[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2452-S2457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Financial Reform

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I want to spend a few minutes, if I may 
this afternoon, to talk about an issue that has been the subject of 
much debate over the last number of days, and that is the financial 
reform bill that will be coming to the floor of this body in a matter 
of days--an issue that is going to confront us, as the circumstances 
presently exist, with Members having to make a choice. My hope is that 
before that occurs, we can reach some understanding that will allow us 
to have a strong bill that ends too big to fail, that protects 
consumers, and that builds the kind of architecture for financial 
services that will allow us to avoid the pitfalls that caused our 
economy to reach almost near collapse over the last several years.
  The choice is going to come down to this: There are people who can 
vote to open this debate on financial reform legislation that will hold 
Wall Street firms--large financial institutions--accountable and 
prevent future economic crises such as the one from which we are just 
beginning to emerge or basically defeat this; to somehow walk out of 
this Chamber and leave us basically where we have been, and that is 
highly vulnerable--individuals, families, businesses, and the overall 
economy of our country once again exposed to the kind of 
vulnerabilities that brought so much hardship to our country.
  They can, of course, block--as they are apt to do in some cases--any 
consideration of this bill and leave us in a place--a broken place--
where the status quo would again create the kind of problems I have 
described.
  So one has to ask themselves a question: Who benefits if this bill to 
rein in Wall Street and large financial institutions is strangled by a 
filibuster, where it ends up that we can't even get to debate the bill? 
Who benefits from that? Well, certainly no one can make a case the 
American family would benefit. These families have seen millions of 
jobs lost and trillions in savings wiped out because a greedy few on 
Wall Street gambled with money that didn't even belong to them, causing 
the hardship we have seen in our Nation.
  Certainly, America's small businesses do not benefit. These are the 
ones that have seen the flow of credit and capital literally dry up. 
How many of us in this Chamber, back in our respective States, have 
talked to owners of small businesses who cannot get a dime's worth of 
credit over the past several years in order to hire new people and 
survive during this economic crisis? I hear anecdote after anecdote 
after anecdote of businesses desperately trying to find credit in order 
to stay alive and survive. Yet because of the unchecked risk taking by 
financial firms that caused this economic crisis, credit is virtually 
gone. So American businesses--small businesses particularly--certainly 
are not benefitted if we are confronted again with the status quo and a 
perpetuation of the present set of rules.
  Certainly, Madam President, the American community banks do not 
benefit at all. These are the ones who have found it difficult or even 
impossible to compete on a playing field tilted so heavily toward the 
largest firms and, frankly, financial firms that are unregulated.
  One of the things our community banks and others--and I am not 
suggesting they love every dotted i and crossed t in the bill--are 
seeking is some consolidation of regulation. They want to see their 
competitors, who are not subjected to any regulation, be subjected too 
so they will also have to face the same set of rules.
  The bill I have written, along with my Banking Committee colleagues, 
does just that. We consolidate the regulation so there is not the 
overlapping jurisdictions that exist, and their major competitors--the 
nonbank financial institutions--are going to be subjected to the same 
rules they are. That creates that level playing field our smaller banks 
need in order for them to compete effectively.
  Certainly the American taxpayers are not going to benefit with the 
status quo. These are the people who were forced to bail out Wall 
Street in 2008. If this bill is blocked, they might be asked to do it 
again.
  Now, I am not in the prediction business, but if some future Congress 
goes back to the American public, as we did in the fall of 2008, and 
asks them to write a check again for $700 billion because we failed to 
get this legislation through that would end too big to fail--the 
implicit guarantee that the Federal Government will bail you out if you 
are so large or so interconnected that you can't possibly fail--the 
American people, in my view, would reject overwhelmingly a request to 
ask them to write another check for that purpose.
  Our bill, for the first time, writes into legislation an absolute 
prohibition that the American taxpayer would ever or should ever again 
be asked to do what they did in the fall of 2008.
  But here is who would benefit if this bill is blocked: the same large 
financial firms that got us into the mess in the first place. They 
believe--and I presume they are right--that they can bolster their 
bottom lines if the status quo prevails; that they can continue to take 
outrageous risks, using other people's money, knowing that any profit 
is theirs to keep and any loss will be made up by the American 
taxpayer.
  That is why we are faced with this prediction that 41 of our fellow 
colleagues will vote against us going to this bill on what they call 
the motion to proceed to the bill. The letter from the minority leader 
says: We have 41 votes to stop you from even debating this bill. Well, 
you explain to the American taxpayer--to small business, to the 
American family, and to others out there who are paying an awful price 
because of the mess of these very institutions that are today leading 
the charge against us getting to a bill--why the status quo is in their 
interest and their benefit.
  Madam President, those who vote to block this bill are sending a 
clear message to American families, businesses, community bankers, and 
taxpayers, and that message will be: I am sorry, but we are not on your 
side. We are choosing another side of this equation.
  Last month, my good friend, the minority leader, and the Republican 
Senator responsible for campaign fundraising participated in a meeting 
in New York with Wall Street executives. That happens all the time. 
Certainly, there is the right to sit down and talk with people, to 
represent labor and business, and we should do that. But nobody knows 
what was talked about at that meeting. Yet when our friend and 
colleague who chairs the campaign committee came back, right 
afterwards, all of a sudden we get this rhetoric about too big to fail; 
that we can't possibly go to this bill.
  Now, I was born at night, Madam President, but not last night. I was 
born at night, but not last night. And don't tell me that miraculously 
these things happened and all of a sudden we find ourselves with 41 
colleagues, many of whom I suspect are not overly enthusiastic about 
this game plan that says: Don't ask why; don't tell us what is in the 
bill. Just tell us we are going to line up and say no matter what 
anyone says or does or what they have tried to do, we are going to 
object to even going to this bill.
  I firmly believe there is more than a small minority of my Republican 
colleagues who, frankly, find that argument objectionable. That is not 
to suggest they like this bill or agree with every position in it, but 
I know them well enough to know they are sick and tired of being told 
how they are going to have to vote on a procedural motion on a matter 
that I think deserves at least the support of our colleagues to begin 
that important debate.
  What we do know, of course, about the opposition to going forward is 
that the Republican leadership returned armed with some very false 
talking points, talking points written by a political strategist with 
close ties to

[[Page S2453]]

large financial institutions, talking points that have been debunked by 
the independent media analysis and even Republicans such as FDIC 
Chairman Sheila Bair.
  Let me point out the memo that suggested this game plan was written 
by a political strategist was written long before even one word was 
written on the bill. They were told how to fight a bill that didn't 
even exist out here by accusing the bill of leaving open the too big to 
fail, even though they knew--at least those who had read the bill--
those provisions had been written so tight that no one could possibly 
argue too big to fail would be allowed again.
  The Republican leadership returned promising that every member of 
their caucus would vote to kill this bill before the debate even began. 
I know for a fact that Members of this body, on both sides of the 
aisle, want to pass a good bill. My colleagues know me well, and they 
know my reputation over the years. I have never, ever passed a major 
piece of legislation in this body, in over three decades, when I have 
not had the cooperation and backing of a Member or Members on the other 
side of the aisle--never once on every major piece of legislation with 
which I have been involved. Here we are, at the brink of going forward 
with the single largest proposal to reform the financial services 
sector of our country, and we are divided here like a couple of 
petulant teenagers, instead of sitting around and coming together as I 
have offered for months, getting behind a bill and allowing us to go 
forward. It is long overdue that we grow up and recognize this is not 
some athletic contest, this is about whether our economy can get back 
on its feet, whether we can grow and prosper and create jobs, have 
credit flow and capital form so that businesses and wealth can be 
created. Nothing less than that is at stake in this debate and 
discussion, and all the more reason why we need to go forward, and go 
forward like adults, like Members of the greatest deliberative body--as 
we are told over and over--in the history of mankind, the Senate, to 
resolve these matters.

  I have worked for hours with my colleague from Alabama, as he well 
knows, Senator Shelby, to the point that he has said--and I appreciate 
it very much and I compliment him for it--we are 80 percent of the way 
to a bipartisan consensus. In fact, I suspect if Richard Shelby were 
asked today whether that number were 80 percent, he would have even a 
higher number. Imagine being 80 to 90 percent in agreement, yet being 
told by the minority we cannot go forward. Do I have to write the whole 
bill? Is that when we can go forward? You have 80 or 90 percent of what 
you think is a good bill, but, no, no, we are going to stop any further 
debate. In all my years I have never heard of such an argument, whether 
I have been in the minority or majority, that I agree with 80 or 90 
percent of what you have written, Senator, but I am sorry, we are going 
to stop even considering any further debate on the floor of the Senate.
  I worked for many hours with the Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker, 
to try to get to 100 percent, as he well knows. No matter what was said 
in the meetings between the Republican leadership and Wall Street 
executives, the fact is that the bill I will be bringing to the floor 
reflects not only bipartisan input but good common sense as well. If 
you look at what the bill actually does, it is clear that there is no 
ideology here, just one principle: Hold Wall Street and large financial 
institutions accountable so that American families and businesses can 
grow and thrive without fear of another economic catastrophe.
  The bill creates an early warning system so that for the very first 
time in our Nation's history, someone will be in charge of monitoring 
our entire financial system, to look out for emerging products and 
practices and problems, not just here at home but even globally.
  Again, I don't think you have to have a Ph.D. in economics to know 
what we have seen in the headlines and heard on our news shows a few 
weeks ago, that there were major economic problems in the small nation 
of Greece, and that all of a sudden the financial system of every other 
nation around the world was at risk. Or when that small exchange in 
Shanghai, China, began to decline by 12 percent a few years ago, every 
other exchange around the globe within hours was adversely affected.
  That market, that exchange, represented less than 5 percent of the 
volume of the New York Stock Exchange. Yet because it declined by 12 
percent one morning, every other exchange around the world reacted. 
What more do I need to say about whether our issues here are global in 
scope, not just domestic? Again, it is even further reason why we need 
to be able to pull together and create this bill that is essential so 
we have a warning system in place that looks out for and monitors 
products, practices, and even problems that can emerge in other parts 
of the world if they can pose the kind of risk that could bring our 
financial system to near collapse.
  Under the status quo, of course, no regulator can see beyond the 
narrow silo of their own radar screen. We changed that. This now 
involves all of these prudential risk regulators sitting at a systemic 
risk council headed up by the Federal Reserve and Treasury here, so 
they can actually look over the horizon and act as a financial radar 
system. What is going on out there? Are there problems emerging in 
products or companies or nations that could bring our country to near 
disaster financially?
  If we had had that in place back a few years ago, I would argue we 
might not find ourselves where we are today. So this is one of our 
provisions in the bill. What a pity it would be to lose the opportunity 
to create that kind of an early warning system. That is how the 
subprime lending sector was able to grow so large despite the dangers 
it posed to the economy and why no one was able to stop it before it 
precipitated a crisis. I do not believe members of the minority caucus 
want regulators to be unaware of emerging threats to our financial 
system.
  The bill brings new transparency and accountability as well to 
financial dealings by ensuring that even the most complicated or 
obscure transactions are concluded in an open marketplace.
  The Presiding Officer, of course, is well versed and talented, coming 
from the Empire State, and understands these issues. I believe that 
derivatives, for instance, are a very important instrument, critically 
important to economic growth and prosperity. They have become a 
pejorative, unfortunately, but my view has been let the markets work.
  How do the markets work best? Markets work best when there is 
transparency, when buyers and sellers, investors, have an opportunity 
to see with clarity what these instruments are, what they are designed 
to do. Right now we have a shadow economy where some of these 
instruments operate in darkness, and that is one of the problems that 
created the financial mess we are in. Our bill opens up, sheds light, 
brings sunshine to these instruments so that taxpayers but, more 
importantly, investors and others can honestly understand what they 
are, what they are intended to do and how they work.
  For the first time here we would force risky financial companies such 
as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers that have operated the shadow 
banking system to be subject to proper supervision, again, so we have 
the ability to understand what they are doing.
  Of course, under the status quo these dangerous giants that have been 
free to take enormous gambles in a single-minded quest for maximum 
profit and when they go down like the Hindenberg, taxpayers are left to 
clean up the rubble. I do not believe that members of the minority 
caucus want to leave the Lehman Brothers unsupervised until its 
collapse shakes the very foundations of our economy.
  This bill I have before us beefs up the SEC oversight, it strengthens 
protections for investors, and gives shareholders a greater voice on 
how executives are compensated and how big their bonuses can get. Under 
the status quo, of course, the same executives whose mismanagement 
caused the collapse of financial giants get to collect ridiculous 
bonuses again. Kill the bill and there is nothing in here that would 
preclude the same kind of abuses, the outrageous gouging, if you will, 
at taxpayer expense by a handful of these executives who fail to 
understand--or if they understand, more outrageously

[[Page S2454]]

were willing to reward themselves for their own failures because the 
American taxpayers shored up their financial institution.
  The Allen Stanfords and Bernie Madoffs of the world are able to rip 
off investors for millions while the understaffed and underfunded SEC, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, fails to stop them.
  I do not believe members of the Republican caucus want to leave these 
executives free to line their pockets with unearned billions or leave 
investors vulnerable to Wall Street predators and con artists. That is 
what happened. That is what went on. Our bill stops it. We need to be 
able to go forward with this bill.
  Our bill requires full disclosures in plain English so that Americans 
can easily understand the risks and returns of any financial product, 
whether it is a mortgage or a student loan. Our bill creates an 
independent consumer protection agency, a watchdog with bark and bite, 
to protect consumers from the abusive practices that have become almost 
standard operating procedures--skyrocketing credit card interest rates, 
the explosion in checking account fees, predatory lending by mortgage 
firms, and so much more.

  You do not have to educate the American people. You will hear it over 
and over from your own constituents. Listen to what they have been 
through with these increased interest rates, increased fees--every 
gimmick you can think of to pick the pocket of the American taxpayer 
who, today, necessarily needs to depend on credit cards in order to 
make ends meet in their families.
  Of course, under the status quo, consumers trying to make smart 
decisions about their family finances are confronted with a sea of fine 
print and technical jargon and they are vulnerable to the predatory 
lenders, the greedy predators who have taken advantage of them. Our 
bill stops that. Our bill puts an end to that. If we do not get a 
chance to debate this and go forward, that would be the end of it. What 
a disgrace it would be to be confronted, as we were at the outset of 
this Congress, with the problems the American taxpayers have been 
through--8\1/2\ million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure, 
retirement accounts evaporated, small businesses failing, and we did 
nothing to stop it, despite the fact that 80 or 90 percent of what I 
have written in this bill is agreed to by many in the minority. But you 
will not even allow the bill to go forward to be debated. For the life 
of me I do not understand that logic.
  In short, this bill protects the American consumers, American 
businesses, community banks, as I mentioned, and taxpayers from the 
very exact situation that occurred in 2008, an economic crisis brought 
about by Wall Street highjinks, large financial institutions and 
regulatory failures. Our bill creates a stronger foundation, I might 
add, on which we can rebuild the prosperity we have lost in our Nation 
over the last number of years.
  I do not believe members of the Republican minority, our friends and 
colleagues here, want to kill this bill. I do not want to believe that. 
Unlike other matters we have debated over this Congress, this matter 
ought to be one where we can come together as I have tried to do, day 
in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, to craft 
a piece of legislation that reflected the myriad views embraced by the 
Members of this Senate.
  We are on the brink of going forward and I will go forward with this 
bill. We can do it one of several different ways. We can go forward. I 
will bring this bill up. The leader, I am told, will offer a motion to 
proceed. My hope is we will not have to have a vote on that, that there 
will be enough common sense here that would say this is a good product 
even for those who do not like various provisions of it, and then do 
what we are supposed to do in this body--debate, offer amendments, try 
to improve the bill based on your own view of what constitutes an 
improvement. But let's act like the Senate on a major bill of this 
import here, instead of putting on the brakes, don't show up, don't say 
anything, just vote no, we are not going to debate this until you do 
exactly as I want you to do.
  That is not the Senate that I think the American people expect to see 
work. My hope is, of course, that I will be right in that. My 
colleagues, many of whom I have worked closely with on many issues, do 
not want to be part of a blind, pointless effort here, just to walk 
away from this process. I believe they, our friends on the other side, 
are caught between the same commonsense principles that led many of 
them to spend so many hours helping us create this legislation, and the 
political deals that have led their leadership to demand they help to 
kill it.
  As I said a moment ago, I have been in this body for some 30 years. I 
have served with many Republican colleagues for a long time. I have 
great friends, as my colleagues know, on the other side of this aisle, 
people who I believe care as much about this country as any other 
Member, and they want to be part of answers, solutions. They did not 
come here, they did not fight hard to get here, to say no. They came 
here because they wanted to be part of the answers to how we can get 
our country moving again.
  Again, I am charged as the chairman of a committee to try to pull 
together a bill that reflects the disparate points of view, that 
listens to our colleagues here in crafting a piece of legislation that 
can work. I have tried to do that now for many months. I have come to 
the point where, frankly, we need to go forward in this body. I am 
confident, again, if our colleagues would give us a chance we can 
achieve the results they seek and I am hopeful they will when the 
motion to proceed occurs, and then engage in the kind of thoughtful, 
intelligent debate this Senate has a reputation of achieving and 
accomplishing.
  I thank my colleagues for the work they have contributed to it so 
far. Let's not take all of that work and dash it on the rocks of 
procedural filibustering. We can do better than that. I am confident we 
will. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of these efforts.
  I yield the floor and 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. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination 
of Marisa Demeo to be a Superior Court judge in the District of 
Columbia. I do not believe she has enough judicial experience to sit on 
the DC Superior Court. She is currently serving as a magistrate judge, 
a position she has held for the past 2\1/2\ years. Although being a 
magistrate judge is good training for a Superior Court judge, 2 years 
is not enough of that training. Of the 25 magistrate judges in the 
District of Columbia, she is one of the least experienced. Nineteen of 
the current DC magistrate judges have served for 5 years or more 
compared to her 2\1/2\. Some have served for decades. In fact, only 3 
of her 24 colleagues have served less than Ms. Demeo.
  Looking at her record, I see she has much more experience working as 
a lobbyist for a special interest group than a magistrate judge. She 
was chief lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, a national Latino civil rights organization, from 1997 to 2004. 
In this position, she became more well known for divisive comments she 
made against Hispanic Republicans than for her legal expertise. She 
took on a high-profile role opposing President Bush's nomination of 
Miguel Estrada, criticizing him in numerous newspaper stories because 
he did not appear to support her political agenda. During this time, 
she made personal attacks against him, suggesting he was a traitor to 
other Hispanics.
  Let me read from a 2003 article from National Review entitled, ``Dems 
to Miguel Estrada, You're Not Hispanic Enough.'' Ms. Demeo said:

       If the Senate confirms Mr. Estrada, his own personal 
     American dream will come true, but the American dreams of the 
     majority of Hispanics living in this country will come to an 
     end through his future legal decisions.

  In another press statement she said:

       The most difficult situation for an organization like mine 
     is when a president nominates a Latino who does not reflect, 
     resonate or associate with the Latino community.

  Instead of debating these issues, Ms. Demeo tried to convince the 
media

[[Page S2455]]

that an entire community should only think one way--her way--and that 
Miguel Estrada was wrong for thinking anything otherwise. To me, this 
sounds like ethnic bullying. It is dangerous and insulting to believe a 
particular community should think uniformly, and Ms. Demeo was wrong to 
do this.
  I was not in the Senate at the time; however, I have come to work 
closely with Miguel Estrada since that time, especially during my work 
on the Honduras crisis. He is a patriotic American and one who gave his 
own time and energy to help us understand the legal issues facing 
Honduras. I do not doubt for a minute his qualifications to serve on 
the Federal bench. Comments by Ms. Demeo and others questioning Mr. 
Estrada's credentials, encouraging the filibuster of his nomination, 
and accusing him of not being ``authentically Hispanic'' made the 
confirmation process very painful for him and his family.
  This was not the only time Ms. Demeo advanced this terrible argument. 
She used this same line of attack against Linda Chavez, President 
Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Labor.
  Ms. Demeo was quoted by the Washington Post in January of 2001 
saying:

       We generally support the nomination of Latinos to important 
     positions, but Linda Chavez could really turn things 
     backwards for the Latino community. We just really question 
     what kinds of efforts she is going to put into enforcing the 
     affirmative action laws.

  Ms. Demeo has also attacked those of us in Congress who opposed the 
amnesty legislation of a couple years ago, saying we were ``anti-
immigrant and not interested in seeing immigrants become full 
participants in this country.''
  She strongly opposes English as the official language and says the 
government must accommodate non-English speakers. She was quoted by the 
Associated Press in 2003 saying ``governments have a legal obligation 
to help those who don't speak English well.''
  She demanded that the Census Department use ``sampling'' to puff up 
the number of voters in Hispanic districts. She told National Public 
Radio in 2001 that raw census data should not be used because it ``does 
not fully represent those minority communities who were missed by the 
census.'' Instead, she advocated that less accurate sampling data be 
used to redraw political districts.
  Ms. Demeo has shown similar disregard for verified information by 
arguing that photo requirements for voting ``violates the rights of 
minority voters.''
  She is also an active proponent of affirmative action, again 
suggesting to the public that all Latinos are in lockstep agreement on 
this issue.
  After the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter, Demeo said:

       All segments of the Latino community supported the 
     continuance of affirmative action. . . . The nation must now 
     also turn and concentrate on ensuring equality of opportunity 
     in our elementary, middle and high schools. Colleges and 
     universities that use race-conscious admissions have made 
     those universities a better place for everyone to learn.

  Ms. Demeo has also attacked the definition of traditional marriage. 
These views have led groups such as Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, the 
Federation of American Immigration Reform, English First, Concerned 
Women for America, and the Traditional Values Coalition to oppose Judge 
Demeo's nomination.
  I assume Ms. Demeo will be confirmed. If she is, I will wish her well 
in this new position. But I, regrettably, will vote no on this 
nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the nomination of 
Marisa J. Demeo.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am going to actually speak on a 
different matter. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be moved to 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, here, in our Nation's Capital, we stand 
for justice, for fairness and opportunity and for the rule of law.
  On the floor of this Senate and in the Oval Office, we shape national 
policy, and guide the course of a Nation.
  In the chambers of the Supreme Court, the principles of justice laid 
down in our Constitution are translated into the real world.
  Our system of government, embodied in this city, stands as an example 
for all others around the world.
  And yet today we are met with a certain irony.
  As I address this chamber, the DC Superior Court has been paralyzed, 
and our justice system has ground to a halt, thanks to my Republican 
colleagues.
  My good friend, the junior Senator from South Carolina, has chosen to 
obstruct an eminently qualified judicial nominee and current DC 
magistrate judge, named Marisa Demeo.
  When the President of the United States appoints a judge to the 
Superior Court here in Washington, these nominations are generally 
approved by the Senate without delay or controversy.
  But this time, my Republican friends have decided to play politics 
with our judicial system.
  They have stalled Judge Demeo's nomination for 8 months, and have 
turned a routine vote into the longest confirmation battle of the Obama 
Presidency.
  As a result, DC government officials have warned that their ability 
to administer justice is being tested.
  As a former attorney general of Illinois, I understand how dire this 
situation is. I understand how this obstructionism is crippling the 
Superior Court system.
  And for what reason? My colleagues and I have asked our Republican 
friends to name their objections, but no one can get a straight answer.
  No Republican has cast any doubt on Judge Demeo's qualifications, 
which are superb.
  She has served as a magistrate judge since 2007. Before that, she 
worked at the Department of Justice, in the Civil Rights Division and 
as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  She has degrees from Princeton and New York University. Her legal 
training and experience are more than adequate for the post of Superior 
Court Judge, and yet, for unspecified political reasons, the junior 
Senator from South Carolina continues to hold up this important 
nomination.
  He said he has concerns that Judge Demeo may not be fair and balanced 
in her approach. But there is nothing in her record to suggest anything 
of the sort.
  In fact, not a single Republican even took the time to ask a question 
at Judge Demeo's confirmation hearings.
  So I cannot imagine what they find objectionable.
  The court system in our Nation's Capital is strained to the breaking 
point, and my friend from South Carolina doesn't seem to mind.
  I believe this is simply unacceptable.
  This is why the American people are frustrated with their government: 
because petty political battles and Republican obstructionism are 
impeding our ability to govern.
  My friends on the other side are certainly entitled to play political 
games if they like, but I would urge them to save politics for the 
campaign trail, and stop holding up the course of justice and the 
important business of the American people.
  We simply do not have time for this. This is not about politics, this 
is about people's lives.
  This is about the functioning of the American justice system, right 
here in the Capital of the United States.
  This is about the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, a 
right which has been denied to DC residents by Republican political 
games.
  The American people have had enough.
  So I urge my friends on the other side to abandon this kind of 
obstructionism and take their political games elsewhere.
  Let us stand up for the ideals of fairness and justice that are 
embodied here, in this system of government.
  And let us make sure that every American, including the residents of 
our Nation's Capital, can avail themselves of this system.
  I ask my colleague from South Carolina to drop his hold on this 
eminently qualified nominee, so this Senate can hold a vote, and then 
we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges we 
face.

[[Page S2456]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week in the Senate we are calling 
attention to the unfortunate obstructionism coming from the other side 
of the aisle when it comes to President Obama's nominations. There are 
now 101 nominees who have been voted out of committee--most of them 
with unanimous support but who are languishing on the Senate floor 
because the Republican minority won't allow them to have a vote. In 
many cases, they won't even give a reason--they are using anonymous 
holds. That is fundamentally unfair.
  Let me speak briefly about a nominee we will vote on today: Marisa 
Demeo. She was nominated to be an associate judge on the District of 
Columbia Superior Court. This is a local court here in Washington that 
primarily hears misdemeanor and felony cases. It is not a Federal court 
and its judges do not serve lifetime appointments.
  Marisa Demeo is currently a magistrate judge on this court, and she 
has an excellent reputation. She is a former Federal prosecutor and was 
hired by the John Ashcroft Justice Department as an assistant U.S. 
attorney here in Washington.
  Before she was a prosecutor, she was a civil rights lawyer in the 
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and at the Mexican American 
Legal Defense Fund, one of the most respected civil rights 
organizations in America.
  Judge Demeo has received numerous awards throughout her legal career, 
including the ``Rising Legal Star'' award from the Hispanic Bar 
Association 
of Washington, DC, and a Special Achievement Award from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
  Judge Demeo was unanimously approved by the Senate committee that 
oversees DC Superior Court nominations, so you would think she would be 
confirmed by the full Senate in short order. Well you would be wrong. 
After being voted out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
on May 20, 2009, Judge Demeo has been held up on the Senate floor ever 
since. For 11 months now, the Republican minority obstructed her 
nomination and objected to an up-or-down vote. No other nominee of 
President Obama's has been pending on the Senate floor longer than 
Judge Demeo.
  As a result of this delay, the DC Superior Court has struggled to 
handle its crushing caseload. Last month, the Senate received a letter 
from the chief judge of that court, Lee Satterfield, who said the 
following:

       The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload 
     of over 100,000 cases per year. Each day we make life and 
     death decisions about neglected and abused children, 
     juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, criminals charged 
     with everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree 
     murder and sex abuse. . . . [T]he people of the District of 
     Columbia deserve a court with a full complement of judges 
     making the crucial decisions affecting the lives of D.C. 
     residents.

  I am pleased the Republicans have finally relented and agreed to a 
vote on Judge Demeo. We owe it to her, and we owe it to the people of 
the District of Columbia.
  I know there has been some criticism of some positions Judge Demeo 
took when she worked at MALDEF. A few of my Republican colleagues have 
discussed these criticisms on the Senate floor today. I would like to 
make two points in response.
  First, the positions Judge Demeo took when she was an advocate at 
MALDEF are mainstream positions. She advocated for comprehensive 
immigration reform. She opposed the nomination of Miguel Estrada, one 
of President Bush's most controversial nominees. She supported 
affirmative action, and she opposed a photo ID requirement in the 
voting context because of its adverse impact on minorities. And she 
opposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. These are 
positions I share, and many members of the Senate share. They are 
positions that are hardly out of step with the political mainstream in 
America.
  In any event, Judge Demeo has been a magistrate judge for the past 
three years, and she has demonstrated her ability to be fair and 
impartial. She has skillfully made the transition from advocate to 
judge, and she deserves this promotion from magistrate judge to 
associate judge on the DC Superior Court. I urge my colleagues to 
support her confirmation.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote to confirm the nomination of Marisa Judith Demeo as associate 
judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  She has waited long enough and the Superior Court of the District has 
waited long enough. Judge Demeo epitomizes what it means to serve. A 
consummate community leader, she has always believed in the importance 
of public service.
  She is currently serving as magistrate judge in the Criminal Division 
of Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  As an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
District of Columbia, she has ample experience prosecuting misdemeanor 
and felony cases.
  Having said that, she also has deep roots in the community, a woman 
who cares about justice--about doing what's fair and what's right. She 
believes in the rule of law.
  From her work at the AIDS Service Center of Lower Manhattan, her 
service for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, her time as a 
Texas rural legal aid and a paralegal in the Civil Rights Division of 
the Department of Justice, she has taken pride in acting on a spirit of 
community that is part of who she is--each of us working together for 
the betterment of all of us.
  I know the good work she has done at the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund and what that work has meant to her and to 
those she has served.
  The professional awards and honors she has received as well as her 
academic awards are far too numerous to mention here. Suffice it to say 
that, in my view, she is one of the most accomplished nominees we have 
had before us.
  A graduate of Princeton University and New York University School of 
Law, Judge Demeo's credentials are impeccable.
  I know her dedication and her keen mind, her judicial temperament, 
her belief in the rule of law and those powerful words that mean so 
much to her and to all of us in this Chamber--equal justice under law.
  Judge Demeo is ready to serve on a busy urban court with a caseload 
of over 100,000 cases per year. As an associate judge on the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia she will bring her knowledge, skills, 
and expertise to every decision in a busy courtroom dealing with 
hundreds of neglected and abused children who will come before her--
juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, and those who have been 
accused and charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanors to first 
degree murder and sexual abuse.
  Judge Demeo will be there to serve as she always has, ready to make 
timely and fair decisions on domestic violence cases, housing issues, 
child custody and support.
  The caseload will not deter her. It will invigorate her, and I am 
proud to cast my vote to confirm Judge Demeo as an associate judge on 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  The time has come to confirm this nominee.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support the long-delayed 
nomination of Judge Marisa Demeo for a seat on the DC Superior Court 
and urge my colleagues to approve her as quickly as possible so she can 
take her place on this court that is both busy and shorthanded.
  Judge Demeo is well qualified for this position and brings a range of 
legal experience to her new job that would make her an asset to the 
court. She has been a judge, a prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney 
advocating for civil rights and a law professor.
  Specifically, for the past 2 years, Judge Demeo has served as a 
magistrate judge in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia.
  Prior to that, from 2004 to 2007 she served as an assistant U.S. 
attorney in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Columbia; from 1997 to 2004 she served as the Regional Counsel for the 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, from 1993 to 1996 
she was an honors program trial attorney with the Justice Department 
Civil Rights division, and she was an adjunct professor of law at 
Howard University in 2003, 2005 and 2008.

[[Page S2457]]

  Judge Demeo is a graduate of Princeton University with a bachelor's 
degree in political science and earned her law degree at New York 
University. And besides her legal work, she is also in demand as a 
speaker on legal issues and is the author of many articles on civil 
rights law.
  Judge Demeo also has a compelling personal story that reminds us that 
the American dream is alive and well. Her father--the son of Italian 
immigrants--and her mother--a Puerto Rican immigrant--taught her that 
if you work hard, anything is possible and Judge Demeo has channeled 
her talent and drive into a successful career in public service.
  These facts taken together led the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee to endorse Judge Demeo's nomination by voice vote in 
May.
  Let me say that again, the committee reported Judge Demeo's 
nomination to the full Senate in May--11 months ago--and it has been 
stalled ever since.
  There is also speculation that some object to her because of legal 
advocacy work she has done on behalf of the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, also known as MALDEF.
  But there is no reason that this sort of work should be held against 
any nominee. Under our system of justice, when an individual or group 
believes something is not just, they are allowed to have their day in 
court and have an attorney zealously argue their cause.
  In her confirmation hearing, Judge Demeo was specifically asked if 
her advocacy work would affect her decisionmaking as a judge. Let me 
give you Judge Demeo's response in her own words:

       When you think about the parties that appear in the 
     courtroom, oftentimes it's plaintiffs versus defendants and 
     one party against another, and I've . . . worked in both 
     positions in my career. Being in the judge position has 
     allowed me to take a step back already, in the magistrate 
     position, and listen to the parties and be open to both 
     sides.

  To that end, at her confirmation hearing, representatives of the 
Justice Department and the Public Defenders' office came to lend their 
support to her nomination.
  And we should remember, that nominations for the DC courts are made 
through a process different than other judicial nominees.
  Under the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
Reorganization Act, the Judicial Nominations Committee recommends three 
individuals for each position to the President, and the President then 
selects one of those individuals and sends the nomination to the Senate 
for confirmation.
  The Judicial Nominations Committee is a diverse, Federal-district 
entity, comprised of two individuals appointed by the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia--one being a nonlawyer--two appointed by the Board 
of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, one nonlawyer appointed 
by the city council of the District of Columbia, one individual 
appointed by the President of the United States, and one judicial 
member appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia.
  This is a process aimed at getting the best qualified nominees, 
without regard to party or politics.
  Finally, Chief Judge of the Superior Court, Lee F. Satterfield, wrote 
to both the majority and minority leaders in October pleading for the 
swift approval of Judge Demeo because the court is already five members 
short.
  In his letter, Judge Satterfield wrote:

       The Superior Court is a busy, urban court with a caseload 
     of over 100,000 cases a year. Each day we make important 
     decisions about neglected and abused children, juveniles 
     alleged to have committed crimes, and accused charged with 
     everything from minor misdemeanors to first degree murder and 
     sexual abuse. Vulnerable families in the District rely on 
     Superior Court judges to make timely and fair decisions 
     regarding domestic violence, housing, child custody and 
     support, and numerous issues that affect them every day. Our 
     goal is to serve the community well by handling the important 
     decisions we are entrusted with fairly, justly and 
     efficiently.

  And last month, Judge Satterfield sent another letter to the majority 
and minority leader with this dire warning, ``We are beginning to 
experience delays in meeting performance measures and standards for how 
quickly cases should go to trial.''
  But, a shorthanded court cannot achieve these goals, which means 
justice is delayed for many. It's long past time that we approve this 
highly qualified nominee and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
nomination and allow her to get to work administering justice for the 
citizens of our Nation's Capital.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.