[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 55 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2408-S2413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Financial Reform

  There is another issue involving a hold, which goes to a much larger 
issue. We will have a bill before us soon, reported from the Banking 
Committee, that is long overdue. This bill is Wall Street reform. Our 
country has been through one of the toughest economic downturns in 
modern memory. For 80 years, we have never seen anything like what we 
are going through now.
  Some 8 to 14 million Americans have lost their jobs, $17 trillion in 
value was taken out of the country. Virtually every one of us with a 
savings account or retirement account knows what that meant. We lost 
value in things, our nest eggs, the money we put away for our future.
  We know businesses failed, way too many of them. We know a lot of 
people lost in that process, losing their jobs, losing retirement 
income, losing their health insurance. Investors lost when the stock 
market went down to about 6,500 on the Dow Jones average. It is now 
back up in the 10,900 or 11,000 range. But with all that downturn in 
the economy, people stood back and said: What happened? What did we do 
wrong?
  Well, mistakes were made. Many mistakes were made in Washington. I 
will concede that point. But a lot of mistakes were made on Wall Street 
with the biggest financial institutions. The worst part of it was, when 
these financial institutions were about to take a dive and go down, 
where did they turn? The American Treasury, the taxpayers of this 
country.
  They said, under the Bush administration: We need a bailout, $700 
billion in taxpayer money to Wall Street to overcome the mistakes we 
made and keep our banks afloat and insurance companies, in some cases, 
because of the big problems we have, problems many times of their own 
creation.
  They received the money. Many of us had a stark choice. We were told 
by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve: If you do not send this money up to Wall Street and these 
banks and insurance companies go down, the economy will follow them, 
not just in America but globally.

  So we voted for this bailout money. I did not want to do it. But I 
thought it was a responsible thing to do. Well, it turns out some of 
these banks and other institutions are paying back the money, with 
interest. The taxpayers are okay; but, by and large, a lot of others 
are not. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to run through this 
script again? Do we want to see this movie happen next year or the year 
after?
  The obvious answer is no. So the Banking Committee sat down and said: 
Let's rewrite the rules. If they are going to act like a bank and be 
protected like a bank, they should have the oversight of a bank. If 
they want to loan money on a bad loan, and they do not have a reserve, 
do not ask the taxpayers to stand and make up the difference. That is 
part of what we are doing with this financial reform bill, to try to 
create the rules and oversight from organizations and agencies in 
Washington to make sure the taxpayers do not end up footing the bill 
again.
  Secondly, this whole world of derivatives, which I thought was 
explained very ably by the Secretary of the Treasury over the weekend, 
is basically either an insurance policy that someone buys to make sure, 
if they are entering into a contract on a premise that they are going 
to make some money and they do not make money, they are protected--or 
it is a basic bet. They are basically betting on something that is 
going to occur, even if they do not have a personal interest in it.
  Well, these derivatives got out of hand, so out of hand that there 
was a lot of gaming that went on. We try to clean this up. I, of 
course, am partial to the Chicago model, where in the Board of Trade 
and Mercantile Exchange we have had transparency and open-market 
dealing in derivatives for decades. I think that is the answer. Let's 
put this all out in front of the public so they know exactly what is 
going on. Stop the backroom deals on Wall Street.
  The third thing is to create a consumer protection agency so average 
consumers across America have a fighting chance when banks and credit 
card companies dream up new ways to fleece us. It happens with 
regularity. We know it does. So this agency would be there to make sure 
these financial institutions are honest with consumers.
  We do have agencies of government that make sure the toasters you buy 
do not explode in your kitchen. You expect as much, do you not, that 
some agency is going to make sure that product is safe? What about your 
mortgage? Should you not have the same peace of mind that when you walk 
out of the closing, you have not fallen into some trick or trap that is 
going to catch up with you later on?
  Well, that is what we did. The Banking Committee had this financial 
regulatory reform bill. Senator Dodd of Connecticut went to Senator 
Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican, and

[[Page S2409]]

said: Let's make it bipartisan. He worked with Senator Shelby for 
several months, and ultimately Senator Shelby said: We cannot reach an 
agreement.
  Then he sat down, Senator Dodd did, with Senator Corker of Tennessee, 
who just spoke. Senator Corker is a man I respect very much. They tried 
to work together. They spent about a month at it. It led to nothing. So 
Senator Dodd said: Well, at this point, we ought to move it to 
committee. Let's have the amendment process. Let's find out what this 
bill is going to look like. Let's have a debate. It was brought to the 
Banking Committee with over 400 amendments pending. The Republicans 
decided, at the committee, they would not offer one amendment to the 
bill.
  Instead, the Republican ranking member said: Just vote it in or out. 
They voted, partisan rollcall. Democrats voted it out. It is now on the 
floor and will be up next in consideration.
  The Republican minority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, comes 
to the floor last week and says: We are going to oppose the bill 
because it is another taxpayer bailout. He fails to mention that what 
has been built into the bill, with Republican input, is not a taxpayer 
bailout at all. It is says to the banks, which would be protected: You 
have to create your own liquidation fund so if you get in trouble, the 
taxpayers do not end up holding the bag.
  This has to be bankers' money, not taxpayers' money. So if there is 
any bailout, it is a bailout of, by, and for bankers, for their 
institutions, so the taxpayers do not end up holding the bag, again.
  So Senator McConnell's characterization of what this bill does is not 
accurate. It charges up people to hear about another bailout, as we 
would expect. But it does not tell the story. Then comes a decision by 
the Republicans, 41 of them, to sign a letter to say they oppose this 
bill. They did not participate in creating it, they oppose it.
  One of the Republican Senators said: That means we are going to vote 
against your even bringing it up. We are going to start a filibuster 
against this bill to try to stop it.
  Well, I would ask my Republican colleagues, all 41 of them, to pause 
and reflect for a moment. When Senator McConnell was selling to his 
Republican caucus tickets on this ``pleasure cruise'' to end financial 
reform, to end this reform of Wall Street, there were pretty calm seas. 
But last Friday something happened that changed the picture.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against 
Goldman Sachs and said they had been engaged in conduct which was 
literally reprehensible. They were basically misleading the people who 
were investing in their investment products and steering the business 
for an outcome.
  It truly was the worst, at least the allegations of the complaint, 
are the worst in corporate greed at the Wall Street level. I would urge 
my colleagues on the Republican side to think twice about the letter 
you signed that said you do not want to be part of a reform effort. 
Most of America is fed up with what is going on, on Wall Street.
  This latest action by the SEC is clear evidence of the problems. 
Those who signed the letter for this pleasure cruise trip have come 
onto some rough seas now with this SEC action. I would think, if they 
look closely at that ticket that they have for this pleasure cruise 
with Wall Street, they will find they are on the SS Titanic. They are 
about to hit an iceberg because the American people are fed up with 
what has happened on Wall Street: Taking taxpayers' money for a 
bailout, using the money for bonuses for CEOs who made these boneheaded 
mistakes, taking it out on investors and savers across America, and 
then saying to Congress: Whatever you do, our friends in Congress, do 
not let them change the laws and make it more difficult.
  Well, the American people want us to have laws that will protect them 
in their investments, in their savings, that will guarantee 
transparency. They do not want us to continue down this path where we 
are allowing the financial institutions on Wall Street to engage in 
practices that are ultimately going to harm the economy. We do not want 
to see a rerun of this recession.
  We need to move to this financial regulatory reform bill after we 
consider nominations, and I hope--I hope--a few of the Republican 
Senators who are genuinely committed to reform will not get on a 
pleasure cruise with Wall Street. We would rather have them roll up 
their sleeves and join us, going to work to bring real reform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator believe the latest iteration 
of objection by the other side to this Wall Street reform effort is 
what I heard this morning: that they now say this legislation should 
not be rushed through the Senate?
  My question to the distinguished assistant majority leader is, How 
many months have we been working, and working in a bipartisan fashion, 
on this legislation?
  Mr. DURBIN. I can say, to my knowledge, 6, 8 months--maybe longer--
this has been in the process. It passed over in the House of 
Representatives. It came over here, and I know it has been under active 
consideration. We did have health care reform going. But I know Senator 
Dodd and the Banking Committee, at least for the last several months, 
have been working with the Republicans trying to engage them in this 
process. So to say this is being sprung on them without notice I do not 
think is accurate.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does it seem to the Senator--Mr. President, if 
I may continue a question--does it seem to the Senator there is 
something eerily symmetrical here in the way there is always the cry 
that it is being rushed through the Senate Chamber? Did we hear echoes 
of that over the course of the last year with regard to health care 
legislation?
  Mr. DURBIN. In response through the Chair to the Senator from 
Florida, after the Senate in the HELP Committee adopted 150 Republican 
amendments to the health care bill, every single Republican on the 
committee voted against it. And you know what happened--the same, of 
course--in the Senate Finance Committee. And then the complaints were 
made that after 14 months of active consideration of this measure, we 
were somehow rushing it through.
  It is the same story. It is the same script being played over and 
over. As I said--I do not know if the Senator from Florida was on the 
floor--the basic policy on the other side of the aisle is stall, stop, 
and kill. And this approach--saying no to everything, refusing to 
engage in even writing a bill--is not serving our Nation. There are 
things we need to do, and this is one of them.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to speak on this 
legislation as well, this legislation we are finding is strongly 
opposed by the Wall Street banks, which have fared so very well at 
taxpayers' expense and now do not want any kind of legislation that 
will call on them to have any kind of transparency and checks and 
balances on what has been an intolerable situation.
  If this motion to proceed to the financial reform bill fails, 
obviously, it is going to be the American taxpayer who is going to 
suffer. When we get around to considering the motion to proceed, if it 
is denied, it will be a vote in favor of keeping the status quo. It 
will be a vote in favor of $700 billion bailouts, reckless financial 
risk taking, and all the other problems that come with our current 
financial regulatory system.
  Is anybody satisfied with what we have been through over the past 
couple of years? I do not think a vast majority of the American people 
are satisfied. To the contrary, I think they are outraged as to what 
they have seen on Wall Street and thus the need for Wall Street 
regulatory reform.
  Last week, I had spoken on the need to reform compensation practices 
on Wall Street. I have put forth a specific proposal that would tie 
future tax deductions for huge executive compensation at big financial 
institutions to the

[[Page S2410]]

adoption of responsible performance-oriented compensation standards. 
What I have suggested are standards that have been developed already by 
the Federal Reserve System and the Financial Stability Board, which is 
the council of major central banks.
  Some financial institutions have already begun to implement these 
standards. But we need them to apply to all those major financial 
institutions. It only takes one reckless and irresponsible institution 
to wreak havoc on our financial system. So by requiring the very 
largest banks to tie the pay of their highest paid executives to the 
long-term performance of that financial institution is sound, 
responsible reform we should be able to agree on. Remember, it has 
already been adopted by the Federal Reserve Board and the Financial 
Stability Board, which is the council of major central banks.
  But today I want to address another important aspect of financial 
reform that is related to this complicated thing called derivatives 
regulation and energy speculation. Let's take derivatives. It is 
arcane. It is abstract. It is something folks do not understand. It is 
very difficult to understand. In essence, some of the examples I am 
going to give are--you can think of it as an insurance policy, a 
derivative. It is a derivation of normal financial instruments. Some 
derivatives provide companies with legitimate backup insurance. It is a 
way to hedge against the risk in the marketplace.
  But the market for derivatives has gotten out of control. Many of 
those derivatives today are simply bets--basically gambling bets--
between banks that do little if anything to benefit the Nation's 
economy. They help create financially speculative bubbles that increase 
prices, whether it is the prices at the gas pump or in the checkout 
line in the supermarket, but also the experience we have had that 
increases the prices in our housing market.
  In the area of derivatives regulation, the Banking Committee bill 
creates some commonsense safeguards to improve accountability and 
transparency. Over the last two decades, much of the activity on Wall 
Street has moved away from traditional investment banking and asset 
management and into this speculation on derivatives trading. For 
example, in the 10-year period between 1998 and 2008, the value of 
outstanding derivatives grew from less than $100 trillion to nearly 
$600 trillion.
  They can play an important function in managing risk, whether it is 
an interest rate, foreign exchange, or energy price risks. But when you 
allow investors to leverage all of their investment, derivatives allow 
speculators to take on much more risk with much less capital.
  Because the trading of derivatives is largely conducted in 
unregulated, over-the-counter markets, the reckless speculative 
positions taken by companies such as AIG and others nearly brought down 
the financial system. Because derivatives are used to speculate on all 
types of goods--not just securities--they can have significant 
consequences in other parts of the economy.
  In early 2008, we saw the price of oil hit stratospheric heights, 
largely because of excessive speculation in oil and energy derivatives. 
There are a number of us in the Senate who have worked to close the so-
called Enron loophole and clarify that energy derivatives should be 
traded on a regulated exchange and treated like other commodity 
derivatives.
  The financial reform bill that is coming to the floor addresses 
problems in the derivatives marketplace by requiring that derivatives 
be traded through clearinghouses and public exchanges. It authorizes 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to establish speculative 
position limits on the amount of exposure that any one investor can 
take. For example, if you are going to be buying and selling these 
things on the exchanges, the person buying it--instead of turning right 
around and trading it--is going to have to buy and keep and hold a 
certain percentage of the acquisition.
  These are important first steps. But the bill coming here from the 
committee should do more to protect the taxpayers, and it should do 
more to stop the excessive speculation that can drive up prices. Take, 
for example, gas prices. I am going to be offering an amendment to do 
just that. It is going to require that regulators set hard caps on the 
positions taken by energy traders. In other words, there would be only 
a certain amount they could buy of all that particular speculative 
product.
  My amendment would eliminate the loopholes in the bill that will come 
to the floor that would allow these unwarranted exemptions from those 
limits. The amendment would require these limits be put in place by a 
date later this year.
  I am concerned the committee bill coming to the floor retains current 
rules in the Bankruptcy Code that give the so-called counterparties in 
derivative contracts special, preferred treatment when a firm becomes 
insolvent. This special treatment ensures that Wall Street banks and 
other large traders are put at the front of the line over an insolvent 
firm's customers.
  I want to give you an example. It was most apparent in late 2008 when 
billions of taxpayer dollars were given to AIG, which was deemed too 
large to fail. Then those taxpayer dollars in the bailout, through the 
TARP funds, actually flowed through to counterparties, which were 
people who had bought these derivatives like insurance policies, and 
they paid them off.
  Goldman Sachs received $13 billion from the taxpayers through the 
Federal bailout of AIG. Do you think that goes over well on American 
Main Street, when they see Wall Street having the Federal Government 
saving a firm like AIG and then it turns around and pays off on those 
speculative derivatives--in this case, to Goldman Sachs for $13 
billion? That does not go over very well, and it is not fair.
  We simply need to eliminate the special treatment Wall Street banks 
and other financial firms that hold large derivative positions receive 
in the bankruptcy and liquidation process.
  I am going to offer an amendment to clarify that those derivative 
counterparties--such as that insurance policy for which I gave the 
example where AIG paid off Goldman Sachs--those kinds of speculative 
ventures are never again going to jump to the front of the line in the 
bankruptcy process--ahead of whom? Ahead of taxpayers and customers and 
other creditors.
  It is time for us to move ahead with financial reform. So when we get 
around to whether we are even going to take up this bill, a vote 
against the motion to proceed to get to the bill is a vote against 
reform. It is a vote in favor of continued bailouts. The Banking 
Committee has produced a strong committee bill, and I hope here on the 
floor, with amendments, we will make it even stronger. I hope our 
colleagues will join us in this effort.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in executive session.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will speak on the nominee at this time.
  I come to the floor to support the nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard to 
be the next Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.
  Before I proceed, let me say I have known Lael Brainard for some 
time. We participated together in a strategy group held by the Aspen 
Institute, I think, for more than a decade now. I found her to be very 
incisive and bright. Additionally, in the course of her work at the 
Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program she has 
worked with my husband over a period of some 6 years now. He has gotten 
to know her well as well.
  On March 23, 2009, President Obama nominated Dr. Brainard to be the 
Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. This is an 
especially important position in the executive branch, and never more 
so than during this very critical time for the domestic and global 
economies. Yet her nomination has languished for more than a year--
another casualty of obstructionist behavior, I believe, from our 
colleagues across the aisle.
  The Under Secretary position for which Dr. Brainard has been 
nominated

[[Page S2411]]

focuses on three primary objectives: First, fostering U.S. economic 
prosperity by pursuing international policies and programs that help 
strengthen and grow our very own economy, create job opportunities for 
Americans, and keep global markets open for American exports; second, 
ensuring U.S. economic stability by promoting the American economy and 
working to prevent and mitigate financial instability abroad; third, 
strengthening U.S. economic security by supporting the administration's 
foreign engagement through the multilateral development banks to manage 
global challenges.
  The Treasury Department needs a qualified person such as Dr. Brainard 
in this vital leadership position--especially at a time when the 
Department is continuing its efforts to ensure economic growth, engage 
China on economic issues, and advance our global recovery agenda 
following the financial crisis.
  As a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Treasury himself has called 
about this position simply to say how important it is that she get 
confirmed at this time. I had the privilege to talk to Senator Kyl 
about it yesterday by phone, and I am hopeful this confirmation will 
take place this evening without further delay.
  Let me speak for a few moments on her track record of service. I see 
her as a devoted public servant, someone who has spent most of her 
career serving our people. She has held several senior positions in the 
administration and in the nonprofit and academic sectors, including 
Deputy National Economic Adviser for President Clinton; Vice President 
and Founding Director of the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and 
Development Program, which is where my husband has worked with her for 
the 6 years, as I mentioned; and associate professor of applied 
economics at MIT's Sloan School.
  She has also served as a White House fellow and a National Science 
Foundation fellow, among numerous other professional achievements.
  In short, she is eminently qualified for this senior administration 
position for which she has been nominated.
  Despite these excellent qualifications and her impressive resume, 
however, her nomination has languished in the Senate for more than a 
year. It is time to get it done this afternoon.
  Dr. Brainard was nominated by President Obama on March 23 of last 
year. She was favorably reported by our colleagues in the Senate 
Finance Committee in December of last year. However, a hold was placed 
on her nomination, as well as that of two other senior Treasury 
nominees.
  Many questions have been raised about her personal income tax 
returns, business partnerships, and the hiring of household employees, 
all of which are done jointly with her husband, Kurt Campbell. Mr. 
Campbell--whom I have also known because he participated in the same 
Aspen Strategy Group for more than a decade--is currently the Assistant 
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, a position to 
which he was unanimously confirmed on June 25, 2009. So the same 
questions were asked of him as were asked of Lael Brainard.
  She has responded to questions in multiple rounds from majority and 
minority staff. She has answered every question asked of her and 
provided hundreds of pages of submissions in a forthcoming, honest, and 
direct manner. Clearly, at some point, there were some differences of 
opinion for some Members, but that has been settled, to the best of my 
knowledge. She submitted the same paperwork about taxes and the hiring 
of household employees as Mr. Campbell did during his confirmation, and 
during that time neither the Foreign Relations Committee nor any Member 
of the full Senate raised any concerns regarding this information.
  As the United States is entering a particularly intense period of 
international engagements this spring and summer, I believe Dr. 
Brainard's confirmation is essential to ensuring effective U.S. policy 
coordination and implementation.
  I wish to point out that she has broad bipartisan support, as well as 
the support of a multitude of nongovernmental organizations and 
businesses. She is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Business Roundtable, U.S. Council on International Business, Business 
Council for International Understanding, Council of the Americas, 
Coalition of Service Industries, the Emergency Committee for American 
Trade, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the National Association 
of Manufacturers.
  In my opinion, she is a woman of strong common sense, integrity, 
credibility, and sound judgment. She is exceptionally well qualified, 
and I urge my colleagues to approve her nomination without further 
delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of 
Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for International 
Affairs.
  I know Lael personally. She is a renowned expert in international 
economics, a dedicated public servant, and is highly qualified for this 
important position. I had the privilege of working with her when she 
was a member of the Clinton administration as Deputy Assistant to the 
President for International Economics. Then she went on to be a vice 
president and founding director of the Brookings Institution's Global 
Economy and Development Program and then an associate professor of 
applied economics at MIT's Sloan School.
  She has extraordinary credentials and experience, but she is also, in 
addition to that, someone who has a wide ranging interest in 
international economics, international affairs, and international 
security policy.
  She is someone I have known for many years, someone I respect 
immensely for her judgment, her maturity, and her dedication to not 
only the country but also to ensuring that our policy reflects our 
highest ideals, as well as advances our cause around the world.
  She has been nominated for a very critical position. International 
economics is no longer a secondary concern. It is of primary concern, 
if it ever was a secondary concern. We are now approaching a time when 
our relationships with the world's economies are no longer one of the 
strong versus the many smaller economies. We are in a very competitive 
global economy, and we need this type of representation in the 
Department of the Treasury. We have to engage China, and no one is more 
thoughtful and better prepared to do that than Lael.
  We have to stabilize this economy through this financial crisis which 
we are seeing not just in terms of private markets but the situation in 
Greece, the issues of sovereign debt. All of these cry out for an 
individual in the Department of Treasury who is not only well versed 
but also in place to do the work. Again, I can find no higher qualified 
candidate than Lael.
  We have to expand export opportunities. The President has rightly 
called upon this country not only to begin to grow again but to direct 
our growth away from domestic consumption to export. We need someone in 
the international arena fighting for us, the United States. We need an 
individual who is responsible and accountable for that effort. Again, I 
cannot think of a more experienced, more dedicated, and more qualified 
individual than Lael.
  We have been waiting, the Department of Treasury has been waiting, 
Lael Brainard has been waiting, since December 2009 for confirmation. 
That is a long time to put a high priority issue on the back burner.
  What is ironic is it appears no one is challenging her experience, 
her credentials, her demeanor, her temperament--anything. She is 
collateral damage, if you will, in another dispute which is not one of 
the most significant and commendable parts of the process here. We all 
have issues with individual candidates, but after those issues are well 
ventilated and since December 2009--that is a long time--we have to 
take it to a vote up or down. I urge that her nomination move forward 
this evening. She is extraordinarily qualified, and she is someone who 
can take on the extraordinary challenges of this job.

[[Page S2412]]

  Frankly, right now we have wasted months and months through this 
process where we could have had the very best person available focus on 
the international competitiveness of the United States, and I think our 
constituents demand it.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary of the Treasury 
for International Affairs. This is a vital role and it is important 
that we fill this position during this time of immense global 
challenges. The filling of this position is long overdue. Dr. Brainard 
is highly qualified and we are fortunate that a candidate of her 
quality is willing to serve.
  The Under Secretary for International Affairs is critical to the 
administration's efforts to engage China on economic issues, stabilize 
the global economy following the financial crisis, expand export 
opportunities, and pursue reforms and effective U.S. investments in the 
multilateral developments banks.
  Dr. Brainard attended Wesleyan University before receiving a Master's 
and Doctorate in Economics from Harvard University. She is the 
recipient of a White House Fellowship and Council on Foreign Relations 
Fellowship. During the Clinton administration, Dr. Brainard served as 
Deputy National Economic Adviser and chair of the Deputy Secretaries 
Committee on International Economics. Prior to joining the Clinton 
administration, she was an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School. 
She currently serves as vice president and founding director of the 
Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution.
  During her tenure with the Clinton administration, Dr. Brainard faced 
global economic challenges, including the Asian finance crisis, the 
Mexican financial crisis, and China's entry to the World Trade 
Organization. She helped shape the 2000 G8 Development Summit that for 
the first time included leaders of the poorest nations and laid 
foundations for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria.
  Over the years, Dr. Brainard has written extensively on international 
economic issues. In recent years, she has focused on the links between 
U.S. competitiveness and climate change policy. As we address climate 
changes issues, it will be helpful to have someone with her knowledge 
as part of our team.
  President Obama nominated Dr. Brainard back in March and I appreciate 
her patience with the process. I look forward to working with Dr. 
Brainard to address the international economic challenges that we face.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the majority leader has taken a significant 
step to address the crisis created by Senate Republican obstruction of 
President Obama's highly qualified nominations and the Senate's advice 
and consent responsibilities. Regrettably, Republican obstruction has 
made it necessary for the majority leader to file cloture to bring an 
end to Republican filibusters and allow the Senate to consider at least 
some of the long-stalled nominations languishing on the Senate's 
Executive Calendar.
  In a dramatic departure from the Senate's traditional practice of 
prompt and routine consideration of noncontroversial nominations, 
Senate Republicans have refused for month after month to join 
agreements to consider, debate and vote on nominations. Their practices 
have obstructed Senate action and led to the backlog of over 80 
nominations now stalled before the Senate, awaiting final action. The 
American people should understand that these are all nominations 
favorably reported by the committees of jurisdiction. Most are 
nominations that were reported without opposition or with a small 
minority of negative votes. Regrettably, this has been an ongoing 
Republican strategy and practice during President Obama's presidency.
  Twenty-five of those stalled nominations are to fill vacancies in the 
Federal courts. They have been waiting for Senate action since being 
favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long ago as 
last November. Those 25 judicial nominations are more than the 18 
Federal circuit and district court nominees that Republicans have 
allowed the Senate to consider and act upon during President Obama's 
administration.
  To put this in perspective, by this date during George W. Bush's 
Presidency, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal circuit and district 
court judges. President Obama began sending the Senate judicial 
nominations 2 months earlier than President Bush did, and still only 18 
Federal circuit and district court confirmations have been allowed. If 
we had acted on the additional 25 judicial nominations reported 
favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee but on which Senate 
Republicans are preventing Senate action, we would have made comparable 
progress. As it stands we are 60 percent behind what we achieved by 
this time in President Bush's first term.
  Republicans continue to stand in the way of these nominations, 
despite vacancies that have skyrocketed to over 100, more than 40 of 
which are ``judicial emergencies.'' Caseloads and backlogs continue to 
grow while vacancies are left open longer and longer. On this date in 
President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 45 Federal 
district and circuit court judges; there were just 7 judicial 
nominations on the calendar, and all 7 were confirmed within 12 days. 
That was normal order for the Democratic Senate majority considering 
President Bush's nominations. Circuit court nominations by this date in 
his first term waited an average of less than a week to be confirmed. 
By contrast, currently stalled by Senate Republicans are circuit court 
nominees reported back in November and December of last year. The seven 
circuit court nominees the Senate has been allowed to consider so far 
have waited an average of 124 days reported to be considered and 
confirmed after being favorably--more than 4 months compared to less 
than 1 week for President Bush's nominees--and those delays are 
increasing.
  In the 17 months in 2001 and 2002 that I chaired the Judiciary 
Committee, the Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush's judicial 
nominations. In stark contrast, to date, the Senate has only been 
allowed to act on 18 circuit and district court nominations. Twenty-two 
of the 25 nominations pending on the calendar have been pending for 
more than a month. Eighteen were reported by the Judiciary Committee 
without dissent--without a single negative vote from any Republican 
member. Still they wait.
  Republican obstruction has the Senate on a sorry pace to confirm 
fewer than 30 judicial nominees during this Congress. Last year, only 
12 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. The lowest total 
in more than 50 years. We have to do far more to address this growing 
crisis of unfilled judicial vacancies.
  It has been almost 5 months since I began publicly urging the Senate 
Republican leadership to abandon its strategy of obstruction and delay 
of the President's judicial nominees. But we have not considered a 
judicial nomination since March 17, when we finally confirmed the 
nomination of Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island to the First Circuit. 
Even though Judge Thompson had two decades of experience on her State's 
courts, and her nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee without a single dissenting vote, it stalled on the Senate 
Executive Calendar for nearly 2 months before she was unanimously 
confirmed, 98-0. There was no reason or explanation given by Senate 
Republicans for their unwillingness to proceed earlier.
  Before that vote, the majority leader was required to file cloture on 
the nomination of Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit. 
Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months. After the time 
consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to zero. 
There was no reason or explanation given by Senate Republicans for 
their unwillingness to proceed earlier or for the filibuster of that 
nominee either.
  Similarly, there has yet to be an explanation for why the majority 
leader was required to file cloture to consider the nominations of 
Judge Thomas Vanaskie to the Third Circuit and Judge Denny Chin to the 
Second Circuit, both widely respected, long-serving district court 
judges. Judge Vanaskie has served for more than 15 years on the Middle 
District of Pennsylvania, and Judge Chin has served for 16 years on the 
Southern District of New York. Both nominees have mainstream records, 
and both were reported

[[Page S2413]]

by the Judiciary Committee last year with bipartisan support. Judge 
Chin, who was the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a Federal 
district court judge outside the Ninth Circuit, and who, if confirmed, 
would be the only active Asian-Pacific American judge to serve on a 
Federal appellate court, was reported by the committee unanimously.
  The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the extended 
Republican effort to prevent Senate consideration of the nomination of 
Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the 
Justice Department. Professor Schroeder was first nominated by 
President Obama on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee last June, and was reported favorably in July by 
voice vote, with no dissent. His nomination then languished on the 
Senate's Executive Calendar for nearly 5 months, with not a single 
explanation of the delay. Then, as the year drew to a close, Republican 
Senators objected to carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination 
into the new session, and it was returned to the President without 
action, forcing the process to begin all over again. President Obama 
renominated Professor Schroeder early this year, and his nomination was 
reconsidered and rereported by the Judiciary Committee with Republican 
support. A scholar and public servant who has served with distinction 
on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Justice 
Department, Professor Schroeder has support across the political 
spectrum.
  Democrats treated President Bush's nominations to run the Office of 
Legal Policy much more fairly than Republicans are treating President 
Obama's nominee, confirming all four nominees to lead that office 
quickly. We confirmed President Bush's first nominee to that post by a 
vote of 96 to 1 just 1 month after he was nominated, and only a week 
after his nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee. In 
contrast, Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending since last 
June and will require cloture to be invoked before the Senate can 
finally have an up-or-down vote.
  The majority leader has also filed cloture to end the obstruction of 
the longest-pending judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar, that 
of Marisa Demeo to the District of Columbia Superior Court. Her 
nomination has been blocked since it was reported by the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May 2009. This sort of 
obstruction of a DC Superior Court nomination is unprecedented. These 
nominations for 15-year terms on the District's trial court are not 
usually controversial. The nomination of Magistrate Judge Demeo, an 
experienced former prosecutor and Justice Department veteran who is the 
second Hispanic woman nominated to this court, is one I strongly 
support. I know Judge Demeo and have known her for years. The chief 
judge of the Superior Court, Lee Satterfield, has written several times 
to the majority and minority leaders about the ``dire situation'' 
created by vacancies on that court for administration of justice in 
Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital. As usual, the cost of Republican 
obstruction is borne by the American people.
  Not long after President Obama was sworn in, Senate Republicans 
signaled their strategy of obstruction, threatening to filibuster his 
nominations before he had made a single one, in their letter of March 
2, 2009. The stated basis for their threat was to ensure consultation 
with home State Senators. President Obama has consulted with home state 
Senators of both parties, yet Senate Republicans filibustered the very 
first of President Obama's judicial nominations, the nomination of 
Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit, despite such 
consultation. The Senate had to invoke cloture to consider Judge 
Hamilton's nomination, even though he was a well-respected district 
court judge supported of Senator Lugar, the longest-serving Republican 
in the Senate, with whom President Obama consulted before making the 
nomination.
  Senate Republicans have ratcheted up their bad practices from the 
1990s when they pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's 
judicial nominations, creating a vacancies crisis on the Federal bench.
  Democrats did not do the same to President Bush's nominees. I 
followed through on my commitment to treat them more fairly. I worked 
hard in 2001 and 2002, even after the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax 
attacks, holding hearings, including during Senate recess periods, in 
order to swiftly consider President Bush's nominees. That is why the 
Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees by the end of 2002. 
Democrats only refused to rubber stamp a handful of the most extreme, 
ideological and divisive of President Bush's nominees.
  During the Bush Presidency Senate Republicans contended that 
filibusters of judicial nominations were ``unconstitutional.'' Now that 
President Obama is in the White House, Senate Republicans have 
filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton, and Judge Barbara 
Keenan, who was then confirmed unanimously. The same Republican 
Senators who recently threatened to blow up the Senate unless every 
nominee received an up-or-down vote are now engaged in another attempt 
to abuse the rules of the Senate and undermine the democratic process. 
Republican Senators who just a few years ago insisted that ``elections 
have consequences'' have now made the use of filibusters, holds, and 
excessive procedural delays the new normal in the Senate. They seem 
intent on continuing their destructive practices.
  It is regrettable that the majority leader has to file cloture on 
these mainstream nominations today, just to allow the Senate to hold 
the up-or-down votes that Republican Senators once demanded for the 
most extreme and ideological nominees of a Republican President. I 
thank him for doing so, and look forward to the confirmation of these 
nominees.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.