Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 649, Islam A. Siddiqui, of Virginia, to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 648, Michael W. Punke, of Montana, to be a Deputy U.S. 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 at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 647, Jim R. Esquea, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services; 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. Regular order, but let me explain how this list was compiled.

Mrs. McCASKILL. By the way, just for the edification of the Senator from Arizona, there is one of these nominees on here who I believe is being secretly held by a Democrat. And by the way, I want to point out that the rule that does try to bring transparency to this process was one that was sponsored by Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley in a bipartisan way. The Wyden-Grassley effort that spanned a number of years was a bipartisan attempt to change and reform the way the Senate worked to provide more transparency. So this is really about transparency and this is about secret holds, and my criticism for secret holds is a bipartisan criticism. I don't think anybody should do a secret hold. I don't care if they are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or any other party label, secret holds have no place in a public body. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 501; that the nomination of Gloria Valencia-Weber of New Mexico, Legal Services Corporation, 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 any statements related to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 643, Steven L. Jacques, of Kansas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; 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. Yes, I will.

Mrs. McCASKILL. That is true. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 500, which is the nomination of Julie Reiskin, member of the LSC; 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 any statements relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. All of these nominees have secret holds. The purpose of my exercise today is to begin to enforce the rule around here that everybody voted for, with the exception of a handful of people, that we weren't going to do secret holds anymore. I am certainly aware that the leader supports us doing this; that the secret hold has brought the nomination process not only to a halt but, more importantly, it has done it without the public even understanding why.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 556; that the nomination be confirmed--that is, the nomination of Benjamin Tucker for the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon 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, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 640, Eric L. Hirschhorn, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; 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, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 628, Jill Long Thompson, of Indiana, to be a member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration; 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 rise today to talk not about obstructionism but, rather, about transparency and the rules. And the rule I am going to talk about is a rule that, in fact, we embraced in the last Congress. When I first came to the Senate, we embraced this rule by a vote; I think it was 92 to 6. We said we are going to change the way we do business around here when it comes to transparency. I thought it was a great moment. I was excited that we were making these bold changes about the way the Senate works, to open the doors and let the sun shine in. Imagine my disappointment some 2 years later when I realized that for many Members of this body, that was a meaningless exercise because in the area of secret holds, we are doing no better today than we were before we passed S. 1 in those early weeks of my time in the Senate, in 2007. Section 512 of that bill deals with secret holds. What we tried to do in that bill was to make sure that if a Senator wanted to oppose somebody, no problem; if he or she wanted to hold somebody, that is their right as a Senator. But own it. Own it. We are not here to be in a back room making a deal to leverage something for some kind of pork we may want in our district. What we are here to do is the people's business. If a Senator has an objection to a nominee, they should tell the public they have an objection and, frankly, they owe the public an explanation as to why. We are here working for them. We are doing the people's business here. We are not doing some backroom deal. We are doing the people's business. So transparency is what this is about today, and section 512 lays out the exact steps that are necessary in order to make sure all of the holds become public. The process begins pretty simply: by someone making a unanimous consent request to move the nomination. When that motion is made, then the Senator who has the secret hold must submit a notice of intent specifying the reasons for the hold, and within 6 days that must be printed in the Congressional Record. Why do Senators hold secretly? Well, I can't think of a good reason. I mean, sometimes it is that they want to slow things down, and they do not want to be honest about it. Sometimes it is that they want to leverage it for a deal in their State from that agency, and they do not want to be forthcoming about that. That seems a little unseemly, to say: I am going to block an unrelated nomination in order to get a deal. And that is the kind of stuff people are sick of. That is the kind of stuff they do not want us to do anymore. They want us to be upfront. If a Senator wants to block a nomination in an agency because that agency is not doing their will, then they need to be proud of that. Here is the tricky part about this rule. Once the motion is made and therefore the clock starts ticking and a Member has to admit they have a secret hold and they have to own that hold, then what they can do is, before the 6 days, they can withdraw their hold, and that is when we start seeing an imitation of the World Wrestling Federation tag-team match. That is when another Senator comes in and tags up and says: Well, I will do a secret hold now. And then a motion is once again made, and guess what. That Senator backs out after 6 days and somebody else takes his or her place with the secret hold. So we get secret holds forever, ad nauseam--secret hold, secret hold, secret hold. So I come to the floor today to begin the running of the clock. We have over 80 nominations pending. In a comparable time in the Bush administration, we had five. We have around 80. I am now going to begin to make a motion on these 80. Why this particular group? I will tell you why this particular group. No objection has been made to these nominees in committee. Let me say that again. Every single one of the names I am going to move this morning had no objection in committee. So we have literally had every Member of this body on one of these other committees, and nobody objected. Nobody said a word. So right now, it is very difficult for the public to figure out why all these important nominees are not moving forward. Vote no. I am sure there have been nominees on whom I have voted no. There is a nominee on whom I put a hold. I put a hold on a nominee, but I was very upfront and put in the record at committee why I put a hold. I wrote a letter on why I put a hold. I wanted everyone to know why this nominee was being held. I thought it was an important part of my duty as a Senator to explain why I was doing what I was doing. So vote no. Hold a nominee. But don't do it under cover of darkness unless you have something to be ashamed of. If a Senator has something to be ashamed of, then they can do the tag team. The law lets them do it. They can just keep playing tag and getting another secret hold and then tag off again and get another secret hold. If we want to know why the country doesn't trust us, it is because of this kind of nonsense, these kinds of secret hold shenanigans or, as my mother would say, this poodle dog. That is her word for nonsense. I don't think she means to insult all the poodle owners in the world, but it is a good phrase--poodle dog--for what this is. It is nonsense. Mr. President, when I have 1 minute left, if you will notify me, I will begin making the motions on these people whose nominations are being secretly held by Senators and who are not being allowed their time to even respond to whatever might be the secret reason why they are being held. Nomination of Stuart Gordon Nash to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 333; 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, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 404, the nomination of Warren Miller, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy; 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 any statements relating to the nominee be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, earlier today I came to the floor to talk about transparency and the bright sunshine of public service and how foundational it is to that service being open. It is impossible to do the people's business if we do not allow the people to see what we are doing. I remember sound and fury coming from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle when they believed there were decisions being made about the health care bill behind closed doors, sound and fury that somehow someone wasn't telling the public everything that was going on. Meanwhile, dozens and dozens of nominees to do the work of our government have piled up under the heading of a ``secret hold.'' I don't really understand how the secret hold came about. I don't really understand why one would ever need a hold to be secret. Why does it need to be a secret? Is there something going on that you are not proud of? Is there a problem you don't want people to find out about? I have to tell my colleagues, I kind of admire the Senator from Louisiana, who boldly spoke out that he is holding a general and not allowing this general to get another star, after a unanimous vote of the Armed Services Committee, because he wants a special project for his State that hasn't been authorized and hasn't been appropriated-- bold but not unheard of, unfortunately, around here. People are constantly making deals for pork. Pork is an important part of the dealmaking around this place. Way too much of it goes on behind closed doors. But at least the Senator from Louisiana and I think earlier the Senator from Alabama--at least they were willing to publicly say they were holding a nominee because they wanted some pork for their States. What I am most worried about is how many people out there are holding these nominees for secret reasons, and there are secret negotiations going on about what they want to get in order to release the hold. That is what everyone should be uncomfortable with. Because we were uncomfortable with it, the Senate passed a bill. We passed a bill that was signed into law by President Bush, and I think this bill was passed 90-something to 4. In that bill, in section 512, it lays out what we thought was going to be an end to the secret hold. In the bill, it says that once someone makes a unanimous-consent request for a nomination to proceed, then that is the starting gun. The clock begins ticking. In that law, it says that when the motion is made, the Member of the Senate who has a secret hold must notify their party leader of the reasons why the nomination is being held; further, that the hold must be published, and the reasons for it, in the Congressional Record within 6 days. Well, this morning I began the process of making that clock tick so that secret holds come out in the open where we can all identify them. Keep in mind that all of the names I am trying to begin the clock ticking for under secret holds came out of committee without an objection. In fact, we even went so far as to go back in the record and see if there was a voice vote, and even if there was a voice vote against the nominee, we didn't include them in this list. So these literally are people who have been nominated to do important things in our government, such as putting criminals in jail, sitting on the bench, moving prisoners around the country, an ambassador to a country that is incredibly important to the stability of the Middle East and our national security. All of these people have not had anyone speaking out in opposition to them. Yet they are held in secret. So it is important to begin this process so that Senators can proudly explain what exactly--I think there are many examples, probably, of what the Senator from Louisiana was trying to do. The man he is holding has nothing to do with the project he wants. The man he is holding can't even deliver the project he wants. He is just telling that agency: You are not going to get what you want until I get what I want. I have to tell my colleagues that is not the way the American people want this place run. While the vast majority of these are secret holds by our friends from across the aisle, there are also a handful that are being held by Democrats, and that is just as wrong. This is a bipartisan issue. It is about good government, transparency, and doing the people's business in public instead of in secret. I wish to clarify a point made earlier today in an exchange I had with the Senator from Arizona. The Senator asked why I did not include Calendar No. 208, John Sullivan, a member of the FEC, on my list. As I stated earlier, my list consists of those nominees who have secret holds. It is my understanding that the Democratic Senator from Wisconsin raised his objection to Mr. Sullivan publicly and put out a public statement on his opposition to Mr. Sullivan on June 30, 2009. If any of these names I am going to proceed to try to get unanimous consent on--if any Member has, in fact, put out a public statement on their opposition, then obviously they just need to speak up. That is what we are looking for here. We are looking for people to speak and own up to their objection. There is nothing wrong with holding a nominee if you have an objection. There is something wrong if it is secret. There is nothing wrong with debating a nominee. There is if it is secret. There is nothing wrong with voting no on a nominee. That is public. It is the secrecy we have to get at here. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 652, the nomination of Michael Mundaca, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; 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. In the spirit of moving things along and getting cooperation to move things along, which I hope is something that becomes a trend, I will be happy to read off all the names and then make the motion en bloc, with one objection to be heard for the record, and we hopefully will get letters flowing into the office from the persons having secret holds. I will begin to read the names: Calendar No. 729, Jon E. DeGuilo, to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Indiana; Calendar No. 730, Audrey Goldstein Fleissig, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri; Calendar No. 731, Lucy Haeran Koh, to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California; Calendar No. 732, Tanya Walton Pratt, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Indiana; Calendar No. 740, Marilyn A. Brown, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority; Calendar No. 741, William B. Sansom, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority; Calendar No. 742, Neil G. McBride, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority; Calendar No. 743, Barbara Short Haskew, to be a member of the board of directors, Tennessee Valley Authority; Calendar No. 759, Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, to be U.S. district judge for the Souther District of Indiana; Calendar No. 775, Brian Anthony Jackson, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Louisiana; Calendar No. 776, Elizabeth Erny Foote, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Louisiana; Calendar No. 777, Mark A. Goldsmith, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan; Calendar No. 778, Marc Treadwill, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Georgia; Calendar No. 779, Josephine Staton Tucker, to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California; Calendar No. 780, William N. Nettles, to be U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina; Calendar No. 781, Wilfredo A. Ferrer, to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Calendar No. 782, Michael Peter Huerta, to be Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; Calendar No. 783, David T. Matsuda, to be Administrator, Maritime Administration; Calendar No. 784, Michael F. Tillman, to be member, Marine Mammal Commission; Calendar No. 785, Daryl J. Boness, to be member, Marine Mammal Commission, reappointment; Calendar No. 787, Earl F. Weener, member, National Transportation Safety Board; Calendar No. 788, Jeffrey R. Moreland, to be director, Amtrak board of directors; Calendar No. 789, Larry Robinson, to be Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce. Calendar No. 790, VADM Robert J. Papp, Jr., to be Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of admiral; Calendar No. 791, RADM Sally Brice-O'Hare, to be Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral; Calendar No. 792, RADM Manson K. Brown, to be Commander, Pacific Area of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral; Calendar No. 793, RADM Robert C. Parker, to be Commander, Atlantic Area of the U.S. Coast Guard and to the grade of vice admiral; Calendar No. 794, Arthur Allen Elkins, inspector general, Environmental Protection Agency; Calendar No. 795, David A. Capp, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana; Calendar No. 796, Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina; Calendar No. 797, Kelly McDade Nesbit, U.S. marshal for the Western District of North Carolina; Calendar No. 798, Peter Christopher Munoz, U.S. marshal for the Western District of Michigan; Calendar No. 799, Carolyn Hessler Radelet, Deputy Director of the Peace Corps; Calendar No. 800, Elizabeth Littlefield, president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; Calendar No. 801, Lana Pollack, to be Commissioner on the part of the United States on the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada; Calendar No. 802, Victor H. Ashe, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 803, Walter Isaacson to be a member and chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 805, Michael Lynton, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 806, Susan McCue, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 807, Dennis Mulhaupt, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 808, S. Enders Wimbush, member, Broadcasting Board of Governors; Calendar No. 809, Bisa Williams, Ambassador to the Republic of Niger; Calendar No. 810, Raul Yzaguirre, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic; Calendar No. 811, Theodore Sedgwick, Ambassador to the Slovak Republic; Calendar No. 812, Robert Stephen Ford, Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic; Calendar No. 814, Gary Scott Feinerman, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Calendar No. 815, Sharon Johnson Coleman, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Calendar No. 816, Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Calendar No. 817, Noel Culver March, U.S. marshal for the District of Maine; Calendar No. 818, George White, U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Mississippi; Calendar No. 819, Brian Todd Underwood, U.S. marshal for the District of Idaho. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the calendar numbers as read; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 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 nominees be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Pardon me while I consider the irony that the assistant leader of the other party wants to save time. I find that slightly ironic under the circumstances of how many of these nominations have been blocked up all these months. Having said that, it is my understanding that this law requires the motion to be made on each individual. I don't want there to be any question as to whether each individual unanimous-consent request has been made, so that everyone understands that the clock is ticking. I think it is very important that there is a very clear signal. I don't believe this procedure has ever been undertaken before under the new law we passed in January of 2007. I want to make sure after the fact-- because I am worried that perhaps somebody is going to think if we didn't make the request, they can tag team and withdraw their secret hold and put another one in. I am trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 728, the nomination of Gloria M. Navarro, to be U.S. district judge for the District of Nevada; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 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 nomination be printed in the Record as if read.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 726, the nomination of Patricia A. Hoffman, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 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 nominee be printed in the Record as if read.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 722, the nomination of Judith Ann Stewart Stock, to be Assistant Secretary of State; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 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 nomination be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I appreciate my friend's comments. I understand he is not someone making secret holds, and he is objecting on behalf of others. There is not a problem with that. I want to make the point that, under the law, it is technically not a hold until this unanimous- consent request is made. So there is no obligation under the law for someone to identify their hold until this request is made. I would think that after these requests are made, everybody will be on notice to follow the law and stop with the secret hold business because it is going to slow us down to have to constantly come to the floor and make these unanimous-consent requests. Wouldn't it make more sense for everybody to own it, if they are going to stop somebody's life--a lot of these people have given up other jobs and are out there in limbo. Wouldn't it make more sense to own it and not go through these games? At this time in the Bush administration we had five backed up. We have 80-some now. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 705, the nomination of James P. Lynch, to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics; that the nomination be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that any statements regarding the nomination be printed in the Record as if read.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, when someone fails to clear someone they are holding--and they have a right to do that--this is not a debate over whether people have a right to hold. I assure the Senator from Arizona that the leader is very aware these motions are being made. These motions are being made simply for the purpose to allow the rule to operate the way we wrote the law. We have a bad habit. I can just whisper into somebody's ear and hold a nomination. That is why we put these provisions in the law--to stop the bad habit of somebody saying: If you give me that bill, I will let that guy go or, if you give me that levee, I will let that guy go or, if you give me something I want, I will let the guy go. That is why this law was written--to stop the bad habit of somebody being able to stop a nomination without having to say why or even who. So this is only an attempt--this is not to say all of these nominees will go through. I am not naive. I know they all will not move through this afternoon by unanimous consent, but this is notice to the American people that we are going to try to begin to enforce the law we wrote. It has been pointed out to me: Well, you didn't put an enforcement mechanism in there. Do we have to make it a misdemeanor for a Senator to claim a hold? Do we have to say you can go to jail if you don't identify your hold? You would think that Senators passing by a large margin and signed by a Republican President of 90-some to something, that that alone would be enough that people would, in fact-- I would hope the people I named this morning--the people holding them have already notified the Senator from Arizona or the Senator from Kentucky that they are, in fact, the ones holding these nominations and why. This is the only purpose of this exercise--to make the law work that we voted for, that I am confident the Senator from Arizona voted for, and that the leader from Kentucky voted for and the entire Republican leadership voted for.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, finishing up, hopefully, we do not have to do this again. Hopefully, we have turned a page on a new day and secret holds are going to go away. Let me once again give kudos to Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley. They worked on this issue for years trying to clean up secret holds and thought they got it done when we passed S. 1 back in 2007. Similar to a bad habit that is hard to break, this one evidently has been very hard to break in the numbers I just went through. Those are all the people who have secret holds right now. Hopefully, by the end of the week, we will learn who it is in the Senate who does not want them to be nominated, who it is who does not want them to be confirmed, and that they are willing to speak out about their objections so we can answer them, move forward, and get these people to work for the people of this great country.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. will meet on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, at 4:00 p.m., to conduct its organization meeting. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Derron Parks on 202-224-6154.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I move to reconsider the vote.