[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.