[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9400-9401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            BOWEN NOMINATION

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
Sharon Bowen's nomination to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. Frankly, it amazes me that we are here today 
discussing basically a possible promotion for Ms. Bowen. Given my 
experience with her in her current job as Acting Chair of the 
Securities Investor Protection Corporation--SIPC--and before that as 
Vice Chair, I can say quite frankly that she does not deserve any 
promotion because she has not successfully safeguarded consumers, which 
is her job, her mission. Instead, she has fought to safeguard Wall 
Street money from just compensation to the legitimate victims of the 
Allen Stanford $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
  I have been involved in this Stanford issue for quite a while because 
it affects a lot of folks in Louisiana, but it affects a lot of folks 
in every State of the country as well. These folks first and foremost 
were victims of Allen Stanford and his completely fraudulent activity, 
his Ponzi scheme that literally defrauded hard-working Americans of 
$7.2 billion. But they were victimized again, quite frankly, by Federal 
agencies that didn't do their job--first by the SEC, which knew about 
this activity for 4 years before saying anything publicly, before 
warning anyone out there, before taking any action, and then by SIPC--
including Sharon Bowen at SIPC--by refusing to take appropriate action 
for the victims and instead acting as if their job, their duty was to 
safeguard Wall Street money, not to properly compensate victims under 
the law.
  If you read the letters and talk to the Stanford victims, as I have 
many times, it will just break your heart.
  Charles Cook of Baton Rouge said:

       My family, along with thousands of others who placed their 
     savings in licensed brokers' hands, now faces absolute 
     financial ruin simply because our government and government-
     appointed regulators did not perform their jobs of protecting 
     us. These savings include retirement accounts, trusts for 
     chronically ill family members, college funds, and pension 
     plans.

  Byron Ratliff, also of Baton Rouge:

       Congress needs to be aware that the agency created by 
     Congress to protect investors is using their fund to defy the 
     federal government for the sake of denying protection to 
     investors they helped defraud . . . We need your help now 
     more than ever to block this ridiculous effort by SIPC. This 
     is criminal.

  Gilbert Gossen, also of Louisiana:

       Has it changed our lifestyle? Yes, tremendously. Not only 
     my wife and I have been deprived of our lifetime savings, my 
     five children who have worked alongside with us have been 
     unfairly deprived of their inheritance.

  Carolyn Smith in Baton Rouge goes to the core of the matter:

       I cannot believe this. This is killing me and my family.

  Fraudulent schemes unfortunately go on all the time, but, again, what 
makes this so heartbreaking is the victimization upon victimization. 
First came the original fraud; then came the SEC, which saw this going 
on and did not act and did not give victims and potential victims any 
notice for 4 years; and then after the SEC acted, after the SEC ordered 
SIPC to compensate victims, SIPC--Sharon Bowen included--in an 
unprecedented move, refused to follow that mandate by the SEC, 
requiring the SEC to sue SIPC, which is now tied up in court and 
continues to this day.
  That gets us back to the issue at hand--Ms. Bowen. The name of her 
current employer is supposed to be about investor protection--the 
Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC--but she and her 
colleagues have acted in the direction of Wall Street protection.
  The fund is funded by companies that pay into it. They pay their dues 
to give potential investors peace of mind, and that confidence helps 
build a vibrant and positive marketplace. Make no mistake that those 
Wall Street member companies do not want SIPC to compensate these 
victims because they are worried that their dues will increase. Well, 
it is fine for them to have their concern; it is not fine for Sharon 
Bowen to make those concerns win out over the law and over the facts, 
to ignore a mandate from the SEC, and to not properly compensate the 
victims of the Stanford scandal.
  If, after all of this, Congress gives Ms. Bowen a promotion, condones 
her actions here today, and votes to support her, that will be yet 
another slap in the face to these victims and an action that will 
certainly undermine investor confidence and encourage more to follow 
Ms. Bowen's career path and the way she ran the Security Investor 
Protection Commission by advancing themselves and member companies 
rather than the real mission of following the law and properly 
compensating victims.
  This is not a partisan grudge match. This is not partisan at all. I 
am opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation for one simple reason: I think she 
has proved that she is not qualified for the job based on her track 
record at SIPC as well as her performance at her confirmation hearing.
  Let me underscore the way in which this is not partisan at all 
because there are many folks who have been following this Stanford case 
who are directly involved who have written to

[[Page 9401]]

Senators on both sides of the aisle urging--urging in the strongest 
terms possible--opposition to this nomination.
  Let's take a letter written by a self-proclaimed and lifelong 
Democrat from Ann Arbor, MI, a constituent of Senator Stabenow. Senator 
Stabenow is the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee. That 
certainly has a significant role in this nomination.
  The letter says:

       I've been writing to you over the past days regarding the 
     growing opposition to the nomination of Sharon Bowen to the 
     CFTC. I am writing once more to stress that this is not 
     merely an effort to block an Obama nominee. As a lifelong 
     Democrat I would not get behind such an initiative if I 
     thought that's what it was. Opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation 
     is not a partisan issue. Simply put, it makes no sense to 
     appoint a regulator who is being sued by another regulator 
     (SEC vs. SIPC)! In this climate of growing cynicism toward 
     our financial regulators, can we really afford to put one 
     more fox outside the hen house?

  In a similar way, a constituent of Senator Nelson of Florida wrote 
Senator Nelson and said:

       We hope you will vote AGAINST confirming Ms. Bowen as a 
     CFTC Commissioner as she does not support protecting 
     investors. Sharon Bowen's loyalty to Wall Street instead of 
     hard-working people like us has devastated our lives because 
     her actions resulted in us not being able to recover our 
     savings.

  A constituent of Senator Pryor's wrote him in a similar vein:

       Based on the facts set forth below, I certainly hope you 
     will vote against confirming Ms. Bowen as a CFTC Commissioner 
     in order to protect the investors who rely on the CFTC's 
     regulatory supervision.

  In a similar way, Madoff victims have also weighed strongly into this 
matter. They have written their Senators urging them to oppose the 
Bowen nomination.
  One Madoff victim wrote:

       SIPC Chairwoman Sharon Bowen is neither a qualified nor 
     appropriate nominee for the all-important Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission. As a SIPC board member, SIPC Chairwoman 
     and an attorney representing members of the financial 
     industry, Ms. Bowen has demonstrated repeatedly that her 
     interest is in protecting Wall Street's interests.

  Again, frauds happen all the time. It is always tragic, but it does 
happen. What makes this case so ``tripley'' tragic is that the victims 
of the original Allen Stanford fraud were victimized again by failed 
bureaucracies and regulators who failed to do their jobs and continued 
to fail to carry out their true mandate of protecting investors.
  First, the SEC dragged its feet and took way too long to take any 
action in this matter or to give anyone in the real world notice of 
what was clearly happening in the Stanford case--4-plus years--and then 
the SEC finally acted and agreed that these victims required 
compensation under the law. They told SIPC to set about giving them 
this compensation, and in a completely unprecedented way, never before 
and never since, Sharon Bowen of SIPC said: No. We are not doing what 
the SEC has told us to do. We are refusing to do that.
  They had to be sued by the SEC, and that legal matter is still 
tangled up in court with the victims of the Stanford mess, and they 
still have not gotten any compensation.
  We can't prevent every bad thing from happening in the world, but 
surely we can ensure that agencies in Washington and regulatory bodies 
do their jobs, follow their mandates and their missions and work for 
investors and citizens and not be captured by narrow interests--in this 
case, Wall Street interests. Surely we can do that, and that, 
ultimately, is what this vote is all about. Are we going to do that or 
are we going to promote someone who has failed at her current job? Are 
we going to promote someone who has proved in her current job that she 
does not have the right mindset, the right understanding of a pro-
investor, pro-consumer mission to handle that job or any other?
  I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--and there is 
nothing partisan about this--to oppose this Sharon Bowen nomination. 
The victims of the Stanford scandal need some justice. They need to see 
that someone cares and that someone is fighting on their behalf. The 
victims of the Madoff scandal need exactly the same and feel exactly 
the same way.
  Please oppose this nomination. Please vote for those consumers, those 
Americans, and those investors. Please vote to begin to right the ship 
and fix the regulatory system.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is the Senate in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for up to 
12 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________