[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2491-S2495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      Financial Regulatory Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, in early 1933, just after Franklin 
Roosevelt was sworn in as President, the Great Depression was at its 
worst. The American economy had been shaken to its core. Financial 
institutions had closed, people's life savings had evaporated, and no 
one knew where to turn. That is when the unthinkable happened: Much of 
the American commercial banking system collapsed.
  President Roosevelt and his colleagues in the House and Senate sprang 
into action. Congressman Henry Steagall and Senator Carter Glass, both 
Democrats, worked with the President to write sweeping reform 
legislation. They set out to get the economy back on the road to 
recovery. The resulting law--known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934--
helped to lay the foundation for sensible bank regulation in this 
country. It would come to define America's financial landscape in the 
decades that followed the Depression.
  Mr. President, it is in this spirit that I ask my colleagues to join 
me today in supporting major financial reform and making sure that the 
Volcker rule is included in our financial legislation. If we pass the 
bill that has been introduced by Senator Dodd, we can help prevent 
another economic crisis and reinstate some of the basic protections 
included in Glass-Steagall.
  Almost 80 years ago, this legislation established the FDIC, which 
still insures bank deposits--and it drew a sharp distinction between 
commercial banks and investment banks. In the wake of economic 
collapse, Congress recognized that these dueling roles often came with 
massive conflicts of interest. In some cases, this resulted in risky 
behavior. In others, fraud.
  So Glass and Steagall designed their bill to set up a barrier between 
commercial banks and investment banks. The law prevented these two 
activities from mixing and kept financial professionals honest and 
accountable. For much of the next half century--as our economy 
recovered from the Great Depression and prosperity returned to 
America--the system worked just as it was intended.
  As a former banker, I can personally speak to the significance of the 
Glass-Steagall Act in helping to keep our financial system on an even 
keel. This important law was essential to the stability of our 
economy--right up to the moment when my Republican friends repealed 
it--a little more than a decade ago.
  In 1999, the Republican Congress decided there was no longer a need 
to keep commercial and investment banks separate, so they passed a bill 
that rolled back key portions of the Glass-Steagall Act. Unfortunately, 
President Clinton signed it into law, and with the stroke of a pen, the 
walls between commercial banks and investment banks were torn down.
  Almost overnight, commercial institutions started to move into this 
fresh territory. They started to underwrite CDOs and mortgage-backed 
securities. Then they began to trade them. Commercial lenders even 
created new investment vehicles, which bought these very same 
securities. Without the Glass-Steagall Act, it was a free-for-all.
  As soon as the regulations were removed, big banks swooped in without 
regard to responsible lending practices. Conflicts of interest sprang 
up everywhere. Fraud was allegedly committed by some of our largest and 
most respected institutions. Then, 2 years ago, our economy went into a 
massive downward spiral--a great recession from which we are still 
trying to recover.
  The repeal of Glass-Steagall certainly did not cause this financial 
crisis on its own. But many believe it was a contributing factor, and 
unless we can take action to close this regulatory gap, the absence of 
Glass-Steagall could expose our economy to major systemic risk in the 
future.
  So, today, as the Senate stands on the verge of considering major 
financial reform, I would urge my colleagues to reinstate some of these 
protections. We must prevent big banks from engaging in these 
irresponsible practices ever again. That is why I am proud to support 
the Volcker rule, which my friend, Senator Dodd, has included in his 
financial reform bill.

[[Page S2493]]

  This provision will prevent traditional banks from making private 
equity investments. It will stop them from running hedge funds. It will 
help keep them from placing bets on the market. As a key part of 
Senator Dodd's bill, the Volcker rule will essentially serve as a 
modernized version of the Glass-Steagall Act.
  It would stop short of reinstating the old law of 1933, but it would 
help to prevent fraud, discourage conflicts of interest, and keep large 
banks from engaging in reckless behavior. It would also allow us to 
help regulate mergers among our biggest banks so we can prevent the 
market from becoming too concentrated or incurring systemic risk.
  Mr. President, I believe each of these key components is a necessary 
part of any financial reform bill. That is why I am proud to join 
Senator Dodd, as well as President Obama, in supporting the Volcker 
rule. Colleagues, let's learn from the events of history. Let's impose 
fair and reasonable regulations so a handful of banks would not be able 
to undermine the American economy with a few foolish decisions. Let's 
pass a financial reform bill that includes the Volcker rule.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally confirm 
Professor Chris Schroeder to lead the Office of Legal Policy at the 
Department of Justice. I say ``finally'' because he was nominated by 
President Obama nearly 11 months ago. Professor Schroeder was first 
nominated to this position on June 4, 2009. He appeared before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee last June. He was reported favorably last 
July, a year ago, without dissent from both Republican and Democrat 
members on the committee. But then he sat on the Executive Calendar for 
5 months, blocked by mysterious holds from the Republican side. Then, 
as the last session drew to a close, Republican Senators objected to 
carrying over Professor Schroeder's nomination into the new session, so 
it had to be sent back to the White House. The President had to 
renominate him. The President did that, to his credit. His nomination 
was reconsidered, reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee by a 
rollcall vote, with a majority of the Republicans voting for him. That 
was nearly three months ago.
  Professor Schroeder is a scholar and public servant who has served 
with distinction on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in 
the Justice Department and has support across the political spectrum. 
The Judiciary Committee has received letters of support for Professor 
Schroeder's nomination from Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., former White 
House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan; Ken Starr, former Solicitor 
General under former President George H.W. Bush; 11 former high-ranking 
officials at the Justice Department; and Dean David F. Levi of Duke Law 
School, where Professor Schroeder has taught for many years.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have those letters 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Letters of Support for the Nomination of Christopher Schroeder To Be 
           Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy

                         (As of April 21, 2009)


                  Current and Former Public Officials

       Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., Former White House Counsel to 
     President Reagan, 1987-1989.
       Joint letter from former Department of Justice Officials 
     [Eleanor D. Acheson, former Assistant Attorney General for 
     the Office of Policy Development; Walter E. Dellinger III, 
     former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of legal 
     counsel, former Acting Solicitor General; Jamie S. Gorelick, 
     former Deputy Attorney General; Randolph D. Moss, former 
     Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; 
     Beth Nolan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Office of Legal Counsel; H. Jefferson Powell, former Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, 
     former Principal Deputy Solicitor General; Teresa Wynn 
     Rosenborough, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 
     the Office of Legal Counsel; Lois J. Schiffer, former 
     Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural 
     Resources Division; Howard M. Shapiro, former General 
     Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Richard L. 
     Shiffrin, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Office of Legal Counsel; Seth P. Waxman, former Solicitor 
     General].
       Kenneth Starr, Former Solicitor General, Duane and Kelly 
     Roberts Dean and Professor of Law.


                            Other supporters

        David F. Levi, Dean, Duke Law School.
                                  ____



                                         O'Melveny & Myers LLP

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions: I write to 
     endorse the nomination of Christopher H. Schroeder of North 
     Carolina to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Office of Legal Policy.
       I am sure the Committee on the Judiciary is well aware of 
     Chris Schroeder's substantial record of academic 
     accomplishment as a chaired professor at Duke Law School and 
     of his distinguished public service with the Department of 
     Justice Office of Legal Counsel and with the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee. Perhaps less well known is Chris Schroeder's part-
     time private practice association with our law firm, 
     O'Melveny & Myers, from January 2002 to the present, the last 
     four years in an ``of counsel'' position. As Chair of the 
     Firm, I can attest Chris has provided exemplary legal 
     services to the Firm and its clients, while working on highly 
     complex legal matters. His capacity for keen analysis, his 
     great maturity and judgment, and his ability to work in a 
     constructive and purposeful way with others, have impressed 
     both his colleagues and our clients.
       Chris Schroeder's experience as counsel to our firm adds 
     yet another dimension to his qualifications for office, 
     making Chris one of the rare individuals who has excelled in 
     academic law, in public service to both the legislative and 
     executive branches of the national government, and in private 
     practice. This diversity of experience and perspective will 
     serve the Justice Department and the country well if Chris is 
     confirmed as head of the Office of Legal Policy.
       From my time as White House Counsel to President Reagan 
     until now, I know how important it is to have senior Justice 
     Department office holders who not only are first-rate 
     lawyers, but also have the requisite maturity, experience and 
     confidence to work constructively across institutional, 
     interest group and party lines to advance the public 
     interest. I believe that Chris Schroeder will be one of those 
     leaders. I am pleased to endorse his nomination.
           Yours very truly,
                                        Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr.,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                                    June 23, 2009.
     Re Nomination of Christopher Schroeder to serve as Assistant 
         Attorney General.

     U.S. Senate,
     Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members 
     of the Senate Judiciary Committee: We are all former 
     Department of Justice officials who worked closely with Chris 
     Schroeder when he served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney 
     General, and later Acting Assistant Attorney General, in the 
     Office of Legal Counsel in the 1990s. Many of us have also 
     known and worked with Chris in a variety of other settings. 
     Based on our broad range of experiences, we all offer our 
     enthusiastic support for Chris' nomination to serve as the 
     Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy.
       Chris brings together a broad range of talents, experience 
     and perspective that make him an ideal candidate to lead the 
     Office of Legal Policy. First, Chris is a superb lawyer. He 
     is a distinguished scholar, with an expertise in public law 
     and policy. He has taught classes on constitutional and 
     administrative law, on civil liberties and national security, 
     and on the Congress. As acting head of the Office of Legal 
     Counsel, he grappled with some of the most difficult legal 
     issues in the executive branch and, in the course of doing 
     so, earned the broad respect of others throughout the 
     government.
       Chris would also bring to the job extensive knowledge of 
     the workings of the Department of Justice, and a deep respect 
     for the Department as an institution. Equally importantly, 
     Chris has worked extensively with other offices throughout 
     the government, and he has a clear understanding of the 
     interagency process. As a result, Chris would know how to 
     ensure that Department of Justice policy judgments are fully 
     informed by others in the executive branch.
       Similarly, Chris also understands how the legislative 
     process works. He would be well positioned to ensure that the 
     Department's policy judgments are consistent with the laws 
     Congress enacts and that they are informed by the judgment 
     and experience of

[[Page S2494]]

     those in the legislative branch. Chris served as chief 
     counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he understands 
     how important it is to work effectively with Members of 
     Congress on both sides of the aisle in formulating effective 
     public policy.
       In addition, Chris would bring to the job the perspective 
     of a lawyer who has engaged in the private practice of law. 
     As a result, he would also understand how Department of 
     Justice policy might affect the legal profession, and he has 
     the experience to understand the practical implications of 
     those policy decisions.
       Finally, and most importantly, Chris is a balanced, 
     fundamentally fair, and honest person. He has excellent 
     judgment and a compelling sense of what is right. All of us 
     have worked with Chris, and we can all affirm that he is a 
     colleague of the highest order.
       In short, Chris would bring to the job the perfect mix of 
     experience: he is a distinguished scholar; he has worked in 
     the Department of Justice, for the Congress, and in private 
     practice; and he has the integrity and judgment the job 
     demands. For all of these reasons, we believe that Chris is 
     superbly well-qualified to serve as the Assistant Attorney 
     General for the Office of Legal Policy.
           Respectfully,
         Eleanor D. Acheson (former Assistant Attorney General for 
           the Office for Policy Development), Walter E. Dellinger 
           III (former Assistant Attorney General for the Office 
           of Legal Counsel; former Acting Solicitor General), 
           Jamie S. Gorelick (former Deputy Attorney General), 
           Randolph D. Moss (former Assistant Attorney General for 
           the Office of Legal Counsel), Beth Nolan (former Deputy 
           Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 
           Counsel), H. Jefferson Powell (former Deputy Assistant 
           Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; 
           former Principal Deputy Solicitor General), Teresa Wynn 
           Roseborough (former Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
           for the Office of Legal Counsel), Lois J. Schiffer 
           (former Assistant Attorney General for the Environment 
           and Natural Resources Division), Howard M. Shapiro 
           (former General Counsel, Federal Bureau of 
           Investigation), Richard L. Shiffrin (former Deputy 
           Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 
           Counsel), Seth P. Waxman (former Solicitor General).
                                  ____

                                                    School of Law,


                                        Pepperdine University,

                                        Malibu, CA, June 22, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions: It is my privilege 
     to endorse, and heartily so, the nomination of Christopher 
     Schroeder to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
     Legal Policy. Having known Chris for many years, I know him 
     not only to be a distinguished professor at my beloved alma 
     mater, but--as befits his fine reputation--I also know him to 
     be a thoughtful and measured person. He has sound judgment. 
     Indeed, Chris is quite well known, and again rightly so, for 
     his balanced, careful writing.
       Equally relevant, Chris served with great distinction in 
     the Department of Justice in the highly important Office of 
     Legal Counsel. He has thus been fully engaged in fashioning 
     the advice and counsel that is foundational to our system of 
     the rule of law. Having also served in the Article I branch, 
     Chris has a particularly keen and nuanced sense of what the 
     Founding generation was seeking brilliantly to achieve: 
     balanced government. From both practical experience and 
     engaged scholarship, he understands, deeply, the appropriate 
     role of the co-ordinate branches.
       In short, based on both his personal character and 
     professional qualifications, I enthusiastically recommend him 
     to you for confirmation to this very important role at the 
     Justice Department.
           Yours sincerely,
     Kenneth W. Starr,
       Duane and Kelly Roberts Dean and Professor of Law.
                                  ____



                                Duke University School of Law,

                                        Durham, NC, June 19, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions: I am the Dean of 
     Duke Law School. Previously I was U.S. Attorney in the 
     Eastern District of California (1986-1990) and then a United 
     States District Judge in the same district (1990-2007). I am 
     writing in my personal capacity to endorse the nomination of 
     Christopher Schroeder to be Assistant Attorney General for 
     the Office of Legal Policy.
       Professor Schroeder is currently a distinguished member of 
     the Duke Law School faculty, and the Charles S. Murphy 
     Professor of Law. His scholarship is well recognized across a 
     range of subject areas, including constitutional law, 
     administrative, and environmental law. He is the author of 
     dozens of articles and books in these fields, and has the 
     reputation of a fair, thoughtful teacher who respects all 
     points of view.
       Professor Schroeder also directs Duke Law School's Program 
     in Public Law. This Program in Public Law exposes law 
     students to the opportunities and value of public service as 
     part of their professional careers, through speaker series, 
     workshops, conferences and other programs. The Program 
     engages topics that are newsworthy and often controversial, 
     in order to provide students an informed basis for evaluating 
     the public debate about them. I have participated in a number 
     of events sponsored by the Program and have been impressed 
     both with the quality of Professor Schroeder's own 
     contributions, and with the even-handedness of points of view 
     that he consistently brings to the programming. His 
     leadership of this program demonstrates, again, a balanced, 
     fair-minded person who respects, and is respected by, people 
     from many different backgrounds and perspectives. Professor 
     Schroeder is not an ideologue.
       Professor Schroeder also has considerable government 
     experience both in the Department of Justice and in the 
     United States Senate. In the Department of Justice, he has 
     served in the Office of Legal Counsel, including as its 
     Acting Assistant Attorney General. Through that experience he 
     has gained knowledge of the organization and operation of the 
     Department, as well as of many of the policy issues that 
     regularly face the Department of Justice. His prior work at 
     Justice provides valuable preparation for the leadership 
     position to which he has been nominated. In the United States 
     Senate, he has served as Chief Counsel to the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee and in several other capacities as well. 
     I know from my conversations with him that he appreciates the 
     responsibilities of the Senate and the Congress, and 
     possesses a genuine respect for the role of the legislative 
     branch in our constitutional system. This orientation, too, 
     will be an asset in leading the Office of Legal Policy, which 
     often works closely with members of Congress in developing 
     policy initiatives.
       Professor Schroeder possesses the intellect, skill, 
     training, reliability, and disposition to make him an 
     effective and dynamic director of the Office of Legal Policy. 
     He is someone in whom the members of the Senate and the 
     American people can be confident. He has distinguished 
     himself in every endeavor that he has undertaken. I am 
     certain that he will do so as the AAG for the Office of Legal 
     Policy. I highly recommend him for this position.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David F. Levi.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Chris Schroeder is well known to many of 
us in the Senate. He has served in a number of positions, including 
chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee when the chairman was then-
Senator Joe Biden. He spent years in private practice and as a 
professor, including for the last 10 years as director for the Program 
in Public Law at Duke University Law School. He has also served in a 
number of high-ranking positions at the Justice Department making him 
extraordinarily well prepared for the position to which he has been 
nominated. In fact, in my nearly 36 years here, it is hard to think of 
somebody more well qualified.
  Look what he has done. He graduated from Princeton University, 
received his master of divinity from Yale Divinity School before 
earning his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley 
Boalt Hall in 1974. There is no question that he is well qualified to 
run the Office of Legal Policy.
  For somebody who is going to be confirmed easily, it shouldn't be 
necessary for the majority leader to have to file cloture in order to 
end the Republican filibuster. The Senate should be able to at least 
have an up-or-down vote on Professor Schroeder's nomination. What has 
this place come to when we have filibusters on routine nominations such 
as this?
  I remember, when I first came here, probably the biggest nomination 
we had before a heavily Democratic-controlled Senate was a nomination 
by a conservative Republican President, Gerald Ford, for the U.S. 
Supreme Court. President Ford nominated a well respected Republican 
from Chicago seen as a conservative; John Paul Stevens. We took that 
nomination from the Republican President 2\1/2\ weeks after that 
nomination arrived here. We all voted for John Paul Stevens to be 
confirmed for the Supreme Court, including myself. In fact, I am one of 
only three Senators still here who voted, with Senator Inouye and 
Senator Byrd being the other two.
  What have we come to when we have a nominee who is as extraordinarily 
well qualified as Professor Schroeder, who is going to be confirmed, 
but he has to get past a Republican filibuster.
  The 11 months it has taken us to consider this nomination is a far 
cry, incidentally, from the way the Democrats

[[Page S2495]]

treated President Bush's nomination to run the Office of Legal Policy. 
A Democratic majority confirmed President Bush's first nominee to head 
that division, Viet Dinh, by a vote of 96 to 1 only 1 month after he 
was nominated and only 1 week after his nomination was reported by the 
committee. The 3 nominees of that office who succeeded Mr. Dinh--Daniel 
Bryant, Rachel Brand, and Elisabeth Cook--were each confirmed by a 
voice vote in a far shorter time than Professor Schroeder's nomination 
has been pending. None of these nominations were returned to the 
President without explanation. None of them required cloture to be 
filed before being considered.
  What is going on when a Republican President is treated with fairness 
but a Democratic President, President Obama, is treated this way? It 
makes me think of what one of the leaders of the Republican Party said 
last year: I want this President to fail. If you have an objection to a 
nomination, vote against it, but none of us should want the President 
of the United States to fail because if the President fails, America 
fails and we all suffer, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have to 
get out of this mindset that if President Obama is for something, 
everybody has to find ways to block it.
  I agree with Senator Franken's observation on the Senate floor 
earlier this week concerning the Schroeder nomination. He remarked that 
perhaps Republicans were blocking this nomination because Professor 
Schroeder has been nominated to lead the office that vets potential 
judicial nominees. Well, he is right, as is Senator Kaufman, who has 
spoken so eloquently on behalf of Professor Schroeder today.
  To deflect criticism for Republican delays and obstruction of 
judicial nominations that have left 25 judicial nominations languishing 
on the Executive Calendar, Senate Republicans have tried to place the 
blame on the administration for sending too few nominees to the Senate. 
But these same Republicans have held up Professor Schroeder's 
nomination to lead the division of the Justice Department involved with 
reviewing and preparing judicial nominations for nearly a year. In 
other words, they stopped the person who is supposed to do the initial 
review on judicial nominations and then said: Oh, my goodness, 
President Obama is not sending up enough nominations. Come on. Come on. 
This is like a burglar saying: I should be excused for burglarizing 
this warehouse because you had such nice things in the warehouse to 
steal. It is your fault for having nice things to steal. How can you 
blame me for stealing them? What they are saying is: It is President 
Obama's fault for not moving through judges who have to be vetted by 
somebody we are blocking from vetting them.
  I know the Department and the administration would be grateful to 
have Professor Schroeder help them prepare judicial nominations. He has 
shown that he has a deep understanding of the proper role of a judge 
tasked with interpreting the Constitution. As he emphasized in a 
response to a question from Senator Sessions:

       Any interpretation of the Constitution must begin with the 
     document's text, history, structure, and purpose, as well as 
     judicial precedent . . . [A] fundamental qualification for 
     anyone being considered for a judicial appointment is that he 
     or she understand the Constitution has binding force that 
     must be applied faithfully in cases that come before any 
     court, independent of his or her own policy or preferences.

  So, again, I thank Senator Kaufman. He is one of the most valued 
members of the Judiciary Committee and somebody I am going to miss 
sorely when he retires this year. I thank him for his dogged efforts in 
support of Professor Schroeder's nomination and for his assistance in 
managing the debate so well today.
  I congratulate Professor Schroeder and his family on his 
confirmation. I have every confidence he will be an effective and 
devoted public servant.
  I might note--I see the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, 
who is presiding over the Senate today. Among the 25 judicial nominees 
stalled before a final Senate vote, there were two courts of appeal 
nominees for North Carolina. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer 
took a totally nonpartisan attitude toward recommending these judges 
and has worked extraordinarily hard, and I hope Judge Wynn and Judge 
Diaz will soon be allowed by Senate Republicans to be considered and 
voted on. They are supported by both the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, Senator Hagan, and the other distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, Senator Burr. So they are supported by a Democrat and a 
Republican.
  Incidentally, Judge Wynn was reported out of the committee 18 to 1. 
Most of us would love to win elections by that kind of a margin. Judge 
Diaz was reported unanimously 3 months ago.
  So let's stop this unprecedented kind of stalling and clear these 25 
judicial nominees.
  I see nobody else seeking recognition.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, the 
Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Christopher 
Schroeder, with the time until then equally divided and controlled as 
previously ordered; further, that any other provisions of the previous 
order with respect to the nomination remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized.