[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11462-11469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Calendar No. 
51.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Nomination, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 
     Richard Cordray of Ohio to be Director.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
11 a.m. be equally divided and controlled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. At 11 there will be a cloture vote on the nomination of 
Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. If cloture is invoked, there will be up to 8 hours of debate on 
the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. REID. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are going to move forward to the 
Cordray nomination, which has been held up for some period of time. I 
would like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who was 
engaged in this debate and discussion. I would particularly like to 
thank all of my colleagues who

[[Page 11463]]

engaged in a long but productive discussion last night--which is our 
custom--of the many issues that separate us, particularly some pending, 
what many of us believe to be a crisis in the history of the Senate.
  I wish to thank both our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, 
and so many others who have been actively engaged in conversations that 
have been going on. I look forward to a vote as soon as possible on Mr. 
Cordray.
  I thank all of my colleagues for believing what I thought was very 
important in our relations with the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we may have a way forward on this. I feel 
very confident, as you know. That is why we need the time. So what we 
are going to do is go into a quorum. I think everyone would be well 
advised, if they wish, to talk about substantive matters, if you wish 
to speak to Senator Markey. But we have a few i's to dot and t's to 
cross, I have to speak to the Vice President, and we are going to have 
a phone call to make with Senators Schumer and Murray. So everything is 
going well.
  I will say I hope everyone learned a lesson last night, that it sure 
helps to sit down, stand, whatever it is, and talk to each other. It 
was a very good meeting that lasted 4 hours. People were still as 
highly engaged at the end of that 4 hours as they were in the 
beginning.
  I think we see a way forward that will be good for everybody. There 
are a lot of accolades to go around to a lot of people. I certainly 
appreciate my wonderful caucus.
  One of my Senators, who has a lot of humility, told me this morning: 
It doesn't matter what you ask me to do, I will do it.
  I would hope this is not a time to flex muscles, but it is a time I 
am going to tell one person and no one else how much I appreciate their 
advocacy, their persuasiveness, persistence, and--a word that truly 
describes this man is hard to find.
  I was told by another Senator: You know what this man did? I said: 
You know who he reminds me of? Bob Kerrey. I hope that doesn't 
disparage John McCain. But John McCain is the reason we are at the 
point we are. A lot of people have been extremely helpful. This is all 
directed toward John McCain from me. No one was able to break through 
but for him. He does it at his own peril.
  Everyone, we are going to have a caucus today. We will explain in 
more detail the direction we are headed. I think everyone will be 
happy. Everyone will not think we got everything we wanted, but I think 
it is going to be something that is good for the Senate. It is a 
compromise. I think we get what we want; they get what they want--not a 
bad deal.
  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. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak today on the nomination of 
Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. I want to speak against this confirmation.
  Why is this nomination important? Once the Director is approved by 
Congress, by the Senate--not all the Congress, just by the Senate--we 
will no longer have any control over a bureau that collects everyone's 
financial records in detail and can cancel a loan up to 180 days even 
if both parties to the loan are happy.
  Mr. Cordray was recess-appointed. I think it was because the 
President thought he would not be approved by Congress.
  What I am about to tell you already is under the direction of this 
nominee. That recess appointment put him in charge of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds like a good title, but the 
reason this is of utmost concern to me and has been for the past 3 
years is the lack of congressional oversight and blatant privacy 
intrusions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB.
  The Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, has been a hot topic of 
conversation since its passage in 2010. There are a lot of important 
discussions about different parts of the bill and some of the 
consequences we are seeing now, 3 years down the road. These are all 
important conversations to have, but today I am focusing on the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  The Bureau, as allowed by the Dodd-Frank Act, could direct up to $600 
million every year, but it is not subject to the congressional 
appropriations process--the same congressional appropriations process 
that approves the budgets of the other agencies, such as the Securities 
and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, the 
agency is funded from revenues from the Federal Reserve--the Federal 
Reserve--before the revenues come to the Treasury, funds that are 
supposed to be remitted to the Treasury for deficit reduction.
  Some might ask: Isn't there a cap to the funding available to the 
CFPB? Yes, there is, but here is what it looks like. The cap was 10 
percent of the Federal revenues for fiscal year 2010, 11 percent for 
fiscal year 2012, and it will be 12 percent for fiscal year 2013, with 
an inflation factor each and every year after that. This means 12 
percent of the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System, which 
was $4.98 billion in 2009. At that time, 10 percent would have been 
$500 million. These numbers are astonishing, and anyone saying that the 
Bureau is not funded by taxpayers is trying to pull a sleight-of-hand. 
The funds may not come directly from the Treasury, but taxpayers are 
going to have to take up the slack for funds they are no longer 
receiving from the Federal Reserve. I am not sure how we do that 
constitutionally, to move somebody outside and still take Federal 
money.
  In addition, the Director of the Bureau has unlimited discretion over 
how the agency's money--these hundreds of millions of dollars I just 
talked about--is spent. Let me repeat that. The Director of the Bureau 
has unlimited discretion over how the agency's money is spent. He 
doesn't submit a budget. Nothing is approved.
  Not only that, the Director is allowed to put fines and penalties 
collected by the Bureau into a slush fund that it does not have to 
return to the Treasury the way other agencies have to do. Do you think 
that might encourage a lot of fines and penalties by this Bureau? I 
think it would. I don't think it ought to be done that way.
  The same Director who has so much unchecked authority doesn't even 
answer to the Office of Management and Budget and only has to submit 
routine financial information to the Office.
  There is also no inspector general for this Bureau. Here is one 
example of why that is a problem. The Dodd-Frank Act expressly exempted 
auto dealers from the oversight purview of the Bureau. They listened to 
me when this bill was passing and found out that loans could be 
canceled within 180 days by the Bureau without the approval of the 
automobile dealer or the person who bought the automobile.
  However, the Bureau doesn't think auto dealers should be exempt from 
oversight, so it found ways to exert itself through the banks. Banks 
are now looking at auto loans made, and the Bureau has issued its first 
significant penalty in connection with the vehicle financing.
  The Bureau has also issued what it calls a fair lending guidance 
bulletin directed at institutions that make indirect automobile loans. 
In it the Bureau says indirect lenders will be viewed as participants 
in any discriminatory pricing by dealers due to their role in the auto 
loan credit decision process and suggests lenders impose controls on 
dealer markup and compensation policies. Is this revenge for them 
getting an exemption in the bill?
  The Bureau's interpretation of Dodd-Frank and this guidance will have 
wide ramifications for indirect lenders and

[[Page 11464]]

ultimately auto dealers. Because the bulletin issued is considered 
guidance and not a rule, there has been no opportunity for the public--
including consumers, lenders, and dealers--to comment on this policy 
interpretation that will affect an industry that was exempted from the 
Bureau oversight.
  The lack of accountability and congressional oversight over the 
Bureau's budget and Director are troubling, to say the least, but the 
picture becomes even more concerning when the lens is shifted to what 
kinds of oversight power are afforded to and being practiced by this 
Bureau--this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds like it is 
for everybody.
  Here is what I said when expressing my concern about this Bureau and 
the Dodd-Frank Act on May 20, 2010:

       This bill was supposed to be about regulating Wall Street; 
     instead it's creating a Google Earth on every financial 
     transaction. That's right--the government will be able to see 
     every detail of your finances.

  Your permission is not needed.

       They can look at your transactions from the 50,000 foot 
     perspective or they can look right down to the tiny details 
     of the time and place where you pulled cash out of an ATM or 
     charged to your credit card.

  Unfortunately, we are now finding this fear has become a reality. A 
recent Bloomberg article states that the Bureau is demanding records 
from banks and buying information from companies on at least 10 million 
American consumers for ``use in a wide range of policy research 
projects.'' This information gathering from banks includes credit card 
and checking account overdraft information as well as requirements to 
provide records on credit cards and on products such as credit 
monitoring.
  In addition to the bank records it is collecting, the Bureau is 
collecting data on payday loans from debt collection agencies and 
building a mortgage database of loan and property records with 
information from agencies and other financial and property information 
holders.
  The CFPD also says they are not including any personally identifiable 
information such as names and Social Security numbers while compiling 
all of this information. I made that statement at one of our listening 
sessions in Wyoming, and somebody from the audience yelled: No, they 
just check with the NSA.
  What they are doing is taking all of that consumer data and layering 
it into consumer profiles to show a complete snapshot of each 
consumer's finances. For example, they can say: There is a consumer at 
a specified zip code who has $1,500 in the bank, $6,000 in credit card 
debt, $10,000 in student loan debt, and a $200,000 mortgage.
  To the American people who are listening to me speak right now, what 
happens if you are one of the 10 million customers whose data is being 
collected? Does this make you angry and uncomfortable? What happens if 
you don't want all of your financial information compiled and used by 
the Bureau for policy research projects?
  I am sure you would like to hear me tell you that you can call or 
write the Bureau and say you don't want the Bureau collecting your 
financial records from your bank, your student loan from a third party 
provider, your mortgage data, or your ATM data. I am sorry. You can't. 
You can't tell them to stay out of your records. It is not possible. If 
your data is being collected, you do not have the option to opt out nor 
does the CFPB need any kind of permission from you to gather your 
personal financial information.
  This is another issue I tried to work on when the Dodd-Frank Act 
passed. I had an amendment that would simply require a privacy release, 
a signature from the consumer before the Bureau could collect the 
consumer's financial data. Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted 
and we find ourselves in the situation we are in today: Americans 
cannot tell the government they don't want their personal financial 
information collected and stored.
  What I would like to know is how this information is reining in Wall 
Street. The Dodd-Frank Act was sold to the public as a way to rein in 
Wall Street. As far as I can tell, it has turned out to be the perfect 
excuse for Big Brother to worm his way even further into our lives and 
our privacy.
  Actually, Big Brother doesn't have to worm his way in. Dodd-Frank 
opened the door and invited him in, and that is what this lack of 
oversight is signaling. Go ahead and collect millions of consumers' 
information. Don't tell us what you are using it for, and don't feel 
the need to tell us much of anything else because this Director and 
this Bureau will not be accountable to Congress.
  Meanwhile, the message we are getting from the Bureau, and some of my 
colleagues, is that Congress needs to sit back and butt out of the 
Bureau's business. We are hearing the message that asking for 
congressional oversight is akin to wanting consumers to be deceived and 
discriminated against.
  Let's get one thing straight. None of my colleagues disagree that 
protecting consumers is important. We all want consumers to get a fair 
shake and be able to make informed financial decisions. I never 
envisioned the Federal Government making your financial decisions. I 
have championed financial literacy for much of my time in Washington 
and believe strongly in the value of individuals having the tools they 
need to make sound financial decisions for themselves and their 
families. I repeat: I never envisioned the Federal Government making 
your financial decisions, but that is not the issue. The issue is the 
need for checks and balances and for consumers to be able to make a 
choice as to whether their financial information is collected and used.
  I cannot in good conscience, with these concerns weighing so heavily 
on my mind, support moving forward with the confirmation of a Director 
to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the one already in charge 
of collecting your financial records--while doing a daily speech about 
his good work.
  Wait until his confirmation. We will see more intrusion into our 
personal lives. Until it has changed so this man does not have this 
much power--power beyond anybody else in the Federal Government--there 
needs to be some changes that will balance consumers' protections with 
privacy protections and allow for a healthy and appropriate level of 
congressional oversight over an agency that wields this tremendous 
power and has its own source of revenue and no oversight. Not even an 
inspector general has this kind of power. Until that happens, I have to 
oppose this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, this is a historic day in the 
Senate. These are qualified nominees. They have been delayed long 
enough. But we are also considering a larger question; What kind of 
Senate do we want? What kind of Senate best serves the American people?
  This is not about breaking agreements. This is about a Senate that is 
already broken. We once were called the world's greatest deliberative 
body, and we have become a graveyard for good ideas. The traditions of 
the Senate have been buried--buried under the weight of filibusters, of 
chronic obstruction, and by a tyranny of the minority. The Senate has 
been driven by unprecedented partisanship.
  The agreement of this past January was modest. Some of us felt it was 
too much so. The leaders agreed to schedule the President's nominees in 
a timely manner, but that did not happen. That is not what we have 
seen. Nominees have been continually blocked--one after another, month 
after month. That failure doesn't just violate an agreement, it 
violates the trust of the American people.
  People in New Mexico--people in the rest of the country--want to 
know: Who is minding the store? The answer, too often, is no one. As a 
result, important work is left undone. That is not by

[[Page 11465]]

accident. It is by design, which is why we are here now. Because the 
months go by, and we don't have a Secretary of Labor. We don't have a 
National Labor Relations Board. We don't have an administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. These, and other, vital agencies are 
adrift.
  Their work matters for the people in my State, for all Americans who 
care about the rights of workers, the environment, health care, 
consumer protection, and the integrity of our elections.
  The American people spoke in November. They re-elected the President. 
They expect a government to do its job, and gave the President the 
right to select his team to do that job. The people give the President 
that right, but a minority in the Senate does not. Find 60 votes or 
find someone else or leave the position empty. That is not the 
tradition of the Senate.
  That is not advise and consent, it is obstruct and delay. In the end, 
it is the people of this country who are kept waiting.
  These are qualified nominees. They should not be blocked yet again 
simply because you don't like their policy or their program, or the law 
they are commanded to uphold.
  We have a chance here today--a historic chance--to restore the 
confirmation process. We have a chance to restore the Senate to how it 
has worked for over 200 years. I hope we will take this opportunity.
  New Mexicans want a government that works, the American people want a 
government that works, and today they will be watching to see if, 
finally, it actually does.
  In conclusion, I want to talk about the rules and what we engaged in 
yesterday, which I thought was a very productive endeavor. We had 3 
hours with most Senators in the room in the Old Senate Chamber. We were 
able to exchange our thoughts outside of the limelight. I believe it 
was very productive.
  We had a lot of ideas come forward. Some of those ideas to resolve 
this situation may end up being adopted in a little bit. It looks as 
though Richard Cordray, the attorney general from Ohio, will get 
cloture at this point--at least that is the way it is looking--and then 
we will have some debate on that nomination.
  I have a couple of other points. First of all, Leader Reid has 
incredible patience when it comes to this whole issue of executive 
nominations. I have seen him over and over go beyond the pale when it 
comes to patience. At this point he realized we were getting things 
clogged up, there was too much obstruction, so he needed to force the 
issue.
  I am very proud he has done this because I think it has pushed us in 
the right direction. As a result, we are going to get executive 
nominees in place on a timely basis, and we are going to get rid of all 
the delay we have had.
  I looked back in history at executive nominees. I remember my father 
when he became Secretary of the Interior in 1961. When I was first 
sworn into the Senate and came home, I told him we were having a hard 
time getting executive nominees in place. He said: Tom, the amazing 
thing, if you highlight the 50 years ago and 50 years later, is I had 
my whole team in place within 2 weeks. My entire team was in place in 2 
weeks.
  This is President Obama's fifth year as President, and he doesn't 
have his team in place. That is the issue. I know we are focusing on 
trying to do everything we can to find a solution as to how we allow a 
President who has been reelected--and by a pretty good margin--to have 
his team in place.
  I am very confident that Senator John McCain is working on a 
compromise. He is a good friend to the family and somebody who cares 
about moving forward with the issues rather than obstructing the 
issues.
  As everybody knows, he was part of the Gang of 14. Senator McCain 
with 13 other Senators came up with that compromise to move us forward 
in terms of the gridlock that we were facing with judicial nominations. 
So I hope the discussions that are taking place are going to produce 
something.
  I think it is a big breakthrough to see we are at the point where 
Richard Cordray, who has been waiting for 2 years--he is a very 
competent individual. He has served as the attorney general of Ohio, 
one of our biggest States. He is a great consumer protection person--is 
going to get cloture, we will have debate, and my sense is we are going 
to get him into that consumer agency, and it will make a big 
difference.
  I see my good friend Senator Corker, so I want to make sure he gets 
to speak before we have this 11 a.m. vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thought last night's meeting was a 
healthy meeting. I am glad we did what we did. I appreciate the two 
leaders sponsoring that meeting, and I appreciate the time in which 
everyone spoke.
  I think with a lot of phone calls having been made this morning we 
can and will move past the cloture vote for Mr. Cordray. I have had 
several conversations with him and others, this morning, but I do want 
to say this is a gesture of good faith. We will see what happens in a 
moment when the vote takes place and, obviously, in this body, nothing 
happens until it happens.
  I hope Members on the other side will note this good-faith effort 
that is taking place in a few moments. I hope it is going to happen. I 
think it may.
  I hope that over the course of the next 24 to 48 hours we can work in 
a little more comprehensive manner. I think this would be something to 
get behind us during this next year and a half so we can move on to 
solving our Nation's problems. I don't think it is healthy for this 
body to constantly have potential rules changes hanging over the issues 
of our Nation, and we do have big issues.
  We have an opportunity, potentially, to get the immigration issue 
behind us. I know there are other pieces of legislation we could well 
deal with. In the event we do move into this postcloture period, I hope 
Members on the other side of the aisle will take note of that and will 
work with us constructively toward a solution that brings this place 
together instead of pulling it apart.
  I thank the Senator for his efforts. Again, I empathize and 
sympathize with his family over the personal loss that just occurred. I 
look forward to working with the Senator from New Mexico as we move 
ahead.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  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, 
     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, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Al Franken, Jack Reed, Tom 
           Harkin, Ron Wyden, Patrick J. Leahy, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jeff Merkley, John D. Rockefeller 
           IV, Max Baucus, Richard Blumenthal, Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director of the 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Ex.]

                                YEAS--71

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp

[[Page 11466]]


     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chiesa
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 71 and the nays are 
29. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to S. Res. 15 of the 113th Congress, there is now 8 hours of 
postcloture debate on this nomination, equally divided in the usual 
form.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I hope we don't have to use all of the 8 hours, but we will 
see.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 
p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings and that the time during 
the recess count postcloture on the Cordray nomination.
  I express my appreciation for the strong vote this good man received.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. What I should have done and will do now is ask unanimous 
consent that the time during this quorum call be divided equally on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thought I would make a couple of 
comments regarding the activities of this Chamber a few minutes ago. We 
had 71 votes in favor of closing debate on the nomination of Richard 
Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 
CFPB. The CFPB is vested with the responsibility of protecting 
consumers from predatory financial practices.
  We all discovered in the runup to the great recession just how 
important this protection is. We had many crazy predatory practices.
  On credit cards we had fees that came out of nowhere and shifting 
time periods from month to month in terms of when the payments were 
due, even shifting destinations of where the credit card payments got 
mailed to, and also fees that could be wracked up on unsuspecting 
consumers.
  We certainly found out on mortgages how important financial 
protection is because we had, starting from 2003 forward, a booming 
industry in predatory teaser rate mortgages, where the mortgages might 
be 4 percent for 2 years but then were changed after 2 years to 9 
percent. One would think most would-be homeowners would look at that 
deal and say: That is not a good deal. But here is what happened. They 
went to a mortgage broker, and the mortgage broker said: I am your 
financial adviser. Mortgages have gotten very complex, they are very 
thick, and there is a lot of fine print, so you are paying me to sort 
through and find the best deal for you.
  So first-time home buyers trusted their mortgage brokers. Unbeknownst 
to the new homeowners, those brokers were being paid kickbacks called 
steering payments. They were being paid special bonuses outside the 
framework of the deal in order to steer the unsuspecting first-time 
home buyer--the customer--into a predatory loan when the first-time 
customer actually qualified for a prime fixed-rate mortgage. Well, 
those predatory mortgages proceeded to be put into securities, and 
those securities were bought up by financial institutions across 
America and beyond because the folks who were buying the securities 
understood that in a couple of years the interest rate would go way up 
and they would make a lot of money off those securities.
  So this was a system rigged against the first-time home buyer, 
against the home buyer who wanted to start their journey to owning 
their piece of the American dream.
  Those predatory practices should never have been allowed. Some here 
will remember the responsibility for consumer protection was vested in 
the Federal Reserve. But what happened in the Federal Reserve? The 
Federal Reserve carried on with its responsibility on monetary policy, 
but it put its responsibility for consumer protection down in the 
basement of its building. They locked the doors, they threw away the 
key, and they said let the market be the market. They abandoned our 
consumers across this country.
  That is why we need a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It 
doesn't have a conflict in its mission. It is not obsessed with a 
different mission such as monetary policy. We need a bureau that says: 
New predatory techniques will crop up and we will try to end them, try 
to end practices in predatory payday loans that can charge 350 to 550-
percent interest on unsuspecting citizens. We need a bureau that will 
look out and say we need to stop the practice on which online payday 
lenders get your bank account number and, without your permission, do a 
remotely generated check and reach in and grab the funds out of your 
account. The list of predatory practices is endless because the human 
mind is endlessly inventive. So we have an important bureau--but an 
important bureau that cannot do its job unless there is a director to 
run it.
  Two years ago Richard Cordray was nominated to head the Bureau. He 
has been waiting to get cloture on his nomination and a subsequent vote 
for 2 years. He has been an interim appointee during that period of 
time and, by all accounts, from everything I have heard from folks in 
this Chamber, doing a very good job, working very hard with the great 
technical details of the financial world to find a fair and solid way 
forward.
  The fact is his nomination, so long delayed, is not a reflection on 
him personally. In fact, many Senators who have opposed allowing the 
vote to take place have come forward and said it is not about him 
personally; it is about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 
Forty-three Senators in this Chamber wrote a letter to say they would 
oppose any nominee for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It was 
a bold attempt to change back to a situation where there was no one to 
fight for consumer protection for our citizens in this Nation.
  Today we end that drama in favor of fairness for American citizens, 
in favor of taking strong action against predatory mortgages and the 
predatory practices of the future. In 8 hours we will be voting up or 
down on his nomination, as we should have long ago.
  But let me shift gears here and say the vote we took today is 
symbolic of much more than the important function of establishing an 
effective Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The vote we took a 
short while ago is central to ending the paralysis that has generally 
haunted this Chamber. That paralysis is something new. In the time from 
Eisenhower's Presidency through Ford's Presidency, there was not one 
filibuster of an executive nominee. In President Obama's 4\1/2\ years, 
there have been 16 such filibusters. So if we talk about the norm and 
tradition of the Senate, the norm and tradition of the Senate is a 
reasonable and timely up-or-down vote. That is the tradition, and it is 
a tradition that fits with

[[Page 11467]]

the Constitution. The Constitution calls for a supermajority for 
treaties to be confirmed, but it only embeds a simple majority 
requirement for nominations. There is reasoning behind that: because 
our Founders envisioned three coequal branches of government. They 
could never have envisioned it would be OK for the minority of one 
branch to be able to deeply disable another branch, be it the executive 
branch or be it the judiciary.
  So the vote we took today is part of a larger conversation about 
ending the paralysis and focusing on the challenge of executive 
nominations getting timely up-or-down votes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MERKLEY. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I first thank the Senator for his 
leadership. He has been the singular force in the Senate to have us 
reassess the rules of the Senate to make certain they are serving the 
needs of our Nation. I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership, and I 
know he felt a great sense of satisfaction with the vote that was just 
cast on the floor--a vote in which 71 Senators voted to invoke cloture 
and end the filibuster on the nominee to head the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  As the Senator from Oregon knows, this Bureau has been controversial 
since its inception when we passed the Dodd-Frank finance reform bill 
after the tragedies and scandals of Wall Street. There were many who 
did not want to see us create a consumer protection agency. Yet we did. 
It was the brainchild of one of our current colleagues, Senator 
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who, before she was elected, thought 
this was an important agency--literally the only consumer protection 
agency in the Federal Government. But it wasn't welcomed by some 
corners, particularly some financial institutions and others.
  I think it is noteworthy at two levels, and I would like to ask the 
Senator from Oregon to respond. First, it is noteworthy that although 
it took 2 years, in that 2-year period of time this Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau has proven its worth.
  I am working now on the exploitation of our military by for-profit 
schools. Holly Petraeus, the wife of General Petraeus, works for this 
agency, and she has focused her efforts on military families and the 
exploitation of the GI bill by these schools.
  I think every American would agree that those who are guilty of it 
should be held accountable, and this investigation is under way by this 
agency. Now Richard Cordray is there to head it. I think that is 
important, and that is why this vote which will be in a few hours on 
Richard Cordray's nomination is important.
  But the second point is a larger global point about the Senate and 
perhaps Congress. We have in a very brief period of time--1 month--seen 
two very significant votes, in my estimation. The first was on the 
immigration bill, where 68 Senators voted for the immigration reform 
bill, 14 Republicans joining all the Democrats. It was a breakthrough, 
and most of us feel it was the first time in a long time that we have 
seen Senators of both political parties sit down and hammer out an 
agreement that was reflected in the vote on the floor: 14 Republicans, 
54 Democrats.
  Now we have the second evidence of bipartisanship with the vote that 
was just cast, 71 who came forward--some 17 Republicans and 54 
Democrats, if I am not mistaken--voting in favor of ending cloture.
  The point I would like to get to in this long question--and I would 
ask the Senator from Oregon for his reflection on this--it seems to me 
the key to getting things done on Capitol Hill these days, in a 
fractured political Nation, is bipartisanship--not just in the Senate 
Chamber but in the House as well, that they have to reach beyond the 
majority party--in our case Democrats and in their case Republicans--
and start thinking about how we put things together on a bipartisan 
basis that have a chance of passing and ultimately becoming law and 
solving the problems facing our Nation.
  When it comes to consumer protection, with a bipartisan vote, we move 
forward. A few weeks ago when it came to immigration reform, we had a 
bipartisan vote that moved forward. So I would ask the Senator to not 
only reflect on this institution and the earlier vote but on the 
current challenges we face politically and how these votes reflect on 
those.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I would say to my colleague from Illinois that, indeed, 
these are key milestones where the journey is to restore the 
functionality of this Senate so it can take on the significant issues 
Americans expect us to take on.
  The path forward is not yet one without obstruction. We have these 
two important milestones--one of going forward on immigration, a second 
of going forward in terms of putting a functioning Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau fully together. We have had some other recent moments 
that fit this pattern, including passing the farm bill out of this 
Chamber for the second time, passing a Water Resources Development Act 
that would fund enormous amounts of infrastructure across this country 
to help provide both water supply infrastructure and wastewater 
treatment infrastructure. These are good moments. But we also are 
reminded that the path is not completely clear.
  For example, at this moment we should be in the middle of a 
conference committee on the budget. The Senate passed a budget and the 
House has passed a budget, but the conference committee is being 
filibustered by this Chamber. That is evidence of the model we are 
trying to break that is unexplainable to the American people. Folks 
back home want to know why we can't get a bill on the floor of the 
Senate to address the sequester. Because fewer kids are getting into 
Head Start, fewer kids are getting their inoculations, title I schools 
are not getting their funding. And, of course, there is a lot of 
concern within the military world about our national security where 
programs are being compromised. But we couldn't get the bill to the 
floor of the Senate because it was filibustered.
  So we have important milestones to grab hold of that are presenting a 
vision of the restoration of this Senate as a deliberative body, but we 
are going to have to work together in this bipartisan fashion we speak 
of to continue on this road.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois 
emphasizing the important role of bipartisanship in making this Chamber 
work. His question gave me an opportunity to talk about what has just 
transpired as an important victory--an important victory for this 
Chamber and its deliberation, an important victory for people across 
America, families working to have their financial foundation solid 
rather than torn asunder by predatory practices.
  In this journey, this effort to achieve a Senate that can again 
function as a deliberative body, I want to take this moment to thank my 
colleague Tom Udall. Tom Udall and I came into the Senate together. Tom 
Udall immediately recognized that the Senate needed to address its 
internal functioning because we were becoming more and more paralyzed. 
He proposed before this body that we have a conscious debate every 2 
years about how to adjust the rules and to make this Senate Chamber 
work much better, because we are not only being paralyzed on executive 
nominations but we have this terrible paralysis on legislation, with a 
few important exceptions that my colleague from Illinois and I spoke 
about.
  I want to thank Tom for his work to help motivate this body to take 
on these issues and to restore the functionality. I have been pleased 
to be a partner with him on this journey. I know it is a journey that 
is not yet done, but I do thank my colleagues--across the aisle and on 
this side of the aisle--for the very frank discussions last night in 
which for 3 hours we bared our hearts, if you will, about what is 
working and not working in this Chamber. That too is an important 
moment in this journey to make the Senate

[[Page 11468]]

work. So I applaud the spirit that came into the Chamber today that 
resolved the 2-year standoff in regard to having a functioning chair of 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to set the tone, 
hopefully, for changing dramatically the partnership to restore the 
functioning of the Senate going forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am glad an agreement has been reached 
in which President Obama will finally get Senate confirmation votes on 
his appointees to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 
Department of Labor, and the head of the Environmental Protection 
Agency. This agreement, as I understand it, will also provide that the 
President's new nominees for the National Labor Relations Board will be 
rapidly confirmed. That is a step forward.
  While this agreement addresses the immediate need for the President 
of the United States to have his Cabinet and his senior staff 
confirmed, this agreement today only addresses one symptom of a 
seriously dysfunctional Senate. The issue that must now be addressed is 
how we create a process and a set of rules in the Senate that allows us 
to respond to the needs of the American people in a timely and 
effective way--something virtually everyone agrees is not happening 
now. The Senate cannot function with any degree of effectiveness if a 
supermajority of 60 votes is needed to pass virtually any piece of 
legislation and if we waste huge amounts of time not debating the real 
issues facing working people but waiting for motions to proceed hour 
after hour where nobody is even on the floor of the Senate.
  The good news is that I think the Nation is now focused on the 
dysfunctionality of the Senate and the need for us to have rules or a 
process that allows us to address the enormous problems facing our 
country. When people ask why is it that Congress now has a favorability 
rating of less than 10 percent, the answer is fairly obvious: The 
middle class of this country is disappearing. Real unemployment is 
somewhere around 14 percent. The minimum wage has not kept up with 
inflation. Millions of people are working in jobs that pay them poverty 
wages. Tens of millions of people today lack health care, while we have 
the most expensive and wasteful health care system in the world. The 
greatest planetary crisis facing our Nation and the entire world is 
global warming, and we are not even debating that issue.
  The Senate is a very peculiar institution. It is peculiar in the 
sense that any one Member--one of 100--can come down here on the floor 
and utter two magical words that bring the Senate to a complete halt; 
that is, ``I object.'' I will not allow the Senate to go forward, which 
means the whole government shuts down. I object. I object.
  What we have seen in recent years--especially since Barack Obama was 
elected--is an unprecedented level of ``I object,'' of holds, of a 
variety of mechanisms that bring the functioning of the Senate to a 
halt. All of this takes place at a time when millions of people cannot 
find jobs and at a time when kids are graduating college deeply in debt 
and millions of others are now choosing not to go to college because we 
are not addressing the issue of higher education. It takes place at a 
time when our infrastructure--our roads and bridges and airports and 
rail systems--is crumbling, when our educational system is in need of 
major reform, and the gap between the people on top and everybody else 
is growing wider.
  The American people perceive this country has major problems that 
must be addressed. What does the Senate do? We are sitting here waiting 
30 hours for a motion to proceed, to see if, in fact, we can vote on a 
piece of legislation that requires 60 votes. Time and time again we do 
not get those votes.
  When votes come up, I would like to win, to be on the winning side. 
That is natural. Everybody would. But what happens here--and the 
American people by and large do not fully understand it--we do not vote 
on issues. What happens is the debate ceases because we do not get 
motions to proceed. So we do not vote on a jobs program, we vote on 
whether we can proceed to a jobs program to create millions of jobs. We 
do not vote on whether we can keep interest rates low for college 
students who are borrowing money, we vote on whether we can proceed to 
have the vote.
  What we have seen in the last several years is an unprecedented level 
of obstructionism and filibustering. Between 1917 and 1967 there was 
more or less an agreement in the Senate that a filibuster would only be 
used under exceptional circumstances. There were only some 40 or 45 
filibusters in a 50-year period. When Lyndon Johnson was majority 
leader in the late 1950s, in his 6-year tenure as majority leader he 
had to overcome a filibuster on one occasion. Since Harry Reid has been 
majority leader in the last 6\1/2\ years, he has had to overcome 400 
filibusters or at least requirements for 60 votes. The amount of time 
we are wasting is unconscionable.
  Furthermore, what the American people do not know is that time after 
time we are winning. We have the votes to win and have shown that on 
very important issues. In terms of one major issue, just as an example, 
right now, rather tragically, we have a situation as a result of the 
disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision that corporations and 
billionaires can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on elections.
  As bad as that is, what is even worse, they can hide their 
contributions--not make them public. Guess what. The Senate by a 
majority vote said: That is wrong. If you are going to contribute huge 
amounts of money into the political process, the people have a right to 
know who you are.
  We have a majority vote on this issue. We could not get it passed 
because we needed 60 votes.
  The American people know our tax system is enormously flawed. We have 
major corporations--General Electric and other corporations--that in a 
given year, after making billions of dollars in profits, pay zero in 
Federal taxes. Legislation was passed on the floor of the Senate by a 
majority--legislation that begins to address that issue--but we did not 
have 60 votes.
  We provided emergency relief to senior citizens who several years ago 
were getting no COLAs for Social Security. We had a majority vote but 
could not get 60 votes.
  We had a majority vote to say that women should be paid equal pay for 
equal work. A majority of Senators said that. We couldn't get it 
passed.
  What we have seen in recent years is reasonably good legislation 
getting a majority vote, but we cannot get it passed because time after 
time we need 60 votes. What we are operating under now is a tyranny of 
the minority.
  The American people go to vote. They elect Obama President, and they 
elect a Democratic Senate. People who campaigned on certain issues--as 
people go forward trying to implement their campaign promises, they 
cannot do it because we cannot get 60 votes.
  Once again, at one point in Senate history, from 1917 to 1967, the 
filibuster was used very sparingly--only in exceptional circumstances. 
Since that point, have Democrats--and I speak as an Independent--have 
Democrats abused the system? Have they been obstructionist? There are 
times when they have been. But since 2008 what has happened is the 
Republicans have taken obstructionism to an entirely new level. 
Virtually every piece of legislation now requires 60 votes, and 
virtually every piece of legislation requires an enormous amount of 
time.
  What do we do? My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made the 
point that the Senate is not the House. And they are right. In the 
House there are 435 Members and majority rules. The majority has a 
whole lot of power. The minority doesn't have that much power. People 
have said: We do not want the Senate to be like the House, and I agree 
with that. The Senate should not be the House.
  Senate Members should be guaranteed the right to offer amendments, 
not be shut out of the process. Whether you are the minority or the 
majority, you should have the right to offer amendments. There should 
be thorough and lengthy debate. If a Member of the Senate wants to 
stand here on the floor

[[Page 11469]]

and speak hour after hour to call attention to some issue he or she 
believes is important, that Senator has the right, in my view, to do 
that. If that debate goes on for a week, it goes on for a week. 
Senators, whether in the minority or the majority, have the right to 
call attention and to debate and focus on issues they consider to be 
important. But at the end of that debate there must be finality. There 
must be a majority vote--51 votes should win. The concept I support is 
what is called the talking filibuster. Minority rights must be 
protected. They must have all the time they need to make their point. 
But majority rights must also be protected. If democracy means 
anything, what I learned in the third grade was that the majority 
rules, not the minority.
  What is happening in our country is not only enormous frustration 
about the very serious economic and environmental problems we face, 
there is huge outrage at the inability of Congress to even debate those 
issues.
  For example, I am a very strong believer that the minimum wage in 
this country must be significantly raised. It is now about $7.25. I 
would like it to go up to $10 an hour, and even at $10 an hour people 
working 40 hours a week will still be living in poverty, but we have to 
raise the minimum wage. My strong guess is that if we do not change the 
rules, despite overwhelming support in this country for raising the 
minimum wage, we will never get an up-or-down vote here on that issue 
because Republicans will obstruct, demand 60 votes, and filibuster the 
issue.
  If my Republican friends are so confident in the points of view they 
are advocating, bring them to the floor and let's have an up-or-down 
vote. Let the American people know how I feel on the issue, how you 
feel on the issue, but let's not have issues decided because we could 
not get 60 votes for a motion to proceed. Nobody in America understands 
what that is about. Do you want to vote against the minimum wage? Have 
the guts to come and vote against the minimum wage. Do you want to vote 
against women's rights? Come on up, have your say, and vote against 
women's rights. Do you want to vote against global warming? Vote 
against global warming. At least let us have the debate the American 
people are demanding.
  I will conclude by saying I am glad the President will finally be 
able to get some key appointees seated. I was a mayor so I know how 
terribly important it is for a chief executive to have their team 
around them. I am glad he will get some key appointees.
  Everyone should understand that what we are doing today is dealing 
with one very small part of an overall problem, which is the 
dysfunctionality of the Senate. I hope--having addressed the immediate 
crisis--we can now go on and address the broader issue, which is making 
the Senate responsive to the needs of the American people. Let's have 
serious debates on serious issues and let's see where the chips fall.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________