and dicing and parsing of the language and reassure the American people that we completely don't get it or we can have people come out of the shadows on these holds. I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico for allowing me to respond.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 829, Todd E. Edelman, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; 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. 830, Judith Anne Smith, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; 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. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of consideration of Calendar No. 832, David B. Fein, to be United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut; the nomination be confirmed--I believe, Mr. President, that the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut would have jurisdiction over any Federal crimes that may have been committed by the individual who tried to blow up people in Times Square on Saturday night. That man lived in Connecticut. Any activities that he engaged in, in planning this dastardly plot in which, thank God, no one was killed, but we have no U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. That would be the chief law enforcement officer on any Federal crimes that have been committed by this American citizen who has confessed to some of his crimes, but we may not be aware of other crimes that may have been committed. The nomination of David B. Fein be confirmed to be United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and 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. 833, Zane David Memeger, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 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 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

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

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Correct.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I apologize. I didn't mean to intimate that the Senator was saying something he didn't believe. I apologize if that is the way it was taken. The point is pretty obvious. We have 84 nominees backed up at the train station, compared to 8 under the Bush administration. If anybody can't see what is going on, they need to tune in and pay attention. This is stall and block, stall and block, stall and block. Fine, but own it. If you are going to stall and block, let's see who you are. Claim it. That is all this is about. Claim it. If you are proud of slowing the process down, we just want to know who you are. To say this is about the two leaders clearing the hotline, that is not what this is about. This is about the law that says you cannot have secret holds once a unanimous consent request is made. I will be here as many times as it takes to reform this process and end the secret hold. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. There are so many things about the Senate I respect--the traditions, the service. Make no mistake about it, there are so many of my Republican colleagues who serve whom I admire and respect. They care deeply about their country. Sometimes we disagree on issues, but that does not diminish my respect for them as public servants and as people. We all get along better than people probably realize we do. But there are certain traditions around here, frankly, that are more like a bad habit. The tradition of comity is wonderful. The tradition of debate is wonderful. The tradition of collegiality is wonderful, the tradition of seniority and respecting people who have been here for a great deal of time. So much of it has been built up over the history of this Nation, and I am so proud to be a Member of this body in so many ways. But there are some bad habits that are traditions of which we should not be proud, and this is one of them. This is a tradition that needs to end. The secret hold is a bad habit. It is a luxury in which we should not indulge as members of a public body to serve the public on behalf of the people for whom we work. Our work should be open. The word ``secret'' does not have a place of honor in this democracy. Secret, good government, that is a little bit like oil and water. Let's do away with this bad habit. Let's demolish this tradition for all the right reasons and go forward and have a new tradition that from now on, if a Senator feels strongly enough about a nominee to block their nomination, that they come forward, explain their reasoning, and allow the people they work for to judge for themselves whether that is a valid reason to stop a nomination. In many instances, the people they work for may believe it is a valid reason and may applaud them for it. But if it needs to be secret, I don't know, I bet maybe they might not. Let's end the tradition. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I also, obviously, thank, once again, Senator Grassley. He has so many times been the conscience of this place for so many different reasons, so many different issues. I have greatly admired his work in the inspector general community. He has done so much with inspectors general to strengthen them, make sure they have independence. He has been a great champion for accountability and transparency in the Senate. I am proud he has worked as long as he has on trying to stop the tradition of secret holds. He and Senator Wyden get the lion's share of the credit that has been done on this issue over the years. We now have 43 Senators who are willing to say: Enough already. Now if we can just get a few more, we can nail the coffin shut on secret holds once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Absolutely. If someone is trying to leverage--I do not agree with it, but that is their right as a Senator--if they want to leverage a project in their State by saying to the administration: I won't let you have any nominees to go to work in that agency until that agency gives me what I want--that is their right. People should know about it. I don't think it would be very popular. People might have a problem with that. That is the beauty of the secret hold. They never have to tell that they are leveraging a nominee to get something they want out of an agency. That is why we need to end the secret hold. Simple.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Right.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the purpose of the consideration of Calendar No. 592, Mark R. Rosekind, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, and No. 787, Earl F. Weener, to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I came to the floor of the Senate last Tuesday to make 74 unanimous consent motions to trigger a law this body voted for by a vote of 96 to 2 back in January of 2007, and this law says that once a unanimous consent motion is made for a nomination, that people who are secretly holding the nomination must come out into the sunlight. The law requires that 6 days after that motion is made, whoever is holding the nominee must identify themselves and, in fact, that must be published in the Congressional Record. Tomorrow would be the day for publication for all the dozens of different nominees being held up by who knows who for who knows what reason. I wished to make sure the leaders of both parties were aware that this time had run and, today, I will ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to the minority leader and the majority leader acknowledging that the rule has been triggered, with the list of the various nominees, asking that they make sure the Members of their party have, in fact, come forward and identified themselves for the Record tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to Leader McConnell and Leader Reid be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, we have gone back and looked at the Executive Calendar from a historic perspective. At the beginning of this week, we had 84 pending nominations. At the exact same time in President Bush's Presidency, we had eight. That is what we call a lopsided score--84 to 8. Of the 49 nominations we have voted on as a body since President Obama took office, 38 of them were confirmed by more than 70 votes. That is a pretty lopsided margin. Twenty of them were confirmed by more than 90 votes. I am confident that if we took the time--which I think may be the desire of my friends on the other side--to file cloture and go through individual votes on all these nominees, the vast majority of them would receive those kinds of lopsided confirmations. This is a game we need to quit playing. The secret hold needs to end. I have written some colleagues of mine, including Senator Mark Warner and Senator Whitehouse, and we have composed a letter--and we asked our colleagues to sign it--saying we will no longer participate in the secret hold. No more secret holds for us. We don't need the law to tell us we only have 6 days to secretly hold. We have asked in the letter that the secret hold be abolished. There is not a good reason for it. There isn't. Why does anything such as that need to be a secret? It is something that needs to be done publicly. The people whom everyone works for need to know why they are holding up a nomination or blocking a bill. The secrecy needs to stop. You can hold somebody; it is your prerogative as a Senator to hold a nominee. Work against that nomination. Try to defeat them in committee. Keep in mind that all these nominees came out of committee without an objection--no objection in committee. If you want to object, that is your prerogative. Come out and tell the world why this is the wrong person for the job but don't hide. Don't hide. I will be watching with interest tomorrow the Congressional Record. I am very worried we are going to have the old switcharoo, which means if you withdraw your hold in 6 days, then you can hand it off to somebody else. You can say: I no longer have a secret hold, and then you whisper to your buddy: Why don't you do it now and then we will have 6 more days and then another 6 days. I wish to serve notice that I will be making these unanimous consent requests every time there is a secret hold, so anybody who does it is only going to have 6 days. Seriously, if we start the switcharoo and continue to go week after week without knowing who is holding these people or why, that is when people should get angry. That means they voted for a law that they had every intention of evading. People are mad enough at us. That is liable to get them over to the ``flat furious'' category if we go into that territory. I am hopeful this Congress will be the Congress where we end the secret hold. I wish to again acknowledge the work Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden have done for years. They have definitely tilled this ground, and they, in fact, put this in the law that we voted on in 2007. I compliment them for their work on this issue. We are continuing to work together on this issue. Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley are continuing to try to find a way to reform and make this place more open and transparent. I invite all my colleagues to sign the letter--Republican, Democratic, Independent. Sign the letter. We have 43 signatures. That means we are almost halfway there. If we can get to 60--we can move mountains here when we get that magic 60 number. I hope we can get to 60 by the end of next week. That means we will have more than a majority to say: I don't need a rule or a law; I am willing to make any hold I have open to public inspection. I wish to also make another unanimous consent request today. We have a very important function in government; that is, investigating accidents. We are getting ready to enter into the travel season. The National Transportation Safety Board is a very important body. In fact, they are going to be considering, in the next week, the ``miracle on the Hudson'' accident and the problem with aviation as it relates to the danger of birds and possible engine failure. In June, they will be investigating the tragic Metro accident here in Washington, when 9 people died. This is one of those boards where a Democrat and a Republican are both appointed. The Democrat has been waiting since last December, ostensibly, for the Republican. Dr. Earl Weener has been on the Executive Calendar for a number of weeks. Dr. Rosekind and Dr. Weener are needed on the NTSB. If any Member has a reason to recuse themselves, they would not have enough Members to go forward with these investigations. This is the kind of work that needs to be done. This is what people want the government to do. There is a lot of stuff the government does they don't want us doing. They want us to figure out what is going on with accidents in our transportation system and come up with answers so we can avoid these deadly accidents in the future. I think it is important, in light of that, that I go ahead and make another unanimous consent request to try to confirm these two people so they can begin working on the National Transportation Safety Board as we enter into the most heavily traveled period in America--the summer vacation months, when so many more Americans are traveling with their families.