To extend the suspension of duty on Glyoxylic Acid.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 679) to reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The need for reforms in the Federal appointments process is not a new topic. There is little dispute that the current nominations process has grown too cumbersome and complicated, in some cases, discouraging qualified individuals from seeking leadership positions. On average in recent administrations, only 35 of the 100 most needed leadership roles were filled within the first 100 days of the new administration, and 200 days into a new administration, only 50 percent of key national security officials are actually in place.

Nine special commissions have called for fixing the broken Presidential appointments process by starting the Presidential transition and personnel planning earlier, streamlining background investigations, and reducing the number of appointments requiring Senate confirmation.

S. 679 provides a commonsense solution that preserves the important role of the Senate in confirming key nominees but unburdens the process by relieving the advice and consent requirement for less critical positions. The bill is based on a bipartisan Senate working group commissioned to improve the nominations process, which was led by Senators Alexander and Schumer.

S. 679 eliminates the requirement for Senate confirmation for a number of executive branch positions, many of which are: one, below the assistant secretary level and report to a Senate-confirmed individual; two, do not make policy; or three, are members of part-time advisory boards or commissions.

S. 679 also establishes an executive branch working group to study and report on streamlining the paperwork required for nominations.

In addition, S. 679 requires a fixed 5-year term for the Director of the Census Bureau to coincide with the planning and operational phases of the census. The Director of the Census Bureau remains subject to Senate confirmation.

S. 679 provides a mechanism to allow the Senate to focus its efforts on installing qualified leaders to key positions in order to meet the many challenges facing our Nation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will be, under the general leave, inserting a couple of letters. One is from Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, who wrote us a letter saying:

Leaving positions vacant indefinitely as appointees wait to

be confirmed is not smart management and is frankly a threat

to our national security.

Also in support of this piece of legislation, a noted conservative Senator, former Senator Fred Thompson, took a position on this and said:

I believe that this will result in an increasingly narrow

pool of potential public servants who are more likely to be

wealthy and already live in the Washington, D.C. area.

That is if we don't pass this piece of legislation. He went on to say:

In 1960, President Kennedy had 286 positions to fill in the

ranks of Secretary, deputy secretary, under secretary,

Assistant Secretary, and administrator; and by the end of the

Clinton administration, there were 914 positions with these

titles.

As was noted by the gentleman from Texas, there is an argument to say a lot of these positions shouldn't even be in the Federal Government. But nevertheless, under the Constitution, the Constitution says under article II, section 2, the appointments clause--I'll cut right to the phrase I would like to refer to which is:

Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior

officers, as they think proper.

Therefore, as I read the Constitution, we have a duty and a responsibility to review this and look at this. So here you have a situation where 79 Senators in a very bipartisan way came together after nine different commissions and looking at things and decided to trim it back a little bit. There will still be over a thousand Senate- confirmed positions. But if we want proper oversight, if we want to go through this process in a swift and timely manner, if we want oversight, let's focus on what's most important.

What's most important probably doesn't require Senate confirmation for the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. How about the administrator of St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, or the National Council on Disability, or the Office of Navaho and Hopi Relocation? These are positions that, while are important to our Nation, and some would argue are vital, probably don't necessarily rise to the level that requires Senate confirmation. These should not just be used as political tools. This Nation has business at hand, and we should focus on what's important.

Again, there are still more than a thousand appointments that will require Senate confirmation. But let's listen to our colleagues in the Senate. Seventy-nine of them came here and said we think this is good. There have

been nine different commissions looking at this. I think it's a valid recommendation. It still allows for the advice and consent within the Senate. It is a duty under the Constitution to do this.

I would encourage adoption of this. I think it is common sense. It is what our friends in the Senate are asking us to do with 79 Senators coming together to urge the adoption of this.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Frank C. Carlucci,

McLean, Virginia, June 1, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Hon. Lamar Alexander,

U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Schumer and Alexander: I am

writing to commend you for your leadership and bipartisan

approach to tackling one of the great challenges facing our

government--presidential appointments and nominations reform.

There is little dispute that the current nominations process

has grown too cumbersome and complicated, and the number of

political appointees is too large. S. 679, the Presidential

Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, and S. Res. 116

are a promising show of progress, and I encourage all

Senators to support this bipartisan legislation.

As former Secretary of Defense (under President Reagan), I

know the importance of having high quality leaders in place

within an agency. Leaving positions vacant indefinitely as

appointees wait to be confirmed is not smart management, and

is frankly a threat to our national security. We need strong

leaders installed quickly in agencies to ensure our

government is ready to meet the many challenges it faces. S.

679 and S. Res. 116 together present a common-sense solution

that preserves the important role of the Senate in confirming

key nominees, but unburdens the process by relieving the

advice and consent requirement for less critical positions.

Congress would be wise to act now, before the politics of

the next election cycle get in the way of practical reforms

to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our federal

government. I urge the Senate to swiftly pass both S. 679 and

S. Res. 116 to ensure our government has its senior leaders

in place within agencies to carry out critical missions.

Sincerely,

Frank Carlucci.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Senators Schumer and Alexander. This bill will improve the Presidential appointment process by reducing the number of Presidentially appointed positions that are required to be confirmed by the Senate.

The number of Presidentially appointed positions that require Senate confirmation has increased over the years. The Congressional Research Service estimates that at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were 1,215 executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation. It takes months for a new President to fill these positions, and the resulting gaps in leadership make the government less efficient and less productive.

This bill will reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that comes with requiring the Senate to confirm Presidential appointments. Under this bill, high-profile positions, such as Department Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries, will continue to require the consent of the Senate. This bill impacts lower-level positions, which a President routinely fills these positions without any controversy. For example, this bill would eliminate the Senate confirmation requirement for positions such as the alternate Federal cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission and

members of the National Council on Disability.

In addition to reforming the Presidential appointments process, the legislation before us today makes the Director of the Census Bureau a Presidential term appointment of 5 years, subject to confirmation by the Senate. I particularly am pleased the bill includes this provision so that the Director is tied to the needs of the decennial census and not to an election year calendar.

For years, I have been working on this provision, which I proposed in H.R. 4595 in the 111th Congress, to ensure the Census Bureau is able to perform the decennial census as accurately and as inexpensively as possible. Senator Carper introduced this bill in the Senate and added this amendment to the bill we are considering today.

Too often, in the last four decennials, there have been major operations issues to overcome just before implementation. Historically, it's not uncommon for the Bureau to be without a Director to lead the agency until shortly before the decennial. We did not have a Director in place for the current 2010 count until mere months before census day. In 2000, the Census Director took office 2 years before the decennial count; and in 1990, it was 1 week before the count.

This change will help to ensure the independence of the Census Bureau from political interference and ensure adequate leadership for the census in critical planning and implementation phases for the decennial.

Data and analysis from the Census Bureau provides policymakers, businesses, and State and local governments with vital, accurate, scientific information that is used to guide our country's economic growth. It's important that Bureau leadership have stability. So I thank the chairman and ranking members for getting this done.

The Senate passed this bill with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. I believe this body should defer to the will of the Senate when it comes to their own process for confirming Presidential appointments. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good- government bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I respectfully disagree with my good friend from the great State of Texas, Representative Gohmert. The number of executive branch positions subject to Senate confirmation has grown at a very large number, and it literally takes months to fill these positions, and the resulting gaps in leadership makes the government less efficient and less productive. It came to us with a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with due deference to my friend from New York and my friend from Utah--and I do mean that literally--I rise in opposition to this bill.

What we've seen over the last year and a half is a Presidency that had the most disdain for Congress in the confirmation process of any President I'm aware of, and I'm quite familiar with the history of the United States.

Not only has this President made recess appointments when there was no recess, not only has this President appointed czars that were beyond the reach of Congress--although we could have made it within our reach; we could have just cut off every dime for anything that did not come before congressional approval--but with this latest tactic of having a recess appointment when there wasn't a recess, all of the talk across the country about the appointing of czars with no accountability to the Senate, I really did expect some of my conservative friends in the Senate at some point to move a bill on this subject. I expected it to be a bill that would send a loud and clear message to the President that, if you feel like some of these don't need to be appointed, you come talk to us about it, and let's talk about no more recess appointments. Let's talk about some of these others.

Instead, it's almost a pat on the back to the President to say, Look, you've ignored us; you've made us irrelevant. You've done all of these things, as you've said, Congress won't act so you're going to act. The President has gone out and made speeches like the king or Caesar: as I speak, so it is the law.

And even though Congress has duly passed immigration laws that the President has stood up, and as he spoke, he made law and ignored Congress completely. The message we're sending back here is: Mr. President--as in some old movie--thank you, may I have another. Look, you just keep ignoring us, and we'll keep making ourselves more and more irrelevant.

I would like to make one other point, too. Here we are in a desperate situation where our military, our very national security is at risk for being cut to the extent that we will no longer be secure. I would humbly submit that a better bill would be, Mr. President, if these are not all that important, let's get rid of all of these. There are board members. There's commissions. I mean, there's things in here, there's a director of the Women's Bureau. I don't see one for the Men's Bureau. There's director of all kinds of things here that it just seems like are redundant, that could be done away with. If they're not important enough for the Senate to take a look at them, Mr. Speaker, I would humbly suggest that maybe they're irrelevant and immaterial enough that we just do away with the positions. And accordingly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this provision.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.