POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript

Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Federal Nominations (February 4, 2016)

Original title: NOMINATIONS OF MARY KATHERINE WAKEFIELD, TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ANDREW LAMONT EANES, TO BE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ELIZABETH ANN COPELAND, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT; AND VIK EDWIN STOLL, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT

January 1, 2016

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing is a required step in the process for four individuals who will oversee federal health policy, social security administration, and tax litigation, directly impacting the management of these national services.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Nominees

The individuals are undergoing a formal review process to determine their eligibility for federal appointments.

Senate Finance Committee

The committee members are responsible for vetting the nominees and conducting the confirmation hearing.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2016.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to review the qualifications of four presidential nominees for key federal positions. The nominees are slated for roles within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, and the United States Tax Court.

Key Facts

  • The Senate Finance Committee held a confirmation hearing on February 4, 2016, for four federal nominees.
  • Mary Katherine Wakefield was nominated for Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  • Andrew LaMont Eanes was nominated for Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
  • Elizabeth Ann Copeland was nominated for Judge of the United States Tax Court.
  • Vik Edwin Stoll was nominated for Judge of the United States Tax Court.
  • The hearing included opening statements from Chairman Orrin G. Hatch and Senator Ron Wyden.
  • Testimony was provided by Senators John Hoeven and Heidi Heitkamp, and former Senator Kent Conrad.
  • The record includes biographical information and responses to committee questions for all four nominees.

Why It Matters

This hearing is a required step in the process for four individuals who will oversee federal health policy, social security administration, and tax litigation, directly impacting the management of these national services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of this hearing?
The hearing allows the Senate Finance Committee to evaluate the qualifications of presidential nominees before voting on whether to recommend their to the full Senate.
What happens after this hearing?
The committee reviews the testimony, biographical data, and written responses to questions to decide whether to report the s favorably to the Senate floor.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 1 more sponsor

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

cross reference90% confidence

Bipartisan Support

The hearing featured testimony from both Republican and Democratic Senators, indicating a standard bipartisan vetting process for these specific nominees.

Connected Entities

personOrrin G. HatchChairman of the Senate Finance CommitteeMap →
personRon WydenSenator, Committee on FinanceMap →
personMary Katherine WakefieldNominee for Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Human ServicesMap →
personAndrew LaMont EanesNominee for Deputy Commissioner, Social Security AdministrationMap →
personVik Edwin StollNominee for Judge of the United States Tax CourtMap →
organizationSenate Committee on FinanceThe committee conducting the confirmation hearingMap →
personElizabeth Ann CopelandNominee for Judge of the United States Tax CourtMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance40
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy10
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz5
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record