[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6288-6294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Jay Clayton to serve as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. Americans deserve a Chair who will run the SEC on their 
behalf, not for the benefit of Wall Street banks and big corporations. 
Far too many folks in this town have collective amnesia about the costs 
of the last financial crisis: $19 trillion lost in household wealth, 8 
million jobs lost, more than 15 million foreclosures, hundreds and 
hundreds of them in the Presiding Officer's and my State.
  Those numbers don't seem to get better as time goes by. All over the 
country, in Ohio and elsewhere, families want strong rules that prevent 
banks from doing as they please, enriching themselves at the expense of 
others and then handing the bill to American taxpayers. The most basic 
duty of the Chair of the SEC is leading his fellow Commissioners 
through tough issues and policing Wall Street.
  Mr. Clayton will fall woefully short. His law firm, his former 
clients will create a steady stream of conflicts of interest, forcing 
him to recuse himself in cases involving former clients for 2 of the 4 
years he would serve as Chair.
  He will be sitting on the sidelines on potential enforcement actions 
because of his representation in the work he did prior to being at the 
SEC. That is not draining the swamp. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, 
Royal Bank of Canada, UBS--he will have to recuse himself on all of 
those cases. That does not sound like someone who will be in there 
fighting for the American people or working to protect America's 
financial markets.
  It is not a theoretical concern. Former Chair White faced conflicts 
and recusals in more than four dozen enforcement investigations in her 
first 2 years. In those cases, big banks, like Bank of America, used 
those recusals to their advantage when the Commission was deadlocked. 
That undermines the Commission's authority. That is why I opposed Ms. 
White for her position--one of the same reasons I am opposing Mr. 
Clayton. Instead of confirming the same kind of nominees we have had in 
the past, with dozens of conflicts of interest and recusals, we should 
be considering someone who actually will work to protect investors.
  At his hearing, Mr. Clayton failed to provide clear answers to 
questions about how he would approach enforcement matters. He gave 
empty answers about punishing bad actors and individual accountability.
  Accounting fraud, selling toxic derivatives, and corporate foreign 
corruption usually involve senior management and happen because the 
tone from the top allows it to happen. Mr. Clayton does not see it that 
way. He spent his career representing--excuse me--protecting Wall 
Street banks. That history guides his view on how SEC enforcement 
should work.
  According to Mr. Clayton, the SEC should proceed with caution, even 
before opening an investigation. That is not his job. His job is to 
open investigations when it looks like there is wrongdoing. He says it 
would have serious adverse impacts on respondents. He has it totally 
backward. Not investigating companies that may be committing fraud or 
other abuses because it might create problems for them--how about the 
American public?
  How about the neighborhood I live in in Cleveland, OH, 44105? That 
ZIP Code had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States 
in 2007. That is partly because of a lack of enforcement at the SEC. I 
see it up close. I

[[Page 6289]]

know what that means to our communities. I know what it means to our 
country.
  Acting Chair Piwowar began undermining the SEC's enforcement division 
in his first month on the job. He reversed steps taken by the two 
previous Chairs that empowered the SEC's enforcement staff to open and 
pursue investigations.
  I am concerned about Dodd-Frank rules. If he is confirmed, he will 
have to answer for the unilateral rollback of final Wall Street reform 
rules that this acting SEC Chair, Mr. Piwowar, has already undertaken. 
Wall Street reform rules requiring disclosure of CEO-to-worker pay 
ratios--all the kinds of things that this Congress overwhelmingly 
decided Congress should do and the SEC should do.
  For years, Congress has funded the SEC below the levels requested, 
despite more responsibilities and increasing marketplace complexity and 
sophistication. I am concerned about Mr. Clayton's likely behavior in 
that regard also.
  Last, public service is important. It is valuable. It should not be 
viewed as a chance to push the favorite policies of big corporations. 
That is what we have seen too often in this town.
  This nominee, Mr. Clayton, who comes from Wall Street, who is part of 
Wall Street, we know from past experience will protect Wall Street at 
the SEC--the wrong thing to do. From his background, his answers to the 
questions in the committee's hearing and questions for the record, I am 
not convinced that Mr. Clayton comes close to being the best person for 
the job. I will oppose his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                              Agriculture

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the past 8 years have been tough on 
Americans. Despite the fact that the recession officially ended in June 
of 2009, the economy never really rebounded. President Obama presided 
over the weakest economic recovery in 60 years. His Presidency was 
characterized by poor economic growth, a dearth of jobs and 
opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage increases.
  In 2016, the economy grew at a dismal 1.6 percent, far below the 
level of growth displayed by a healthy economy. Typically 3 to 3\1/2\ 
percent is the average, going back to World War II. The GDP report for 
the first quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the 
kind of pro-growth policies that were lacking during the Obama years. 
Republicans in Congress and the White House have already acted to 
repeal a number of burdensome Obama regulations that were foisted onto 
the American people near the end of his Presidency. We plan to keep up 
our efforts.
  Getting rid of unnecessary regulations will go a long way toward 
freeing up businesses to grow and create jobs and put more money in 
Americans pockets. Of course, repealing burdensome regulations is just 
one of the things we need to get our economy healthy again. Fixing our 
broken Tax Code is another. As a member of the tax-writing Senate 
Finance Committee, I will be introducing tax reform legislation in the 
near future, targeted primarily for Main Street businesses that pay 
taxes at the individual rate.
  I am looking forward to working on comprehensive tax reform with 
Chairman Hatch and the rest of my colleagues on the Finance Committee 
as we move forward this year. It is critical that passthrough 
businesses, which are the main focus of my bill, are not left behind in 
this effort.
  Today, I want to talk about spurring growth in a specific sector of 
our economy, one that is very important to my home state; that is, the 
agricultural sector. Like so many other Americans, farmers and ranchers 
in South Dakota and across the country have had a rough time of it over 
the past few years. Market prices for farm and ranch products have been 
on a steady decline since 2013, and net farm income has dropped 
substantially as a result of that. Worse, there is little expectation 
that prices will improve over the next few years, which means farmers' 
and ranchers' incomes are likely to continue to decrease.
  Farmers are struggling to repay their debts. Between 2014 and 2016, 
the delinquency rates on farm non-real estate loans more than doubled. 
Delinquencies on farm real estate loans rose from $1.18 billion in 2014 
to $1.66 billion in 2016. While these numbers are not all-time highs, 
the increases are disturbing and show no signs of reversing any time 
soon.
  Farming and ranching are not just careers in South Dakota; they are a 
way of life, one that connects communities and families to the land and 
one generation to the next. Nearly 3,000 South Dakota farm families 
have been honored as operating century farms, meaning the same family 
has operated at least 80 acres of that farm for 100 years or more. But 
in today's weak agricultural economy, many families are afraid they 
will be the ones to lose the farm or ranch that has been in their 
family for generations. That would be a loss not just for them but for 
our country.
  Few of us understand the sacrifices that go into this way of life. 
When we pick up a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread at the grocery 
store, we don't think of the farmer who rose long before the Sun and 
finished his day long after the Sun had set. Our country is made 
stronger by the hard work, fierce dedication, and unconquerable spirit 
of America's farmers.
  We need to make a concerted effort to help farmers meet the 
challenges they are facing right now so that America can continue to 
help feed the world and Americans can continue to have access to the 
home-grown products they depend upon.
  So how do we do that? One thing we can do that would immediately 
improve agricultural prices would be to quickly negotiate new bilateral 
trade agreements. Agriculture is heavily dependent upon trade, and in 
today's economic climate, we cannot afford to have our agricultural 
exports restricted by inadequate trade policies.
  U.S. farmers have lost ground internationally. Our current share of 
the global grain market is just 30 percent, down from 65 percent in the 
mid-1970s. We need to take steps to level the playing field for 
American farmers and ranchers so they can be more competitive 
internationally. I have encouraged the President to start by 
negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Japan.
  Japan is one of our most important trading partners, but U.S. farmers 
too often face hefty tariffs on the products they sell in Japan. U.S. 
negotiators made important progress toward reducing these barriers 
during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
  We need to build on the work they did and negotiate a bilateral 
agreement with Japan as soon as possible. This would benefit a wide 
variety of American producers, including South Dakota beef producers 
who currently face a massive 38.5-percent tariff on the beef they sell 
in Japan.
  Trade agreements would help tremendously, but there is more we need 
to do to ensure the long-term sustainability of production agriculture 
in the United States.
  Every 5 years, Congress has the opportunity to reset Federal farm 
policy when it passes the farm bill. The current farm bill expires in 
2018, and it is not too early to start the drafting process for the 
next bill.
  I served on the Agriculture Committee in the House and now serve on 
the Senate Agriculture Committee under the strong leadership of my 
friend from Kansas, Chairmanship Pat Roberts. I will be working on my 
fourth farm bill, and I take this responsibility very seriously.
  I spend a lot of time talking to farmers and ranchers while I am back 
home in South Dakota, and I have been developing legislation based on 
the feedback they give me about Federal programs. I have already 
introduced two key proposals that I hope will be part of the final farm 
bill that we pass next year, and I will be introducing several more 
farm bill legislative proposals this year.
  All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or 
CRP, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally 
sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years. But a lot of 
farmers have told

[[Page 6290]]

me that they don't want to retire portions of their land for a decade 
or more. To address this, I am proposing a new program that would 
reduce operating costs by providing a modest rental payment and 
increasing crop insurance premium discounts.
  The program I am proposing, the Soil Health and Income Protection 
Program, would provide a new, short-term option for farmers that would 
allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production 
for 3 to 5 years, instead of the 10 to 15 years required by CRP rules. 
This program would result in improved soil health and reduced crop 
insurance costs, and it would provide beneficial areas for wildlife 
while also improving the bottom line for participating farms.
  The other key proposal I have introduced would make a number of 
revisions and management improvements to the CRP program and other U.S. 
Department of Agriculture easement programs.
  CRP plays a very significant role in South Dakota's economy, as it 
provides a major portion of the habitat for the Chinese ringneck 
pheasant, which brings more than $250 million each year to my State's 
rural areas, towns, and cities. Unfortunately, farmers have spent years 
frustrated by some of the ways the Department of Agriculture has 
managed this program.
  We need to make sure that Federal farm programs don't discourage 
farmers and ranchers from participating, especially in times like 
these, when these programs are sorely needed to provide valuable safety 
net assistance and to help protect soil and water.
  My conservation program legislation addresses major concerns that 
farmers have with CRP and other USDA conservation programs by allowing 
commonsense use and management of land enrolled in these programs, 
which improves these programs for farmers and at the same time saves 
taxpayers' money.
  My legislation also expands the CRP acreage cap by 25 percent and 
uses historical acreage averages to make sure CRP will be available in 
States that have used it and that need it the most. Above all, the 
acres enrolled in CRP and other easement programs must be effectively 
used and managed to maximize their usefulness and effectiveness for 
land and water conservation and wildlife, and I will work to make that 
happen.
  In addition, both of my legislative proposals contain provisions to 
provide additional support to young, beginning, and socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, as well as to military veterans. We 
need to ensure that young and beginning farmers and ranchers and others 
have opportunities to succeed, especially now, when even seasoned 
farmers are struggling.
  Along with trade agreements and the farm bill, there are other things 
we can do to help farmers and ranchers and small businesses. This year, 
we plan to take up major reform of our broken, bloated Tax Code. Making 
sure that we consider the needs of farmers and ranchers during this 
debate will be one of my priorities.
  We can also help farmers and ranchers by removing burdensome 
government regulations that do little to help the environment but force 
farmers to spend untold hours and dollars on compliance.
  One example of this kind of burdensome regulation is the so-called 
waters of the United States rule, something with which every farmer and 
rancher is familiar. This EPA regulation improperly used the Clean 
Water Act to justify expanding the EPA's regulatory authority to waters 
like small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches. The rule 
specifically targeted the Prairie Pothole Region, which covers five 
States, including nearly all of eastern South Dakota. I am grateful 
that the President chose to protect farmers and ranchers by announcing 
a review of this rule in February of this year.
  We could further support American farmers by removing yet another 
unnecessary regulatory hurdle, and that is the Reid vapor pressure 
regulation, which restricts the sale of E15 fuel during the summer 
driving season.
  Providing a waiver for E15, as enjoyed by other fuels, is a 
bipartisan, no-cost way to roll back regulation and grant consumers 
real choice at the pumps, as well as to help our farmers.
  Our Nation and the world depend on American farmers and ranchers. We 
need to make sure they can sustain their operations and continue to 
efficiently feed America and the world.
  I look forward to continuing our work on tax, trade, regulatory, and 
farm bill policies that support farmers and ranchers in South Dakota 
and throughout our country.
  When agriculture does well, I would argue, our national economy does 
well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Montana Ag Summit

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I have some good news from Montana. A week 
ago yesterday, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm former Georgia Governor 
Sonny Perdue to be our next Secretary of Agriculture. When we met prior 
to his confirmation hearing, Secretary Perdue and I discussed Montana 
ag and the need to expand agricultural access to foreign markets. I 
know he will prioritize the ag industry during his time in office, and 
I am pleased to share that I will be hosting the Secretary in Montana 
for the Montana Ag Summit that is going to be held in Great Falls at 
the end of this month.
  Back in March, during the Secretary's confirmation hearing, I 
extended an invitation to join us in Montana's Golden Triangle as we 
discuss the issue of strengthening international relationships for 
Montana's agriculture. The Golden Triangle is where my great-great-
grandmother homesteaded as she moved from Minnesota--a Norwegian 
immigrant--to Montana.
  At the Ag Summit, we will showcase the technological advancements 
that are changing the way we produce crops and livestock, promote the 
next generation of ag producers, and discuss the challenges ag 
producers face as a result of our Federal policies and regulations. The 
Montana Ag Summit will bring together leaders from across the 
agricultural industry to hear from our keynote speakers, which include 
Secretary Perdue and my colleague and friend and the chairman of the 
U.S. Senate Ag Committee, Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas. Nothing 
takes the place of hearing directly from Montanans and seeing our great 
State with your own eyes.
  I have been a strong advocate for Montana ag since coming to 
Washington, DC, and it is a privilege to serve as Montana's only 
representative on the U.S. Senate Ag Committee. Whenever I get the 
chance, I talk about Montana's ag industry and advocate for regulation 
reform and for additional opportunities for our ag producers to compete 
on a level playing field.
  Another critical issue for farmers and ranchers in Montana and around 
the Nation is opening up more market opportunities for the ag industry. 
In fact, earlier this past month, 38 of my colleagues and I wrote to 
President Trump asking him to prioritize reopening China's markets to 
U.S. beef in his discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping. China 
is Montana's third leading trade partner after Canada and South Korea.
  It is important to remember that 95 percent of the world's consumers 
live outside of the United States. While the Chinese ban on U.S. beef 
imports was lifted last fall, more needs to be done to actually see 
U.S. beef on the shelves of Chinese grocery stores. You see, China is 
the second largest beef import market in the world.
  I can say it was an honor to personally present some of Miles City's 
famous and finest beef to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang from Fred Wacker's 
ranch out of Miles City. I will get Montana beef in China if I have to 
take it over myself.
  Montana's No. 1 industry and economic driver is agriculture. With 
over

[[Page 6291]]

27,000 farms in the State, Montana ag is nearly $5 billion strong. By 
the way, Montana is now the leading pulse crop producer in the Nation.
  Last week, President Trump unveiled his tax reform plan, which, among 
many proposals, includes a full repeal of the death tax--a full, 
permanent repeal of the death tax. This is a tax that directly impacts 
many Montana farm and ranch families. In fact, I heard a story from a 
Montana rancher a couple of weeks ago of his having the sudden, 
unexpected passing of his mother and his father. It is a 
multigenerational ranch operation in Montana that had a huge tax 
liability--in the millions of dollars--that it had to pay to the IRS 
because of the death tax.
  I have been calling for a repeal of the death tax since I first came 
to Washington, DC--one of the most immoral taxes on the books--because 
I understand how these taxes can cause family farms and family ranches 
to break up and to be sold off.
  The bottom line is this. You cannot feed a nation without farmers and 
ranchers, and you cannot have opportunity economies without actual 
opportunities to meet the needs of not only our State, of not only our 
Nation but of the world.
  As the U.S. Congress and the Trump administration continue to work 
together, I am excited to see that ag is a priority. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, as well as in the Trump 
administration, to advance policies and solutions to the barriers that 
our Nation's ag producers face, and I really look forward to the 
upcoming Montana Ag Summit in Great Falls later this month.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the confirmation of Jay Clayton as Chair of the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission.
  Just 100 days into the Trump administration, the truth is becoming 
crystal clear to the American people: There is no ``America first'' 
policy, and there certainly is no ``middle class first'' policy. There 
is just one policy, and that is a ``Wall Street first'' policy. It is a 
policy designed to steer even more wealth and more power to those who 
are plenty wealthy and plenty powerful, a policy built on the misguided 
view that our economy does better when banks do as they please, when 
CEOs receive runaway pay, and when bigger profits never translate into 
bigger paychecks for workers. That is why we have seen no Executive 
orders designed to hold big banks accountable, no Executive orders 
designed to protect borrowers from abusive student loan companies, no 
Executive orders helping more workers save for retirement. Instead, we 
see the administration rolling back protections for consumers and 
students and seniors, actively exploring how to put taxpayers back on 
the hook for Wall Street's recklessness, and ordering oversight 
agencies to, quite simply, conduct less oversight.
  There is no greater example of the Trump administration's ``Wall 
Street first'' policy than its decision to nominate Jay Clayton as the 
Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  The SEC is our Federal Government's cop on the Wall Street beat. And 
let's remember why we have a Securities and Exchange Commission and why 
it needs to be the cop on the beat. In 1929, the stock market crashed, 
and our Nation was sent into a deep and devastating depression. That is 
why President Franklin Roosevelt signed financial reforms into law 
aimed at curbing rampant speculation and risky behavior on Wall Street, 
and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission was one of 
those reforms.
  The SEC was designed to enact safeguards and promote fairness in our 
markets, to protect investors and prosecute fraud, and to ensure that 
our businesses have access to capital so they can grow and create jobs. 
When we have a watchdog ensuring that everyone plays by the rules, risk 
is more distributed, markets are more stable, and capital is more 
available.
  The American people know all too well what happens when we take our 
eyes off of Wall Street. Not even a decade has passed since the worst 
financial collapse in 80 years put taxpayers on the line for billions 
of dollars--billions of dollars--in bailouts.
  In the years leading up to the crash, our regulators, including the 
SEC, turned a blind eye to excessive risk-taking and corporate 
misconduct. We needed a cop on the beat, but instead we had a regulator 
asleep at the switch. As a result, we suffered a crisis that cost 8.5 
million Americans their jobs and 10 million Americans their homes--8.5 
million Americans their jobs and 10 million Americans their homes--a 
crisis that destroyed $19 trillion in household wealth and left small 
businesses devastated nationwide, a crisis that sank local and State 
governments into a sea of red ink. And, of course, it left us with the 
great recession. It took us years to dig this economy out of that 
ditch. Now, after all we have been through, is it really time to go 
easier on Wall Street?
  Since the financial crisis, the SEC has been instrumental in 
reshaping the rules of the road and holding corporation wrongdoers 
accountable. Now, less than a decade since that devastating crisis, 
this administration wants to give the keys to the castle to one of Wall 
Street's most loyal guardians.
  We need someone at the helm willing to root out bad behavior in our 
financial sector, but Mr. Clayton is not that someone. He is no expert 
in enforcing the law. Indeed, Mr. Clayton has made a career out of 
fighting the SEC and other financial regulators on behalf of Wall 
Street's biggest institutions. His resume is built around defending 
Wall Street's most notorious offenders from ever being held 
accountable.
  Let me again remind my colleagues that the SEC was not created to be 
Wall Street's support group in Washington. Investors and the American 
public at large deserve an SEC Chair who will fight to hold firms 
accountable, who will prosecute misconduct and wrongdoing, and who will 
improve investor protections. Mr. Clayton has not met that burden.
  There are three reasons why I am concerned that an SEC led by Mr. 
Clayton would be an SEC that bends the rules for corporations and 
ignores the needs of hard-working Americans.
  First is Mr. Clayton's singular focus on corporate bottom lines. When 
asked to lay out his vision for the agency, Mr. Clayton offered no path 
to preventing another financial crisis. He provided no commitment to 
strengthening the agency's enforcement abilities, and he callously 
overlooked investor protections. Mr. Clayton failed to give an iota of 
support to anything other than boosting corporate bottom lines. He 
spoke exclusively about reducing compliance and registration costs for 
companies, and that is all fine, but not at the expense of critical 
investor protections and of healthy, stable, and fair markets for the 
economy at large.
  Let's remember why this is important. Without strong protections and 
disclosures, we will sacrifice investor confidence. And when we 
sacrifice investor confidence, less capital will flow through our 
markets. When less capital flows through markets, businesses will 
struggle to grow and to innovate. In other words, a stable and fair 
financial sector is vital to our economy as a whole.
  My second concern involves Mr. Clayton's potential conflicts of 
interest. Mr. Clayton has spent his entire career representing big 
players on Wall Street before, during, and after the crisis. His work 
has undoubtedly produced many conflicts of interest. As a result, Mr. 
Clayton will be forced to sit out of numerous important decisions 
integral to the role of the SEC Chair. This is a problem because the 
SEC currently has just two Commissioners. The absence of Mr. Clayton 
could very well undermine the agency's ability to prosecute wrongdoing 
on Wall Street.

[[Page 6292]]

  Finally, I was alarmed by Mr. Clayton's refusal to answer any 
questions of substance during his confirmation hearing.
  When asked if he would implement congressionally mandated rules, like 
the provision I wrote into Dodd-Frank requiring corporations to 
disclose how much money CEOs make in comparison to their employees, Mr. 
Clayton gave no straight answer.
  When asked if he would fairly consider the 1.2 million comments--the 
greatest number of comments ever received on any SEC rulemaking process 
by the SEC--urging that companies disclose their political spending, 
Mr. Clayton gave no straight answer.
  Finally, when asked if he would restore the subpoena power of the SEC 
attorneys so that they can initiate investigations, Mr. Clayton showed 
his true colors. When it comes to enforcement at the SEC, he said we 
had to be ``mindful that even the commencement of an investigation can 
have significant adverse impacts'' on public companies. So instead of 
explaining his vision as SEC's Chair and the SEC's role as a cop on the 
beat, he said the agency should consider a company's bottom line before 
investigating potential wrongdoing. This, to me, is in essence what 
defines this nominee's approach and this administration's approach: 
Wall Street profits that prevail over Main Street protections, no 
matter the risks posed to the American people. It is precisely this 
kind of thinking that made our system too vulnerable to a financial 
crisis of epic proportions.
  Given Mr. Clayton's inability and refusal to answer basic questions 
about important issues--like whether he would restore the authority of 
the Securities and Exchange Enforcement Division or implement the CEO-
to-worker pay ratio rule mandated by Congress or require disclosure of 
corporate political spending--1.2 million citizen comments, the 
greatest in the history of the SEC--or ensure that retail investors 
receive advice that is in their best interests--I can't help but 
conclude that Mr. Clayton appears best suited to continue representing 
Wall Street rather than to working on behalf of the American people.
  The President's nomination of Mr. Clayton is a bow to Wall Street and 
a cold shoulder to hard-working, middle-class families. I will not be 
voting for his confirmation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Jay Clayton to be Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
SEC.
  Mr. Clayton has achieved great personal success as a corporate 
attorney, where for years he represented some of our Nation's largest 
financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and 
Goldman Sachs. Personal success is not the same as being willing to 
safeguard the interests of all who participate in and rely on our 
capital markets, especially working-class Americans, as I believe a 
good SEC Chairman must. Based on Mr. Clayton's testimony and his 
answers to my questions and those of my colleagues on the Banking 
Committee, I am unable to support his confirmation.
  As more and more working-class Americans know, pensions are becoming 
rarer, and more American families, assuming they even have extra money 
to spare from their paychecks, must invest in securities to save for 
retirement or send their kids to college. The integrity and efficiency 
of our capital markets then are not only of great importance to the 
megabanks and tycoon investors, but also to working-class Americans.
  It is therefore in all of our interests to have strong and vigilant 
Federal financial regulators who can help ensure we avoid another 
financial crisis. While the megabanks have bounced back after staring 
into the abyss, the last financial crisis, which began in the Bush 
administration, had devastating consequences on working-class 
Americans, too many of whom lost their jobs, their nest eggs, and their 
homes. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has recovered, the 
impacts are still felt by too many in Rhode Island and throughout the 
country.
  While it is vitally important to help small businesses raise capital 
and grow their companies by actually creating jobs here in the United 
States, it is also equally essential that we have a strong cop on the 
beat that upholds and improves the integrity of our capital markets.
  Initially, I was encouraged to read in Mr. Clayton's testimony before 
the Senate Banking Committee that ``there is zero room for bad actors 
in our capital markets'' and that ``I am 100 percent committed to 
rooting out any fraud and shady practices in our financial system.''
  During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Clayton if he would 
support my bipartisan legislation with Senator Grassley that would 
deter fraud by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary 
penalties. Our legislation responds to former SEC Chair Mary Shapiro's 
statement that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil 
monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many 
circumstances.'' In his response to me, Mr. Clayton said, ``I am very 
willing to take a look at the issue and work with you on it and give 
you my views after I've been better educated on it.'' I accepted this 
response for the time being and wrote to Mr. Clayton after the hearing 
to ask for his thoughts on this matter now that he had time to study 
the issue.
  He responded: ``As a general matter, I believe that the effective 
empowerment and functioning of the SEC Enforcement Division are 
fundamental to the fair and efficient functioning of our markets and 
the protection of investors. Under existing law, the Commission has the 
authority to seek civil monetary penalties in a number of 
circumstances. I would not want the Division or Commission to be 
unnecessarily or inappropriately constrained in pursuing civil monetary 
penalties, which can serve an important deterrent effect in appropriate 
circumstances. If confirmed as Chair, I will work with my fellow 
Commissioners and the Enforcement Division staff to enforce the law as 
it is written, including with respect to civil monetary penalties. I 
also would be willing to engage with Congress regarding any changes to 
the SEC's statutory authority to seek monetary penalties that Congress 
deems appropriate.''
  I am glad Mr. Clayton agrees that penalties can serve as deterrents, 
and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Clayton would not want the SEC to be 
``unnecessarily or inappropriately constrained in pursuing civil 
monetary penalties.'' Indeed, what appears to be constraining the SEC 
in part is exactly what former Chair Schapiro said, that penalty limits 
are not high enough to serve as effective deterrents. Given this, I do 
not understand Mr. Clayton's hesitation in clearly supporting my 
bipartisan legislation with Senator Grassley. This does not sound like 
a 100 percent commitment to ``rooting out any fraud and shady practices 
in our financial system.''
  This is just one example, but based on a review of his record and his 
responses to the committee's questions, I am not confident Mr. Clayton 
will vigorously work to protect all investors, in the same way as he 
throughout his career has defended the interests of his corporate and 
megabank clients, particularly when those interests may come into 
conflict, as we know they will. In my opinion, there should be no 
question of an SEC chairman's willingness to stand up and fight for 
working-class Americans and mom-and-pop investors.
  Indeed, as Senator Brown, the ranking member of the Senate Banking 
Committee, has stated himself, ``it's not the first time we've seen a 
nominee like Mr. Clayton. I was concerned about Mary Jo White's 
conflicts and corporate law background. She was conflicted in dozens of 
high-profile cases, and then a month after stepping down as Chair, she 
returned to her old law firm. As a lawyer might say--that's bad 
precedent.''
  What we need is a strong SEC Chair that will vigorously protect and 
defend the interests of all American investors. I hope he proves me 
wrong, but based on the record before me, I am not convinced Mr. 
Clayton is up to this task, and therefore, I cannot vote to confirm 
him.

[[Page 6293]]


  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Jay 
Clayton to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  When the stock market crashed in 1929, public confidence in the 
markets plummeted as well. Investors large and small lost their life's 
savings. Congress responded with laws to help rebuild public faith in 
the markets. Thus in the wake of the Great Depression, Congress created 
the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors and 
maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
  Congress designed the SEC to see that investors and the markets have 
reliable information and clear rules for honest dealing. The SEC's job 
is to make sure that brokers, dealers, and exchanges put investors' 
interests first. The SEC ensures that companies offering securities for 
investment tell the public the truth about their businesses, the 
securities they are selling, and the risks involved.
  Congress took pains to create the SEC to have some distance from Wall 
Street. The law provides that no Commissioner can engage in any 
business or employment other than serving as Commissioner. The law 
prohibits any Commissioner from participating in any stock transactions 
of a type that the Commission regulates.
  Mr. Clayton has extensive experience working in capital markets. He 
has represented a long list of financial firms. His numerous conflicts 
may make him captive to the industry that President Trump nominated him 
to police. One of his better-known clients is Goldman Sachs. The 
Department of Justice found that Goldman Sachs falsely assured 
investors that sound mortgages backed securities that Goldman sold, 
when Goldman knew that these securities were full of mortgages that 
were likely to fail.
  During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Clayton about Goldman 
Sachs' $5 billion settlement with the Department of Justice. I asked 
Mr. Clayton if he felt that Goldman Sachs had been engaged in shady 
practices, but Mr. Clayton said only that he felt the case stood on its 
own. I cannot comprehend why Mr. Clayton demurred on this topic. We 
should all be able to agree that if a firm pays $5 billion in a 
settlement, it was engaged in shady practices, to say the least.
  Duriing Mr. Clayton's confirmation hearing, he said that he is ``100 
percent committed to rooting out any fraud and shady practices in our 
financial system.'' If he is confirmed, I hope he stands by that 
pledge.
  The SEC, investors, and the American people need an independent 
voice. They need a politically independent voice, as well as a voice 
that can be independent enough to make tough enforcement decisions 
about the financial firms it regulates. I have serious doubts that Mr. 
Clayton can be that voice; thus I oppose his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the short-term budget 
resolution we will be voting on within the next couple of days and a 
quote the President made this morning.
  The bipartisan agreement we are going to tackle on the floor to 
extend the Federal budget past the CR deadline through the end of 
September is salutary. It is salutary because the two Houses worked 
together to find an agreement.
  I can see things in the agreement I like, and I can see things in the 
agreement I don't like. That is the nature of budget agreements. My 
principal disappointment with the agreement is that we should have done 
it in December. I will actually give credit to my Senate colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. We were ready to do this deal in December. The 
Appropriations Committees in both Houses had met. We were ready to do a 
deal that would then give everybody in government--but, more 
importantly, all of our citizens and all of our businesses--some 
certainty about what would happen between that vote in December and the 
end of the fiscal year, September 30.
  The incoming administration, not yet in office, dispatched the Vice 
President and others to the Hill and said: Don't do a budget. Don't do 
the omnibus bill. We want to have the ability to work on it ourselves.
  I think this was against the better judgment of both sides in the 
Senate. A decision was made: We won't do an omnibus bill in December. 
We recessed on the 10th. We had plenty of time to get work done. 
Instead, we would do a CR through April 28.
  I think my colleagues were right to want to do it in December. 
Nevertheless, we put everybody through the hoops of this: Is there 
going to be a shutdown, or what are we going to do?
  Now, apparently, we will have a deal. We will discuss it, and I hope 
we will vote in favor of it.
  We could have gotten the same deal in December. We would have given 
people more certainty. They could have adjusted. We could have not 
frightened people about a shutdown and done other productive work. 
Nevertheless, we have a deal which I plan to support.
  But I was very interested this morning--very interested and, I will 
be blunt, very disturbed--with the President's words. At 8:07 this 
morning, he put out a tweet about the deal, about a bipartisan deal 
reached by two Republican Houses, with Democrats included--as we ought 
to be, because we represent a lot of the American public. This is the 
quote:

       Either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the 
     rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good ``shutdown'' in 
     September to fix mess!

  So what I want to talk about today is whether there is a good 
shutdown of the government of the United States--whether there is such 
a thing as a good shutdown. Is it right for the President of the United 
States to hope for a good shutdown of the government of the greatest 
Nation on Earth?
  I can't imagine that a CEO--any CEO we would admire--would call for a 
shutdown of his own company. That is what President Trump now is. He is 
the Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive of the government of the 
greatest Nation on Earth. He apparently believes there could be a good 
shutdown of this government in September.
  I want to take us back to the fall of 2013. In the fall of 2013, the 
government was shut down for about 16 days in October. It was my first 
year as a Senator. That was bad. It was bad in Virginia, a State with 
170,000 Federal employees, who didn't know whether or not there would 
be work to do, when they would return to work, or whether they would be 
paid for those days. It was bad for veterans whose claims to get a 
disability benefit were already too backed up and who couldn't get 
their calls and questions answered. It was bad for veterans whose 
requests for medical appointments were already too backed up and, in 
the uncertainty of a shutdown, they didn't know when they would be 
resolved. It was in October, which is the high season of tourism in 
Virginia. It was bad for one of my smallest communities, Accomack 
County, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, which is adjacent to the 
Chincoteague National Seashore. They count on October tourism as a huge 
part of their local economy, but when the Federal parks shut down, it 
was bad for their economy. It was bad for economies near Shenandoah 
National Park to have that park shut down in the heart of fall leaf 
season, which is the time they count on to help their small businesses 
succeed. It was bad for people on military bases, when DOD civilians 
were being furloughed--civilians like nurses at hospitals, and 
childcare workers who provide childcare to military families on 
military bases. They didn't know when they would be reopening. I see 
nothing good about a shutdown of the Government of the United States.
  In fact, it was the first Republican President in the address at 
Gettysburg who said: The question that we always have to grapple with 
is whether government by, of, and for the people shall perish from the 
Earth. I think the answer to that question is that it should not perish 
from the Earth--not for a year, not for a month, not for a week, not 
for a day, not for an hour. There should not be a shutdown of the 
government of the United States. There is no such thing as a good 
shutdown.

[[Page 6294]]

  So I just wanted to come to the floor today and be very, very blunt. 
On behalf of anybody in Virginia and in this country who is afraid of 
how a government shutdown could impact them or their communities; on 
behalf of troops, veterans, military families, and members of our 
Department of Defense who keep us safe every day; on behalf of veterans 
who fought for this country and who need the Federal Government to cut 
the backlog on disability claims or medical appointments at the VA; on 
behalf of every senior citizen or disabled person who has a case 
awaiting resolution by Social Security or Medicare or CMS; on behalf of 
170,000 Federal employees living in Virginia and the people and 
communities they serve; on behalf of cities and counties around 
Virginia that rely on Federal support for infrastructure projects, 
economic development assistance, opioid prevention efforts, export 
promotion, and so many other critical programs; on behalf of Virginians 
struggling with disease and illness who pray for lifesaving cures 
developed through federally funded medical research; on behalf of our 
dynamic businesses and all of their workers, who need certainty from 
Washington in order to create jobs and expand the economy; on behalf of 
Virginia students and families who rely on Head Start Programs or rely 
on federally funded work study programs so they can work their way 
through college; on behalf of all Virginians and all Americans who 
deserve to have clean water, breathable air, beautiful open space, safe 
food and drugs, violence-free communities, a functional immigration 
system, and protection from cyber threats; and on behalf of the 
reputation of this Nation and the values that we proudly claim as 
American values, I will do anything and everything in my power as a 
U.S. Senator to stop any Trump shutdown, to stop any good shutdown of 
the government of the greatest Nation on this Earth, either now or 
during September or during the remainder of his term. I call on all of 
my colleagues to take a similar pledge.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________