[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1238-1239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CORDRAY NOMINATION

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I was concerned when I saw a number of my 
colleagues are again trying to block the appointment of Ohioan Richard 
Cordray to the consumer agency. That agency has already played a 
significant role in saving tens of millions of dollars for consumers 
who have been wronged in a checking account transaction, who have been 
nickel-and-dimed, and then some by bank fees.

[[Page 1239]]

  Former Ohio Attorney General Cordray has done an excellent job as the 
Director of that consumer bureau. But what troubles me is this is only 
the second time in the history of the Senate, at least as far as the 
Senate Historian can figure, when a group of Senators from one party 
has blocked the nomination of a Presidential appointee because they do 
not like the agency, because they oppose the construct of the agency 
itself.
  The first time that ever happened was just a couple of years ago with 
Richard Cordray in this position. The creation of the consumer bureau 
went through regular order. It was passed by the Senate Banking 
Committee, on which I sit. It was part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
reform bill, and it went to the House of Representatives. It went to 
conference committee. All that happened was regular order to create 
this agency.
  Many people didn't like the agency. I submit I agree with that. I 
understand that. I don't agree that it is not a good agency. They don't 
like the agency in large part because it stood up to Wall Street, and 
it stood up to some of the bank abuses that put us in this financial 
situation as a country with the damage it did to our economy.
  Even with that, if you don't like the agency, as I said, never before 
in history except these two times--with the same appointment process, 
the same appointee, the same designee, the same nominee of the 
President--has this happened whereby my colleagues said: Even though he 
is qualified, we are not going to vote to confirm Richard Cordray 
because we don't like the agency. If you are not willing to change the 
agency, we are not willing to support a director.
  Imagine the kind of precedent that sets where if you don't like an 
agency, you are never going to let the President confirm a leader of 
that agency--in any agency of the Federal Government. If you don't like 
food safety, then you are going to block the appointment. If you don't 
like transportation, something in the Transportation Department, you 
don't like something else, you are going to vote against somebody 
taking the job to run the agency.
  Government can't run that way. The government will be dysfunctional 
if this precedent is set and is ongoing, in addition to the fact that 
Cordray is right for the job. Also, this agency is important for the 
middle class, for working-class people, and for low-income people who 
need these consumer protections.
  It sets a very bad precedent for this body. I am hopeful some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will think clearly about this 
and move ahead on the nomination and confirmation process.

                          ____________________