mccaskill: mr.president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i rise this morning in the cause of common sense in how the senate works. we have had so many delays on nominations this year, just as a quick review of where we stand, we've had over 51 roll call votes on president obama's nominations to serve in government under his presidency. of those 51 votes, over 80% of them were by overwhelming margins, yet they sat on the calendar for more than three months on average. overwhelming support, sitting on the calendar for three months on average. for comparison here, at the similar point in the bush administration, there were eight nominees on the calendar. right now we have 107 nominees on the calendar. as i look at the list, i am confused because most of the people on the list, we don't know why they're sitting there. we don't know who's making them sit there. enter stage left, the anonymous hold. or as i like to call it, nobody can blame me because they

senator mccaskill made a recent stroke. everybody knows senator reed has a very difficult -- senator reid has a very difficult reelection race. there is a lot of buzz that you are seeing some tension. can you address it? >> harry reid is the majority leader and he will be that after the election. i have kept my word that i would not approach anyone to discuss this issue in any way whatsoever. he is the leader. it does not help the caucus or harry reid to have all of this speculation. >> do you think chuck schumer said the same thing? >> i do not know. that is my standard and i'm going to live by it. >> tell us more about the midterm landscape. it is a confusing landscape. there are so many different

please welcome to the senator from missouri, clear mccaskill. -- claire mccaskill.ause] >> thank you very much. it is an honor to be here. it is particularly special to be at this podium tonight that dorothy is honored. and i understand it, my job tonight is to be like the icelandic volcano. amid a lot of hot air, blow a lot of smoke, and keep everyone from leaving when they want to. although i have been giving a lot of these speeches lately, i am is still pretty much the new kid in town. what i love about the united states senate, it is the only place in america where a woman my age can go to feel like a hot young a check. -- chick. it is great to be with all of you, especially after this event was canceled because of the blizzard. what a mess. the streets were so tied up that michael steele and the rnc paid two thousand dollars to watch. it took a while. more wine, more wine. getting to see that much snow is a once-in-a-lifetime event, like seeing haley's comment -- comet, or seeing a democrat with a 50% or higher approval rating. senator alexander, it is good to

mccaskill: you know, mr. president, i know that someone is going to be able to use the fig leaf and stand behind the argument that the amendment that was offered at the very last moment this afternoon was about something they cared about and that it's something that we need to vote on. and it is a subject matter that we care about, that we need to work on, but, really, it's pretty transparent what's going on here. that at the very last moment, when all of a sudden we were this close for everyone having to go on record about secret holds, that someone shot it out of the sky like a clay pigeon, and that's what this amendment did. now, -- so the argument is, well, you know, the wyden-grassley amendment on secret holds isn't really about financial reform bill. why does it get a chance to be voted on? it's very simple, mr. president. the reason the widen-grassley amendment should be considered germane to every bill we debate in this body is because it's about the way we do business. every day that goes by that we

mccaskill: first, let me say how grateful i am to senator cornyn for his patience. i will try to be very, very brief. i know he is waiting to address the underlying bill. i think that's everything that's been said -- that needs to be said has been said. i do -- i'll be interested in this vote. because there are a group of people right now that voted for a rule that simply said you've got to disclose your secret holds if a certain procedure takes place. and there's a bunch of people that voted for that that aren't doing it. i don't know how that computes. -- computes in the mind of a united states senate. i don't know how you vote for a rule that requires you to disclose and then you knowingly continue to keep a hold secret. i had a colleague tell me the other day that they had talked to a colleague across the aisle about a couple of judges that they desperately wanted to get released from the land of secret holds, and this colleague visited with a republican about it and the republican told her, well, the leader says he's got to get something for it. you've got to g

host: what about claire mccaskill or bernie sanders? guest: having come from the house and was talking about the adjustment, the trick with the senate was simply a matter of learning how to use power. it had come down to that for him. host: he obviously wins in the state of vermont, and why does he win? how many people vote for him because he is a socialist? guest: not many people would say he is a socialist, but their rhetoric, bernie sanders, the little guy, not being a member of either party, a registered independent, wanting to take on both sides of the aisle when necessary, i think that is really appealing to people in vermont. host: so how did you go about this book? here we are, almost to the 2010 election. guest: on some days, i have described it as more alligator wrestling than writing, but the book started as, like i said, this idea that the senate and the government at large is a personality driven, and then i thought, well, the way to take a look at this would be through the eyes of these new senators, who were trying to fig

this year, last year actually now, february 2009 senator akaka reintroduced with senator voinovich mccaskill grassley and others the whistleblower protection enhancement act which is s. 372. the bill passed out of committee in july of 2009. we work through what we thought were the last lingering concerns with the bill and try to pass t through the senate in december. we have run into additional concerns with new protections we are trying to extend to intelligence community whistleblowers which we are trying to work through. so why does this take so long if we have been working on it for so my years? as you know the bush administration had promised to veto the bill. know we have an administration that supports whistleblower protections and has been wonderfully and constructively involved in the rocess. but in some sense it creates a lot more work when the administration is at the table you have to listen to their concerns and try to work their administration concerns so we have worked a lot with the administration on how to both address concerns with the bill but also move the senate bill fur

i want to salute senator claire mccaskill, senator sheldon whitehouse and a number of my colleagues who have come to the floor and challenged that this calendar is glutted with over 100 nominees who can't be brought for a vote. now let's put a historical parallel here. at the same time in president george w. bush's administration, there were 20 nominees being held. now over 100 are being held. and overwhelmingly these nominees have passed out of committee to the senate floor with unanimous, bipartisan votes or overwhelming bipartisan votes. they're not controversial. these men and women deserve an opportunity to have an up or down vote. what's happening here is that these nominations are being held as bargaining chips. bargaining chips for projects, for -- i'm not sure. what but it's unfair to these men and women who have said they will offer sometime in their lives in public service and will go through the rigors of being examined and questioned and then stand up and help try to make this a better nation serving in a government post. there's nothing wrong with that, whether it's a repu

that's like 10% of the government's funding, and i know at another hearing, our colleague senator mccaskill raised issues about how in the previous administration, the grants were handled and so on. i'm not here to finger point. i'm here to pinpoint. are there things that we need to encourage through the appropriation process a way that -- to improve the grant disbursal, the grant management process? >> i think there are some things that the department can do to improve and that this committee can spur the department to do. i think it's important to get that money out but it has to be used effectively andhere has to be monitoring of where that money goes. so we need to have a fair and open process, there has to be documentation about why we're giving it to one person or the other, not simply discretionary subjective views, and that when it goes out there, there has to be training, how it's to be ed, there also has to ben assessment of whether there's high risk grantees that need extra monitoring and extra training to ensure that that money is used appropriately. ojp, office of justice progr

bond, cochran, brown of massachusetts, schumer, lieberman, levin, hagan, brown of ohio, shaheen, mccaskill, lautenberg, menendez, burris and begich. and i hope that more will join us in cosponsoring this amendment and vote for it when it comes up for a vote. mr. president, i want to thank you for your attention and interest for your support. i yield the -- mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the executive calendar numbers 832, 833, 834, and 835. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will stand adjourned until trsday, 9:30 a.m., may >> more cameras. good afternoon, welcome to the department of state. a number of things to talk abou

this year, last year actually now, february 2009 senator akaka reintroduced with senator voinovich mccaskill grassley and others the whistleblower protection enhancement act which is s. 372. the bill passed out of committee in july of 2009. we work through what we thought were the last lingering concerns with the bill and try to pass it through the senate in december. we have run into additional concerns with new protections we are trying to extend to intelligence community whistleblowe which we are trying to work through. so why does this take so long if we have been working on it for so many years? as you know the bush administration had promised to veto the bill. know we have an administration that supports whistleblower protections and has been wonderfully and constructively involved in the process. but in some sense it creates a lot more work when the administration is at the table you have listen to their concerns and try to work their administration concerns so we have worked a lot with the administration on how to both address concerns with the bill but also move the senate bill furt

and thanks to senator mccaskill for holding a special hearing on the tragedy that has taken place ine gulf of mexico. while i think it is clear to many of us that the mystical production is critical to our national security, so is the safety of our domestic oil production. that is what we are here to talk about. it is imperative that we get some answers as to what happened, what the response has been, and how another accident like this one in the gulf can be prevented. we appreciate you gentleman being here with us today to help answer those questions. we appreciate your expertise. i don't know how many of my questions have been addressed because i was absent for a little while. for public like to ask dr. beck. use of the valves were operated by hydraulic pressure and applying that pressure at a water depth of 5,000 feet can be very complicated and is an engineering marvel. what are the differences in how blowout preventers are installed and tested as well as operated at deep water levels? do you believe the blowout preventers are any less reliable in deep water than shallow water? >

i want to thank senators bond, brown of massachusetts, brown of ohio, hagan, levin, lieberman, mccaskillward putting consumers back in control of their finances by offering americans annual access to their credit score when they access their free annual credit report. mr. president, i want to clarify here because this is what's important about this amendment. a credit report tells consumers what outstanding credit accounts they have open like student loans, credit cards, even perhaps a car or a home loan. unfortunately, it tells americans little else. your credit score, on the other hand, which our legislation makes available, has the critical information that consumers need to know. a credit score affects consumers' interest rates, monthly payments on home loans and could be the difference between whether a child is able to afford college or not. credit scores even affect a consumer's ability to buy a car, rent an apartment and get a phone or even internet service. in 2003, congress enacted legislation requiring the three major consumer credit reporting agencies to provide a free annual

we wouldn't be on this floor today had not the senator from missouri, senator mccaskill, prosecuted this cause relentlessly. she has brought to light a number of holds. when we've talked about it, she's made the point that this is going on on both sides of the aisle. she deserves great credit for this today. let me also thank senator coburn, dr. coburn of oklahoma. he has been very involved in reform issues for many years. we're looking forward to an additional reform that he's going to be advancing, that i look forward to sponsoring. and i wrap up only by way of trying to highlight that after the senate has spent a lot of time discussing secret holds over the last few months, on a bipartisan basis the senate comes together today with an approach that has actually brought senators together, is going to ensure that every single secret hold is going to have an owner. that's going to be a big change. it is high time the public deserves to have public business actually done in public. and with the adoption of this amendment, that will be done. mr. president, the chairman of the full committe

senate rule on point, is that the list of nominees has been read through, great credit to senator mccaskill, who has read through the great bulk of these. 76 i think these been slew in the first round. -- been through in the first round. and we asked for unanimous consent on all of those nominees. we received objections. i received an objection on a nominee that i asked for from a senator who voted for that nominee in committee. he voted for the nominee in committee. he came to the floor and objected. the nominee had cleared the judiciary committee with zero opposition, and yet on the floor held and held and held anonymously, secretly. so under the senate rules, when you've asked that unanimous consent and you've had that objection, they've got six days to come clean on their hold. do you know how many republican senators followed that rule? one did. one did. senator coburn of oklahoma disclosed that he had been holding six or seven appointees. that still leaves a hundred on the floor right now on the executive calendar. and we began earlier this morning calling them up to see if those hold