January 1, 2013/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

= Congressional Record (raw) = undefined

Call to order
Page: S8611

Page: S8611

The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the (.

Page: S8611

Page: S8611

The majority leader is recognized.

It is so good to see the Presiding Officer presiding.

S8611

After leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

We are awaiting the House to do something on the cliff, we hope. We have Sandy to deal with, and we are waiting on that. We have a series of executive nominations that we need to clear today.

H.R. 459
Page: S8611

Madam President, I am told H.R. 459 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

The clerk will report the bill by title for the second time.

Madam President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to any further proceedings.

Objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar.

Madam President, what is the business of the day?

Page: S8611

Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

= =

Page: S8611

Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m., for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask to speak in morning business.

The Senator is recognized.

The Fiscal Cliff
Page: S8611

Madam President, it was after 2 a.m. this morning when the Senate finally passed this historic measure which puts the fiscal cliff behind us, ififthe House of Representatives follows through and passes it as well. I hope they take it up today or as quickly as possible and pass it with the same bipartisan spirit and vote we saw on the floor of the Senate last night. If I am not mistaken, the final vote was 89 to 8, which was a significant bipartisan vote.

It was a moment of high emotion in the Senate for several reasons. First, on a personal level, many of our colleagues were casting their final vote as Senators. Those who are leaving the Senate gathered in the well and we wished them the best. It was also a moment of high emotion because I cannot think of another vote in recent times the American people followed so closely. I couldn't sit down on an airplane or at a restaurant in Chicago without having somebody come up to me and say: What is going to happen? They were very concerned, as they should have been, because the so-called fiscal cliff is a threat to our economic recovery and one that, I believe, finally mobilized the majority necessary to pass this measure in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

The President showed extraordinary leadership on this matter. I know he was personally invested in it. He thought about it long and hard. He left his family vacation, which he looks forward to, and even more so after the campaign, to come back to Washington and try to put together a solution to this fiscal crisis. He was successful in the Senate, and I hope he will be in the House as well.

The President also had the able efforts of his Vice President, Joe Biden, to help in this effort. Last night, Vice President Biden came back to his home, the Senate, where he served for 36 years, and spoke to the Senate Democrats about the importance of this vote. It was for almost an hour and a half on New Year's Eve, somewhat surreal, as we gathered--some away from their spouses for the first time in decades--for this important vote, and for an hour and a half we spoke and asked questions of the Vice President and expressed our feelings. We could sense during the course of that meeting an emerging consensus among the Democratic Senators. In the end, all but three of the Democratic Senators voted in favor of this measure.

There are parts of the bill many of us disagree with even today, but we understand it is the nature of compromise that part of what we have to accept may not be popular, but we have to be willing to compromise to solve problems. When we look at the issues before us, I think we made some significant progress. The most significant progress was to protect 98 percent of American families from any tax increase. If the Senate measure is approved in the House, we will see 98 percent of American families spared a tax increase today.

The vast majority of working families, middle-income families, struggle. They live paycheck to paycheck. The Pew Institute did a survey within the last year or two asking working families a very basic question: If an emergency came up, could you find $2,000, borrow or find $2,000 to meet an emergency need? Two thousand dollars is not an extraordinary amount of money until we consider that a simple trip to the emergency room or urgent care clinic could result in a $2,000 medical bill. They asked working families, and barely half of American families had access to $2,000. That tells us how close to the edge so many families live.

Had we not acted on this measure early this morning, these middle-income families would have faced an increase in their taxes of more than $2,000 a year. That is not only in Illinois and California but across the Nation. So we had to come together to protect those families.

That was the starting point for the President's position on this issue and the starting point for the Democrats. We passed, 6 months ago in this Chamber, a measure which would have protected these families. We sent it to the House. They never called it, and we had to renew our efforts last night, and successfully we were able to achieve that by the end of the evening.

We had to bargain, as usual, in the political atmosphere and had to raise the exemption from $250,000 of family income to $450,000 of family income. But, in so doing, we have protected working families from this tax increase which otherwise would have taken place. These families need the resources to not only meet the bills they face each month but to try to save a little bit for the future, for their families, and for some of their own dreams about a better life.

So that was the important first step in this package that was passed early this morning.

The other thing that was part of it was a 5-year extension--I wish it had been permanent--but a 5-year extension on the Recovery Act expansion of the earned-income tax credit. The earned-income tax credit is a measure passed during the Reagan administration which said we would give working families a tax benefit for working: the earned-income tax credit. That is probably, as President Reagan described it, the best way to eliminate and reduce poverty in our Nation. So the Recovery Act expansion of the earned-income tax credit has been extended for 5 years.

The child tax credit, which does exactly what it says--it says to families with children: We will give you a tax credit to help you raise those children--that, too, was renewed for another 5 years at the enhanced Recovery Act level. And a provision in the law, which was added by Senator Schumer of New York years ago, which helps working families to pay for college education, that, too, was included in this measure.

So from a working family perspective, there were many good and important elements that were included in this measure.

We also considered a lot of other tax measures, some of which I liked and some I did not like. One of them in particular, the estate tax, is a tax that is widely misunderstood. This is a tax which applies to a very small fraction of a percentage of American families that when the breadwinner passes away have a valuable estate that can be subject to Federal taxation. It is a very small percentage. Some 3 percent might be affected by an estate tax. At the higher levels that we have discussed in our debate on this issue, less than 1 percent of estates end up paying any tax whatsoever to the Federal Government.

The Republicans insisted on a provision which Senator Kyl of Arizona had been championing for years, which would raise the exemption for estates to over $5 million, which means a $5.1 million estate would not be subject to any taxation, and over that amount would be subject to a 40-percent tax responsibility.

I personally think it should have been a lower figure. We are dealing with the wealthiest people in America, again, and many of them make plans, estate planning, to avoid this tax throughout their lives, and it turns out that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of those who use this benefit are actually small businesses or farmers. Most of them are very wealthy people who have done well.

I can think of a friend of mine in central Illinois. Her father was a farmer and started with very modest means, bought some land, and over time the land has mushroomed in value to the point where his estate is worth multimillions of dollars. She will have an estate that is huge far beyond what she could imagine, and she would be subject to this tax. She is not a farmer. I do not think she has ever been on a tractor, unless she did as a child, and it is an asset which would be subject to the estate tax.

So we have reached an agreement, albeit a reluctant agreement, to establish this estate tax exemption of $5.1 million, subject to a tax beyond that of 40 percent.

There were many other provisions related to the Tax Code, some of them very esoteric, but that was an important starting point, protecting working families, protecting the deductions and credits they need the most, and making certain we have revenue coming in from this. We anticipate some $600 billion in new revenue coming in to help reduce our deficit as a result of this.

We also have something in law which the Acting President pro tempore and I talked about for a moment: the alternative minimum tax. There was a time when they took a look at America and said: How can this possibly be that some of the wealthiest people pay no taxes? So we established something called an alternative minimum tax, which said: If under the regular Tax Code you escape all tax liability, you are going to be subject to the alternative minimum tax, where you will pay something.

Well, it was not a bad idea 30 or 40 years ago when the debate started. But because we did not index the income that was associated with it, over the years, this alternative minimum tax hit not only the wealthy, but it started hitting those in middle-income categories. So each year we had to kind of postpone the impact of this tax on middle-income families--let's say, families in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. This has been vexing us for decades.

Last night, in the Senate--or this morning, in the Senate--with the passage of this legislation, we have dealt with the problem once and for all. We have a permanent fix on the alternative minimum tax. It is something I am sure most American families are probably puzzled over, but it is an important element in getting this behind us which was critically important as well.

We also managed to extend the doc fix. What is that all about? Over 10 years ago, we said we are going to save some money in Medicare. We are just going to take a little percentage cut each year in how much we would pay doctors and hospitals who treat Medicare patients; therefore, we will reduce the cost of Medicare and be done with it.

Well, guess what. We had a great idea, but when it came to imposing the law, the doctors and hospitals pushed back and said: Wait a minute. We need this compensation for our care of Medicare patients. Therefore, we postponed it. Every year we postponed it, what we were supposed to save we had to come up with from other sources. The so-called doc fix, SGR, is another one like the alternative minimum tax, which has haunted us as we have done these budgets year in and year out. We did not solve this problem permanently.

We solved it for 1 year. Otherwise, what would have happened is, starting today, doctors and hospitals would have seen a reduction of over 25 percent in their government reimbursement for treating patients. The net result would have been, in Springfield and Chicago, IL, and across the Nation--in Ohio and California--many doctors and hospitals would have said: We can no longer afford to treat these patients, and the people--the 50 million-plus Americans who depend on Medicare--would have had fewer choices for treatment. So we have resolved that issue. In the early morning hours, with this vote, for 1 year we have solved that problem.

Another thing we have done, which is critically important, is extend unemployment benefits for 1 year. Two million Americans--2 million--would have lost their unemployment benefits this morning as a result of this so-called fiscal cliff if we had not taken action.

I can tell you that it means an awful lot in my State of Illinois. As I mentioned, 2 million on a nationwide basis, but we also have 88,000 in my own State who face the same basic problem. These are people who have been out of work for a long time. Some of them are in school. Some are taking courses for retraining. All are trying to keep their family together, not lose their home while they are unemployed.

So the extension of these unemployment benefits was the President's second highest priority, after protecting middle-income Americans, and it was included in this package. It is an important element.

One last point. When you ask the Congressional Budget Office: If you had to spend one tax dollar to help the economy, where would you spend it, they will tell you over and over again, it is clear: Unemployment benefits. The $1 you spend on unemployment benefits goes directly back into the economy. These people are not salting it away for a rainy day. They are not investing it. They are spending it on goods and services to get by--utility bills and rent and mortgage payments and food and clothing, the basics of life.

As they spend it back into the economy, it is respent. So each $1 has kind of a multiplier effect behind it of $1.60, ultimately, into the economy. So not only is it the humane and right thing to do for those who are out of work and struggling, but it is also a good thing for boosting economic growth. That is an important part.

One of the real disappointments last night--and I have to tell you, it really is sad that it has come to this--relates to the farm bill. We have a chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Past chairmen who are serving here all acknowledge, as we do, she has done such an extraordinary job. Her leadership in constructing a farm bill this year was masterful.

I have been around Congress for 30 years--the House and Senate. You can pick out the real legislators, and Debbie Stabenow is a real legislator. She sat down and crafted a farm bill.

Now, you may not think of Michigan as a farm State; it is. And she looked at this bill in terms of its entirety. In its entirety, the farm bill is about more than farmers and ranchers. It is also about nutrition and food programs and school lunch and food stamps. They are all included in this bill.

She tackled it with the ranking Republican member, Pat Roberts of Kansas, and came up with an amazing work product. She had over 63 votes in the Senate for this farm bill--bipartisan support for this farm bill.

Let me tell you what it did. We not only ended up with a bill that had the support of every major farm organization, which is no mean feat, it saved over $23 billion in deficit reduction in 5 years. She went after some of the indefensible programs, such as the direct payment program to farmers, which they readily acknowledged needed to go away, took those programs aside and put the money to deficit reduction.

She went to the nutrition programs, which are critically important in a struggling economy, with families facing income inequality, and she protected those. Those are important to me, and I have worked with her, and I think we came up with an honest, balanced approach when it came to nutrition programs.

We passed the bill. We passed it months ago in the Senate, and we sent it to the House of Representatives. They not only could not pass their own farm bill--never did--but they would not even consider calling the bipartisan Senate bill. The farm organizations were begging them: Call it. We need a 5-year program on farming. They would not do it. They never did it.

So there was a lot of frustration over here that we did good work on a bill, the House could not put a bill on the floor, and would not take up our bill.

The thing that brought it together, incidentally, at the last minute--why it was included in this emergency package--it turns out that under the law, if we do not pass a new farm bill, we revert to the 1949 farm bill. Talk about going back in history and picking up a law which has little application to today's world, that is what happens. One particular issue jumped off the page: dairy support.

Now, last night I bid farewell to Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. I am going to miss him more than most people can imagine because Herb Kohl spent the time and understood America's dairy program.

Madam President, I confess, I do not understand this program. Vaguely, yes; but if it was on the final, I would flunk. So I used to go, on dairy issues, to Senator Kohl. Wisconsin dairy farmers and Illinois dairy farmers always saw eye to eye.

I said: HERB, you are my dairy expert. You tell me. You are my adviser. Well, HERB is retiring. I will need a new adviser. But we found out that if we had not passed a new farm bill, and reverted to the 1949 dairy program, the price of milk would double to $10 a gallon. That, to me, was unacceptable. It was unacceptable to the White House. As a result, we had to come through with an emergency measure to avoid that possibility.

We should have taken the bipartisan Senate farm bill. Senator Stabenow begged for us to do this, could not get that into the negotiation.

I will say one thing that really disappointed me last night. At the last minute, they had one aspect of the dairy program they needed to take care of. It costs $60 million to $100 million.

We needed to find a pay-for and, unfortunately, the other side of the aisle insisted that the pay-for for this dairy support come from the Federal Food Stamp Program. That is just--that is sad. We had so much waste in our agriculture programs that we identified in our farm bill. The fact that they would turn to the Federal Food Stamp Program, the SNAP program, to come up with this money, to me, is difficult to understand, explain or defend. I am saddened by that. I guarantee we will return to that.

What we did in the early morning hours is important for us. It isn't the end of the story. There is more we will face. In 60 days, if we don't take care, we are going to face another cliff of our own making because in 60 days three things come together.

The debt ceiling, what is the debt ceiling? America's mortgage. When we spend money for a war, for the Department of Agriculture, whatever it happens to be, ultimately, we borrow 40 cents for every $1 we spend. So every President is forced to renew the mortgage, the debt ceiling of the United States.

I think of President Ronald Reagan. It was done over and over again many times without even a record vote. But now it has become a political hot potato, and in a matter of 60 days or so we will be facing another need to renew America's mortgage. In other words, this is the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, and that is going to be contentious, a matter of debate.

At the same time, the continuing resolution, our temporary spending bill, expires. At the same time, the sequestration kicks in, which is automatic spending cuts. So we will have, in 60 days, if the House follows the Senate lead on the fiscal cliff, another challenge. Let us hope we have learned a lesson from this one.

The American people are sick and tired of incompetence, political posturing, and failure of Congress to come together on a bipartisan basis to solve a problem and they want us to get the problem solved and get this Nation moving forward.

In the early morning hours in the Senate, we finally achieved it. It should have been done long ago, I understand, but we achieved it. Now I hope the House will do the same, follow the Senate example, and 60 days from now we can approach this problem in a sober, honest, mature way instead of a partisan fashion. That is what the American people expect.

I took a look, incidentally, at the specific impact of this morning's vote on my State of Illinois. For the record, over 5 million Illinois families will be spared a tax increase under the agreement we passed in the early morning hours. Many of them, almost all of them, the working families whom I described earlier, without an agreement, the average family in Illinois would have faced an increase in taxes of more than $2,000.

Half a million families in my State will continue to receive college tuition tax credits, making it easier to send their kids to college. This could be as much as $1,000 of assistance each year, which I am sure is a helping hand.

Also, 1.5 million Illinois families raising children will continue to benefit from the child tax credit, a yearly savings of about $1,000, on average, for each of these Illinois families with kids. Working families in Illinois will continue to receive the earned-income tax credit. Over 230,000 Illinois families benefited from that tax credit last year.

More than 1 million Illinois taxpayers are protected from an increase in taxes under the alternative minimum tax, which I mentioned earlier. Thousands of Illinois children will continue to have access to school readiness programs such as Head Start. Low-income families will continue to benefit from low-income home energy programs, LIHEAP.

The deal, the agreement, protects funding for nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children and prenatal care, so we can have more healthy babies and healthy moms. The elderly, disabled, low-income families and veterans will continue to receive housing assistance. Over 88,000 Illinoisans will continue to receive the unemployment benefits I mentioned earlier, and Illinois businesses will benefit from more than $8.5 billion in consumer spending by middle-class families, families spending more on goods and services at a time when we desperately need this in our economy.

Let me say one last word. I have been involved in this deficit discussion for a long period of time. This is not a deficit-reduction measure, period. It does reduce it in some aspects, but the arcane scoring by the Congressional Budget Office will not give us any credit for reducing the deficit. We do have more revenue coming in toward deficit reduction, but some of the other measures I mentioned would be scored as expenditures.

Having said that, we still have a deficit issue. We still have a deficit problem.

What we tried to establish this morning in this vote is revenue has to be part of every solution on deficit reduction. The other side of the aisle reluctantly, after years of resisting, came to our side in the early morning hours. That is No. 1.

No. 2, we need to take an honest look at entitlements. Here are what the facts are. Social Security untouched, unamended, unchanged will make every promised payment for 20 years. We can't say that about any other Federal program, 20 years of payments, with cost-of-living adjustments every single year. But on the 21st year there will be a dropoff of 30 percent in terms of Social Security benefits. We have 20 years. We can wait. We can wait 5, 10 or 15 years to do something or we can do it soon, maybe even this year, 2013. That is what I would like to see.

I am preparing legislation to be introduced shortly, which will call for the creation of a commission with a very simple assignment, come up with a plan for 75-year solvency of Social Security. When they have it, and it has been certified to be a valid plan, report it to Congress to be considered, without debate--I shouldn't say without debate--without filibuster, without delay. When it comes to the floor, any Member who can offer a substitute amendment that achieves 75 years' solvency may also call their measure at the same time. Let us have a chance to have this debate and make sure we have solvency for Social Security that will affect not only all our lives but the lives of our children and beyond. That, to me, is the responsible thing to do.

Medicare is much tougher. Medicare goes broke in 12 years--12 years. Why? Because, lo and behold, today, 10,000 Americans reached the age of 65, and 10,000 reached that age yesterday and will tomorrow and for the next 10 or 15 years. The baby boomers have arrived.

We knew it was coming. But as they show up, their demands for services that they have paid for and invested in throughout their working lives are going to continue to grow. Those people who say: There is too much government spending; we have to stop the government spending, I want to ask them: So are you going to say to the millions of Americans who paid into Social Security for a lifetime, paid into Medicare for a lifetime, that we are going to walk away from our obligations? Of course not.

What we have to do on Medicare is find a way to meet this growing population with demands and the mushrooming costs of health care. We can do it. There are ways to save money, humane ways to save money and protect the integrity and the future of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I think the President's ObamaCare, as it has been characterized, or Affordable Care Act, is a step in that direction, but we need to do more when it comes to Medicare.

I see my friend and colleague from Ohio on the floor. I yield to him and thank him for his friendship and his leadership on these important issues.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Ohio.

The Fiscal Cliff
I thank the senior Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader.

I concur in the remarks Senator Durbin just made, especially about the vote last night. The primary thing we did was we spared that $2,000 tax increase for so many families in California, Illinois, Ohio, and across this country. I remember the Presiding Officer telling a group of us last night how many hundreds of thousands of Californians would have lost their unemployment insurance if we had not acted last night the way we did.

My fundamental criteria on voting on this issue and voting for this issue was we were able successfully to stop cuts in Social Security to pay for some of this plan or raising the retirement age for Medicare or not doing the unemployment insurance in the way we did. So all those were victories last night.

I also concur with Senator Durbin that while adding 5 years to the earned-income tax credit, locking in one of the best poverty-fighting programs to be begun by Ronald Reagan, suggested, I believe, by Milton Friedman--supported by both parties for many years--we are not seeing that the way we used to with the earned-income tax credit. It rewards families that work, a family making $30,000 a year. This is not a whole lot more than the minimum wage, $3 or $4 more, maybe, than the minimum wage but not a livable wage, and they get significant tax credits. This is sort of what Friedman called a negative income tax, and this works so well for encouraging work in this country.

We did that only for 5 years, while bringing the estate tax up to a $5 million exemption, which I thought was far too generous because it is only paid by far fewer than 1 percent of the American people. That was made permanent while the earned-income tax credit was only made for 5 years.

The tax credit for college students, for families, was so important in this legislation too. Much of what we did was simply ask the wealthy to pay a little bit more, to bring tax rates, as the Presiding Officer knows, back to the levels of the 1990s.

I think it is important to put this in a little historical perspective. In the 1990s, tax rates were a little bit higher for upper income people. We saw in those 8 years in the 1990s, from 1993 to 2000--the Presiding Officer's first year in the Senate, 1993, my first year in the House--we saw incredible economic growth. Wages went up for the average American, average Ohioan, average Californian, average American. We saw 21 million private sector net jobs created, and President Clinton left office with the largest budget surplus in American history.

We know what happened the next 8 years, where we saw very little economic growth, only about 1 million--being generous--only about 1 million private sector net jobs created in those 8 years.

In what hit my State particularly hard, we saw a real decline in manufacturing. From 2000 to 2010, we lost, in this country, net, 5 million manufacturing jobs--manufacturing jobs. Maybe people who dress like this around here don't think much about that. I know the Presiding Officer does because her State is the No. 1 manufacturing State in the country.

It is especially important in my State. We lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. While we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs nationally, tens of thousands--I believe 60,000 is the number--of manufacturing plants closed in those 10 years.

But the good news is that since the auto rescue, we have seen what is beginning to be significant manufacturing job growth, some 500,000 new manufacturing jobs since 2010. Almost every month--not quite every month but almost every month--an increase in manufacturing jobs. We know what a manufacturing job does in a community. For workers earning $20 or $25 an hour, that worker is spending money in that community. That worker is buying things, buying a home, buying a car, putting people to work creating jobs at restaurants and creating jobs at the hardware store. Those workers are paying property taxes to hire teachers and paying the local city income tax to hire firefighters and police. So we know what manufacturing jobs do as we see that increase.

In fact, since the auto rescue, in my State, the unemployment rate went from 10.6 percent soon after the auto rescue sort of took effect, if you will, and now the unemployment rate is under 7 percent. It is not what it ought to be, but I think that is what last night's vote, ultimately, was a recognition of; that the people here with this 89-to-8 vote--89 votes yes, 8 votes no, with strong bipartisan support, which I hope we see this afternoon in the House--I think it was a recognition that we don't grow the economy by tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down economics. We tried that in the last decade. It didn't work. We understand, historical evidence shows--and I think we recognized it last night--by focusing on the middle class, tax cuts for the middle class, investments in schools, and investments in infrastructure and unemployment insurance for people who have lost their job, keeping Social Security and Medicare strong, investing in college credits, and rewarding work through the earned-income tax credit, we grow the economy from the middle class out. That succeeded in the 1990s. There were 20 million-plus new manufacturing jobs. Trickle down didn't do so well the 10 years after.

Now we are coming back and recognizing, with this overwhelming vote last night, both parties are recognizing we grow the economy from the middle class out.

I think that is why last night was a huge victory, surely, politically for the President. But what it was a victory for, truly, was a victory for the middle class and a victory for those who want to join, aspire to the middle class, and a victory for this country, for our economy, for our economic growth and for our future.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Wyoming.

Rules Changes
Page: S8615

Madam President, we are busy patting ourselves on the back for avoiding the fiscal cliff. I don't know how much congratulations we ought to have for that.

Yesterday, I was buying some groceries, and the guy at the checkout stand had no idea who I was and shouldn't have. He said: What is going on, on Capitol Hill? What are those people doing? We ought to fire everybody in Congress. They can't get their work done. We have to get our work done. They don't have to get their work done.

He made a good point. I am telling you, it is down to the level of grocery store checkout people--and I suspect different levels than that, different occupations than that. Americans, because they are kind of tuned in to the news media, which is kind of an information media or an entertainment media, built this fiscal cliff so it appeared to be Niagara Falls with money running over it. It is more of a gradual slope. But we have to stop the downward slope we are on. It is important we do that.

And this is a body that can do that. Congress can do that.

We conduct a war of words around here--of this protecting the ``rich''--and it sticks. You know, I don't know of anybody who is trying to protect the rich. The problem comes with the definition of ``rich,'' and that is a hard one to explain. Any attempt that looks like that, and we go back to the sticky word of ``rich,'' whom nobody is trying to protect.

I used to be in business. I used to be one of those small businessmen, and I knew that at the end of the year, the business would show a profit. Now, unfortunately, we couldn't take the money out of the business if we were going to continue to grow the business, if we were going to bring on more people. It also meant we needed to have more product, and that meant we had to have more investment in the business. So the money we could have taken out that showed as ``profit'' actually went back into the business.

We kept saying: How can we have so little money when we make so much money?

Well, that is the position a lot of the small business men and women are in around this country. They are having to put all their money back into their businesses. And I understand when people say don't protect the rich--those making $250,000 or $400,000 or $450,000, whatever the amount comes out to be--but the person working in that business, probably making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000, says: If all I am making is that amount and they are making $250,000, we really ought to tax them. You know, it is a fairness issue. But when it gets down to the point of what they actually get to take out, what their take-home is, it is a lot different. They look really good on paper, they look rich on paper, but the money they get to take out is significantly less than that, and that is where the divide came in when trying to solve this problem. Now, could it have been solved? Yes, it could have been solved.

What we need to do around this institution is to start legislating and stop deal-making. We are a legislative body. You can't have 100 people involved in a deal, and consequently we don't. We have the group of 2, as in the case of this one, or a group of 4 or 6 or 9 or maybe as many as 12 getting together and putting together some kind of comprehensive package to put before this body, and those who aren't in the group are really kind of insulted by it. They do not make a big deal out of it because that has become the tradition, but that is not how it is supposed to work.

I have been there. I have gotten to legislate. It is one of the privileges of this country. The main person with whom I legislated was Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy was considered one of the most liberal people in the Senate, and I have always been considered one of the most conservative people in the Senate, but we were able to work together to get 38 bills out of committee and through this body, and the worst vote we ever got was 15 votes against. How did we do that? Well, we didn't try to solve the world's problems all in one bill. We took an issue at a time, and we found the common ground. We found what we could agree on, and that was usually about 80 percent of the whole issue. That is pretty good.

We worked on issues that had been around here 10 or 12 or 15 years without passing, having come to the floor numerous times, and mainly what we did was we would sit down with the stakeholders, who were intensely interested in the bill, who had been lobbying on that bill for years and years, and we would say to them: This is what we can get. This is what we have to leave out.

It wasn't compromise. Compromise is when you give up half of what you believe in, I give up half of what I believe in, and we wind up with something that neither of us believes in. But common ground happens. There is common ground on every one of these issues, and that is what we have to find--the common ground.

So we would meet with these stakeholders, and they would say: No, you are leaving out the most important part of this whole bill. This is what we really want.

If it was Senator Kennedy's constituency, he would have to make the comment, and if it was mine, I would have to make the comment: How long have you been working on this?

They would say: We have been working on this for 10 years.

I would say: How much of it have you gotten?

Then they would say: Well, nothing.

I would say: Here is what we can get for you.

And I would outline it again, and I would say: Isn't that better than nothing?

The light would come on, and they would say: Oh, that would be good progress.

Then they would quit pushing against us, and they would get together with us.

It is amazing sometimes that the advocates for a bill are really sometimes the ones who are stopping the bill from happening, and it is over the issues--that 10 percent on each side, which amounts to 20 percent--that we are not going to get resolved. There are some basic values on both sides, and they are important to both sides and they are both right, but they are not common ground.

But this is where we have to go. We have to get to common ground again, and the way we do that is by legislating. We put out a bill that is 80 percent of the whole issue, not 100 percent of the whole issue because that is comprehensive. We need to put out the 80 percent both sides agree on and then allow amendments on it. That is something we haven't been doing around here for a long time.

First of all, a bill needs to go to committee. The committee is where the people intensely interested in that particular bill preside and work and exert their efforts. That is where they want to concentrate.

When a bill comes to committee, you can have maybe 200 or 300 amendments in committee, and the chairman and the ranking member--that is the name we give to the person with the most seniority in the minority--can sit down together and sort through these amendments. Out of the 200, there are probably 100 that nobody in their right mind would really offer. Out of the remaining ones, you will find there are people on both sides who have very similar ideas on how to solve that problem, so you get those people to sit down together and take a look at all the amendments that are similar to that one and see if they can't come up with a single amendment that will solve that part of the problem. And you know what. They do. Now, it might not be 100 percent of what they want. It is probably, again, only 80 percent of what they want. But it is something on which they can all agree.

Here is the really magnificent part that helps a bill get through committee: They can all say: It was my idea.

They can all go to the media and put out the release that says they solved this particular problem, and that helps a lot around here.

So committee work is extremely important, but when a bill comes out of committee, it is not perfect. When Senator Kennedy and I were working the bills, we not only recognized they weren't perfect, but we were able to talk to those Members whose problems we weren't able to solve by the time the amendment process came up in committee, and we promised to work with them until the bill got to the floor and not to take the bill to the floor until we had a solution to that problem or the right for them to offer an amendment. That helped a lot to get the bill out of committee.

Once a bill comes out of committee in a bipartisan way--meaning people from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, support the bill--then there is a chance of bringing it to the floor and actually getting some time to debate. And the debate part is important. That is kind of where we bring America along. There is coverage during the committee process, but that is a little harder to follow. The debate here on the floor is where we bring America along on whatever ideas we have, and so the debate here is very important.

Over time, there has been this process where the leaders have invented some things that actually concentrate the power in the hands of the leaders rather than the body as a whole, and that is the filibuster process, and that filibuster process can be manufactured.

I have to tell a couple of stories. One bill I worked on around here had a solution for health care. I called it small business health plans. The idea behind the bill was that small businesses could get together through their association or any way they wanted to, across State lines, even nationwide, to form a buying group big enough to take on the biggest of the insurance companies. Think about that--the power to take on the biggest of the insurance companies. Yes, there was some opposition to that--call it the insurance companies. But many of them worked with us and began to understand how they could participate in the process and then went along with it.

One of the biggest insurance companies in the Nation had some ads out of Massachusetts opposing the bill, and eventually that helped to keep the bill from ever happening. But the biggest thing that kept the bill from happening--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 10 minutes or the right to allow the Senator from California to speak and then have it come back to me.

I am wondering if the Senator can finish in 5 minutes, and then I would speak, and then he can have more time.

Yes, just a couple more minutes.

The Senator from Wyoming.

So on this small business health plan, when it came to the floor, I had the unfortunate experience of having Senator Frist setting a filibuster and filling the tree. ``Filling the tree'' means nobody can make another amendment to the bill. But here is the catch: After this came out of committee, we got the people together who had a problem with the bill, and we had one amendment that would have solved those problems. With the tree filled, that one amendment couldn't come up. That one amendment couldn't happen.

So what happened? We talked about the bill and how it lacked this particular part. I kept explaining how we had an amendment that would take care of that. Everybody in the Chamber knew that amendment was not going to happen, and consequently, on a process vote, it was killed with just over 40 votes. That is what happened with the filibuster. Had that amendment been possible, we would have had one of the things in place for health care--just one, but it would have solved a lot of things for a lot of businesses, and that is where a lot of people work in this country, and that is where jobs are.

So that is how we can do this job of legislating.

My second story would be--and this one is much shorter--about the year Senator and I brought an FDA bill to the floor. When it got to the floor, we explained to the leader that there were going to be 14 amendments--8 of them would be brought up and would fail, and the other 6 would be withdrawn. A week later we finally got to start on the amendments for that bill. There was worry that there would be some extraneous ones thrown in. We already had agreement, I guess you could say, from the most conservative and most liberal from each of our sides that they would not bring up the peripheral amendments, and they didn't. So a week later, when we finally got to start to vote--and we could have done that the same day, although we finished up in a day and a half--we had eight amendments that got defeated and six amendments that were withdrawn. So we wound up exactly where we knew we were going to be, and the bill passed here 96 to 1.

That is how the committee process can work, and that is how not having a filibuster can work, and that is what we need to get back to. We need to be legislating, not deal-making. And I will talk later about some of the deal-making, and we have seen that with the cliff process.

I yield the floor.

Congressional Process
The Senator from California.

Mr. President, I would like to say to Senator Enzi that I agree with so much of what he said. Our being here on New Year's Eve, some of us without our families, is nothing to be proud of, and having been able to do our work through the committee system, I think he made a very good point.

ENZI and Kennedy were quite a team; BAUCUS and GRASSLEY had their successes; LEVIN and MCCAIN recently had their success on the Defense bill, with lots of amendments; BOXER and INHOFE on the Transportation bill. I can tell you, you couldn't find two people more different, and yet Senator Inhofe and I were able to do that work and get that done and protect 2 to 3 million jobs. And also STABENOW and ROBERTS in the Agriculture Committee.

So my friend is absolutely right; we can do this in the right way and not have to be here in the middle of the night. I don't think that is anything to be proud of. However, I do believe what we did early this morning was right and very important. I think Senators DURBIN and BROWN laid it out as to why that vote was so critically important: It protected our families, it gave certainty to our businesses, and it keeps this economy moving forward. All this is true if the House passes this bill.

As Senator Enzi said so eloquently and in such a straightforward fashion, this is a deal. Each of us could write our own deal, and each of us would be so much happier with a deal that we personally could write. But that is not the way it is. We are not a parliamentary system where one party controls everything.

In a parliamentary system that we see in Europe, one party controls everything. They have a program. The other party opposition has a program. There may be other parties as well but two major parties. One of them gets elected, they put together a coalition, they have discipline, they have a program. They don't have to sit down with people they don't see eye to eye with. They just have to get together and pass the program. If the people don't like it, there is a vote of confidence and out they go and in comes the opposition. They have a channel. That is not the American system. Our system is much more difficult in so many ways. So many of us are so passionate on so many issues and believe so strongly, and yet we know we have to compromise, as Senator Enzi has said.

When I sat down with Senator Inhofe on the Transportation bill--and I will be doing it now with Senator Vitter on the WRDA bill--the water resources bill--I laid out the five things I cared most about, he laid out the five things he cared most about, and, to be honest, there were only a couple things that matched. So we started with those things, and then we met each other in the middle with the rest. Then the Senate had a chance to work its will.

When the bill got over to the House, it was stuck. It was trapped. We all went over there, all of us together on a bipartisan team, to speak to Speaker Boehner and Chairman Mica and say: OK, let's get it done. And we did. So it can get done.

The Fiscal Cliff
But we are where we are, where we are. This morning we had a choice, and, frankly, I was proud to see the overwhelming vote we had. It was amazing, 89 to 8. I don't know what motivated every colleague; I only know what motivated me to believe this was an important ``aye'' vote for me to cast.

I will never forget this recession that we are just coming out of now, the worst recession since the Great Depression. As Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson--who put his head in his hands and was overwhelmed with what he actually called the potential collapse of capitalism. That is what we faced.

We have short memories here because our lives are so filled with fast-moving events every day. Some of them are wonderful, some of them are awful, some of them lift up our hearts, some of them break our hearts. So we don't remember the things that happened a couple years ago.

When President Obama took over after a very lifeless economy, as my friend Senator Brown said, where only 1 million jobs were being created--maybe not even that many--in the private sector over an 8-year period, and suddenly there was a collapse brought on by the greed of Wall Street and manipulation of securities dealing with housing--a crash, a nightmare, and we were losing 800,000 a month. Then the auto industry was on its knees.

Believe me, in the past I haven't been the biggest fan of the auto industry for California because I believed they weren't producing the cleanest cars they could, the most fuel economy cars they could. I believed they were missing out on an opportunity. But let me tell you, when I was faced with the issue of whether to let them go bankrupt or stand and give them a chance, I chose that chance. And I am proud that I did it, and I am proud of this Congress for doing it. I am proud of this President for leading the way. That was a critical vote. And this vote this morning, I believe, was a critical vote if we really wanted to keep this economy moving forward.

A lot of people say: How did President Obama ever win with that unemployment rate so high? All the historians were saying it was never going to happen because it has never happened. Well, I will tell you why I believe it happened. I believe people understood what we went through, what we suffered through, what he inherited, not to mention two wars on a credit card that he had to end. So I think people understood this. We don't give the people enough credit. They got it. They understood it. And I hope they realize this President has led us to this point, with the Vice President, with Senator McConnell, with Senator Reid, to move this economy forward.

Let me tell you very quickly why it is so important to my home State. A lot of my colleagues roll their eyes when I tell them we have 38 million people in California. My friend from Wyoming, how many people in Wyoming? There are 562,785, and we have 38 million people. All right?

I want to tell you what it means that we voted the way we did. It means 400,000 people this morning will lose their unemployment insurance unless the House acts. If the House acts as we did, they will not lose it.

What does this mean to people, 400,000 of them? As my friend, the Presiding Officer--who is so good on economics--knows, there is a multiplier effect. For every dollar we give in unemployment benefits, we get a bang for the buck $1.42 in the community because the people on unemployment spend it because they are out of work.

They are about to lose this help. We need to help them, and in this package we did--2 million nationwide, 600,000 jobs at stake from the multiplier effect, and in my State 400,000 people. Almost as many people as reside in the State of Wyoming were about to lose their unemployment insurance. Imagine--almost that.

I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

So when we talk about our vote this morning, it is not a wonky discussion. It is real people. Five million Californians are about to get trapped into the AMT problem, the alternative minimum tax, which was set up for a very fair reason. I wasn't here at that time, but I remember reading about millionaires getting away with paying no taxes because we had no alternative minimum. They took advantage of the Tax Code, got their deductions, and paid nothing. We put it in place, but it is imperfect. We had to fix it to make sure it doesn't catch the middle class--5 million of my people.

So this is like a partridge in a pear tree in a way: 400,000 people would have lost their unemployment compensation; 5 million would be caught in the alternative minimum tax, which would have been an extra in taxes right there; and 15 million would have seen their tax rates go up on average of $2,200.

This bill we voted for this morning had real consequences, and I know a lot of people are worried about the future and what is coming down in 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days--and I worry too. But I have been around here long enough to know it isn't going to get better if we put this off until then and we have twice as many issues on our plates to deal with.

So I believe what we did this morning--and my voice is going because it was a very difficult and emotional day for all of us, some being away from their families for the first time. I know my friend from Rhode Island and I talked about it. It wasn't easy, but we know what we are doing here is critical. We are not proud of the fact that it took us this long to get it done.

I agree with my friend from Wyoming. It is nothing to be proud of, but it is important what we did. We have certainty for businesses that depend upon consumerism. We have an economy that is driven by consumer activity, about 70 percent of it. Now the business community knows--if the House acts. I have to keep reminding myself it is not done. If the House acts, we will give certainty to our families, to our businesses, to our low-income people who depend upon refundable tax credits, to our energy community that relies on energy tax breaks to keep on moving and keep on producing.

So I don't want to see economic growth derailed. It was too hard and painful to sit through this very difficult economic recovery inch by inch, every day hoping we would push forward despite the odds. We had the economic crisis in New York that weighed on us as well.

Well, what we did this morning was important. So I want to close by saying this to my friends in the House, all of them--Democrats, Republican, liberals, and conservatives--this is not the perfect deal. We all know it. Each of us can find a piece of it that we really, really don't like. But on the whole it will give certainty to this economy.

In many cases, many of the provisions are permanent, such as the AMT. It gives certainty, and certainty is critical. We will not go back. We will not take billions and billions of dollars out of this economy. We can't do that now.

I would say to my conservative friends over there: Now it is the first of the year. You are actually cutting taxes now because as of today they went up. So you could take credit for cutting taxes.

I just hope and pray that the House will do the right thing; that Democrats and Republicans will come together as Americans and put the country first. I believe they will do this. I pray they will do this.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

The Fiscal Cliff
Mr. President, I want to join the Senator from California in the hope that the House will pass the bill that was sent over from the Senate last night. It was a tremendous amount of effort that was put into it by a number of people over a number of days and weeks, and I think it is the best answer that we could come up with at this point in time.

I particularly want to thank Leader McConnell and Vice President Biden for working numerous hours; starting, again, yesterday morning at 6:45 and winding up with something late last night, more than 12 hours later, over the last two issues, as I understand it. And, yes, I am glad that AMT was fixed. I would remind everybody that AMT is the last effort we had to tax the rich, and it backfired to where it now taxes everybody or almost everybody. So it desperately needed a fix. Now we are talking about taxing the rich again, and I hope we can come up with some collective ways that will be certain for the people who are rich and that it will last over time instead of just for a few short years.

In my area of the world, the biggest thing in that bill was the estate tax. People who own land in Wyoming that they bought maybe at $40 an acre now have land that is worth $2,000 an acre or more, and they haven't figured out how to pay the taxes on these few acres they were able to scrape together over a period of time if the amount of the exemption went down to $1 million, and that is where we were headed. At $1 million, they would have to sell off part of the ranch or part of the farm in order to pay the taxes when somebody died. All the time that land is making a profit people are paying taxes on it. Then when they die, they would have to pay taxes on something they would like to keep and continue in operation.

So the estate tax piece of that was a very important part for a lot of America, and not just the ones where people are land rich and dollar poor.

Of course, I keep wondering what would have happened if a month ago a basic bill would have been put on the floor--perhaps the President's proposal--and both sides had been able to do amendments to it, even multiple amendments on the same topic, like the Department of Defense bill. We did 119 amendments in a day and a half or 2 days. What if that had happened on this bill? Would we have been able to come up with a package that would, I suspect, be very similar to what we passed last night but done it with everybody participating, everybody understanding, the American public thinking that Congress is actually getting something done? That would be a huge relief. I think we could have done that with an open amendment process, limiting it probably to relevant amendments.

There are a lot of different things people would like to bring up because they don't know any other way they are going to get votes, but I keep reminding my colleagues that when you bring up one of those irrelevant amendments, it might make it into the bill, but it will be pulled out in conference committee. You still did not win anything. I guess you could make a big press release about how you got that into the bill to begin with, but it is not in the bill.

I want to talk today about the questions I hear from Americans who say: Why can't politicians in Washington get along? Why is there this gridlock?

Those are questions folks outside the beltway have been asking, but, like may questions, the answer is involved. For many, including President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid, it is easy and strategic to oversimplify the answer. They have identified GOP Senators as the culprits and the filibuster as the instrument. But as one of those GOP Senators, let me give you my side of the story.

What I think people are missing and what some of the majority wants you to miss is why a filibuster happens. You do not hear this from the majority leader, but for the last few years many filibusters in the Senate have been designed and instigated by him; they have not been through the committee process.

Here is how it works. He has a bill that is popular with his party and whose title really sounds great. He knows many of those on our side, the minority, would actually agree with many parts of the bill, but we would want votes on the items that could potentially be politically embarrassing. In order to avoid these votes, he skips the committee of jurisdiction and brings the bill directly to the Senate floor. Then he uses an arcane Senate parliamentary procedure--he files for cloture and fills the amendment tree. That means he prevents amendments on the Senate floor, and often because he believes they might be embarrassing for Members on his side.

Our majority leader is no slouch; he picks bills with great titles that on the surface anyone could support--anyone. Remember, most of these have not been to committee. Who could possibly be against students or veterans or seniors or women? The problem for the minority is that within these great-sounding bills is usually something that deep down, philosophically in our bones, many just cannot accept. An example would be tying a woman's health care to a mandatory public funding of abortions or adding gun control to an otherwise acceptable crime bill. These are poison pills that the majority knows the minority won't swallow. Best of all politically for the majority, the minority gets blamed for filibustering and the majority leadership looks like the hero fighting hard for the cause. That is how a filibuster can be initiated by the majority leader to make the minority look like obstructionists.

If the majority party brings up a bill containing a poison pill, even though the bill has a great title, they should not expect the other party to swallow the poison pill without using every delay tactic possible. In fact, they don't expect the minority to go along, and they use it to their full political advantage.

Those of us on this side in the minority have been seeing bill after bill that did not even go through committee, with great titles, containing poison pills, come to the floor directly. We were not assured even of a vote to try to take the pill out even though the majority had sufficient votes to ensure the poison pill would stay in. That is the meaning of majority--enough votes to always win. If you can always win, why stop the vote? So stopping the right to vote should and has resulted in a filibuster.

The big, dirty, not-so-secret secret is that a filibuster can be controlled by the majority leader. If the leader agrees to allow an open amendment process, permission to proceed would be a formality, and work could start immediately. That is what happened with the Department of Defense authorization we just finished. It was a fresh breeze through what the majority has turned into a stale Senate. We worked through more than 100 amendments in short order. But if no agreement to an open amendment process is agreed to before starting the bill, the minority has to believe their amendments will be blocked.

The majority can vote down any proposal it does not like and with a motion to table can do it quickly. Let me say that again. With a motion to table, they can do it quickly, they can actually limit debate. That is why the minority has been filibustering on motions to proceed and also why the majority leader wants to end that process. Delaying action on motions to proceed is our best chance to ensure an open amendment process. We can slow the bill down to try to get that agreement. The majority still does not have to agree, and if they have 60 votes, they can move ahead. If they do not have 60 votes, it has to be at least a little bit bipartisan--just a little bit.

The real point gets lost in all this; that is, to be effective, Congress has 535 people looking at every proposal--lots of viewpoints, lots of experience. If all the decisions are going to be made by the majority leader, how does every American's elected leader get to represent his or her constituents? The people back home who put their faith in their Senators expect to be represented by their Senators, not a party or a majority leader who does not know them as their own Senators do.

The majority leader has used the filibuster count to effectively falsely claim obstruction by Republicans. Remember, you can manufacture a filibuster. Now he wants to weaken the filibuster further. That may happen the day after tomorrow. That is damaging America's faith in Congress. That is damaging what the Senator from California said was one of the basic principles of this body. There are already filibuster rules. If used, they would make those objecting spend time on the floor explaining themselves, actually talking. That already exists, and in a very limited way, each Senator has the right to 1 hour of debate during a filibuster--1 hour. They can have other people cede their hours to them, but it is still a very limited amount. At any point, if there is not somebody on the floor to take more of that hour, the Presiding Officer can end that part of the filibuster. So there are already ways to shorten the delay involved, but they are not being used.

Using current rules would be much better than breaking the rules for the first time in order to change the rules. We have never done that. It has been threatened once before. It did not happen. I hope it does not happen during the time I am in the Senate. Breaking the rules to change the rules is not the way of the Senate for the history of the Senate.

I know there are amendments on which the majority does not want to have a recorded vote. That would put his Members on record. But that is the price for being in the majority. I think our side would like to be in the majority and have to take those kinds of votes. They are putting us on record without the poison bill being obvious in the vote. All we are voting on is a bill title. That is the way the people of America looked at it, and it worked very well in the last election.

Going all out to avoid votes is silencing the voices of millions of Americans and tearing down the institution of the Senate and eliminating transparency. The media usually demands transparency. This hides transparency.

The proposal to weaken the filibuster would only hasten the Senate's decline. It is like adding lemon to a recipe that is already too sour. We do not need a new recipe. We do not need to change the rule as the majority is proposing. We need to use the great system that has been in place for hundreds of years. Even now, we get glimpses of it working.

If the majority leader and those advocating for the weakening of the filibuster were in the minority, they would speak out against it. In fact, they did. In 2005, when he was in the minority, the GOP started talking about challenging the filibuster, and Senator Reid warned of grave consequences. I want to quote Senator Reid.

The time has come for those Senators of the majority to decide where they stand, whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate or break the rules for the first time in 217 years. ..... Will they support the checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers?

That is a quote from the majority leader. He asked if the majority would ``silence the minority in the Senate and remove the last check we have in Washington against this abuse of power.'' That is a quote from leader Harry Reid. I hope he will follow his own advice and that that will not be a part of the problem right after we swear in the new Members this next week.

I hope the institution of the Senate will continue to be a Senate. I hope we will have more of a committee process where people can work out the things there are difficulties with and bring a more consolidated, more comprehensive, less compromising area between which neither of them believe that will get to the floor and then have an open amendment process on the floor, and I guarantee things will happen faster than they have been in the Senate. Holding up things a week or 2 weeks while we go through the whole filibuster process is a waste of our time. Amendments are not a waste of our time. I hope we get back to that system.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Congressional Process
Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Wyoming and considerable affection. Indeed, he is my ranking member on the HELP Committee, and he has been kind enough to offer his perspective on this question of the rules change. I will reciprocate by offering my perspective.

We were in the caucus the other day. Our leader reported that during the time Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader, which was a very active and disputatious time in the Senate, he faced one filibuster, and Leader Reid reported that he had faced 391, I think was the number he used. So clearly the use of the filibuster as measured by the number of cloture motions is completely out of control.

The Senator from Wyoming correctly points out that filling the tree is a challenge to the minority, but I believe, if I recall correctly--I was planning to speak on something else, and I don't have the numbers exactly accurate at hand--I believe the number of times the tree has been filled is something like 70. So there is a huge disparity between the number of times the majority leader has filled the tree and the number of times he has been forced to file cloture.

The reason is that very often there is not agreement on amendments. While on a major bill, an open amendment process is good, I believe, and we have seen examples of that recently on this floor--Senator McCain and his work on the Armed Services bill, along with Senator Levin, is an example--there are also times when filibuster by amendment takes place and it becomes abusive.

I can remember sitting in the chair where the distinguished Senator from Ohio is now sitting and watching Senator Kennedy on the floor. He had a bill that would raise the minimum wage. We often get big, fat bills on the floor. This was a bill that I think was literally one page. It was the smallest, shortest bill because it was just changing a number, basically.

Hundreds of amendments--literally hundreds of amendments had been filed against it. When the majority leader is faced with that--many of them were completely nongermane and not relevant--when the majority leader is faced with a circumstance where hundreds of amendments are filed on a small bill like that, it is easy to see why you have to move forward by trying to limit the time because the whole rest of the session could have been devoted to that bill if you can't get control. If you can't get an agreement--and very often, agreement is withheld as to a fixed number of amendments--then you have no choice but to take your best shot with the bill by filling the tree.

Even if I am right that the number is 70, I contend that the number of what the minority might consider a malicious filling of the tree might be a number considerably smaller than 70. Many of them might be made necessary by the actions of the minority by offering hundreds of amendments and by refusing to enter into agreements to offer a reasonable number.

I think it is a problem, but I think on balance I stand by the view I have expressed before that there is an unprecedented level of obstruction in this body, and I say that with some humility because the distinguished Senator from Wyoming has been here a bit longer. I have been here only for 6 years. But that is what people who have been here for many, many years confirm--that there has been really nothing like it.

= = Page: S8620

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 15 minutes but probably not that long.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Fiscal Cliff
Page: S8620

Mr. President, I will speak off the topic of the day. Obviously, we are focused on the fiscal cliff. The measure is now over in the House, and the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator from California expressed their hope--and I would say confidence--that the House will act. Given the dysfunction of the House and its Republican leadership, I am perhaps a little bit more cautious than they are about this.

I remember that we did a very good bipartisan highway bill here. It passed with an enormous vote of 70-some, if I remember correctly, and went over to the House. They could not even pass a highway bill. They had no bill at all. They got so snarled up that finally they passed a bill that did nothing but to appoint conferees to argue about our bill. They could not bring a bill of their own into conference.

We worked very hard on a farm bill here. It was a bipartisan farm bill. Senator Stabenow was particularly energetic in that, as was her colleague from Kansas. Again, that was a bipartisan bill, which required a lot of hard work and had many compromises. We are in a terrible drought--which is something I will talk about more in a moment--and they cannot pass the farm bill over there.

The Speaker tried to respond to having withdrawn from his negotiations with the President on the fiscal cliff by coming up with a new so-called Plan B alternative. He could not even get that through his caucus. There is an unprecedented degree of extremism and dysfunction in the House Republican caucus, and I hope that does not disrupt the progress we have made on the fiscal cliff. We will have to wait and see. Today will tell.

Climate Change
Page: S8620

What I am here to talk about is not the topic of the day because the fiscal cliff is the topic of the day. What I am here to address is never the topic of the day. It is the unmentionable issue; that is, climate change. It is so apparent now that changes in our climate and in our environment are occurring from pole to pole and from the height of our atmosphere to the depths of our oceans. The overwhelming majority of scientific research, indeed statistically the now virtually unanimous scientific view, indicates that all these observed changes in the Earth's atmosphere are the direct result of human activity--specifically the emission of carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels.

If we continue with these destructive levels of carbon pollution, carbon change will not just alter our environment, it will alter our economy. Very often discussions in Washington steer away from things that have to do with environment and the health and enjoyment of human beings of the natural world and instead it comes down to money, as it so often does in this town.

Let's talk about climate change in the context of money. Markets and businesses across this country have developed to fit the prevailing environmental conditions in their different regions of the United States. These markets and these businesses are going to face real challenges when our climate changes those prevailing conditions. Whether it is higher sea levels, stronger storms, warmer winters or dryer summers, no State and no economy will be unaffected by climate change.

We are already seeing real-life examples of economic consequences of a rapidly changing environment. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 80 percent of American agricultural land is experiencing drought, making this the most expensive drought since the 1950s--more than half a century ago. Last month, Deutsche Bank Securities estimated that the drought will reduce 2012 economic growth in the United States by one-half to 1 percent.

Shipping on the Mississippi River has been reduced and may stop in areas where drought has left water levels too low for safe passage. The American Waterways Operators and the Waterways Council estimate that $7 billion worth of commodities are supposed to ship on the Mississippi in December and January alone. An interruption of that would have a considerable economic effect. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun a $10 million project to clear rocks from the waterway to prevent that shutdown. The other option is to release water from the Missouri River, but that would just draw down water supplies in upriver States that are already suffering from drought themselves, such as Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

Water is also essential for power generation. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, powerplants account for nearly half the daily water withdrawn in the United States. Drought and heat go hand in hand to push powerplants toward shutdown. A 2008 drought put several powerplants in the Southeast within days or weeks of shutting down. Texas, California, and the Midwest now face a similar challenge with drought stressing their power production.

In the Northeast, it is not low water but warm water that caused the shutdown of Unit 2 at the Millstone powerplant in Connecticut. The temperature of the water in Long Island Sound, from which the plant draws its cooling supply, climbed to over 75 degrees Fahrenheit this summer--too warm for cooling the Newark reactor. Of course, the cost to our economy of disruptions in our power supply is particularly high during warm weather, when energy use is at its height to run air-conditioners.

Scientists tell us the droughts and heat waves will get worse and water temperature will continue to increase. Agriculture, shipping, and power industries will be operated under new baseline environmental conditions.

Warmer oceans, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events create an obvious threat for our fishery industries and the marine trades they support. It is not just the fishermen who are affected but the people who repair their engines and nets, sell them equipment and gear, as well as the companies that buy and process their catch are affected.

In my home State of Rhode Island, average coastal water temperature has risen by 4 degrees over the past two decades, affecting our historic fish stocks and hurting local fishermen. It is not just in Rhode Island where the seas are changing. To use another example, rising ocean temperatures and acidity threaten corals, which, as well as being a cornerstone of ocean biodiversity--but never mind, this is supposed to be a speech about the money--the coral reefs are a mainstay of Florida's water and boating industry. People go there to snorkel, scuba dive, and see the corals. If the corals are not there, it is going to affect those industries.

The increasing acidification of ocean water driven by the rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lowers the ocean's saturation levels of calcium carbonate. That sounds boring. Who the heck cares about the ocean saturation levels of calcium carbonate? Calcium carbonate is the fundamental building block of the shells of aquatic species such as oysters, crabs, and lobsters. Fisheries we actually do care a lot about, even if we may not care about calcium carbonate. It is the basic building block of the plankton that comprise the very base of the food web. Ocean acidification caused 70- to 80-percent losses of oyster larvae at an ocean hatchery in Oregon from 2006 to 2008. Wild oyster stocks in Washington State also failed under the stress of that more acidic water. This is an industry worth about $73 million annually along our Pacific coast, and it is faced with the threats from climate change.

The pteropod, which is also known as the sea butterfly, will be harmed by ocean acidification. The pteropod is a humble beast. It is a tiny aquatic snail. Nobody goes fishing for pteropods, so who the heck cares? Salmon care. Indeed, 47 percent of the diet of some Pacific salmon species is pteropods. The salmon fisheries which support coastal jobs and economies care an awful lot about the salmon.

Extreme weather events such as storm surges have become more frequent as our climate and oceans warm. Extreme storms such as that are particularly hard on shell fisheries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that ``because oysters require two or more years to grow to marketable size, full recovery from ..... hurricanes may take years, and some oyster habitats may be lost permanently.'' National Geographic noted that after Hurricane Katrina, 90 percent of Mississippi's oyster beds and 74 percent of Louisiana's oyster beds were destroyed. Just this fall, Hurricane Sandy disrupted shellfisheries all along the east coast.

Coastal economies, such as in my home State of Rhode Island, are threatened in other ways by sea-level rise and extreme storms. The Rhode Island economic development Council notes that tourism in Rhode Island is at the absolute center of our summer economy. People from all across the Nation come to Rhode Island in the summer to enjoy our beautiful beaches, our sparkling bay, sail, and participate in all the beachside activities. Damage to that economy would be very significant.

We are rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy so we will be ready when our beach visitors come this summer, but it is a reminder of how important that economy is to Rhode Island, and it is a reminder of how vulnerable it is to extreme weather.

Let's turn to the West, where by August of this year more than 6 million acres had burned in wildfires. A new analysis by NASA predicts that by the middle of the century we can expect to match the severity of 2012 fires every 3 to 5 years. It is going to become commonplace.

A recent study by the University of Oregon--and I see the Senator from Oregon on the floor--found that large wildfires caused long-term instability in local labor markets. Increased local spending fighting the fires is not enough to outweigh the economic loss caused by the disruption of businesses and damage to property from the fire.

In August, Reuters reported that wildfires were hurting tourism in Western States. One small business owner in Salmon, ID, claimed she had nothing but cancellations as a result of the fires.

The New York Times has reported that the declining snowfall and unseasonably warm weather had been a drag on winter sports and recreational tourism last winter. The reported forecast is that before the end of the century, the number of economically viable ski locations in New Hampshire and Maine will be cut in half. Skiing in New York will be cut by three-quarters, and there will be no ski area in Connecticut or Massachusetts. That will have an economic effect.

Looking back West again, the Park City Foundation in Utah predicted an annual local temperature increase of 6.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2075, which would cause a total loss of snowpack in the Park City resort area. The Park City Foundation report estimates this will result in thousands of lost jobs, tens of millions in lost earnings, and hundreds of millions in lost economic output to Utah. Ominously, in Colorado the ski season was pushed back at least a week this winter for lack of snow.

I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, whether from coastal, agricultural or mountain States, feel the concern for their State's economy as I do for Rhode Island. To protect these economies, we will all have to act prudently, and that means waking up and addressing climate change head on in Congress. The majority of Americans of all political affiliations accepts the science behind climate change. Yet Congress refuses to act.

There is a consensus among scientists where around 98 percent--the other day I came with a circle graph which showed a tiny little wedge of fringe dispute on this question is barely visible in the sea of agreement. Yet Congress refuses to act. Even after hearing from our national security officials about the dangers and threats from climate change, Congress refuses to act.

That refusal to act will have an impact on the American economy. A Brookings report has found that well-designed climate legislation would increase investment, increase employment, and significantly increase America's gross domestic product, but here in Congress we are more likely to hear that any climate change legislation would hurt the economy and kill jobs. The opposite is true. We are missing opportunities to grow a clean economy that is manufacturing and export intensive and that creates the kinds of jobs that support a strong American middle class. We are failing to protect against carbon pollution that will harm our States' economies all across the country, and we are failing to take prudent steps to protect ourselves against the coming changes from our carbon pollutants that have now become unavoidable. With the carbons up in the air, the changes are going to happen. We can't stop those. We need to prepare for them, and we are failing to take those prudent steps. Those of us on the east coast who weathered Sandy have gotten a preview of coming attractions as the oceans continue to warm and extreme storms become more common.

As I said before, here in Congress we are sleepwalking through history. We are lulled by the narcotic of corporate money from the polluters and from their allies, we are ignoring the scientific facts, and we are refusing to awaken to the many ringing alarms that nature is now sounding. I hope we can soon find a way to correct this grievous folly and omission.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Extension of Morning Business
Page: S8621

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Fiscal Cliff
Page: S8622

Mr. President, I want to first address the bill we passed in the early hours this morning.

It is very unusual to be passing a bill in the early hours, certainly on the first day of the year. And this bill had a lot in it. This is the fiscal cliff bill. There are a number of reasons that I supported this bill, but there are a number of concerns I have as well. I thought it might be appropriate to just summarize why it was important this bill pass last night, but also why we should also be aware that the bill has laid out a path that requires us to do substantial additional work in order to avoid having that path be one that leads us into a thicket.

First, we do not pass this bill if the House does not get it done. It is being considered by the House right now. Then there would be a very good probability, economists estimate, that the economy would turn down in the coming year by somewhere in the range of about 2 to 3 percent, and so we would go into a recession. That means living wage jobs for American families would disappear. That is an enormous amount of hardship, and this is a self-inflicted political wound. So it was important to pass that bill last night to avoid that.

The second is that one of the immediate impacts would have been the end of unemployment insurance for a huge number of families across this country. In Oregon, it would be about 30,000 families immediately terminated from unemployment insurance, and in the course of January it would be another 10,000 families. So if you can imagine a bill that would have directly impacted the ability of 40,000 Oregon families to pay their car payments, to pay their rent, to pay their heating bills in the middle of winter, that was the bill we were considering last night. It is a very big reason why it is important that it pass.

In addition, the bill we addressed last night adjusted the rates in terms of the compensation to doctors under Medicare, called the doc fix. If the doc fix did not get adopted, and we had roughly a 25-percent reduction in payments, then what we would see is that folks would have a very difficult time getting in the door of a doctor's office. We don't really have a Medicare plan if we can't get in the door of a doctor's office, and we don't really have medical care at all if we can't get in the door of a doctor's office.

So it is important that we address that--again, affecting thousands of people in my home State of Oregon.

In addition, there was a lot of concern that this fiscal cliff bill would do some things that were entirely unacceptable in regard to compromising the benefits under Medicare and Social Security. There was a proposal to increase the age limit for Medicare from 65 to 67. I advocated fiercely that that would be unacceptable. I cannot tell you how many townhalls I have gone to and had folks approach me and say: You know, I am 62 years old. I have these three conditions I am wrestling with. I have no medical care, and I am just trying to stay alive until I hit 65 so I can get medical care.

That is a common situation in a country where many people do not have health insurance. To raise the age by an additional 2 years for those folks who have no medical care would be cruel at best, and for some it would be a death sentence. That was unacceptable.

Others proposed that instead of making the cost-of-living provision in Social Security match better what seniors buy, they proposed making it match less well what seniors buy, saving money by inaccurately estimating the impacts of cost-of-living increases. It is important to recognize that neither of these elements that would have attacked the benefits of Medicare and Social Security was in the bill last night. Those programs were not on the table.

Because we needed to avert a recession, because we needed to make sure we did not slash unemployment, cut people off at the knees overnight, block folks from being able to get in the door of their doctor's office, and because the bill did not do some of the things that would have been 100 percent unacceptable, it merited support last night in this Chamber. I say last night, but it was actually in the early hours of this morning, the first day of 2013.

I supported this bill, but I have grave concerns about certain elements. This bill essentially adopted 90 percent-plus of the Bush tax cuts. Unless we continue to wrestle with the fact that revenue is at a historic low in this country and the gap between revenue and spending is very high, we are laying out a path for structural deficits as far as the eye can see. That is not in the best interests of this country.

Folks who are well off got a very good deal last night--a very low tax on capital gains, a huge loophole in the estate tax, a very low tax on dividends, and only the very top tax bracket for the most wealthy among us was touched at all. It was not the $250,000 level President Obama had said he was fighting for, it was $400,000-plus. There are not many folks who are at that level, and only that top bracket was touched. If you are very well off in America, you got a very good deal last night, but America got a big problem, which is the potential for enduring deficits, structural deficits that undermine the soundness of our future finances.

In addition, the bill we considered last night created some additional fiscal cliffs in the very near future, within 2 months--in March. One is that it does not address the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not about what we spend, not about the decisions on what we spend, it is whether we are going to pay the bill after the spending has been authorized. It is like saying to yourself: When the credit card bill comes, I am just not going to pay it because I should not have spent so much money. That is what the debt ceiling problem is--not to pay the bills we have already incurred.

What happened the last time we had this controversy was our national credit rating was diminished. That means when you borrow money, you have to pay more. So we shot ourselves in the foot to no purpose.

The time to make the decision over what you spend is when you are making the spending decision, not when the bill arrives later. You have already made that commitment. You are already in that boat. You have a responsibility to fulfill payment of the bills you have signed up for. But we will have that ahead of us in just 2 months.

In addition, the bill we had in the wee hours this morning pushes off the sequester for only 2 months. What is the sequester? The sequester is a series of mandatory payment cuts that fall on working people. There was a big budget deal a year ago that I voted against because what it said is that if the supercommittee does not come up with a good plan, we are going to balance the budget on the backs of working people. I voted against it. The bill last night did not do that because it pushed off the sequester, but it only pushed it off for 2 months. So if you are concerned about a nation in which the bonus breaks for the best off are untouched while cuts fall on working people, then you should be concerned about the battle that is just 2 months ahead.

In addition, there was a last-minute addition of a farm bill--not the Senate's farm bill, not a bill that was adopted in committee process, not a bill that was adopted on the floor of this Chamber, it was an individual leader's farm bill. The minority leader's farm bill was inserted last night.

Earlier, we had a speech by one of my colleagues, who was saying that it is so important that we do the hard work in committee and that we do the hard work on the floor with an open amendment process. That is what we did with the Senate farm bill. Senator Stabenow from Michigan, the chair of the committee, Ranking Member Roberts--they worked very hard to have an honest, open, public debate and votes on the individual elements. In the course of that, we adopted disaster aid for farmers and ranchers across America who were scorched by the worst fires in a century and one of the worst droughts in the last century. They should have been helped immediately upon those disasters, but they could not be helped because the farm bill had expired. Leaders said we will quickly reauthorize it. The Senate reauthorized it, we put those provisions in, we sent it over to the House, and the House never acted on it.

Then we tried to take those emergency provisions and put them into the Hurricane Sandy bill. If we are going to address the disaster for Hurricane Sandy, as we absolutely should and must, we should also address the disaster of the worst droughts and worst fires in the century.

An area in Oregon the size of Rhode Island burned this last summer. The forage burned. The fences burned. Farms and ranches were devastated. In other parts of the country, it was drought that was devastating. The version of the farm bill stuffed in last night does not have those emergency provisions even though this Chamber put them in. This Chamber supported them. The committee supported them.

We also did something else on the floor: We said the historic imbalance between those who farm in a more traditional fashion and those who farm in an organic fashion is going to be righted. You know, under crop insurance there was a provision for organic farmers that said: We are going to charge you a lot more for your insurance, but in recognition for that, you are going to get the price of organic goods, which is higher, if you have a disaster that this covers. But the Department of Agriculture never got around to calculating the organic price, and therefore the farmers got short shrift, paying high premiums on the front end without the compensation we promised on the back end.

This Chamber fixed that, but last night the minority leader stuffed a farm bill into this package that stripped it out. So much for the conversation I have been hearing about good committee work and good floor work. I absolutely agree with the Senator who spoke earlier today about good committee work and good floor work, but that was not honored in the farm bill that was stuffed in last night.

I will tell you there is a lot more to this. Research on specialty crops has a big impact on my home State. We have a lot of specialty crops. The Willamette Valley grows virtually anything. It is one of the best farming places in the country. It is not pure wheat or pure rice or pure soy; you can grow a lot of specialty crops. But a lot of that research was stripped out. So we did not get the bill this Chamber decided upon.

The chair of Agriculture has come to this floor and expressed extreme duress and frustration. She is absolutely right. The Senate actually did a very good job of process. It does not often do such a good job of process. It went through committee, it went through a floor debate, it went through an amendment process, and all of that was ignored. So the next time we hear lectures about process, I would like it to be noted about what happened last night and how ranchers and farmers across this country were betrayed by the farm bill that was stuffed in at the last second.

We have a lot of work to do in this Chamber. The path we were starting on last night is one that addresses immediate emergencies, people being able to get in their doctors' doors, and folks being able to continue to have a coherent unemployment insurance policy while they are looking for work while unemployment rates are still high. But we have a lot of work to do from here forward or we are going to end up in some places that make our path forward as a nation much more difficult.

I certainly am committed to continuing the effort to put this country on a sound financial footing and continuing to try to make the process here in the Senate work better. In that context, we have a debate that is going to begin in just 2 days about the process in the Senate.

In the course of my lifetime and in the lifetime of everyone here, the Senate has gone from a deliberating chamber, a decisionmaking chamber admired around the world, to perhaps one of the most dysfunctional legislative chambers to be found anywhere. There are still Members who like to think of the Senate with the words ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' but they are the only ones who might think that about the Senate because no one else paying attention considers the Senate to be a great deliberative body. It has become deeply paralyzed.

The root of this goes partially to the circumstances of the bitter partisanship that has dominated our politics, and that is unfortunate. But it also goes to the fact that as the social contract unraveled--and perhaps related to that partisanship--you have rules that worked well in the past that do not work well now. One of those is certainly the filibuster.

In the early Senate, you can imagine 26 Senators, 2 from each State, saying: We should have the courtesy of hearing each other out to make sure we make great decisions so we get everybody's opinion on the table. That is the courtesy of not ending debate until everyone has said what they want to say.

Over time, the Senate grew larger. It became a little more difficult, but the principle was honored because when the debate had wound down, someone asked unanimous consent to hold a vote, and generally they would get unanimous consent and the vote would be held. It was understood that this was a simple-majority body. If you were going to stand in the way of that final vote after everyone had their say, then, in fact, you were interrupting the process by which this Chamber makes decisions and helps take this country forward. Certainly the heart of it was the understanding that the pathway favored by the most is most of the time better than the pathway favored by the few. The majority vote is the heart of the democratic process.

And we had challenges along the way. There were occasionally periods where folks gave long speeches and managed to stop a vote before this Senate went on recess, but in general it worked pretty well, in part because the individuals who might abuse the process realized the rules could be changed by a simple majority. If they abused it on one occasion, the privilege of being able to express their full views for an extended period might be changed by the majority changing the rules. So it kept the process in check. There was an understanding that everyone got to be heard, everyone got to have their opinion considered, but if it was abused there could be a response to that.

Well, in 1917 it was abused. A small faction blocked the ability of the bill to go forward that would put armaments on U.S. commercial shipping, and those ships were being sunk by Germany. President Woodrow Wilson and Senate leaders were outraged. How could a small faction allow our ships to go unarmed in a situation where they are being sunk; that is unacceptable.

Well, that small faction had their reasons. They believed once they put armaments onto a ship, they were probably going to be firing shots. When they fired shots, they were involved in the war. They wanted to block the United States from getting involved in the war, but there was only a small group in the Senate who believed we should allow Germany to sink our ships with no response.

So the Senate came together and said: OK. We are going to respond to a small faction obstructing the will of this body of not allowing us to go forward. They had their say, we heard them out, and they have their opinions. We are going to allow two-thirds to shut down debate and get to a final vote. That was in 1930. It was the first such motion, and it was the cloture motion--as in closing debate. This continued to work pretty well. It worked well until about 1970. So for 50 years it worked pretty well.

Why did it work well? In part because there was a big overlap between Democrats and Republicans. If I were to chart out those who were the most liberal Republicans and the most conservative Democrats, there would be a lot of overlap in the middle. It was generally understood that this was a simple majority body and there should only be an objection to a simple majority vote when everyone had their say. If it was a principle that was of a deep and exceptional nature, such as a personal principle or an issue affecting a Senator's State, and because that Senator was objecting to the ordinary functioning of this body, that Senator felt a compulsion to stand and make the case before colleagues. In a sense it was because the Chamber had reporters on the upper level who followed Senators making their cases before American citizens.

Well, over time, the filibuster, which is an objection to a simple majority vote, evolved in two ways. Instead of it being a faction standing on principle, it started to be utilized as an instrument of the minority party to obstruct the ability of the majority party to put forth an agenda. Instead of it being a small group and an important principle, it became a legislative tactic of the minority leadership. It is true for Democrats and Republicans. There is not one party who is more guilty of this, if you will. They both employed this tactic over time.

In addition to the increasing polarization of America, we started to get less overlap in the perspective of Democrats and Republicans. Twenty years ago we might have had 30 Senators in that span between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Republican, so normally they would have that overlap of 30 Senators so they could still get two-thirds of the Senate, and that served as a check on the use by the minority of the filibuster as a tactic of penalization.

As the Senators from World War II started to move out of this Chamber, and as those from the House who had adopted kind of a ruthless partisan strategy started to move into this Chamber, we saw that social cohesion break down, and we started to see more and more use of the filibuster.

I have some charts. The first chart probably sums it up pretty well. During the time that Lyndon Johnson was majority leader for 6 years, he faced one filibuster. During Harry Reid's 6 years--a week or so ago when I made this chart, the filibusters were 387. Now it is in the 390s. In 2 days I guess we will not have any filibusters, so we may not break 400. What a contrast between the amount that Lyndon Johnson had when he was majority leader and basically 400 in the 6 years Harry Reid has been the majority leader. That is an enormous change.

In addition, normally the objection to a majority vote was done on the final vote of a bill. But starting in about 1970, folks realized that on any debatable motion, the same paralysis could be brought. They could object to a simple majority vote on a simple debatable motion.

I will lay out how this has changed over the last 40 years in different categories. One change is in nominations. Here we see that before approximately 1968 there were virtually no filibusters on nominations. In fact, I believe the rule was changed in 1949. There was a question raised over whether the filibuster could be used on nominations, and after some debate this Chamber decided to change the rule and allow it on nominations. So when people say: Well, this is the way we have always operated, it is 200 years of history, first, there was no cloture motion before 1917. In fact, the simple majority could change the rules back then. Also, there were no cloture motions on nominations, so we have this new world.

If I move this podium so everyone can see the far right edge, we can see this steady increase in this tactic. Note this very tall bar in 2012. This impact is not just on this number of these two dozen nominations, this affects and creates a whole backlog of unfilled positions in the executive branch and the judicial branch. Since 1970, this Chamber has essentially said: You know what. There is supposed to be three equal branches of the government, but we are going to use our advice and consent power under the Constitution to effectively undermine and attack the judiciary and executive branches.

That is not what the Framers had in mind. In the discussions over how the Constitution was put together, show me a Federalist Paper where any of our Framers argued that advise and consent is designed so that Congress can basically damage the executive and judicial branches by refusing to consider nominations. So that is one big change.

Well, let's take a look at motions to proceed. We see back in 1932 there was a filibuster, and in the early 1960s we see a few filibusters. Then in about 1970 we see that it took off. It was not thought to be appropriate to filibuster just any debatable motion. The idea was there was an issue of deep principle in which a Member had to make a stand to block the bill from final passage.

Now, suddenly, we can paralyze the process by even keeping a bill from getting to the floor. What sense does it make to argue that a Member is facilitating the debate by blocking the debate from happening? Many people come to the floor and say the filibuster is all about facilitating debate and making sure everybody has a say. Blocking the bill from getting to the floor doesn't facilitate at all. We see this as a growing form of paralysis.

The same story is true on amendments. So on amendments again, we see from the early 1970s forward there is big growth. Well, previously it was the perspective that the filibuster was going to stop the bill from getting enacted. Members didn't know what the bill would be until the amendments were fully debated, so a Member didn't block the amendments from coming to a vote. Again, the process grew.

So let's take a look at final passage. Here we see the traditional use of the filibuster. One or two was the average during this time period, from 1917 until the early 1970s, and then we have this explosion. No longer were Members blocking a bill on a deep issue of personal value or something that was key to their State that they were willing to take to this floor and talk about, but instead it would be just a routine obstruction using an instrument not of principle but of politics.

We even have a challenge of getting bills to conference committee. This was a case where the Senate and the House passed a bill, and we just wanted to start negotiations. How does it facilitate debate in any kind of way to block getting it to a conference committee and starting those negotiations? That was never done until the early 1970s. There we have it, the growth of this measure.

Once this instrument of obstruction was utilized, then this Chamber often decided to forego the conference committee. We gave up on it. When I was here in 2009, I would say: Well, let's get the conference committee going. Well, they would not do that because it would take weeks of this Chamber's time to get the conferees appointed and the three debatable motions done to be able to get to a conference committee. What? Isn't it outrageous that we cannot even have a negotiation with the House? So we have to go through this complicated process of sending the bill over to the House, and the House has to amend it and send it back to us, and we have to amend it and send it back to them.

Sometimes there are even informal negotiations that are out of public view instead of a conference committee that would be in an official setting with official recordings of what was being said and what amendments were being proposed and how it was being worked out. Instead of doing it in public, it was done in a back room. So this is certainly damaging to our process.

We could go on about one other area, which is conference reports--those reports coming back. This is a little bit more like final passage in that this is before something becomes law and goes to the President's desk. Again, here we see this was rarely used until the early 1970s, and then there was an explosion of this tactic not for deep personal principle but for paralysis.

I have found it quite interesting to hear some of my colleagues say this was the constitutional design, the Senate be a supermajority chamber. That is beyond out of sync with American history or any facts. They say: Well, isn't there a story about George Washington talking to Thomas Jefferson where George Washington says: The Senate's meant to be the cooling saucer, and, therefore, wasn't the Senate always a supermajority body? The answer is, no. It wasn't a supermajority body.

As I have demonstrated by these charts, it was very rare before 1970 to oppose a final majority vote; and when it was done, it was done for principle. People also took to this floor. They didn't have to, but they took to this floor and explained themselves to their colleagues and the American public. The Framers were very suspicious of using a supermajority in the setting of legislative action. They thought it should be used for serious changes in the design of the government.

For example, they considered that if we are going to pass a treaty, it should be a supermajority. They put that into the Constitution. They laid out that if we are going to override a veto by the President, it should take a supermajority to do that, and they put it into the Constitution. They said, if we are going to amend the Constitution itself, we should take a supermajority. They put that in the Constitution. They didn't put a supermajority for legislating in. Oh, they thought about it. They talked about it. They wrestled with it. They kept coming back to the belief that the heart of the Democratic process is the path the majority chooses as the right path is the path that should prevail, not the path chosen by the minority.

So there were commentaries on this in various of the Federalist Papers. Here we have Alexander Hamilton on supermajority rule. He said supermajority rule in Congress would lead to ``tedious delays; continual negotiations and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' That is what Hamilton thought. That overlays pretty well with a lot of what we see on the floor of the Senate today.

How about Madison. Madison had commentary on this. He said, ``The fundamental principle of free government would be reversed'' if this Chamber did legislation by supermajority. Why did he say that? Because it would mean the path chosen by the few would prevail over the path chosen by the majority.

There is a lot of nostalgia when people think back to a time when the filibuster was an instrument of principle. Many Americans think about this. They think about the movie where Jimmy Stewart portrays Jefferson Smith, a newcomer to the Senate, and he comes to the well of the Senate and he fights for the principle of avoiding the corrupt practices regarding a boys camp. He didn't have to take the floor and demand a supermajority vote for blocking the simple majority, but he was determined to both make his case before the American people as well as his colleagues and certainly eat up as much time as he could physically, which was another strategy of the standing, talking filibuster, so the public would have a chance to respond.

Many folks say that is just a romantic Hollywood thing. But the charts I have shown my colleagues show the filibuster was used only rarely. It was viewed as an exceptional instrument of fighting for a personal principle when you were willing, when you had the courage to stand before your colleagues and make a stand. It was that way when I came here in the early 1970s. I came as an intern in 1976. In the previous year, there had been a big fight over the filibuster because of the early abuses we saw on those charts in the early years of the 1970s. The attitude changed. The filibuster started to become used as an instrument for partisan politics rather than personal principle.

So they had a debate in 1975, and they said we are going to change it from 67 to 60. That is where they ended up. It started with this body affirming multiple times that its intent was to use simple majority to change the rules as envisioned under the Constitution. It is also the way it was envisioned under the rules of the Senate: A simple majority could change the rules, until 1970. There are a lot of observations by ordinary Americans that the Senate is broken, and we should listen to ordinary Americans who expect us to be a legislative body that can deliberate and decide.

This is a cartoon that came out recently by Tom Tolls of the Washington Post showing a Senator at the podium and the Senator says: I will tell you all the reasons we shouldn't reform the filibuster. No. 1, it will restrict my ability to frivolously stymie everything. No. 2--and he thinks for a while and he can't think of any other reason we shouldn't reform the filibuster, so he asks the staff: How long do I have to keep talking? The little commentary down here: You can read your recipes for paralysis.

The filibuster has become a recipe for paralysis. It is up to us 2 days from today, when we start a new session of Congress, to take responsibility for modifying the rules of the Senate because we have a responsibility to the American people to address the big issues facing our Nation and we can't do that when this Chamber is paralyzed.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time to address this issue. I look forward to the debate we are going to have 2 days from today.

I see our majority leader has come to the floor, and I thank him for all the dialogs over the last 2 years on this topic. The majority leader may not have seen the chart I put up to start with, but it is his picture.

I saw it.

He has been suffering, if you will, through these nearly 400 filibusters in the 6 years he has been majority leader, while so many issues in America go unaddressed; each one of these filibusters procedurally taking up as much as a week of the Senate's time, even if we can get to vote to shut it down.

We must change the way we do our business in this Chamber to honor our responsibility under the Constitution to legislate in order to address the big issues facing Americans.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

The majority leader.

Mr. President, I did watch the presentation of my friend and I appreciate his tenacity and his thoroughness.

Tribute to Tony Hanagan and Keira Harris
Page: S8625

Mr. President, Tony Hanagan and Keira Harris are two former pages who returned to the Senate, graciously volunteering to sacrifice some of their Christmas vacation to help here on the Senate floor this past weekend. Tony and Keira have worked tirelessly to complete work typically performed by 14 pages. We appreciate their help during the Senate's recent late nights. We thank them for their great effort and impeccable service to the Senate.

Page: S8625

At 2:03 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, without amendment:

S. 3454. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

S. 3630. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

S. 3662. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster, Massachusetts, as the ``Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post Office Building''.

S. 3677. An act to make a technical correction to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.

The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 6612. An act to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range.

H.R. 6649. An act to provide for the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients.

The message further announced that the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6364) to establish a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 147. Concurrent resolution waiving the requirement that measures enrolled during the remainder of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress be printed on parchment.

Page: S8625

The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 6612. An act to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Page: S8626

The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the calendar:

H.R. 459. To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes.

Page: S8626

The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, January 1, 2013, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills:

S. 3202. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that deceased veterans with no known next of kin can receive a dignified burial, and for other purposes.

S. 3666. An act to amend the Animal Welfare Act to modify the definition of ``exhibitor''.

= = Page: S8626

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 870, 871, 878, 879, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 932, 933, 934, 935, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, with the following exceptions: Colonel Stephen Rader, Colonel Randall A. Shear, Jr., and Colonel Erik C. Peterson; and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the RECORD; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

William P. Doyle, of Pennsylvania, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner for the term expiring June 30, 2013.

Michael Peter Huerta, of the District of Columbia, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the term of five years.

James M. Demers, of New Hampshire, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for a term expiring December 17, 2014.

Naomi A. Walker, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for a term expiring December 17, 2012.

Jonathan Lippman, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2012.

Jonathan Lippman, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2015.

Maria Rosario Jackson, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2016.

Joseph Byrne Donovan, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Building Sciences for a term expiring September 7, 2013.

Bruce R. Sievers, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2018.

Angela Tammy Dickinson, of Missouri, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri for the term of four years.

The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

To be brigadier general Colonel Stephen J. Linsenmeyer, Jr.

The following Air National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12212:

To be brigadier general Col. Calvin H. Elam

The following Air National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12212:

The following Air National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12212:

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

Edward W. Brehm, of Minnesota, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation for a term expiring September 22, 2017.

Iqbal Paroo, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation for a term expiring September 22, 2017.

T. Charles Cooper, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

Patrick J. Wilkerson, of Oklahoma, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for the term of four years.

Louise W. Kelton, of Tennessee, to be United States Marshal for the Middle District of Tennessee for the term of four years.

Lorne W. Craner, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation for a term of two years.

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

The following Air National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12212:

The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

The following named Air National Guard of the United States officer for appointment as Director, Air National Guard, and for appointment to the grade indicated in the Reserve of the Air Force under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 10506:

The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12211:

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

The following Army National Guard of the United States officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12211:

The following named officer for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Army under title 10, U.S.C., section 624:

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624:

The following named officer for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general in the United States Marine Corps while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

The following named officer for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general in the United States Marine Corps while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

Albert G. Lauber, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court for the term of fifteen years.

Ronald Lee Buch, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court for a term of fifteen years.

David Masumoto, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2018.

Ramon Saldivar, of California, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2018.

William J. Mielke, of Wisconsin, to be a Member of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

Arthur H. Sulzer, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

George E. Moose, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace for a term of four years.

Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk

PN1981 AIR FORCE nominations (93) beginning DEMEA A. ALDERMAN, and ending FELISA L. WILSON, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 13, 2012.

PN2034 AIR FORCE nominations (85) beginning MATTHEW W. ALLINSON, and ending JEFFREY D. YOUNG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2054 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning JOHAN K. AHN, and ending JEFFREY S. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2083 AIR FORCE nominations (6) beginning LAURA A. BRODHAG, and ending JOHN D. KLEIN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2084 AIR FORCE nominations (17) beginning WILLIAM R. BAEZ, and ending BRYCE G. WHISLER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2085 AIR FORCE nominations (51) beginning JAKE R. ATWOOD, and ending MICHAEL R. ZACHAR, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2086 AIR FORCE nominations (73) beginning KRISTEN J. BEALS, and ending JIANZHONG J. ZHANG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2087 AIR FORCE nominations (30) beginning TANSEL ACAR, and ending BRANDON H. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2088 AIR FORCE nominations (146) beginning SAMUEL E. AIKELE, and ending SCOTT M. ZELASKO, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2089 AIR FORCE nominations (246) beginning HOMAYOUN R. AHMADIAN, and ending JOE X. ZHANG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2035 ARMY nomination of Robert W. Handy, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2036 ARMY nomination of James T. Seidule, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2037 ARMY nominations (2) beginning MARK A. NOZAKI, and ending MATTHEW D. RAMSEY, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2038 ARMY nominations (11) beginning CHRISTOPHER J. CUMMINGS, and ending RANDOLPH O. PETGRAVE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2039 ARMY nominations (34) beginning ANTHONY C. ADOLPH, and ending SEAN M. WILSON, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2040 ARMY nominations (130) beginning RONALD L. BAKER, and ending MICHAEL T. WRIGHT, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2041 ARMY nominations (159) beginning TERRY L. ANDERSON, and ending G001094, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2042 ARMY nominations (240) beginning JOSE L. AGUILAR, and ending D005615, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2055 ARMY nomination of Michael D. Shortt, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2056 ARMY nomination of Delnora L. Erickson, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2057 ARMY nomination of Ronald D. Lain, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2058 ARMY nomination of Matthew J. Burinskas, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2059 ARMY nomination of Ronald G. Cook, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2060 ARMY nomination of David A. Cortese, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2061 ARMY nomination of Charles J. Romero, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2062 ARMY nominations (2) beginning MICHAEL D. DO, and ending GREGORY S. SEESE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2074 ARMY nominations (15) beginning DEEPTI S. CHITNIS, and ending GIA K. YI, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2075 ARMY nominations (17) beginning KARIN R. BILYARD, and ending BETHANY S. ZARNDT, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2076 ARMY nominations (51) beginning JAMES E. ANDREWS, II, and ending D010617, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2077 ARMY nominations (82) beginning JACOB W. AARONSON, and ending DAVID W. WOLKEN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2078 ARMY nominations (150) beginning SILAS C. ABRENICA, and ending KEVIN M. ZEEB, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2079 ARMY nominations (161) beginning LOVIE L. ABRAHAM, and ending VICKEE L. WOLCOTT, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 10, 2012.

PN2090 ARMY nomination of Alfred C. Anderson, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2091 ARMY nomination of Deanna R. Beech, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2092 ARMY nominations (2) beginning SHRRELL L. BYARD, and ending SOO B. KIM, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2093 ARMY nominations (7) beginning DONALD E. LAYNE, and ending JOSEPH F. SUCHER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2012.

PN2043 NAVY nominations (3) beginning DAVID SAMMETT, and ending TIMOTHY R. DURKIN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2044 NAVY nominations (36) beginning TIMOTHY R. ANDERSON, and ending GEORGE B. WATKINS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of November 27, 2012.

PN2063 NAVY nomination of John T. Volpe, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2064 NAVY nomination of Tamara M. Sorensen, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

PN2065 NAVY nomination of Joseph N. Kenan, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 5, 2012.

Nomination of Richard B. Brener to be Director, Office of Financial Research, Department of the Treasury
Page: S8628

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 645; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the RECORD; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

If there is no further debate, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Richard B. Berner, of Massachusetts, to be Director, Office of Financial Research, Department of the Treasury?

The nomination was confirmed.

Page: S8628

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following Foreign Service nominations and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: Presidential Nomination 1878, Gary T. Greene; Presidential Nomination 1970, a list beginning with Philip S. Goldberg and ending with Robert W. Weitzel; Presidential Nomination 2028, Michael R. Hardegen; Presidential Nomination 2029, a list beginning with Geoffrey W. Wiggin and ending with Eric A. Wenberg, with the exception of Geoffrey W. Wiggin; Presidential Nomination 2030, a list beginning with Stephen J. Gonyea and ending with Katharine Antonia Weber, with the exception of Scott S. Cameron; Presidential Nomination 2031, a list beginning with Sharon Lee Cromer and ending with Clinton David White, with the exceptions of Sharon Lee Cromer and Maria Rendon Labadan; and Presidential Nomination 2032, a list beginning with Karl Miller Adam and ending with Mark K. Yang, with the exception of Daniel Menco Hirsch; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the RECORD; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

The following-named Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture (APHIS) for promotion within and into the Senior Foreign Service to the class indicated:

Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister Counselor:

Gary T. Greene, of Georgia

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion into and within the Senior Foreign Service to the classes indicated:

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister: Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia Wanda L. Nesbitt, of Pennsylvania Victoria Nuland, of Connecticut Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland Daniel Bennett Smith, of Virginia

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Karl Philip Albrecht, of Virginia Theodore Allegra, of Colorado Bruce Armstrong, of Florida Clare A. Barkley, of Maryland Robert I. Blau, of Virginia Roberto Gonzales Brady, of California John Brien Brennan, of Virginia Piper Anne Wind Campbell, of the District of Columbia Jonathan Raphael Cohen, of California Mark J. Cohen, of Texas Maureen E. Cormack, of Illinois John S. Creamer, of Virginia Jeffrey DeLaurentis, of New York Laura Farnsworth Dogu, of Texas Walter Douglas, of Nevada Catherine I. Ebert-Gray, of Colorado Susan Marsh Elliott, of Florida Thomas Scott Engle, of the District of Columbia Marilyn Claire Ferdinand, of Virginia Valerie C. Fowler, of Washington Daniel Edward Goodspeed, of Virginia William S. Green, of Ohio Jeri S. Guthrie-Corn, of California Michael A. Hammer, of Maryland D. Brent Hardt, of Florida Robert A. Hartung, of Virginia William A. Heidt, of California James William Herman, of Washington Thomas Mark Hodges, of Tennessee Martin P. Hohe, of Florida Charles F. Hunter, of the District of Columbia Mark J. Hunter, of Florida Donald Emil Jacobson, of Virginia Kelly Ann Keiderling Franz, of California Sung Y. Kim, of California John Charles Law, of Virginia Russell G. Le Clair, Jr., of Illinois Mary Beth Leonard, of Massachusetts Donald Lu, of California Lewis Alan Lukens, of Virginia Deborah Ruth Malac, of Virginia William John Martin, of California Robin Hill Matthewman, of Washington Elizabeth Kay Webb Mayfield, of Texas James P. McAnulty, of Virginia Thomas S. Miller, of Minnesota Barry M. Moore, of Texas Michael Chase Mullins, of New Hampshire John Olson, of California Theodore G. Osius, of the District of Columbia Robert Glenn Rapson, of New Hampshire Robert A. Riley, of Florida Gary D. Robbins, of Washington Todd David Robinson, of New Jersey- Matthew M. Rooney, of Texas Dana Shell Smith, of California Dean L. Smith, of Texas Pamela L. Spratlen, of California Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of Maryland Susan M. Sutton, of Virginia Michael Embach Thurston, of Washington Paul Allen Wedderien, of California Alice G. Wells, of Virginia Thomas E. Williams, Jr., of Virginia Robert A. Wood, of New York Uzra S. Zeya, of Florida Benjamin G. Ziff, of California

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as indicated:

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor:

David W. Abell, of Arkansas Aruna S.G. Amirthanayagam, of New York Tanya Cecelia Anderson, of Pennsylvania Michael Adam Barkin, of Florida Peter Henry Barlerin, of Maryland Susan Tebeau Bell, of South Carolina Virginia Lynn Bennett, of Georgia Randy W. Berry, of Colorado Bruce Berton, of Washington Donald Armin Blome, of Illinois Andrew Norbu Bowen, of Texas Sue Lenore Bremner, of California Maria E. Brewer, of Indiana Natalie Eugenia Brown, of Virginia Gregory S. Burton, of Virginia Brent Donald Byers, of Virginia Paul Michael Cantrell, of California Lisa Marie Carle, of California John Leslie Carwile, of Maryland Laurent D. Charbonnet, of Louisiana Craig Lewis Cloud, of Florida Nancy Lynn Corbett, of California Greggory D. Crouch, of the District of Columbia Don D. Curtis, of Maryland John J. Daigle, of Louisiana Joel Danies, of the District of Columbia John Winthrop Dayton III, of Texas Nicholas Julian Dean, of Virginia Robin D. Diallo, of California John Walter Dinkelman, of Wyoming Brian P. Doherty, of Florida Christine Ann Elder, of Virginia Nina Maria Fite, of Pennsylvania Eric Alan Flohr, of Maryland Daniel L. Foote, of Virginia Kenneth Lee Foster, of Virginia Robert Arthur Frazier, of Texas Thomas G. Gallo, of New Jersey Rebecca Eliza Gonzales, of Texas Martha J. Haas, of Arizona Sarah Cooper Hall, of New York Scott Ian Hamilton, of Illinois Todd Philip Haskell, of Florida Andrew B. Haviland, of Iowa Peter Mark Haymond, of Virginia Dennis Walter Hearne, of North Carolina Brian George Heath, of New Jersey Jonathan Henick, of California G. Kathleen Hill, of Texas Nicholas Manning Hill, of Rhode Island Jeffrey M. Hovenier, of Maryland George W. lndyke, Jr., of New Jersey Eric A. Johnson, of the District of Columbia Gary P. Keith, of Ohio Eric Khant, of Florida Yuri Kim, of Guam Karin Margaret King, of Ohio Daniel Joseph Kritenbrink, of Virginia Yael Lampert, of New York James Marx Levy, of Washington John M. Lipinski, of Pennsylvania Patricia Alice Mahoney, of Texas Jeanne M. Maloney, of Tennessee Colette Marcellin, of Virginia Caryn R. McClelland, of California Brian David McFeeters, of New Mexico Jacqueline K. McKennan, of Wyoming Martha L. Melzow, of California Phillip Andrew Min, of New Jersey William James Mozdzierz, of New York Katherine Anne Munchmeyer, of Texas Michael J. Murphy, of Virginia Robert Barry Murphy, of New Hampshire Robert William Ogburn, of Maryland Sheila R. Paskman, of Pennsylvania Lisa J. Peterson, of New York Robert A. Pitre, of Washington Beth L. Poisson, of Maryland Elizabeth Mabel Whalen Pratt, of the District of Columbia David Hugh Rank, of Illinois Joel Richard Reifman, of Texas David M. Reinert, of New Mexico Joan Marie Richards, of California Raymond D. Richhart, Jr., of California William Vernon Roebuck, Jr., of North Carolina Michael D. Scanlan, of Pennsylvania Stephen M. Schwartz, of New York Justin H. Siberell, of California George Neil Sibley, of Connecticut Adam H. Sterling, of New York John C. Sullivan, of California Melinda Tabler-Stone, of Virginia John Stephen Tavenner, of Texas Dean Richard Thompson, of Maryland Susan Ashton Thornton, of the District of Columbia Laird D. Treiber, of the District of Columbia Jeffrey A. Van Dreal, of Texas Lisa Annette Vickers, of California Samuel Robert Watson III, of Virginia Donna Ann Welton, of the District of Columbia Terry John White, of Oregon Stephanie Turco Williams, of Texas Eugene Stewart Young, of the District of Columbia

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, and Consular Officers and Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Robert L. Adams, of Virginia Thomas A. Barnard, of Virginia Francis John Bray, Jr., of California Carmen Margarita Castro, of Virginia Ronnie S. Catipon, of Virginia David F. Cooper, of Florida Edwin W. Daly, of Virginia Craig Dicker, of Maryland Mark S. Graves, of Virginia Edwin Guard, of Virginia Charles J. Horkey, of Florida Richard J. Ingram, of Virginia Michael P. Kane, of Virginia Kevin J. Kilpatrick, of Indiana Gregary James Levin, of California Jeffrey D. Lischke, of Virginia Kathleen G. Lively, of Virginia Thomas G. McDonough, of Maryland Brian J. McKenna, of Maryland Patrick J. Moore, of Florida Wayne F. Quillin, of New York John H. Rennick, of Texas Susan B. Summers, of Virginia Robert W. Weitzel, of Virginia

The following named Career Member of the Foreign Service of the International Broadcasting Bureau for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service to the class indicated:

Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, and Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America: Michael R. Hardegen, of Florida

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister Counselor: James J. Higgiston, of Maryland David C. Miller, of Washington Elia P. Vanechanos, of New Jersey

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor: Gary W. Meyer, of Wisconsin Eric A. Wenberg, of Wyoming

The following-named persons of the United States Agency for International Development for appointment as Foreign Service Officers of the classes stated.

For appointment as Foreign Service Officer of Class Two, Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America,

Stephen J. Gonyea, of Florida Ritu K. Tariyal, of California Alexis Maria Taylor, of New York

For appointment as Foreign Service Officer of Class Three, Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America,

Sarah Maxwell Banashek, of California Robert B. Barton, of Pennsylvania Aaron J. Bishop, of California Ana Isabel Bodipo-Memba, of the District of Columbia Kevin Maurice Brown, of Florida Elizabeth Ann Callender, of Virginia Monica Dore Carlson, of Virginia Elizabeth Davnie-Easton, of Virginia Cristina M. Drost, of Nevada Charles Ogorchukwu Egu, of Maryland Susan Fenno, of Maine Christopher Todd Foley, of New York Christine D. Gandomi, of Arizona Anya Glenn, of California Alexandra Isabel Huerta, of Washington Deborah L. Johnston, of Virginia Melanie A. Luick-Martins, of Iowa Steven M. Majors, of Missouri Mark A. Mitchell, of Oregon Christine M. Obester, of Virginia Amy Michelle Partida, of Texas Allyson L. Phelps, of Arizona Andrew Ari Rebold, of New York Shannon Marae Rogers, of Colorado Andrea Sawka, of Florida Jason Lee Smith, of the District of Columbia Richard E. Spencer, of Virginia Matthew Earl Sumpter, of California Greg M. Swarin, of Michigan Corina Chentze Warfield, of California Katharine Antonia Weber, of Alaska

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Agency for International Development for promotion within and into the Senior Foreign Service to the classes indicated:

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister:

David E. Eckerson, of Virginia Earl W. Gast, of California William Hammink, of the District of Columbia Susumu Ken Yamashita, of Florida

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister Counselor:

Robert F. Cunnane, of Florida Alexander Dickie IV, of Texas Susan French Fine, of Virginia Brooke Andrea Isham, of Washington Kevin J. Mullally, of Arizona Charles Eric North, of Virginia Denise Annette Rollins, of the District of Columbia Thomas H. Staal, of Maryland Dennis James Weller, of Illinois Melissa A. Williams, of Virginia

Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor:

Jim Nelson Barnhart, Jr., of Georgia Sherry F. Carlin, of Florida Kimberly J. Delaney, of California Celestina M. Dooley-Jones, of South Dakota Lisa Rose Franchett, of California Michelle Allison Godette, of Florida Deborah Lynn Grieser, of Illinois Nancy L. Hoffman, of Florida James M. Hope, of Texas Mark S. Hunter, of Virginia Rebecca A. Latorraca, of West Virginia Teresa L. McGhie, of Nevada Elizabeth E. Palmer, of Arizona Joakim Eric Parker, of California Andrew William Plitt, of Maryland Roy Plucknett, of Virginia Leslie K. Reed, of California Allen F. Vargas, of Florida Clinton David White, of Florida

The following-named persons of the Department of State for appointment as Foreign Service Officers of the classes stated.

For appointment as Foreign Service Officer of Class Four, Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America,

Karl Miller Adam, of Texas Andrew L. Armstrong, of Florida Dina A. Badawy, of Virginia Francoise I. Baramdyka, of California Brian Paul Beckmann, of Minnesota Fritz W. Berggren, of Washington Marie Marguerite Blanchard, of Massachusetts Kathryn W. Bondy, of Georgia Melanie Lynette Bonner, of the District of Columbia Matthew J. Britton, of California Bianca M. Collins, of Michigan Anton Mark Cooper, of Washington Melissa Elmore Cotton, of Massachusetts Andrew Joseph Curiel, of California Hannah A. Draper, of Arkansas Thomas Anthony Duval, of Massachusetts James P. DuVernay, of New Jersey Amy E. Eagleburger, of California Jonathan Edward Earle, of Missouri Jeremy Edwards, of Texas Jeffrey Edward Ellis, of Washington John C. Etcheverry, of California Dylan Thomas Fisher, of Virginia Theodore Joseph Fisher, of California Rebecca V. Gardner, of Ohio Robert Richard Gatehouse, Jr., of Connecticut Joseph Martin Geraghty, of Pennsylvania John Drew Giblin, of Georgia Stephanie Snow Gilbert, of Oklahoma Mark Thomas Goldrup, of California Michael Gorman, of Virginia Catherine A. Hallock, of New York Jessica Amy Hartman, of California Stephanie M. Hauser, of Florida Jeffrey M. Hay, of Virginia Mark Hernandez, of Virginia Benjamin George Hess, of North Carolina Kathryn L. Holmgaard, of Virginia Jonathan Paul Howard, of Virginia Brent W. Israelsen, of Nevada Eric Ryan Jacobs, of Florida Nichiren Rashad Jones, of Georgia Rachel Ynyr Kallas, of Wisconsin Allen L. Krause, of Michigan Dawson Law, of Florida Katherine Maureen Leahy, of New Jersey Adam Jacob Leff, of the District of Columbia Rong Rong, Li, of Maine Elizabeth Angela Litchfield, of Illinois Jennifer L. McAndrew, of Texas Daniel Craig McCandless, of Pennsylvania Julia P. McKay, of South Carolina Elizabeth Albin Meza, of Texas Eric C. Moore, of Oregon Kristy M. Mordhorst, of Texas Walker Paul Murray, of Washington Scott A. Norris, of Texas Sarah Oh, of New York James Paul O'Mealia II, of New Jersey Irene Ijeoma Onyeagbako, of Nevada Erik Graham Page, of South Carolina Jennifer Leigh Palmer, of California Neil M. Phillips, of Maryland Jay Lanning Porter, of Utah A. Larissa Proctor, of Virginia Margaret S. Ramsay, of New York Jeramee C. Rice, of Tennessee James Thomas Rider, of Michigan Shannon M. Ritchie, of Virginia George Rivas, Jr., of Texas Jennifer Wells Robertson, of Virginia Dustin Salveson, of New York Jonathan Charles Scott, of California Mihail David Seroka, of Alabama Travis Mark Sevy, of Utah Muhammad R. Shahbaz, of New York George Brandon Sherwood, of North Carolina Michael Aaron Shulman, of the District of Columbia Gwendolynne M. Simmons, of Florida Nathan R. Simmons, of Idaho Nisha Dilip Singh, of California Jeremy Daniel Slezak, of Texas Alan Joseph Smith, of the District of Columbia Eric Anthony Smith, of California Véronique Elisabeth Smith, of California Kristen Marie Stolt, of Illinois Michael James Wautlet, of Colorado Erin Ramsey Wilhelm, of the District of Columbia Garrett E. Wilkerson, of Oregon Amanda L. Williams-Ford, of North Carolina Nelson H. Wu, of Virginia Margaret Anne Young, of Missouri Michael Joseph Young, of Colorado

The following-named Members of the Foreign Service to be Secretaries or Consular Officers and Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Sarah Ahmed, of Virginia Zakhar Amchislavsky, of the District of Columbia Moses An, of California Brian I. Apel, of Virginia Tobei B. Arai, of Georgia Harry J. Bethke, of Virginia Littane Bien-Aime, of Massachusetts Keondra S. Bills, of New York Ryan P. Blanton, of Missouri Jackson Bloom, of California Michael C. Blue, of Pennsylvania Pren-Tsilya Boa-Guehe, of Maryland Elizabeth Boniface, of Virginia Douglas L. Brady, of Virginia Alain C. Brainos, of Virginia Patrick Branco, of Hawaii Joseph A. Brandifino, of Virginia Adam Matthew Brown, of Florida Amy B. Brown, of the District of Columbia Travis S. Brown, of the District of Columbia Amanda Rose Buescher, of California Paul R. Bullard, of New York Jose E. Campoy, of Arizona Virgil William Carstens, of Texas Mark R. Carter, of Connecticut Ryan W. Casselberry, of Florida Tuseef Chaudhry, of Virginia Doreen A. Ciavarelli, of Virginia Pam S. Cobb, of the District of Columbia Anita C. Cochran, of New York Lindsay Coldwell, of Virginia Patricia Connor, of Virginia Marlo Salaita Cross-Durrant, of the District of Columbia Daniel William Cunnane, of Virginia Christine E. Cuoco, of Virginia Mary C. Cypressi, of Pennsylvania John P. Davies, of Virginia Maria C. Dec, of Virginia Anthony Delladonna, of Virginia Dan Deming, of Virginia Elizabeth A. Dreeland, of Arizona Elisabeth F. El-Khodary, of Maryland Mark C. Elliott, of Maryland Anthony L. Ettison, of Maryland John V. Fazio, of Illinois Benjamin Michael Fehrman, of North Carolina Joseph P. Ferguson, of Florida Paul I. Fishbein, of California Paul R. Fleming, of Michigan Jennifer R. Garcia, of Virginia Karina Gabriela Garcia, of California Courtney L. Gates, of California John Hunter Gray, of California Marina Vishnevetsky Grayson, of Texas Colin Guard, of Washington Nathaniel Sherman Haft, of Ohio Allyson Hamilton-McIntire, of Kentucky Anne Louise M. Hanson, of Virginia Kaylea J. Happell, of the District of Columbia Mark W. Hardy, of Virginia Byron Clement Hartman, of Virginia Tyson P. Hinds, of Virginia Theodore Ho, of California Alexis J. Huff, of California Kenneth H. Ilgenfritz, of Virginia Daniela Stefanova Ionova-Swider, of Florida Kendall D. Jackson, of West Virginia Briana Nicole Jones, of the District of Columbia Jeff Jung, of California Hiram K. Keliipio, of Virginia Akbar Khalid, of Virginia Walid N. Kildani, of Virginia Yuki Kondo-Shah, of Arizona Patrick E. Koucheravy, of Virginia Laurie Anne Kuriakose, of Illinois Jessie Marie Kuykendall, of Oklahoma Rebecca A. Larson, of the District of Columbia Jaime Faye LeBlanc-Hadley, of Texas Alex Vladichak Litichevsky, of New Jersey Amy L. Loprete, of Maryland Cesar Marines, of Virginia James McDonnell, of the District of Columbia Monty Rushmoore McGee, of Virginia Sean P. McGuire, of Virginia Sutton Adell Meagher, of the District of Columbia Anne-Marie G. Melanson, of Virginia Ronald Mendez, of Texas Victoria S. Meuret, of Virginia Cameron Scott Millard, of Washington Jared R. Milton, of Virginia Amy Rachel Monsarrat, of Virginia Joseph J. Motyleski, of Virginia Jonathan G. Nadzam, of Virginia Emma Mariska Nagy, of California Brandon K. Nolen, of the District of Columbia Mark W. Okiishi, of Virginia Haneef L. Omar, of Maryland Stephen J. Osullivan, of Virginia Benjamin Overby, of Nevada Jane Jihye Park, of Virginia Julianne Nicole Parker, of Florida Gregory Parnell, of Virginia Sapna K. Patel, of Texas Thomas Benjamin Perkowski, of the District of Columbia Ryan Evan Peterson, of Virginia Jeffrey Prenger, of Maryland David A. Rasmussen, of Virginia Michael F. Renehan, of Maryland Kelli A. Rettinger, of Virginia Michael Clinton Riley, of North Carolina Brady E. Roberts, of Texas Scott N. Roffman, of Michigan Carrie M. Romoser, of Virginia Vanessa N. Rozier, of Connecticut Andrea L. Ruschenberg, of Virginia Anastasia J. Sadowski, of Virginia Patrick Salzwedel, of North Carolina Aleksey Sanchez, of Florida David M. Schorr, of Idaho Leah J. Severino, of California Ahmed Shama, of New York Jeffry Howard Sheldon, of Montana Mark T. Shen, of Virginia Andrew Todd Shepard, of Florida Christina Terrill Skipper, of Virginia Kevin W. Smith, of Virginia Alesia L. Sourine, of Michigan Crystal Spearman, of Texas Max Joseph Steiner, of California William John Steinmetz, of Virginia Alex Stewart, of Virginia Rebecca Joy Stewart, of the District of Columbia RaeJean K. Stokes, of Connecticut William Stroud, of Virginia Michael John Suleski, of Virginia Ivan Susak, of Virginia Robert T. Sutter, of the District of Columbia Pamela M. Tadken, of Maryland Karla Thomas, of Washington Markus A. Thomi, of New York Samuel H. Thompson, of Virginia Leah Thornstenson, of Texas Nicholas J. Unger, of California Todd William Unterseher, of Louisiana Jennifer L. VanWinkle, of Iowa Juan Manuel Vazquez, of Washington Susan Rivers Vesel, of Virginia Vanessa Lisbeth Vidal Castellanos, of California Ann Marie Warmenhoven, of Florida Bryan D. Weisbard, of Virginia Robert C. Wheeler, of Virginia Lee Vincent Wilbur, of South Dakota Jacqueline K. Wilson, of Oregon Peter Brenner Winter, of New Mexico Kevin Wong, of Virginia William H. Wyche, of Virginia Mark K. Yang, of Virginia

Page: S8631

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: Commerce Committee, Presidential Nominations 1919, 1774, 1924, 1702, 1925, 1509, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2021, 2045, 2046; Veterans' Affairs Committee and HELP Committee, Presidential Nomination 1948; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Presidential Nomination 1698; Environment and Public Works Committee, Presidential Nominations 1966, 1965, 1964, 1398, 1950; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the RECORD; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Joshua D. Wright, of Virginia, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner for the term of seven years from September 26, 2012.

Polly Ellen Trottenberg, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.

Mark Doms, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs.

Mignon L. Clyburn, of South Carolina, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2012.

Christopher R. Beall, of Oklahoma, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors for a term of five years.

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, of California, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors for a term of five years.

Pursuant to title 14, U.S. Code, Sections 189 and 276, the following named officers of the Coast Guard permanent commissioned teaching staff for appointment to the grades indicated in the United States Coast Guard:

To be captain Brigid M. Pavilonis, 9670

To be lieutenant commander Victoria C. Futch, 4023

Pursuant to title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12203, the following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard Reserve:

To be captain Barbara A. Anderson, 1095 Elizabeth S. Becker, 5439 James M. Bradshaw, 3380 Stephen K. Browning, 5189 Andrew T. Grenier, 5696 Craig R. Henzel, 6729 Paul J. Kosiba, 2193 Richard P. McLoughlin, 6170 Mary A. Merlin, 5840 Darren M. Moore, 9094 Mark M. Murakami, 6106 Raymond A. Murray, 7403 Richard K. Nelson, 8025 John P. Nolan, 7078 Sean K. O'Brien, 2521 Jeffrey K. Pashai, 4636 Ronald C. Richard, 4707 Charles T. Scheel, 5441 Paul J. Smith, 6757 Kenneth G. Stefanisin, 0578

Pursuant to title 14, U.S. Code, Section 271, the following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard:

To be captain Charles G. Alcock, 9921 Michael S. Antonellis, 5030 Michael A. Baroody, 5615 Kevin F. Bruen, 5482 Mark J. Bruyere, 3692 Joseph R. Buzzella, 9459 Peter J. Clemens, 0025 Amy B. Cocanour, 4543 Benjamin A. Cooper, 7446 Dean J. Dardis, 0951 Benjamin L. Davis, 7810 Andres V. Delgado, 4086 Timothy D. Denby, 5821 Dennis C. Evans, 2583 Kent W. Everingham, 0210 Charles E. Fosse, 2203 Claudia C. Gelzer, 9810 Thomas W. Gesele, 5000 Shannon N. Gilreath, 1402 Jason R. Hamilton, 9913 Lonnie P. Harrison, 5328 Robert T. Hendrickson, 0629 Glenn C. Hernandez, 4723 Pedro L. Jimenez, 6978 Eric G. Johnson, 5236 Kevin A. Jones, 1620 Samuel R. Jordan, 5346 Ted L. Jordan, 9940 Lawrence A. Kiley, 4150 Nathan E. Knapp, 8375 William J. Lane, 9117 Carola J.G. List, 6683 Thomas S. MacDonald, 5194 Sean C. MacKenzie, 8795 Edward J. Marohn, 8571 David G. McClellan, 6193 Patrick S. McElligatt, 5040 Keith P. McTigue, 7716 Matthew T. Meilstrup, 8815 Mark J. Morin, 3347 Mitchell A. Morrison, 4017 Andrew D. Myers, 0257 Lee B. Mynatt, 8798 Jason D. Neubauer, 0262 James A. Passarelli, 2110 Stephen E. Raney, 8980 John D. Reeves, 5620 Sean P. Regan, 7012 Brian W. Roche, 3389 Patrick A. Ropp, 1397 Aaron E. Roth, 9026 Jose A. Saliceti, 7461 Edward W. Sandlin, 3671 Timothy J. Schang, 7250 Ronald K. Schuster, 6416 Robert L. Smith, 8190 Joseph H. Snowden, 1111 Jonathan S. Spaner, 7533 James P. Spotts, 4085 Mikeal S. Staier, 5988 Todd R. Styrwold, 4299 Erich M. Telfer, 9847 Jeffery W. Thomas, 6751 Richard V. Timme, 7617 William R. Timmons, 3983 Gary L. Tomasulo, 8972 Jonathan W. Totte, 6718 John C. Vann, 7390 Robert W. Warren, 1499 Timothy J. Wendt, 4072 Edward A. Westfall, 3384 Jeffrey C. Westling, 5924 Gregory D. Wisener, 4098 Steven P. Wittrock, 3763

Pursuant to title 14, U.S. Code, Section 271(e), the following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard:

To be commander Matthew P. Barker, 7721 Michael W. Batchelder, 1032 Joshua D. Bauman, 1790 Adam G. Bentley, 4815 Damon L. Bentley, 0028 Kenneth E. Blair, 5281 Kenneth J. Boda, 7374 Camilla B. Bosanquet, 4089 Roy R. Brubaker, 0184 Joann F. Burdian, 0419 Andrew T. Campen, 9378 Scott S. Casad, 6112 Christopher R. Cederholm, 1642 John R. Cole, 8648 Robert C. Compher, 4186 Chad W. Cooper, 0820 Nathan E. Coulter, 9371 Joandrew D. Cousins, 3809 Charles C. Culotta, 9793 Cornelius E. Cummings, 7200 Shawn E. Decker, 9987 Michael E. Delury, 1786 Stephen A. Devereux, 5340 John T. Dewey, 9865 Jose E. Diaz, 2729 John R. Dittmar, 4605 Keith M. Donohue, 2298 Eric D. Drey, 0934 Jerome E. Dubay, 9236 Mia P. Dutcher, 6327 Timothy W. Eason, 2679 Damon C. Edwards, 6153 Jeffrey T. Eldridge, 6504 Janet D. Espinoyoung, 3395 Matthew R. Farnen, 8256 Sarah K. Felger, 8522 Kevin B. Ferrie, 4970 Todd A. Fisher, 3339 Ted R. Fowles, 1609 Michael E. Frawley, 1743 Tanya L. Giles, 9961 Michael J. Goldschmidt, 6712 Michael D. Good, 7990 Hans C. Govertsen, 7831 Charles M. Guerrero, 0103 Tim A. Gunter, 1157 Thomas T. Harrison, 0289 Robert E. Hart, 3789 Heath A. Hartley, 9814 Casey J. Hehr, 7112 Jonathan N. Hellberg, 6376 Scott C. Herman, 5180 Anna W. Hickey, 9731 Nakeisha B. Hills, 3238 Christopher M. Huberty, 0465 Christopher J. Hulser, 9071 Austin R. Ives, 9201 Thomas A. Jacobson, 2569 Jeffrey H. Jager, 3803 David M. Johnston, 6464 Daniel C. Jones, 1524 Warren D. Judge, 3435 Sean R. Katz, 2683 Richard J. Kavanaugh, 4923 Brian R. Khey, 8972 Michael L. Kilmer, 6832 Jared E. King, 0917 Bradley J. Klimek, 8194 Perry J. Kremer, 6280 Charles F. Kuebler, 7051 Joseph T. Lally, 1208 Daniel F. Leary, 3572 Erin M. Ledford, 1159 Jacqueline M. Leverich, 3736 Andrew H. Light, 4575 Lexia M. Littlejohn, 1594 Chad A. Long, 3832 Kevin P. Lynn, 9919 Susan M. Maitre, 3475 Eric D. Masson, 3319 Harry D. Mautte, 6924 John F. Mccarthy, 9783 Randy F. Meador, 1890 Michael L. Medica, 2691 Timothy G. Meyers, 3912 Alan H. Moore, 1084 Ellis H. Moose, 6371 Anne M. Morrissey, 8186 Ulysses S. Mullins, 1932 Kenneth T. Nagie, 8610 Raymond. Negron, 7417 David J. Obermeier, 5889 Sean J. Obrien, 0493 Thomas A. Olenchock, 7062 Rebecca E. Ore, 7818 Luis C. Parrales, 9955 Scott W. Peabody, 8498 Luke A. Perciak, 6793 Patrick F. Peschka, 6973 Justin D. Peters, 0202 Harper L. Phillips, 1563 Tracy O. Phillips, 2146 Scott S. Phy, 3813 Frank A. Pierce, 2682 Keith J. Pierre, 9860 Shannon M. Pitts, 7723 Alisa L. Praskovich, 0498 Steven E. Ramassini, 8865 Jacob J. Ramos, 7432 Rodrigo G. Rojas, 8468 Matthew A. Rudick, 2156 Rosario M. Russo, 4279 Belinda C. Savage, 3322 Clint B. Schlegel, 8948 Anita M. Scott, 0941 Arthur R. Shuman, 0528 David M. Sherry, 1674 Michael J. Simbulan, 6792 Jennifer L. Sinclair, 1980 Loring A. Small, 0927 Derek L. Smith, 7909 Eric A. Smith, 9060 Shad S. Soldano, 6909 James W. Spitler, 2704 Douglas K. Stark, 6325 John M. Stone, 6486 Vasilios Tasikas, 7207 Romualdus M. tenBerge, 0399 Michael D. Thomas, 5132 Matthew A. Thompson, 8414 Solomon C. Thompson, 6952 Russell R. Torgerson, 5388 Gregory M. Tozzi, 1867 Christopher A. Tribolet, 8398 Clinton A. Trocchio, 7016 Bryan J. Ullmer, 4745 James A. Valentine, 9573 Eva J. Vancamp, 7031 Paul G. Vogel, 5824 David M. Webb, 6875 Tyson S. Weinert, 6953 Molly A. Wike, 4555 Terence J. Williams, 7122 Kevin M. Wilson, 2487 Nicholas L. Wong, 5091 Andrew J. Wright, 0502

Pursuant to title 14, U.S.C., Section 271(d), the following named officers for appointment in the United States Coast Guard to the grade indicated:

To be rear admiral lower half Capt. Peter J. Brown, 1961 Capt. Scott A. Buschman, 0203 Capt. Michael F. McAllister, 3809 Capt. June E. Ryan, 6413 Capt. Joseph M. Vojvodich, 6654

Pursuant to title 10, U.S.C., Section 12203, the following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard Reserve:

To be captain Robert T. Hanley, 1899 Gary W. Jones, 7828 Dirk A. Stringer, 7036

Pursuant to title 14, U.S.C., Section 271(e), the following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard:

To be lieutenant commander Austin L. Adcock, 9931 Lawrence F. Ahlin, 7057 Antone S. Alongi, 8661 Monica F. Andersen, 8373 Mikael D. Anderson, 1774 Jennifer J. Andrew, 2240 Audie J. Andry, 4579 Edward S. Aponte, 0723 Matthew S. Austin, 3007 Bernard C. Auth, 2914 Samuel H. Babbitt, 2493 Brian D. Bachtel, 7826 Engrid A. Backstrom, 5229 Michael W. Baird, 2462 John E. Bannon, 1357 Roger B. Barr, 2571 Stephen T. Baxter, 4523 Todd M. Behney, 0903 James R. Bendle, 0912 Patricia M. Bennett, 2878 Torrey H. Bertheau, 1751 Robert A. Bixler, 3098 Kelly C. Blackburn, 5635 Julie E. Blanchfield, 2925 Ronald D. Bledsoe, 2827 Brian T. Boland, 2894 Jeffrey M. Bolling, 5992 Erin M. Boyle, 1682 Tommy J. Brackins, 5680 Corey A. Braddock, 8299 Adam C. Brennell, 3518 Michael D. Brimblecom, 1670 Collin R. Bronson, 7156 Mary D. Brooks, 2846 Meaghan H. Brosnan, 2558 Cody L. Brown, 4943 Katherine L. Brown, 2837 Staci K. Brown, 2888 Bradley A. Brunaugh, 3573 Christopher D. Brunclik, 0388 Martin J. Bryant, 0144 Elizabeth A. Buendia, 0174 Kenneth J. Burgess, 2542 Nicole S. Burgess, 7583 Adam N. Burkley, 7637 Eric S. Burley, 2595 Kara L. Burns, 2943 William R. Cahill, 3831 Michael J. Calderone, 4662 James J. Camp, 6443 James M. Carabin, 4483 Luis O. Carmona, 9642 Joel B. Carse, 1659 Christopher L. Carter, 6646 Aaron J. Casavant, 3144 Christy S. Casey, 9504 David K. Chapman, 7461 Jeffrey J. Chonko, 2778 Gregory A. Clayton, 2908 Bryan J. Coffman, 1760 Bradley D. Conway, 7589 Adam J. Cooley, 8478 James R. Cooley, 2657 George H. Cottrell, 2826 Jeremy A. Courtade, 3179 Michael T. Courtney, 3017 Allison B. Cox, 2438 Jonathan W. Cox, 3118 Brooks C. Crawford, 1744 Byron A. Creech, 2526 Daniel A. Cruz, 3615 David B. Cruz, 5144 Walter L. Daniel, 0115 Michael R. Darrah, 3092 Arthur M. Dehnz, 3792 Phillip A. DeLisle, 1537 Jeremy R. Denning, 0439 Jarrod M. Dewitz, 7477 Jennifer R. Doherty, 3930 Douglas M. Doll, 4376 Scot R. Druckrey, 3752 Lauren F. Dufrene, 3388 Christopher P. Dufresne, 2856 Francisco A. Estevez, 4790 Patricia L. Ferrell, 9683 Stanley P. Fields, 3379 Jason M. Finison, 4606 Brandon C. Fisher, 3384 Matthew L. Fitzgibbons, 6514 Jason S. Franz, 5355 Michael Friend, 2767 Tracy D. Funck, 2524 Matthew A. Gans, 3726 Lisa L. Garcez, 4482 Kevin E. Garcia, 2725 Jesse J. Garrant, 8040 Greg S. Gedemer, 4014 Lacresha A. Getter, 0266 James A. Gibson Jr, 2769 Michael R. Gillham, 2483 Erin K. Gilson, 8717 Gerrod C. Glauner, 3862 Jerod A. Glover, 0089 Ian A. Hall, 3698 Andrew P. Halvorson, 2929 Kent D. Hammack, 8486 Anders J. Hammersborg, 3620 James J. Hannam, 2645 Gregory A. Hayes, 9859 Juan M. Hernandez, 5073 Reyna E. Hernandez, 3575 Gerald J. Hewes, 0707 Anthony S. Hillenbrand, 8481 James E. Hiltz, 3240 Marcus T. Hirschberg, 4286 Matthew M. Hobbie, 0161 Mary D. Hoffman, 5692 Crist M. Holveck, 3264 Daniel J. Huelsman, 3020 Donald E. Hunley, 7764 Michael J. Hunt, 8028 Daniel G. Hurd, 6730 Ian T. Hurst, 3855 Marcus A. Ivery, 4024 Raymond D. Jackson, 9212 James A. Jenks, 9732 Briana N. Jewczyn, 2654 Nathaniel K. Johnson, 2454 Thomas D. Jones, 0220 Mark C. Jorgensen, 1765 Kevin L. Kammeter, 7422 Kevin T. Karow, 3145 Anthony J. Kenne, 7152 Margaret D. Kennedy, 2679 James R. Kenshalo, 3799 Corey M. Kerns, 0200 Gregory J. Knoll, 5549 Matthew R. Kolodica, 3267 Michael A. Kops, 2953 Scott C. Kramer, 3984 Richard E. Kuzak, 2758 Ryan B. Lamb, 3986 Kara M. Lavin, 1019 Amanda M. Lee, 2536 Almerick C. Lim, 5682 Brandon M. Link, 2898 Christopher D. Lucero, 1493 Beth A. Mager, 8961 Krissy A. Marlin, 8253 Rodney G. Martinez, 4999 Matthew K. Matsuoka, 5918 Gregg J. Maye, 9147 Kevin J. Mcdonald, 5225 Clay D. Mckinney, 2782 John M. McWilliams, 3246 Christopher D. Meik, 5605 Nathan S. Menefee, 4778 George F. Menze, 1707 Bradley W. Middleton, 2820 David A. Middleton, 3739 Brooke A. Millard, 2547 Jesse M. Millard, 3685 Jonathan D. Miller, 2314 Kenneth R. Millson, 7809 Boris Montatsky, 1872 Commander K. Moore, 1261 Michael C. Morefield, 1785 Kathryn A. Moretti, 2921 Robert S. Morris, 2107 Kelly J. Moyers, 3171 Ernesto Muniztirado, 0160 Gary C. Murphy, 2715 Scott C. Murphy, 1772 Steven M. Myers, 3095 Ronald T. Nakamoto, 9036 Samuel R. Nassar, 2432 Brandon J. Natteal, 9074 Joshua B. Nelson, 3914 Ian S. Neville-Neil, 8695 Michael D. Newell, 3887 Michael C. Norris, 1692 Charles S. Novak, 3169 Stephen P. Nutting, 3830 Jeremy R. Obenchain, 1691 Janna M. Ott, 7460 Daniel G. Owen, 1687 Tina D. Owen, 6449 Nicholas W. Parker, 2425 Thomas T. Pequignot, 7705 Luke R. Petersen, 4123 Michael C. Petta, 1657 Mark A. Piber, 2820 Sean P. Plankey, 2548 Jason T. Plumley, 3429 Beau G. Powers, 3462 Clayton S. Preble, 6644 Kristen M. Preble, 3186 Randy L. Preston, 2036 Christopher C. Putnam, 4019 Miles R. Randall, 1266 Kevin J. Rapp, 7300 Kent R. Reinhold, 4385 Emily P. Reuter, 3497 Jonathan P. Rice, 2426 Christian P. Rigney, 0243 Stanley L. Robinson, 0268 Chad J. Robuck, 2444 Kenneth H. Rockhold, 1691 Thomas C. Rodzewicz, 9267 Kjell C. Rommerdahl, 5751 Elizabeth M. Roscoe, 2546 Jeffrey H. Rubini, 9446 Eric S. Runyon, 4023 Catharine L. Ryan, 2677 Michael K. Saffold, 7009 Jaime Salinas, 1211 Richard C. Sansone, 6631 Andrew G. Schanno, 6070 Matthew A. Schibler, 3100 Brian C. Schmidt, 3140 William A. Schrade, 4854 David P. Sheppard, 3695 Brendan C. Shields, 1672 Luke M. Slivinski, 2724 Frances M. Smith, 7170 Pablo V. Smith, 6639 Paul D. Smith, 3535 Scott R. Smith, 8100 William M. Snyder, 2786 Benjamin J. Spector, 2718 Donald S. Stiker, 9989 Christopher S. Stoeckler, 6151 Steven D. Stowers, 1740 Kevin J. Sullivan, 2513 Robert J. Tenetylo, 9210 Philip D. Thisse, 5116 Joseph G. Thomas, 1723 Keith O. Thomas, 5321 Stephen G. Thompson, 2958 Jarod S. Toczko, 2557 Miguel E. Torrez, 1043 Douglas M. Trent, 9772 Roberto N. Trevino, 8044 Kristofer A. Tsairis, 3196 Christopher B. Tuckey, 3183 Matthew S. Tuohy, 4661 Jorge L. Valente, 1791 Benjamin J. Velazquez, 3497 David B. Vicks, 1686 Brett R. Walter, 2745 Matthew J. Walter, 3096 Benjamin M. Walton, 1741 Molly K. Waters, 3550 Ryan A. Waters, 2685 Douglas D. Watson, 9084 Justin L. Westmiller, 8669 Shannon M. Whitaker, 4337 Neil A. White, 4616 Robert S. Whiteside, 1463 Carl A. Wilson, 1943 Charles K. Wilson, 4054 Eric J. Wilson, 7662 Christopher Wolfer, 9017 Dana L. Woodall, 2754 Nicholas S. Worst, 6611 Damian Yemma, 6401 Israel J. Young, 4344 Russell R. Zuckerman, 1777

Keith Kelly, of Montana, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.

Walter M. Shaub, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Government Ethics for a term of five years.

Joe H. Ritch, of Alabama, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2016.

Michael McWherter, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2016.

Vera Lynn Evans, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2017.

C. Peter Mahurin, of Kentucky, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2016.

Beth J. Rosenberg, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term of five years.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following nominations under the Privileged section of the Executive Calendar: PN 2068, 1566, 1934, 1939, 1945, 1796, 1926, 1927; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be made in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the RECORD; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

{{The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

Morton H. Halperin, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation for a term of three years.

Maria Lopez De Leon, of Texas, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2018.

Bruce Carter, of Florida, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts for a term expiring September 3, 2016.

Stewart M. De Soto, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation for a term expiring August 11, 2016.

Joseph Eldridge, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace for a term of four years.

Camila Ann Alire, of Colorado, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2018.

William Shaw McDermott, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for a term expiring November 22, 2017.

Nina Mitchell Wells, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for a term expiring May 30, 2018.

= = Page: S8633

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session.

The majority leader.

Clarifying That Accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are Subject to Certain Federal Tax Levies
Page: S8633

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4365 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report the bill by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4365) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that accounts in the Thrift Savings Fund are subject to certain Federal tax levies.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill (H.R. 4365) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Waiver of Parchment Printing
Page: S8633

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 147.

The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 147) waiving the requirement that measures enrolled during the remainder of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress be printed on parchment.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 147) was agreed to.

Orders for Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Page: S8634

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 p.m. tomorrow, January 2, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 1:30 p.m. for debate only with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Expression of Thanks
Page: S8634

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate everyone, including the Presiding Officers we have had over the last few days, and everyone, especially the staff who have been working so hard. Everyone is just as tired as I am, I am sure. So I appreciate very much the hard work, and I hope tomorrow will go well.

= Adjournment Until Tomorrow = Page: S8634

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 5:58 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, January 2, 2013, at 12 noon.

Page: S8634

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was discharged from further consideration of the following nominations by unanimous consent and the nominations were confirmed:

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATION OF GARY T. GREENE.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH PHILIP S. GOLDBERG AND ENDING WITH ROBERT W. WEITZEL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL R. HARDEGEN.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES J. HIGGISTON AND ENDING WITH ERIC A. WENBERG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEPHEN J. GONYEA AND ENDING WITH KATHARINE ANTONIA WEBER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID E. ECKERSON AND ENDING WITH CLINTON DAVID WHITE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KARL MILLER ADAM AND ENDING WITH MARK K. YANG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was discharged from further consideration of the following nominations by unanimous consent and the nominations were confirmed:

YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF THE AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

MIGNON L. CLYBURN, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS FROM JULY 1, 2012.

POLLY ELLEN TROTTENBERG, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY.

JOSHUA D. WRIGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONER FOR THE TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2012.

MARK DOMS, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS.

CHRISTOPHER R. BEALL, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF THE AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BRIGID M. PAVILONIS AND ENDING WITH VICTORIA C. FUTCH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BARBARA A. ANDERSON AND ENDING WITH KENNETH G. STEFANISIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHARLES G. ALCOCK AND ENDING WITH STEVEN P. WITTROCK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MATTHEW P. BARKER AND ENDING WITH ANDREW J. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CAPT. PETER J. BROWN AND ENDING WITH CAPT. JOSEPH M. VOJVODICH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012.

COAST GUARD RESERVE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT T. HANLEY AND ENDING WITH DIRK A. STRINGER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH AUSTIN L. ADCOCK AND ENDING WITH RUSSELL R. ZUCKERMAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of the following nomination by unanimous consent and the nomination was held at the desk:

KEITH KELLY, OF MONTANA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from further consideration of the following nomination by unanimous consent and the nomination was confirmed:

KEITH KELLY, OF MONTANA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was discharged from further consideration of the following nomination by unanimous consent and the nomination was confirmed:

WALTER M. SHAUB, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was discharged from further consideration of the following nominations by unanimous consent and the nominations were confirmed:

C. PETER MAHURIN, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

BETH J. ROSENBERG, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

VERA LYNN EVANS, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2017.

MICHAEL MCWHERTER, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

JOE H. RITCH, OF ALABAMA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

Page: S8634

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate January 1, 2013:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

RICHARD B. BERNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, FOR A TERM OF SIX YEARS.

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

WILLIAM P. DOYLE, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE A FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSIONER FOR THE TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2013.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MICHAEL PETER HUERTA, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

JAMES M. DEMERS, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2014.

NAOMI A. WALKER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 17, 2012.

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

JONATHAN LIPPMAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2012.

JONATHAN LIPPMAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2015.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

MARIA ROSARIO JACKSON, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 3, 2016.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES

JOSEPH BYRNE DONOVAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 7, 2013.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

BRUCE R. SIEVERS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26, 2018.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANGELA TAMMY DICKINSON, OF MISSOURI, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203:

To be brigadier general COLONEL STEPHEN J. LINSENMEYER, JR.

THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12212:

To be brigadier general COL. CALVIN H. ELAM

THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12212:

To be major general BRIG. GEN. MARK E. BARTMAN BRIG. GEN. STANLEY J. OSSERMAN, JR. BRIG. GEN. THOMAS A. THOMAS, JR. BRIG. GEN. ERIC G. WELLER

THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12212:

To be brigadier general COLONEL GLEN M. BAKER COLONEL JEFFREY D. BUCKLEY COLONEL ANTHONY J. CARRELLI COLONEL TIMOTHY J. CATHCART COLONEL ANDREW J. DONNELLY COLONEL HAROLD S. EGGENSPERGER COLONEL JAMES O. EIFERT COLONEL BRYAN P. FOX COLONEL RICKY D. GIBNEY COLONEL CHRISTOPHER A. HEGARTY COLONEL JOHN P. HRONEK II COLONEL PAUL HUTCHINSON COLONEL KEVIN J. KEEHN COLONEL CHRISTOPHER J. KNAPP COLONEL MICHAEL E. MANNING COLONEL CLAYTON W. MOUSHON COLONEL MICHAEL A. NOLAN COLONEL MICHAEL L. OGLE COLONEL RONALD E. PAUL COLONEL SAMUEL H. RAMSAY III COLONEL WILLIAM B. RICHY COLONEL ADALBERTO RIVERA COLONEL SAMI D. SAID COLONEL ANTHONY E. SCHIAVI COLONEL JOHN D. SLOCUM COLONEL RONALD W. SOLBERG

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be vice admiral REAR ADM. KENNETH E. FLOYD

AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

EDWARD W. BREHM, OF MINNESOTA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 22, 2017.

IQBAL PAROO, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 22, 2017.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

T. CHARLES COOPER, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PATRICK J. WILKERSON, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

LOUISE W. KELTON, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

LORNE W. CRANER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. LORI J. ROBINSON

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. GREGORY A. BISCONE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general COL. LISA A. NAFTZGER-KANG

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be major general BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM B. BINGER BRIGADIER GENERAL KEITH D. KRIES BRIGADIER GENERAL MARYANNE MILLER BRIGADIER GENERAL JANE C. ROHR BRIGADIER GENERAL PATRICIA A. ROSE BRIGADIER GENERAL JOCELYN M. SENG BRIGADIER GENERAL SHEILA ZUEHLKE

THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12212:

To be major general BRIGADIER GENERAL PAUL L. AYERS BRIGADIER GENERAL JIM C. CHOW BRIGADIER GENERAL GREGORY L. FERGUSON BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY P. GERMAN BRIGADIER GENERAL RICKIE B. MATTSON BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN E. MCCOY BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN E. MURPHY BRIGADIER GENERAL BRIAN G. NEAL

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general COLONEL STEPHANIE A. GASS COLONEL MARY H. HITTMEIER COLONEL TIMOTHY P. KELLY COLONEL THOMAS E. KITTLER COLONEL KENNETH R. LAPIERRE COLONEL MARK L. LOEBEN COLONEL JAMES F. MACKEY COLONEL WALTER J. SAMS COLONEL CHRISTOPER F. SKOMARS COLONEL WADE R. SMITH COLONEL MARK D. STILLWAGON COLONEL CURTIS L. WILLIAMS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 601 AND 10506:

To be lieutenant general LT. GEN. STANLEY E. CLARKE III

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211:

To be brigadier general COL. JODY J. DANIELS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. BERNARD S. CHAMPOUX

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211:

To be brigadier general COL. MICHAEL L. SCHOLES

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be brigadier general COLONEL CHRISTOPHER S. BALLARD COLONEL DAVID G. BASSETT COLONEL DONALD C. BOLDUC COLONEL EDWARD M. DALY COLONEL MALCOLM B. FROST COLONEL DONALD G. FRYC COLONEL ANTHONY C. FUNKHOUSER COLONEL PETER A. GALLAGHER COLONEL WILLIAM K. GAYLER COLONEL MARK W. GILLETTE COLONEL DAVID B. HAIGHT COLONEL JOSEPH P. HARRINGTON COLONEL MICHAEL L. HOWARD COLONEL JOHN P. JOHNSON COLONEL JAMES E. KRAFT, JR. COLONEL MICHAEL E. KURILLA COLONEL PAUL J. LAUGHLIN II COLONEL JOSEPH M. MARTIN COLONEL TERRENCE J. MCKENRICK COLONEL CHRISTOPHER P. MCPADDEN COLONEL JOHN E. O'NEIL COLONEL MARK J. O'NEIL COLONEL ANDREW P. POPPAS COLONEL JAMES E. RAINEY COLONEL KENT D. SAVRE COLONEL WILSON A. SHOFFNER, JR. COLONEL MARK S. SPINDLER COLONEL SEAN P. SWINDELL COLONEL RANDY S. TAYLOR COLONEL JOHN C. THOMSON III COLONEL LEON N. THURGOOD COLONEL FLEM B. WALKER, JR. COLONEL ROBERT P. WALTERS, JR.

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) RANDOLPH L. MAHR

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general LT. GEN. STEVEN A. HUMMER

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general LT. GEN. RICHARD T. TRYON

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ALBERT G. LAUBER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT FOR THE TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS.

THE JUDICIARY

RONALD LEE BUCH, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

DAVID MASUMOTO, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 3, 2018.

RAMON SALDIVAR, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26, 2018.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

WILLIAM J. MIELKE, OF WISCONSIN, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

ARTHUR H. SULZER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

GEORGE E. MOOSE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

CAMILA ANN ALIRE, OF COLORADO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 26, 2018.

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

WILLIAM SHAW MCDERMOTT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING NOVEMBER 22, 2017.

NINA MITCHELL WELLS, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 30, 2018.

IN THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DEMEA A. ALDERMAN AND ENDING WITH FELISA L. WILSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MATTHEW W. ALLINSON AND ENDING WITH JEFFREY D. YOUNG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHAN K. AHN AND ENDING WITH JEFFREY S. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LAURA A. BRODHAG AND ENDING WITH JOHN D. KLEIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH WILLIAM R. BAEZ AND ENDING WITH BRYCE G. WHISLER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAKE R. ATWOOD AND ENDING WITH MICHAEL R. ZACHAR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KRISTEN J. BEALS AND ENDING WITH JIANZHONG J. ZHANG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TANSEL ACAR AND ENDING WITH BRANDON H. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SAMUEL E. AIKELE AND ENDING WITH SCOTT M. ZELASKO, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH HOMAYOUN R. AHMADIAN AND ENDING WITH JOE X. ZHANG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

IN THE ARMY

ARMY NOMINATION OF ROBERT W. HANDY, TO BE COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATION OF JAMES T. SEIDULE, TO BE COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARK A. NOZAKI AND ENDING WITH MATTHEW D. RAMSEY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHRISTOPHER J. CUMMINGS AND ENDING WITH RANDOLPH O. PETGRAVE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ANTHONY C. ADOLPH AND ENDING WITH SEAN M. WILSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RONALD L. BAKER AND ENDING WITH MICHAEL T. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TERRY L. ANDERSON AND ENDING WITH G001094, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOSE L. AGUILAR AND ENDING WITH D005615, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATION OF MICHAEL D. SHORTT, TO BE MAJOR.

ARMY NOMINATION OF DELNORA L. ERICKSON, TO BE MAJOR.

ARMY NOMINATION OF RONALD D. LAIN, TO BE LIEUTENANT COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATION OF MATTHEW J. BURINSKAS, TO BE COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATION OF RONALD G. COOK, TO BE COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATION OF DAVID A. CORTESE, TO BE LIEUTENANT COLONEL.

ARMY NOMINATION OF CHARLES J. ROMERO, TO BE MAJOR.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MICHAEL D. DO AND ENDING WITH GREGORY S. SEESE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DEEPTI S. CHITNIS AND ENDING WITH GIA K. YI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KARIN R. BILYARD AND ENDING WITH BETHANY S. ZARNDT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES E. ANDREWS II AND ENDING WITH D010617, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JACOB W. AARONSON AND ENDING WITH DAVID W. WOLKEN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SILAS C. ABRENICA AND ENDING WITH KEVIN M. ZEEB, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LOVIE L. ABRAHAM AND ENDING WITH VICKEE L. WOLCOTT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 10, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATION OF ALFRED C. ANDERSON, TO BE MAJOR.

ARMY NOMINATION OF DEANNA R. BEECH, TO BE MAJOR.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SHRRELL L. BYARD AND ENDING WITH SOO B. KIM, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DONALD E. LAYNE AND ENDING WITH JOSEPH F. SUCHER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 17, 2012.

IN THE NAVY

NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID SAMMETT AND ENDING WITH TIMOTHY R. DURKIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TIMOTHY R. ANDERSON AND ENDING WITH GEORGE B. WATKINS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

NAVY NOMINATION OF JOHN T. VOLPE, TO BE COMMANDER.

NAVY NOMINATION OF TAMARA M. SORENSEN, TO BE LIEUTENANT COMMANDER.

NAVY NOMINATION OF JOSEPH N. KENAN, TO BE LIEUTENANT COMMANDER.

BARRY GOLDWATER SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION FOUNDATION

STEWART M. DE SOTO, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BARRY GOLDWATER SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION FOUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 11, 2016.

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

MORTON H. HALPERIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS.

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

MARIA LOPEZ DE LEON, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 3, 2016.

BRUCE CARTER, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 3, 2018.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

JOSEPH ELDRIDGE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS

YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF THE AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

CHRISTOPHER R. BEALL, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE A DIRECTOR OF THE AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

IN THE COAST GUARD

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BRIGID M. PAVILONIS AND ENDING WITH VICTORIA C. FUTCH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BARBARA A. ANDERSON AND ENDING WITH KENNETH G. STEFANISIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHARLES G. ALCOCK AND ENDING WITH STEVEN P. WITTROCK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MATTHEW P. BARKER AND ENDING WITH ANDREW J. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CAPT. PETER J. BROWN AND ENDING WITH CAPT. JOSEPH M. VOJVODICH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 14, 2012.

COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH AUSTIN L. ADCOCK AND ENDING WITH RUSSELL R. ZUCKERMAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

COAST GUARD RESERVE

COAST GUARD RESERVE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT T. HANLEY AND ENDING WITH DIRK A. STRINGER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER 5, 2012.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MARK DOMS, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

POLLY ELLEN TROTTENBERG, OF MARYLAND, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

MIGNON L. CLYBURN, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS FROM JULY 1, 2012.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

JOSHUA D. WRIGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONER FOR THE TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2012.

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

BETH J. ROSENBERG, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

C. PETER MAHURIN, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

VERA LYNN EVANS, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2017.

MICHAEL MCWHERTER, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

JOE H. RITCH, OF ALABAMA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 18, 2016.

FOREIGN SERVICE FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATION OF GARY T. GREENE.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH PHILIP S. GOLDBERG AND ENDING WITH ROBERT W. WEITZEL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL R. HARDEGEN.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES J. HIGGISTON AND ENDING WITH ERIC A. WENBERG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEPHEN J. GONYEA AND ENDING WITH KATHARINE ANTONIA WEBER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID E. ECKERSON AND ENDING WITH CLINTON DAVID WHITE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KARL MILLER ADAM AND ENDING WITH MARK K. YANG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012.

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

WALTER M. SHAUB, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

KEITH KELLY, OF MONTANA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.

Adjournment
= Resources =