[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19185-19193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF RICHARD CORDRAY TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER 
                          FINANCIAL PROTECTION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Richard 
Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection.

[[Page 19186]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. REID. I ask that a quorum be called and the time be equally 
divided between the two sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This morning the Senate will vote whether the new 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be able to put a director 
in place before concerns about its accountability to the American 
people are addressed. Let me stress that is all today's vote is about. 
Today's vote is about accountability and transparency. It is a debate 
about whether we think Americans need more oversight over Washington or 
less.
  Republicans made our position clear more than 7 months ago when 44 of 
us signed a letter saying we will not support a nominee for this 
Bureau, no matter who the President is, until three commonsense 
conditions are met that would bring some transparency and 
accountability to the CFPB. That letter now has 45 signatories.
  The President knew about these concerns months ago and he chose to 
dismiss them. Now he is suddenly making a push to confirm his nominee 
because it fits into some picture he wants to paint about who the good 
guys are and who the bad guys are here in Washington. So, once again, 
Democrats are using the Senate floor this week to stage a little 
political theater. They are setting up a vote they know will fail so 
they can act shocked about it later. This is what passes for leadership 
at the White House right now.
  The President has made his choice about how to deal with this issue, 
and we have made ours. What we have said is that until this or any 
other President addresses these legitimate concerns, we cannot and will 
not support a nominee. Here is what we said in that letter 7 months 
ago: First, replace the single Director with a board of directors who 
would oversee the Bureau. Second, subject the Bureau to the 
congressional appropriations process. Third, allow other financial 
regulators to provide a check on CFPB rules so they don't imperil the 
health of financial institutions and lead to unnecessary bank failures.
  Look, everybody supports strong and effective oversight, but that has 
to include the overseers as well. Unelected bureaucrats must be held 
accountable to the American people, and that is exactly what our 
proposal would do. So it is up to the President. Republicans have 
outlined our concerns and they are well known. We are not going to let 
the President put another unelected czar in place, unaccountable to the 
American people. And, frankly, his refusal to work with us only deepens 
our concerns. The CFPB requires reforms before any nominee can be 
confirmed. It is time the President takes these concerns seriously.
  I look forward to hearing from the President on this issue so we can 
put in place the kind of oversight and accountability the American 
people expect in an agency of this size and this scope. Until then, I 
will vote against this nominee for the CFPB and any others that this or 
any other President sends until he works to fix the problems, until he 
brings transparency to this bureaucracy and accountability to the 
American people.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the motion 
to invoke cloture on the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the 
Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
  Earlier this year, I and 44 of my colleagues sent a letter to the 
President expressing our concerns with the unaccountable structure of 
the Bureau. It is now 7 months later and the President has yet to 
respond.
  The majority has called for a vote they know will fail today. It is 
evident the White House and the majority have decided to place politics 
ahead of good policy. They have chosen to fabricate a political issue 
rather than do what is in the best interests of consumers. Nonetheless, 
they claim this debate is about consumer protection.
  There is no disagreement, however, that consumer protection, as the 
Acting President pro tempore knows, needs to be enhanced. The only real 
point of contention is whether the new Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection will be accountable to the American people.
  If we believe regulators never fail, then the current structure of 
the Bureau is just fine. Yet we all know regulators do fail and their 
failures harm consumers.
  Members of the majority, I believe, have repeatedly made this point 
with their criticism of the Fed's failure to regulate subprime 
mortgages and the OCC's preemption of State consumer protection laws.
  I strongly agree with the majority that our regulators failed to do 
their jobs in the lead-up to the financial crisis. But the lesson we 
should learn from the financial crisis is not that we need more 
unaccountable regulators. Instead, all of our financial regulators need 
to be held more accountable.
  Just as banks should be held accountable for their failures, 
regulators should also be held accountable for theirs. After all, if 
regulators know Congress can hold them accountable, they will have a 
far stronger incentive to do their jobs. That will be good, as we all 
know, for consumers. That is why, if the Bureau is reformed, the 
biggest winners will be the American consumers.
  Today, however, the majority will show that they are now more 
concerned with insulating bureaucrats from accountability and rewarding 
political allies than looking out for consumers. The administration and 
the majority will try to argue that the Bureau already is accountable. 
Indeed, they will say it is more accountable than any other financial 
regulator. But let's look at the facts. The facts tell a different 
story.
  First, it is necessary to appreciate the amount of power placed in 
the hands of the Director of this Bureau. No bureaucrat will have more 
power over the daily economic lives of Americans than this Director. 
The Director, in effect, will decide which Americans can access credit 
to buy homes, purchase cars, and pay for college. The Director will 
regulate not only financial companies but also tens of thousands of 
Main Street businesses. Also, the Director will unilaterally decide how 
the Bureau spends its up to $600 million budget.
  Despite the vast power vested in the hands of the Director, there are 
no effective checks on the Director's authority. To truly understand 
just how unusual the structure of the Bureau is, one need only compare 
it to other independent agencies.
  Unlike the Chairman of the SEC, the CFTC, and the Federal Reserve, 
the Director of the Bureau does not have to obtain the agreement of 
other board members or other government officials before acting. Unlike 
other consumer protection agencies, the Bureau is not subject to the 
congressional appropriations process. Indeed, other consumer protection 
agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, are both subject to appropriations and are 
governed by five-member boards.
  To further ensure against one party domination, the FTC and the SEC 
can

[[Page 19187]]

have no more than three members from the same political party. Another 
important comparison is with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 
This agency actually served as the template for Professor Warren when 
she first advocated for the creation of a consumer protection agency in 
an article several years ago. How is the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission structured? It is, first, funded through appropriations, and 
there is a five-member commission.
  Opponents of accountability have sought to justify the structure of 
this Bureau by pointing to the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Once again, the facts 
refute their argument.
  First, the Comptroller can be removed at any time by the President 
for any reason. In contrast, the President can remove the Director of 
the Bureau only for limited grounds of ``inefficiency, neglect of duty 
or malfeasance.'' This means the Director of the Bureau cannot be 
removed even if the Director pursues policies that are harmful to the 
American people. How is that good for consumers?
  As for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, its Director is far less 
powerful than the Director of the Bureau. The Director of the Federal 
Housing Finance Agency oversees the regulation of only 14 financial 
institutions. He does not have sweeping powers over all consumers and 
tens of thousands of Main Street businesses like the Director of the 
Bureau would have.
  It should be common sense that the more power an agency has, the more 
accountable it needs to be. Moreover, rather than attempting to point 
to other regulators to justify the structure of the Bureau, a more 
responsible approach would be to make all of our financial regulators 
more accountable. And we should begin right here with the Bureau.
  To make the Bureau more accountable, we have proposed three 
commonsense reforms.
  First, the Bureau should be led by a board of directors, as I have 
said. This is such a commonsense measure that the President and the 
Democratic-controlled House originally called for the consumer agency 
to be structured as a commission.
  Second, the Bureau's funding should be subject to congressional 
appropriations.
  Currently, the Federal Reserve is required to transfer up to $600 
million to the Bureau each year. These are funds that could otherwise 
be remitted to the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or other 
things. Diverting this money to fund an unaccountable Federal agency 
sets a dangerous precedent of using the Federal Reserve as an off-
budget mechanism for funding programs. It had not happened before.
  In addition, funding the Bureau through the Fed removes any check on 
runaway spending. I believe the fiscally responsible way to fund the 
Bureau is through the congressional appropriations process just as 
every other consumer protection agency is funded.
  Our third reform proposal is to create an effective safety and 
soundness check for the prudential bank regulators.
  Some have said the Bureau already has a check under the so-called 
Financial Stability Oversight Council veto. But this veto was designed 
so it would never actually constrain the Bureau. The council can only 
overturn a rule in an extremely rare case: The rule must put at risk 
the safety and soundness of the entire U.S. banking system or the 
stability of the U.S. financial system.
  Under this construct, a rule could cause the failure of multiple 
banks, but the council still would not have standing to alter the rule. 
Additionally, the procedure is rigged to prevent the council from 
acting. It takes an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the 
council's members to set aside one of the Bureau's rules, and the 
Bureau's Director is a voting member of the council.
  In addition, only 3 of the council's 10 members are actually bank 
prudential regulators. This veto is not a check on the powers of the 
Bureau. It is a sham that they have today. We need to change that.
  Recent history shows that taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for 
bank failures. For this reason, consumer protection needs to be 
carefully coordinated with bank regulation to prevent against 
unnecessary bank failures.
  As presently structured, the Bureau can ignore any advice offered by 
banking regulators, even if it undermines the safety and soundness of 
banks. Unless this structural flaw is remedied, a real possibility 
exists that the consumer bureau will one day cause bank failures that 
end up harming consumers, taxpayers, and our economy.
  In light of the reasonableness of the reform proposals we have 
requested, the question remains: Why are the administration and the 
majority so insistent that the Bureau be unaccountable?
  Clearly, they want to use the Bureau as a political issue. A second 
reason is that they believe nonbank financial institutions are not 
currently regulated. But this is false. The Federal Trade Commission, 
the State attorneys general, and State financial regulators all have 
authority over nonbanks. A more likely reason for today's vote is that 
the Bureau will provide funding to key liberal activists, such as 
ACORN.
  Other agencies must return to the Treasury funds what they receive 
from enforcement actions. This consumer bureau, as now structured, is 
allowed to dole out money it collects from fines and penalties to 
liberal consumer groups. This reveals why the administration and the 
majority want so desperately for the Bureau to be unaccountable. They 
want the Bureau to be a permanent funding machine for their political 
allies.
  Finally, we are going to hear that our methods to achieve reform are 
unprecedented in the history of the Senate. It has been said:

       Never before has the consideration of a nominee been 
     conditioned on a change in the law.

  This, of course, is ridiculous on its face. It is nonsense. Nominees 
are held routinely in the Senate by both parties, for any number of 
reasons, including the desire to make changes in existing law. The only 
thing different in this particular case is that it is completely 
transparent. No secret backroom deals. We are right here in the open.
  After all the harm caused to consumers by financial regulators, it is 
time the majority stops using consumer protection as a political 
football and starts taking actions that actually help consumers. We can 
take the first step by reforming the Bureau to make it accountable to 
the very consumers it purports to protect.
  Until that time, however, we cannot, we should not, and we will not 
move forward on the nomination of the Director to lead this massive and 
unaccountable bureaucracy. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop 
obstructing reform and join with us to move forward on real consumer 
protection.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 
5 minutes at the conclusion of Senator Johnson's remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, 2 months ago the Senate 
Banking Committee voted along party lines to send to the full Senate 
the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the first Director of the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Due to an unprecedented and 
irresponsible display of political gamesmanship, Mr. Cordray's 
nomination and strong protections for American consumers are being held 
hostage.
  Before any candidate was put forth, Senate Republicans pledged to 
block the nomination, and their objections have nothing to do with Mr. 
Cordray's qualifications, his politics, or his character. Republican 
Senators have actually admitted as much, with a public pledge to block 
any nominee for the new consumer agency until a list of legislative 
demands, which would greatly weaken the agency, are met. That those 
demands were debated and rejected by a bipartisan Congress last

[[Page 19188]]

year is beside the point. The minority party is distorting the Senate 
confirmation process, mandated by the Constitution, to rewrite a law 
against the wishes of the American people.
  Why do Senate Republicans remain opposed to consumer protection 
despite national surveys showing 3-in-4 bipartisan voters support the 
new agency's creation? Whatever the motivation, it appears to outweigh 
any concerns about protecting families buying homes, students borrowing 
for college, and service members or older Americans falling prey to 
financial scams.
  This vocal minority opposed to strong consumer protection and helped 
by special interests have drummed up misleading claims to hide behind. 
They claim the CFPB Director will put the economy at risk--ignoring the 
effects of the foreclosure crisis, which was itself fueled by 
irresponsible and predatory lending. They claim the agency lacks 
accountability--ignoring the fact that it is bound by accountability 
measures comparable to or exceeding that of other independent financial 
regulators. And they claim restrictions on abusive financial products 
will hurt lenders--ignoring the damage those products inflicted on 
consumers tricked into signing unfair contracts filled with hidden fees 
and penalties.
  In reality the CFPB was created as an accountable yet independent 
regulator in bipartisan negotiations last year. Its mission is to 
protect consumers--by cracking down on predatory lenders and 
streamlining disclosures so families can make better informed financial 
choices. But until it has a confirmed director in place, the CFPB's 
authority over nonbank financial institutions, like private student 
lenders and mortgage brokers, will be stifled. Every day Mr. Cordray's 
confirmation is blocked, vital protections are delayed, millions of 
Americans--including service members, veterans and older Americans--are 
left vulnerable, and the Nation's community banks and credit unions 
remain at a disadvantage to their less-regulated competitors.
  The question we consider today should not be whether the minority 
party can hijack this constitutional process and demand as ransom 
legislative changes that would hamstring the consumer agency. The 
question should be whether Mr. Cordray is qualified for the job. And I 
believe that Mr. Cordray is an outstanding candidate. For years Richard 
Cordray has worked tirelessly as a public servant. As Ohio's Attorney 
General he aggressively pursued financial crimes by banks and mortgage 
firms, and won more than $2 billion in settlements for the State. And 
as Ohio's first solicitor, he argued cases before the Supreme Court to 
protect consumers and enhance the quality of our financial markets.
  American families paid a steep price for the financial crisis, 
battered by layoffs and foreclosures. Yet incredibly, many of the bad 
actors that contributed to the crisis remain poorly regulated and 
continue to lobby against tougher regulation. Congress created the CFPB 
to protect consumers and clean up the marketplace, but it needs a 
director. Richard Cordray has proven himself capable for the job, and 
there is no legitimate reason to block his confirmation.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider their political game playing and 
do the right thing.
  Stop blocking Richard Cordray's nomination and allow him to have an 
up or down vote.
  I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman for his 
leadership on this important issue and so many others before the 
Banking Committee.
  Since September 2008, we have learned many hard lessons about the 
factors that contributed to the financial crisis. To address systemic 
risks and to fix the system, we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One of the most important reforms 
we made in that legislation was the creation of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, or the CFPB. The CFPB is charged with stopping 
abusive mortgage originators, stopping abusive credit card companies, 
and stopping abusive private student loan lenders.
  For years we have had organizations whose purpose was to protect the 
banking system and, indirectly, consumers. We need to provide a 
balance. Frankly, if we had this balance in place prior to 2008, we 
might have avoided some of the incredible costs we have seen not only 
to consumers but to the entire banking system as a result of predatory 
behavior by many different financial institutions.
  Unfortunately, many of my Republican colleagues are trying not to 
correct deficiencies in the Dodd-Frank act or improve it. They want to 
gut it. One of the things they want to take out is consumer protection, 
and they want to do that by denying a nominee to head up this important 
agency.
  It certainly is a prerogative of my colleagues to work on improving 
any piece of legislation, but effectively to say: We will not let 
legislation that has passed this body by 60 votes and that has ample 
precedent in the law to take effect because we won't put a person in 
charge is, I think, abusing the process.
  We have worked on this issue, and we know consumers need these types 
of protections. We know that daily there are scams targeting the 
elderly. There are unscrupulous mortgage lenders and abusive payday 
lenders. Most financial firms are not like this--in fact, these 
individuals probably represent a very small minority of the financial 
community, but they are abusive predators, particularly to the most 
vulnerable people in our society.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the 1 percent and the 99 
percent. Well, guess what, the 99 percent are consumers, and the 1 
percent are probably those people who are running some of these 
financial institutions, some of them fairly and scrupulously, but 
others who are not.
  We want to protect consumers in this country--all of us--certainly 
the 99 percent, but because of Republican opposition of this nominee, 
we are running into a real problem. If we do not have a head of this 
organization, then it cannot effectively implement regulations and 
effectively enforce the laws it has been given the task to oversee and 
implement.
  We have to have rules that apply across the country that get at the 
shadow banking system, that provide the kinds of protections consumers 
can rely on, and that, in fact, improve the operation of the 
marketplace. Again, I think some of the people who regret what happened 
the most in the 2007, 2008, 2009 time period are financial leaders 
looking around and saying: Why wasn't anyone checking the behavior of 
some of the financial companies out there that have ruined my 
marketplace and ruined my reputation? Well, we have to do that.
  The longer Richard Cordray is blocked, the longer such disreputable 
practices in the financial marketplace can continue. And Richard 
Cordray is entirely qualified: as former treasurer of the State of 
Ohio, he knows the financial business and worked closely with banks at 
the Treasury, as former attorney general of Ohio, he worked to protect 
consumers, and as an individual, he has the intellect and the character 
to do an outstanding job. We have to get him in place.
  Who suffers if we don't do this? Well, among those who are suffering 
are military personnel. I had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper 
company in the 82nd Airborne Division in the 1970s. I was an executive 
officer, and I handled all the complaints, all the dunning, all the 
letters that were coming in from my soldiers. It has gotten worse.
  Holly Petraeus, who is the head of the Office of Servicemember 
Affairs at the CFPB, testified before the committee. She talked about 
Internet lenders who target military personnel--vulnerable soldiers and 
their families--who are about to deploy or who just came back from 
Afghanistan. They will give loans of up to 40 percent of a soldier's 
pay. Of course, the interest rate can be as high as 584 percent APR. We 
can't stop that until we get somebody such as Richard Cordray in charge 
of this organization.
  She also talked about the dunning calls, 20 times a day, threatening 
them:

[[Page 19189]]

We will go to your commander. We will have you court-martialed. We will 
take away your security clearance. We will ruin your career.
  We have to stop that. This is about real people, real consumers. We 
have to confirm Richard Cordray.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand I have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order. The Senator may use 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you very much.
  Let me first thank Chairman Johnson for his leadership in this regard 
and in so many other major issues before the Banking Committee. He has 
really exercised a lot of our oversight obligations in making sure we 
implement Wall Street reform in a way that protects all of us as 
taxpayers in the country but creates a system that can still let us 
economically flourish, and this is one of those.
  For too long too many in Washington protected Wall Street from 
commonsense regulations and let consumers fend for themselves. For too 
long Republican economic policy, when it should have protected the 99 
percent of American consumers from the reckless financial games that 
led us to the brink of economic disaster in 2008, protected the 1 
percent on Wall Street instead.
  Banks played Russian roulette with the future and economic security 
of middle-class families, and no one--no one--was watching. Backed up 
by too-big-to-fail government guarantees, they wreaked havoc on our 
economy and on the jobs and retirement savings of families who played 
by the rules.
  We have lived through the unfortunate results of lax oversight, and 
now it is time to work together to correct it. It is time to stop the 
political games and govern. It is time to act. It is time to work 
together to make sure middle-class families get the protection they 
deserve and the watchdog they need.
  This is really about whose side a person is on. Cordray and consumer 
protection are being blocked simply because Republicans want to protect 
Wall Street. Wall Street already has a legion of lobbyists protecting 
its interests. We need someone who can protect Main Street's interests, 
and that is what Richard Cordray would do as the Director of the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Richard Cordray is an unquestionably well-qualified nominee, and no 
one is disputing that fact--no one. I have not heard anyone dispute his 
qualifications for the job. We know the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau would be off to a good start with Richard Cordray at the helm, 
despite efforts by special interests to derail the process. It will be 
a strong but fair agency under Richard Cordray--to protect financial 
consumers who are tired of being tricked by the fine print, the 
``gotcha'' paragraphs that no one but a bank lawyer would understand.
  Despite hysterical claims from Wall Street, the Bureau actually won 
widespread praise from both consumers and the industry for its first 
major initiative when it created a new and greatly simplified Know 
Before You Owe mortgage loan disclosure form so that consumers 
understand what kind of mortgage they are getting into before they take 
it. Had we had that type of language early on, maybe we wouldn't have 
had part of the crisis in which consumers were led to bad mortgage 
products--products that ultimately had skyrocketing interest rates--
when they qualified for a conventional mortgage. Maybe we wouldn't be 
in the great predicament we have been in since 2008.
  Under Wall Street reform, Richard Cordray will be there to prevent 
those families from being ripped off again. Fixing our broken system 
was not easy, and it is still not over. We are still fighting to keep 
the ground we have gained against special interests.
  The longer this nomination is delayed, the more consumers will 
suffer. Without a Director, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
cannot carry out some of its most vital functions, including regulating 
payday lenders, pawn shops, private student loan companies, those that 
make unscrupulous and predatory loans on our military families--we 
heard Senator Reed, who has great experience in this, talk about that--
giving them an unfair advantage at the same time as they do that over 
community banks and credit unions that are regulated, that are good and 
that play by the rules.
  Now is a time to work together to make that happen. I ask that my 
colleagues stop playing games. Let us go to a final up-or-down vote on 
Mr. Cordray.
  Republicans have continued to couple Mr. Cordray's nomination to 
weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is 
unprecedented. Never in Senate history has a nominee been opposed in 
the Senate because of opposition to the whole agency for which he or 
she has been nominated.
  I say to my Republican colleagues, let's stop playing games with the 
protections American consumers need. Work with us to do the job we were 
elected to do and confirm this nominee. Work with us to protect 
consumers.
  We have come a long way toward a middle ground in creating this 
agency with checks and balances to begin with. The time has come for 
Republicans to join us in governing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of wild rhetoric, 
quite frankly, hyperbole, exaggeration. I wanted to try to bring this 
discussion and this debate back to reality. To do that, I wanted to 
remind folks that conservatives objecting to this nomination have, from 
the very beginning, laid out three very narrow, specific, concrete 
reforms we are seeking. So this notion that we are against consumer 
protection, we are trying to gut CFPB, is silly. Let's get back to 
reality. Let's get back to what we have said from the very beginning: 
We want these three important reforms.
  First of all, we think it is very important for the single Director, 
a new czar quite frankly, a credit czar, to be replaced with a board to 
oversee this Bureau. That is how other comparable agencies operate. The 
best example--the best comparison--is the SEC. I think that is a 
critical check on the Bureau's authority to have a board that can 
discuss and come up with a consensus, not a single agency.
  Secondly, related to that, there should be safety and soundness 
checks for the prudential financial regulators who oversee the safety 
and soundness of financial institutions. One of the core reasons we had 
the 2008 financial crisis is we had political agendas run amok with 
regard to financial institutions with no safety and soundness checks.
  We are putting that same problem on steroids in this new all-powerful 
bureaucracy. Again, point No. 1, very specific, very concrete, very 
commonsense reform that we have proposed from the beginning is a safety 
and soundness check.
  Third, and perhaps most important, the Bureau should be subject to 
the congressional appropriations process so there is some oversight and 
accountability from the American people and their representatives. That 
is the norm. That sort of check and balance, that oversight and 
accountability, is absolutely the norm. It is way outside the norm to 
have no oversight and accountability because, as it stands now, this 
new superbureaucracy has an unlimited check that it gets from the 
Federal Reserve--never has to get an appropriation, never has to answer 
a single question from the people or their representatives.
  Again, the CFPB, as it sounds now, draws its budget directly from the 
revenue of the Federal Reserve. By the way, this revenue would 
otherwise be deposited into the Treasury paying down the debt. The CFPB 
is not just about mega institutions, mega banks--more hyperbole that 
has been thrown on the floor--but anyone, any business, for instance, 
that offers four or more payment installments and an installment plan.

[[Page 19190]]

  Sure, that includes Citibank. It also includes your dentist, your 
vet, your local electronics store. CFPB right now is so unlimited in 
their authority that they are able to limit or prohibit the terms of 
any such product or service, has power over marketing of any such 
product or service in its jurisdiction with, again, the Federal Reserve 
as its basically unlimited piggy bank.
  I think these concerns we have are pretty darn fundamental and have a 
lot of common sense in them. Again, we have three very specific, 
concrete reforms we want advanced. We are not trying to gut the CFPB. 
Those reforms would not gut it--not against consumer protection. Those 
reforms would still have a sound, strong consumer protection agency in 
place.
  I think the American people deserve a more honest debate than, quite 
frankly, they are getting in a lot of this. This notion that if we are 
against ObamaCare, we are against all improvement of the health care 
system is silly. I think Americans get that as their health insurance 
premiums go up significantly now, by every accounting, by every 
independent source, well beyond what they would have gone up otherwise.
  Being against that is not being against health care reform. We heard 
even earlier, if we are against the stimulus plan, we are against 
economic recovery. That is silly. I think Americans know that now that 
we are still stuck at very high unemployment. How is that recovery 
working out for everyone?
  I was against the stimulus because I was for economic recovery, and 
it is the same thing here. We need to advance the interests of the 
American people, certainly including consumers. But we do not need an 
all-powerful, new czar in Washington who can hurt everyone, including 
consumers.
  So we continue to advance three very specific, concrete, commonsense 
reforms. That is all we want. That does not gut CFPB. That is not 
against consumer protection. It is against unbridled, unprecedented 
authority. The American people, agency after agency, issue after issue, 
have seen the effects of that sort of unbridled, virtually unlimited 
Federal Government authority in the last 2 years. They do not like it.
  Mr. RUBIO. Earlier this week in Kansas, President Obama tried to 
score political points by chiding Senate Republicans for refusing to 
vote on the confirmation of Richard Cordray to be Director of the so-
called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB--saying we refuse to 
let him do his job. And the President asked, Why? I am happy to answer 
his question, again.
  Earlier this year, I joined 44 other Senators in recommending to the 
President three necessary reforms for the CFPB in order to improve 
accountability in its operations. Specifically, we asked that a board 
of directors be established to oversee it, that the agency be subjected 
to the regular congressional appropriations process, and for the 
establishment of a safety and soundness check for the prudential 
regulators.
  We made clear to the President that without these reforms we would 
not vote to confirm any nominee to run the CFPB, regardless of 
political affiliation or qualifications. The President chose to ignore 
our suggestions. Although the President frequently pays lip service to 
accountability in the regulatory process, when push came to shove, he 
made this serious issue just another talking point.
  President Obama is now trying to pressure my colleagues to vote to 
confirm Mr. Cordray by traveling around the country giving speeches. I 
want to reiterate that I will not vote to confirm any director for this 
rogue bureaucracy until appropriate checks and balances are put into 
place. President Obama promised that ``transparency and accountability 
will be a hallmark of my administration'', making his refusal to make 
CFPB more transparent especially disappointing.
  Without reform, CFPB's director would serve with unprecedented and 
unconstitutional amounts of power. The director would have the power to 
decide what rules are issued in the name of consumer protection, how 
funds are spent, and how its enforcement authority will be used. In 
short, it empowers a single, unelected person with seemingly endless 
and unchecked authority. This bureaucracy holds the sweeping ability to 
limit choices when it comes to commonly-used financial products such as 
home equity loans, credit cards, and student loans. Simply put, a 
designation from the CFPB director saying these products are 
``abusive'' could restrict the availability of credit to consumers and 
increase the cost of goods or services for all Americans.
  This year alone, over 70,000 pages of new regulations have been added 
to the books from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the National Labor Relations Board, oftentimes without any 
compelling justification for their existence. The last thing job 
creators in America need is more uncertainty from a powerful government 
agency such as the CFPB that will receive a blank check for a half 
billion dollar budget with virtually no input from Congress.
  President Obama has urged the American people to ``help hold [him] 
accountable''. I stand with my Republican colleagues in an effort to do 
just that. The truth is we need transparency in government that 
provides greater confidence that regulations are designed to protect 
consumers from unfair practices, without destroying jobs. Until basic 
transparency requests are made, I will not support allowing the CFPB to 
operate with unaccountable leadership.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, both sides agree that everyone benefits 
from a marketplace free of fraud and other deceptive and exploitative 
practices. The disagreement is over the best way to structure our 
Federal regulatory agencies to accomplish this goal and provide 
accountability.
  One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that we need a 
supervisory program that looks and considers how safety and soundness 
and consumer protection work together and reinforce better and safer 
services to banking customers. Far too often, supervision either looked 
at consumer issues in isolation--promoting access to credit and home 
ownership--or it looked at safety and soundness in isolation, such as 
ensuring that customer information was legally accurate but not asking 
whether it was understandable to bank customers.
  We should have strengthened the link and coordination between 
prudential supervision and consumer protections rather than severing 
it. Instead Congress institutionalized this separation by creating a 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and blurred the role and 
accountability of the prudential regulators and the new Bureau.
  Mortgage underwriting is a good example of an issue that was found 
lacking before the financial crisis and has the potential to be subject 
to an even more bureaucratic regulatory system going forward. I say 
potential because it is unclear to me where the authority of the Bureau 
stops and where the authority of the prudential regulators overlaps on 
several important issues that will likely cause confusion and 
potentially inconsistent regulatory approaches. Already we are seeing 
conflicts among regulators with different regulators adopting different 
consumer protection rules and duplication in examinations.
  From my perspective, the new Bureau is a massive, expensive 
government bureaucracy that is immunized against meaningful oversight 
by either Congress or the President, and dramatically extends the 
Federal Government's control over the economy.
  According to analysis from Andrew Pincus, a partner in the law firm 
Mayer Brown LLP:

       The Bureau's structure has a number of features that, when 
     taken together, concentrate an amount of unchecked authority 
     in a single individual--the Director--that is unprecedented 
     for a federal agency that regulates private entities and 
     individuals:
       First, the Bureau will be headed by a single Director with 
     complete, unilateral authority to make all regulatory and 
     enforcement decisions and to hire and fire all personnel, 
     including his or her own deputy.
       Second, the Bureau's Director does not serve at the 
     pleasure of the President. Rather, during his or her five-
     year term, the Director may be removed only for inefficiency,

[[Page 19191]]

     neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. That standard 
     eliminates the President's power to remove the Director based 
     on a policy disagreement: once nominated and confirmed, the 
     Director cannot be overruled by the President.
       Third, the Bureau is exempt from the congressional 
     appropriations process. It is funded instead by a transfer of 
     money from the Federal Reserve in an amount determined solely 
     by the Director, subject only to a cap that already exceeds 
     $550 million, will increase 10% for the next fiscal year, and 
     is subject to automatic inflation adjustments thereafter.

  While I appreciate the willingness of Richard Cordray to serve and 
answer questions, I can't support the consideration of any nominee to 
be the Director of the Bureau until the agency is reformed to make it 
more accountable and transparent.
  First, we would establish a board of directors to oversee the Bureau. 
This would allow for the consideration of multiple viewpoints in 
decisionmaking and would reduce the potential for the politicization of 
regulations. A board of directors structure is consistent with the 
organization of the Federal Reserve Board, National Credit Union 
Administration, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, and Federal Trade Commission.
  Second, we would subject the Bureau to the congressional 
appropriations process to ensure that it doesn't engage in wasteful or 
unnecessary spending. This also gives Congress the ability to ensure 
that the Bureau is acting in accordance with our legislative intent. 
The SEC, CFTC, and the Federal Trade Commission have long been subject 
to the appropriations process for the same reasons.
  Finally, we would establish a safety and soundness check. This would 
strengthen the link and coordination between prudential supervision and 
consumer protections.
  Given the enormous impact the Bureau will have on the economy, it is 
important for Congress to revisit its structure and authorities to make 
it more accountable and transparent.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
nomination of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau and to urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of his 
confirmation.
  In July of last year, I was proud to join many of my colleagues in 
the Senate to pass comprehensive Wall Street reform legislation that is 
already working to protect middle-class families, hold Wall Street 
accountable, and put in place policies to make sure taxpayers will 
never again be left holding the bag for the big banks' mistakes. I 
supported this legislation because for far too long the financial rules 
of the road had not favored the American people. They were tilted 
toward big banks, credit card companies, and Wall Street, and they were 
twisted and abused to make sure no matter what happened, the financial 
industry would come out ahead.
  When the economy was roaring, the big banks made enormous sums of 
money and handed out huge bonuses to their employees. But when the 
products they created brought down the banks and pulled Main Street 
down with them, it was the taxpayers who had to foot the bill to 
prevent absolute calamity. Wall Street had a pretty good system going 
for a while: Heads they won, tails the taxpayers lost. To correct this, 
we fought to pass Wall Street Reform last year over Republican 
objections, and we took a huge step in the right direction. We 
strengthened the rules. We increased the oversight. And critically, we 
created the first-ever agency dedicated to protecting middle-class 
families, seniors, and small business owners from the financial fraud 
and scams that have devastated so many.
  The mission of this new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 
clear: to make sure that consumers come first--that the financial 
industry can no longer pull fast-ones on their customers--and, 
fundamentally, that the markets for consumer financial products and 
services actually work for all Americans. The CFPB's job is to help 
consumers understand the financial products that are being marketed to 
them every day because we know the big banks win when the American 
people don't understand the fine print. And it is to make sure that the 
financial firms are playing by the rules and to stand up for the 
American people and enforce those rules if consumers are being lied to, 
scammed, or cheated.
  Over the last year the CFPB has been staffing up and ramping up and 
has already started working to protect consumers. But without a 
confirmed Director, they are simply unable to do everything possible to 
stand up for middle-class families. Their hands are tied. Without a 
confirmed Director, the CFPB doesn't have the full authority to protect 
consumers who use non-bank financial institutions such as payday 
lenders, credit-reporting agencies, and debt collectors, which are 
services many working families depend on, as well as so many of our 
Nation's veterans and servicemembers. This isn't right. We created the 
CFPB to protect all families and consumers, and we need to confirm a 
Director to give them the tools they need to do that.
  I was proud to support President Obama's appointment of Elizabeth 
Warren to help set up the new Bureau. I think she did a fantastic job, 
and I am deeply disappointed that Republicans were so opposed to her 
work standing up for middle-class families against the big banks that 
they said they would block any attempt to name her as full-time 
Director. I thought the way Elizabeth Warren was treated by Senate 
Republicans was truly shameful. But she hasn't given up, and she is 
still fighting for the middle-class families and consumers she has 
always been such a passionate advocate for.
  I am very glad that President Obama nominated another strong advocate 
for the middle-class to fill this role. Richard Cordray has been 
serving as the Chief of Enforcement at the CFPB, so he understands the 
mission and the need to fight for the rules that protect consumers. He 
previously served as attorney general and State treasurer in Ohio, 
where he amassed a strong record of standing up for seniors, investors, 
business owners, and consumers. He has received support from Democrats 
and Republicans, and he is the right man for the job.
  But the Republicans who have come out in opposition to this 
nomination don't seem to be opposing Richard Cordray. They seem to be 
opposed to the very idea that anyone should be in a position to stand 
up for consumers and families in the financial products market. They 
want to keep this position open because they are worried that this 
agency is going to have too much power.
  Well, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was designed to have 
power. It was created to put that power in the hands of middle-class 
families and consumers and to take some away from the big banks and 
credit card companies that had it all before.
  So once again we have a simple choice before us in the Senate: Do you 
stand up for middle-class families who deserve to be protected from 
scams and financial gimmicks or do you stand up for the big banks and 
Wall Street firms that are scared to death that a powerful consumer 
advocate will cut into their fat profits and big bonuses? I know where 
the American people stand. I stand with them. And I truly hope that 
Republicans have a change of heart and stand with us to confirm this 
highly capable and effective nominee so the CFPB can do the job the 
American people expect and deserve.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for 
the President's nomination of Richard Cordray to be the first Director 
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. Mr. Cordray is an 
exceptionally well-qualified nominee who deserves an up-or-down vote in 
the Senate.
  The opposition to this nomination has nothing to do with Mr. 
Cordray's credentials and is yet another attempt by Republicans to 
undermine the CFPB and stop it from cracking down on unscrupulous and 
fraudulent practices by big banks, credit card companies, payday 
lenders, and other financial firms.
  The CFPB was established as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform 
legislation that overhauled our banking system. Before the financial 
crisis, no single agency coordinated Federal consumer protection. Banks 
and financial companies could choose their own regulator, which enabled 
them to avoid

[[Page 19192]]

regulations with real teeth. The failure of Federal agencies to 
coordinate and the lack of any effective consumer watchdog agency 
allowed financial firms to pursue deceitful lending practices that hurt 
American families and caused the worst recession since the Great 
Depression.
  The CFPB was created to solve this problem and to make sure that 
financial markets work for all Americans, not just big business. The 
CFPB has already begun reviewing many areas of consumer protection law, 
including mortgage disclosure forms. It will enforce new rules for 
credit cards, require mortgage servicers to better assist homeowners in 
avoiding foreclosure, and enforce new rules on bank overdraft fees.
  President Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren, a respected law professor 
and dedicated consumer advocate, to set up the CFPB. Elizabeth Warren 
was selected for her long history of independent, unflinching consumer 
advocacy, and under her leadership the CFPB had a running start. But 
Republicans adamantly opposed her as CFPB director, before she had even 
been nominated. They knew she would crack down on abusive practices in 
the banking and credit card industries. And they know that by law, the 
CFPB cannot exercise its full authority without a confirmed Director. 
That is why 44 Republican Senators signed a letter promising to oppose 
any nominee, of any party, until their demands to cut back the agency's 
power and independence are met.
  Mr. Cordray would be an outstanding leader of the CFPB. He currently 
leads the CFPB's Enforcement Division. He has built his career around 
protecting the public interest, reflecting his commitment to consumers 
and his dedication to fairness. After having been a State 
Representative, Solicitor General and Treasurer in the State of Ohio, 
Mr. Cordray was elected Attorney General of Ohio in 2008. In this role, 
he prosecuted fraudulent foreclosures and predatory lending, and 
recovered more than $2 billion for Ohio's retirees, investors, and 
business owners.
  Mr. Cordray's nomination has broad, bipartisan support. Attorneys 
General from 37 States, representing both political parties, signed a 
letter in support of this nomination, calling him ``both brilliant and 
balanced,'' with a ``superior knowledge of the financial services 
marketplace.'' Sixty-one mayors from around the country, led by Mayor 
Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, also wrote to support his confirmation. 
The California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, 
Consumers Union, Main Street Alliance, NAACP, National Association of 
Consumer Advocates, AFL-CIO, AFCSME, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, SEIU, UAW, and UFCW have all expressed support for Mr. 
Cordray, and for confirming a director so that the CFPB can operate as 
intended.
  It is stunning that Republicans continue to block any effort to rein 
in the type of reckless and abusive behavior that caused the worst 
economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, it never ceases to amaze me to hear 
my colleagues whose first loyalty is to Wall Street banks, who continue 
to make excuses for being against putting a consumer cop on the beat. 
This is an office that will be a few-hundred-million-dollar office, 
this consumer protection--this consumer cop on the beat.
  But this consumer cop on the beat has to look at trillions of dollars 
in mortgages, has to protect consumers when there are $30 billion in 
overdraft fees alone that banks are charging, when many times those 
overdraft fees are because consumers simply cannot figure out the fine 
print and do not understand the terms of the agreement.
  In the end, again, people on this floor and their special interest 
friends in the Congress, the friends of the Wall Street banks, the 
friends of these interest groups that continue to fleece the American 
people--if we had had Rich Cordray or Elizabeth Warren, for that 
matter, the consumer cop on the beat, would we have had those kinds of 
foreclosures in places such as Cleveland and Dayton? Would we have had 
these fly-by-night mortgage brokers from Ameriquest and New Century and 
others moving in and taking advantage of people? I am not sure we would 
have.
  But my Republican colleagues, my colleagues who always do the 
bidding--not all of them, but many of them always do the bidding of 
these special interest groups that have inflicted far too much damage 
on this economy--I hear all this, that if we would just make some 
changes in the agency. I talked to the Senate Historian because I have 
heard these arguments: If we just change this agency, I would vote for 
it. First of all, I talked to the Senate Historian, who said: Never in 
the history of the Senate has one political party tried to block the 
nomination of a Presidential appointee based on wanting to change the 
agency. It is nothing about the qualifications of Rich Cordray. I know 
Rich Cordray better than anybody in this institution. He is from my 
State. He was our attorney general. He was the State treasurer. He was 
county treasurer. He was a State legislator. I have known Rich for over 
20 years. I know he is qualified. Many of my colleagues on both sides 
say he is qualified.
  But they say: We want to change the agency. We worked with 
Republicans to change this agency as it went through the process in 
Dodd-Frank. They kept shifting the goalposts. In order to accommodate 
Republican concerns, we made the CFPB a bureau at the Federal Reserve. 
Many of us thought it should be totally independent. We were willing to 
make that concession in order to get Republican support.
  They then, after we did that, asked for regular GAO audits of the 
books. They got them. The GAO said the CFPB passed with flying colors. 
They said: We do not like Elizabeth Warren, give us someone else. 
Elizabeth Warren withdrew. She was a great consumer activist, would 
have been very good at this. We are replacing her--the President is--
with Richard Cordray from Ohio. He will do this job well.
  Then, after he is appointed, they say--and Richard Cordray has 
support from banks and credit unions and consumer groups. That is still 
not good enough. They asked the President not to recess appoint a 
Director. The President agreed to that. They are moving the goalposts. 
Now they are saying they will not approve anyone to serve as the 
Director of the consumer bureau unless we change the Bureau.
  In other words, to protect their Wall Street friends, they are 
saying: We are not going to allow a Director to be in place unless we 
weaken this agency. As Senator Reed from Rhode Island said, would we 
not appoint a Director of the Food and Drug Administration in the 
future until we rolled back all food safety laws? Are we not going to 
protect the Consumer Products Bureau in the government, in the 
Department of Commerce, until we roll back child toy safety laws? That 
makes no sense.
  This was voted with more than 60 votes--61 or 62, if I recall--a 
supermajority in this Congress 2 years ago. We allowed all kinds of 
amendments. We accepted many changes that Republicans wanted. But in 
the end, it is a choice: Are we for consumers or are we for Wall 
Street? We know who it is. I am not asking my colleagues to vote for 
him. I am asking my colleagues to let us have an up-or-down vote. Let 
us vote on it. Do not filibuster. Do not block the vote.
  Understand, this is a vote coming up that is to break a filibuster, 
to break a Republican filibuster, where Republican Senators almost 
always are flacking for Wall Street. They do that. It never ceases to 
amaze me.
  So all we ask is an up-or-down vote. Vote yes for cloture so we can 
have an up-or-down vote for Attorney General Cordray.
  I yield the floor and ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield back my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

[[Page 19193]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection:
         Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, Patty 
           Murray, Patrick J. Leahy, Kent Conrad, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara 
           Boxer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Robert Menendez, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, 
           Tim Johnson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, for a term of 5 years, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Snowe
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45, and one Senator responded ``present.'' Three-fifths of the Senators 
duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion 
is rejected.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
cloture vote on the nomination of Mr. Richard Cordray to be Director of 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If I were able to attend 
today's session, I would have supported cloture on this 
nomination.

                          ____________________