Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. I will say to my colleague from New York that it does not. That is not the effect of the language. Any number of decisions could be made after that date, when a new Congress and a new President will be in place. Nor does this provision have any effect on the court cases and settlements currently underway challenging the validity of the third amendment. As the Senator from Tennessee said yesterday, ``this legislation does not prejudice'' any of those cases.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today I wish to discuss section 702 in division O of the Omnibus appropriations bill. It is a provision that would prohibit the Treasury Department from selling, transferring or otherwise disposing of the senior preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2 years. In 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and created an agreement that gave the Treasury Department senior preferred shares in both entities. Since that time, the GSEs helped stabilize the housing market by ensuring that families had access to 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at reasonable rates and lenders had access to a functioning secondary market. While the government was initially forced to inject $188 billion into shoring up these two agencies, it has since collected $241 billion. Taxpayers have thus earned $53 billion during the conservatorship.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Majority Leader. The FHFA and Treasury Department could have placed the GSEs into receivership if the intent was to liquidate them. The purpose of a conservatorship is to preserve and conserve the assets of the entities in conservatorship until they are in a safe and solvent condition as determined by their regulator.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWN. I thank the former chairman of the Finance Committee. About a year ago, when it wasn't so clear at all that the earned- income tax credit, which, according to President Reagan and most Presidents of both parties since, has been the most effective tool to fight poverty in recent memory--I would also say Social Security and Medicare, of course--what the earned-income tax credit, coupled with the child tax credit, has done is it has rewarded work, helped people who are making $9, $10, $12 an hour, sometimes working two jobs--it has helped lift them out of poverty because they simply don't make enough money to be able to live a decent standard of living if they are making $9 an hour. When it wasn't at all clear that the earned-income tax credit wouldn't expire in the next couple of years, what Senator Wyden did, working with a number of us, was he negotiated and basically said: Sure, we want to do these business tax credits or business tax deductions because we think this will help our country grow, but we shouldn't give tax breaks to large businesses and leave workers behind. That is what this coalition did, was pretty much said to people here who haven't always thought much about low-income people--frankly, we work around here, and if you don't go out of your way to meet low- income people and you don't talk to them about their lives, if you are not in the cafeteria--those people are making way too little money, and people here don't know their names and all of that. But when you think about this, it makes a huge difference in people's lives. I thank Senator Wyden for his role in helping put that coalition together.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will briefly explain the reasons I am reserving the right to object. I, first of all, thank Senator Moran. As a fellow member of the banking committee, while I disagree with him on this issue, we have found many things we can work together on, and I appreciate that. As Senator Moran does, I strongly support sovereignty, as I know virtually everybody in this body probably does. But this bill, frankly, isn't about tribal sovereignty; it is about undermining labor law that protects the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain. We have a middle class in this country in large part because since the 1930s--since Hugo Black sat at this desk and Senator Wagner sat at another desk in this chamber and wrote collective bargaining laws--we know what that has done to raise wealth, not just for union members but for others also. This bill attempts to overturn the National Labor Relations Board decisions that have asserted the Board's jurisdiction over labor disputes on tribal lands. The Board methodically evaluates when they do and don't have jurisdiction on tribal lands by using a very carefully crafted test to ensure that the Board's jurisdiction would not violate tribal rights and would not interfere in the exclusive right to self- governance. We support that. In the June 2015 decision, the NLRB employed the test. They did not assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute on tribal lands. Instead, this bill is part of an agenda to undermine the rights of American workers, including the 600,000 employees of tribal casinos. Of those employees, 75 percent are non-Indians. Courts have upheld the application to the tribes of Federal employment laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act--that is OSHA and ERISA--and title 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA--all very important to protect people, workers, and citizens. In addition to harming thousands of already organized workers in commercial tribe enterprises, casinos, and other things, this bill would establish a dangerous precedent to weaken longstanding tribal protections on tribal lands. For these reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago most of us went home to our families to celebrate and give thanks for the many blessings we have in this country. We all look forward to spending more time with family during this holiday season, but for far too many Americans the holidays are just another time when they struggle to put food on the table or even to have a roof over their heads. This is sadly particularly true of our Nation's veterans. Again, to go back 15 years, we take people into war in this country-- sometimes for very good reason. Our sending troops to Afghanistan was exactly the right policy back in 2002 and 2003. Going into the war in Iraq was something very different. If we in this body are going to send people into war, it is time we think about the costs of war, not come to the Senate floor and make speeches about how tough we are as Senators, when most Senators don't have children--some do, but most don't have children who go off to war. We are willing to send people into combat, and then we too often turn our backs on those soldiers once they come home and become our Nation's veterans. The suicide rate is too high among veterans, many of them suffering from PTSD or traumatic brain injury or a host of other illnesses or afflictions. The suicide rate is too high, the unemployment rate for veterans is too high, and the drug addiction rate is too high. Yet, how often our colleagues come and talk about, let's send combat troops, let's go to war. How rarely they talk about what we do with these men and women when they come home, whose lives have been changed dramatically. These are the costs of war, and they don't get nearly the attention on the Senate floor, in the media, or among policymakers as do the actually going to war and sending our troops. It is shameful that veterans have these rates of unemployment, addiction, suicide, and homelessness. We have made progress on homelessness through a combination of increased Federal investments and improved services. Over the past 5 years, homelessness among veterans has declined 36 percent, but too many remain on the streets. Veterans comprise 12 percent of the Nation's adult homeless population. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, some 48,000 veterans were homeless--including 1,200 in my State of Ohio--on a given night in January when a census, if you will, was taken about homelessness. That is 48,000 too many. It is a disgrace that they serve our country with honor, and thousands are left without a roof over their head. Think about that. We send them off to war. They are sometimes damaged by their time in combat or their time in the military, and we don't care enough to find them places to live and find them drug treatment and find them jobs and give the kind of help to them that they gave to our country. I met the veterans the organizations serve--organizations such as the VFW, American Legion, these groups and counties called veteran service organizations. My State is blessed to have one in each of our 88 counties. I hear about their stories of perseverance. They are inspiring. I visited the Joseph House in Cincinnati, where Nathan Pelletier and his team of dedicated staff and volunteers provided addiction treatment and transitional housing to veterans. We heard from Britton Carter, who was formerly homeless. He completed the treatment program at Joseph House. He now works as a case manager helping other struggling veterans. He spoke about the trials he has overcome. He said: As a small youth I fell in love with playing army men. My mom would buy me little army men, and I dreamed of one day being a soldier. God had given me the gift of being a pretty good basketball player and as such I became the first freshman to play and start on any varsity team. With success came fans and countless people, many of whom had an agenda that didn't necessarily have my best interest at stake. From the early years of high school I found myself star struck, and I would end up in the company of those who used drugs--first pot and wine, later I was introduced to heroin and cocaine. With the grace of God, I was given the opportunity to attend college at New Mexico Military Institution in Roswell, NM. There were other offers from schools, but I was attracted to the opportunity of being able to play army man once again. I was caught with drugs and kicked out of school, and as a result I lost the chance to become an officer in the United States military. I went to another college--only to have my drug addiction lead me to poor choices that brought my career closer and closer to an end, where the only thing I felt I had to hold onto would be a career in the Army. I enlisted, and discovered that being away from home . . . left me face-to-face with those old demons, and once again I was being discharged. . . . It wasn't long after my return . . . that I found myself in and out of trouble. Having no insurance to pay for the treatment I truly needed to address my addiction, and nearly a life sentence on the installment plan and years of struggle. . . . He goes on. [The Joseph House] was the one place that believed in never leaving any soldier behind--the Joseph House. It was while at the Joseph House that I had the opportunity to get the treatment I so badly needed. . . . Today, thanks to God and his mercy. . . . He goes on to talk about some of the things he has done. He has written a play. He has produced a play. He has done wonderful things, especially for his fellow veterans. His story should serve as a reminder to all of us that we should not leave the men and women who serve this country. There are so many stories like his. In October I was in Dayton, where I met with Robert White at the Homefull organization--Homefull as opposed to the homeless. He served 4 years in the Army Reserves and 1 year on Active Duty. He was honorably discharged in 1980 and spent years working, facing challenges that he said left him ``lower than low.'' He said, ``As soon as I left for basic training, I was homeless.'' He talked about his work, his time in shelters. He said the result was always the same. He said, ``I entered homeless, and no matter how good I did, I still left homeless.'' Then, on the July Fourth weekend 7 years ago, he entered Homefull's VA per diem transitional supportive housing program. He became a model guest at Homefull. He got a job in Trotwood, a community near Dayton. He still has the same job. Homefull connected Mr. White with its partner organization, which helped him achieve home ownership. Today he has gone from homeless veteran to owner of his own home. That is because of his community in Dayton, because of this organization Homefull, and it is because of the partnership with the Veterans' Administration, whose funding is always under jeopardy because of many Members of the Senate and House who simply don't put the same effort into helping veterans as they do into funding the military. Last month I was in Cleveland. I visited the Supportive Housing Home for Veterans. I visited the Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority in Youngstown. These organizations are providing work that is so important. We owe them our support. Even one veteran on the street means Congress isn't doing enough to tackle this problem. That is why I joined my colleagues in introducing the Veteran Housing Stability Act of 2015, which would make meaningful improvements to services for homeless veterans and give more veterans access to housing opportunities. President Kennedy, in his 1963 Thanksgiving proclamation--I believe the week before he died--said, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' Sure, we come to this floor. We send people off to battle. Surely we need to do that sometimes. Sure, we come to the floor and talk about veterans, but so often we don't live up to the obligations to help these veterans deal with their homelessness, to help veterans deal with suicide, with the threat of suicide, the likelihood of suicide for some of them, help our veterans deal with drug addiction, help our veterans deal with mental health issues. Often these are costs of war that we simply don't discuss on the Senate floor. It is so important that we do. I hope my colleagues will join me in ensuring every veteran has an opportunity to succeed.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Sasse, with whom I enjoy serving on the banking committee, and I appreciate his good work. I take a bit of issue with his comments. I know there are more than two options. But I hear the greatest criticisms of the President from those same people, urging-- not necessarily Senator Sasse in this case, but many of the leaders in this body on the Republican side who were some of the strongest advocates for the war in Iraq. Some of those same people are saying, back into the Middle East, sending combat troops. Going back to war is something that the American people--we all come to the floor claiming to speak for the American people, perhaps, but we know that is not good policy and that is not what most people in this country want to do. But I appreciate the comments of the Senator.

Mr. BROWN. Excuse me?

Mr. BROWN. I am not here to debate this. I don't know exactly what that means: a connection between the enemy and Islam. I know that semantics matter, and I know the criticism of the President in this body is sort of front and center no matter what he does. When he gave what I thought was a coherent speech, often with restraint, where we have taken the--I think we have taken the fight to ISIL in this country. I think we have done it domestically. I think the President wants to do it internationally, and this body doesn't seem to have the courage to debate whether or not we actually look at an authorization resolution--an authorization for use of force. The President is still forced to rely on a resolution that President Bush pushed through that led to disastrous policies in Iraq. I don't think that was right. But I apologize. I want to speak on something else, Mr. President, and that is why I came to the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in closing, I want to recognize a long-term staff member, a young woman who has served in my office, Meghan Dubyak. She has been my communications director for most of my years in the Senate. She comes from Shaker Heights, OH. She has been a terrific public servant. Today is her last day. This is about her last hour on the job, although she is going with me tonight to do one other appearance. Meghan is planning to get married this summer. She is taking tomorrow off and is going on Monday to join the staff of the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. She has been an incredible employee. I wish her well. My wife Connie and I will love Meghan as long as we have the privilege of knowing her in the years ahead. So thank you to Meghan. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wish to honor today the distinguished career of Dr. Carl Zulauf on the occasion of his retirement from the faculty of the Ohio State University. Raised on a farm himself, Carl's passion for agriculture began at an early age. His family's diversified farm raised livestock and crops. His connection to the land has remained a common thread throughout his life and career, and Carl hopes to use his retirement as an opportunity to refocus on his family's farm. With the seeds of interest firmly planted, Carl pursued his education in what he knew best: agriculture. First, where he earned a degree in Agricultural Economics at the Ohio State University and later at Stanford University where he obtained his PhD. Dr. Zulauf credits his upbringing on a farm as the foundation for his interest in strengthening our Nation's domestic farming and the special appreciation he has for the issues facing American farmers and the agricultural sector. Since 1980, Carl had been a pillar of OSU's College of food, agricultural, and environmental sciences. The depth and breadth of his research portfolio is impressive and includes dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and over 1,000 articles developed for broader public consumption. Not just a researcher, Carl is a dedicated educator. Thousands of students have benefited from his teaching, leadership, and mentoring. Carl served as academic adviser to more than 200 students. For over a decade, he has been a faculty adviser for Ohio State's SPHINX Senior Honorary--which each year pays tribute to 24 students who ``embody the highest ideals of scholarship, leadership, camaraderie, citizenship, and service at The Ohio State University.'' Additionally, he has helped organize programs with students to travel to China and the Czech Republic to study agriculture. As a professor, his interest in his students can be seen by the large number of farmers across my State that talk about their time in Dr. Zulauf's classroom. The dozens of accolades that have been awarded to him throughout his tenure at OSU serve as witness to his impact as both a teacher and scholar. Carl's many contributions are a reminder that the values of the SPHINX-- service, camaraderie, leadership, and scholarship--are not solely the domain of OSU's students. Beyond his exemplary work as a researcher and educator, Carl has been an engaged member of both Ohio's and the broader agriculture community. He has been a leader in the Ohio agribusiness community, taking part in a number of strategic planning committees. He continues to be a regular contributor to FarmDoc, a project of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which serves as an online resources for farmers across the country. He inspired many students in his work at OSU, and one cannot fully understand Ohio's agricultural sector without knowing the name Carl Zulauf. However, his most noteworthy contribution to agriculture in the United States must be his work on farm policy. In 1985, Carl joined Senator John Glenn's office to help with agriculture policy, an experience he described as eye-opening. With his academic background and experience growing up on a farm, Carl brought an informed and diverse perspective. Though he went back to teaching following his time in Washington, Carl's time in Senator Glenn's office left an indelible mark and would guide his work on agriculture policy in the decades to come. One pivotal example of Carl's work on agriculture policy was for the 2008 farm bill with the development of the Average Crop Revenue Election, ACRE, program, which represented a novel approach to risk management for our Nation's farmers. Carl worked with my office in 2008, as well as the office of Senator Durbin, to draft legislation that would become the ACRE program. ACRE was based on years of research and conversations with farmers and some of the best minds in our agriculture industry. My staff worked on ACRE which later became the ARC, Average Risk Coverage, program--legislation that I worked on with Senator Thune and which we were able to include the 2014 farm bill. Over 90 percent of our Nation's corn and soybean farmers choose to enroll in the ARC program which will serve as a crucial safety net for farmers at risk of low yields and was the first revenue-based rather than fixed-price program. The overwhelming participation in these programs serves as validation of Carl's work and cements his reputation as a key architect of our Nation's food and farm policy. Carl's fingerprints will be on agriculture policy for many future iterations of the farm bill. From his tenure as a motivating and engaging professor at OSU to the role and voice he continues to play in Ohio and across the Nation as a leading thinker on the future of our farm and food policy, Carl has served as a resource guide and mentor for many. Thousands of students have benefited from his teaching, and thousands of farmers will benefit from his work that has informed our Nation's agricultural policies. I wish him the best in his retirement and applaud his contributions to his profession and thank him for his service to America's farmers, his university, and our Nation.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise again today to support Adam Szubin's nomination to serve as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Treasury Department, as well as to support several other nominees whose nominations have been pending before the Senate banking committee for many months--some for almost a full year--with no vote. All of these nominees have had hearings. They have all completed a thorough committee vetting process and they are ready to be approved. Yet the Senate banking committee is the only committee in the Senate that has not yet held a single vote on any administration nominee in this Congress--not one vote on any of the more than a dozen nominees this Congress. There are 13 nominees pending before the committee. Here we are in the final month of the year, and Republicans still have not held a vote on any of them. This inaction stands in stark contrast to this committee's record on nominees over the past 15 years. When we look at this chart, we see for the 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th--eight Congresses, 15 years--this Congress is only half completed--Republican Presidents during much of this time and Democratic Presidents during much of this time; a Republican majority in the banking committee during some of this time and a Democratic majority in the banking committee during some of this time. Yet when we look at these numbers, we see lots referred to committee, but when we look at the number of approved by committee for this Congress: zero. The number confirmed by the Senate coming out of banking for these nominations: zero. The number returned to the President: zero. The number withdrawn: zero. In other words, time after time, year after year, President after President, Senate majority after Senate majority, we have seen the Senate banking committee actually do its work, until the 114th Congress, 2015: nothing in terms of approval. In this Congress, the committee has failed to carry out its duty to consider and act upon the President's nominees. Let me start with Mr. Szubin, who is currently serving in his critical position in an acting capacity. Despite having bipartisan support--the Presiding Officer I know is also on the banking committee--his nomination has languished for 200 days because of Republican obstruction. This is a critical national security post that must be filled permanently. Mr. Szubin heads what is in effect Treasury's economic war room, managing U.S. efforts to combat terrorist financing and fight financial crimes. He can do his job better if he is not acting but if he is in fact the confirmed nominee of the President of the United States. He is helping to lead the charge to choke off ISIL's funding sources. We are introducing legislation today, in part, answering the threat of ISIL and the threat of terrorism and, in part, by coming up with new ways to choke off funding for the terrorists. Nobody is in a better position in our government--nobody--than Mr. Szubin, and I want him confirmed so he can do his job better. It would prevent developing additional capacity to strike war targets around the world. He is working to hold Iran--regardless of how one voted on the Iran nuclear deal, he is going to hold Iran to its commitments under the nuclear deal and lead a campaign against the full range of Iran's other destructive activities. Mr. Szubin has served in senior positions first in the Bush administration and now in the Obama administration. I don't know if he is a Democrat or Republican. I don't really care. He is an acknowledged expert in economic sanctions and counterterrorist financing. There is no question--no question--that he is qualified for this position. Over the last 15 years he has distinguished himself as an aggressive enforcer of our Nation's sanctions laws against Russia, against Iran, against North Korea, and against money launderers, against terrorists, and against narcotraffickers. Given all the concerns surrounding terrorist financing--legitimate concerns that Senator Shelby has and that I have and probably all other 98 Members of the Senate have--one would think a nomination would be a priority. In the past, it has been. Szubin's mentor, Bush Under Secretary Stuart Levey, was confirmed by the Senate just 3 weeks after his nomination came to the banking committee. The Senate took just 2\1/2\ months to consider Mr. Szubin's immediate predecessor. Mr. Szubin has support across the political spectrum. Even many groups opposed to the Iran nuclear deal support his nomination. The banking committee chairman, Senator Shelby, my friend who is in the Chamber, described Mr. Szubin as ``eminently qualified.'' He deserves the strong backing of the Senate. Without it, his ability to operate here and abroad is less than it should be. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN371, the nomination of Adam J. Szubin to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am frustrated that my colleagues have chosen to continue to object without giving a reason why we are not going to vote on this nomination; not talking about Mr. Szubin's lack of qualifications--because that just wouldn't be true--and not ultimately helping us deal with terrorism around the world in this critical national security nomination. Let me turn to another key Treasury official who has been nominated to serve in a dual economic security and national security role, Adewale Adeyemo, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Markets and Development. The person in this role is responsible for key national security issues and recommendations made in the CFIUS process, which assesses the major national security implications of large investments in the United States made by foreign firms. Like Mr. Szubin, Mr. Adeyemo has been waiting for months for the banking committee to act on his nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN86, the nomination of Adewale Adeyemo to be Assistant Secretary for International Markets and Development; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am further frustrated because of a lack of information as to why we are not confirming this nominee. We have had hearings and they have been vetted. There is no opposition to qualifications. There is no dispute over how important these positions are. Let me turn to a nomination for another key economic security position in the administration: Patricia Loui-Schmicker to serve on the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank. The Export-Import Bank has been around since the days of Roosevelt. There were efforts by tea party Republicans to put the Export-Import Bank out of business. They did, for a period of time, even though for 75 years it has been reauthorized, kept in existence, helped our country, made a difference in creating jobs, helping big companies such as Boeing and GE and others, and helping all kinds of small companies. Many of the companies they have helped people haven't even heard of, that are in Ohio and that are part of the economic supply chain, the supply chain for these companies. This week I was with a group of people who do this kind of work in Ohio. They were just flabbergasted that because of intransigence on the part of tea party Republicans, we can't get them--we didn't authorize it for months and months, and now, when we finally did and it can operate, the Ex-Im Bank can't operate because the Senate banking committee will not do its job. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN288, the nomination of Patricia Loui-Schmicker to be a member of the Board of Directors for the Ex-Im Bank of the United States; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the objections from my Senate colleague, my friend Senator Shelby, costs us American jobs. When you shut down the Export-Import Bank, it means that workers get laid off, it means that companies can't expand, it means companies can't do what they want. So the first objection means our country is less safe, the second objection causes us all kinds of problems with making sure our companies and national security is what it should be, and this third objection costs us American jobs. None of these do I understand. Mr. President, I want to turn to another Treasury Department nominee. Amias Gerety has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, Department of the Treasury. Mr. Gerety has played an important role since the beginning of the current administration, helping our country recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He deserves the full backing of the banking committee. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN208, the nomination of Amias Moore Gerety to be Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will move on to another nomination. This nomination is for the Federal Transit Administration. This distinguished nominee, Therese McMillan, has been awaiting confirmation since January of this year. She joined FTA as the Administrator in 2009. She has been Acting Administrator for a year and a half. Apparently the Republican majority doesn't want anybody in the Obama administration because the President they don't much like has nominated these people. It is pretty hard to understand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN41, the nomination of Therese McMillan to be Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a nominee to be inspector general of the FDIC, Jay Lerner, has been awaiting confirmation since January of this year. We know the Republican majority doesn't much like Obama nominees, even though President Obama is one of, I believe, two Democrats in the last 150 years who has actually--correct me if I am wrong--won at least 51 percent of the country's votes twice. Since the Civil War, the only other was Franklin Roosevelt, who won more than half of the popular vote four times in the country. I know some of my colleagues don't seem to want to recognize that he is the President of the United States and, as we have always done in this country, the President gets to nominate people. If they are qualified, they should be confirmed. Even if there is disagreement on their qualifications, they should be voted on and voted down. We are even asking you to do that if that is what you choose to do. But, particularly since they don't much like the people the President puts on the FDIC, maybe we need an inspector general who can find out if they are doing things wrong. That is the whole point of the inspector general--to root out corruption and other problems, such as incompetence, in an agency. That is what Jay Lerner would do as the inspector general of the FDIC. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of PN65, the nomination of Jay Neal Lerner to be inspector general of the FDIC; that the Senate proceed to its consideration and vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I guess that is the conclusion of my efforts today. Senator Shelby can return to the Republican luncheon if he would like or debate me a little bit on this, but I don't get this-- first of all, in terms of our national security, the importance of Adam Szubin; in terms of honesty in government, the importance of Jay Lerner; in terms of creation of jobs, the nominee to the Export-Import Bank. I will not belabor this process anymore. I will not raise nominees anymore for reasons of time. I think I have made my point, but especially for critical national and economic security, the nominees on this list should move forward. I don't understand this. I haven't seen anything quite like this in the Congress of the United States. I continue to press this case. I am willing to talk one-on-one with Senator Shelby on this. He has been open to that in the past. I hope my colleagues will join me in bipartisan approval of these national and economic security nominees who will matter for the continued greatness of our great country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank Senator Murkowski for the consent request. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, many in Washington and on Wall Street seem to have collective amnesia. They seem to have forgotten, amazingly enough, about the destructive, devastating impact of the financial crisis even though it took place well less than a decade ago. For millions of Americans, that crisis is unforgettable; millions haven't recovered. My wife and I live in the city of Cleveland in ZIP Code 44105. That ZIP Code in the first half of 2007 had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States of America. That was in large part because of Wall Street greed and a number of companies that engaged in predatory lending. In September of 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed--the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history--following a decade of unfair lending, Wall Street recklessness, lax supervision, and co-optation in too many cases by regulators and Members of Congress. I recently interviewed former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on C-SPAN about his new book. The book title he was originally writing when he joined the Federal Reserve over a decade ago was going to be called ``The Age of Delusion: How Politicians and Central Bankers Created the Great Depression.'' This was about the Great Depression. I asked him what he would call a similar book or what a historian 20 years from now might call a similar book about the great recession, from which we have emerged over the last decade. He said it would be called ``Asleep at the Switch'' or ``Too Complacent.'' That complacency took a devastating toll on American families. That was the complacency of Congress, of the Bush administration, of regulators, of far too many people at OCC and the Fed who were captured, if you will--cognitive capture, regulatory capture, too close to the banking industry, too close to Wall Street, believing too much in the myths that were woven by Alan Greenspan and that crowd more than a decade ago. The meltdown triggered a crisis that left America's economy hemorrhaging more than 750,000 jobs a month. Think back to January of 2009, when President Obama took the oath of office. We lost 750,000 jobs that month when Bush left office and Obama took office. The hemorrhaging, of course, didn't stop immediately, although over the last 5\1/2\ years, almost 6 years, we have seen job growth every single month. By the time we hit bottom, we had lost 9 million jobs, the unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, and 5 million Americans lost their homes. The crisis--the worst since the Great Depression--took a shattering financial and psychological toll on a generation of Americans. Thirteen trillion dollars in household wealth was wiped out--again because of complacency and co-optation of the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan, of this U.S. Congress, and of the Bush administration. Congress responded by passing Dodd-Frank. We put in place new rules to bring stability to markets, to ensure strong consumer investor protections, and to crack down on the reckless and irresponsible behavior of Wall Street. Again, to repeat: Since 2010, we have seen 68 months, 69 months, and 70 consecutive months of job growth--I believe the longest in modern economic history. One of Wall Street reform's most important achievements was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has an accountable director to serve as a counterbalance to the Wall Street lobby, and it has an independent funding stream. It was created to ensure that never again would consumers be an afterthought in our Nation's financial system. Because of Wall Street reform, banks are required to fund themselves using more of their shareholders' money and to hold more cash or assets that can be sold easily--we call that liquidity--when they run into trouble, to undergo strength tests, and to strengthen risk management. That is why this banking system is more stable and safer than it was during the Bush years. The law also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to fill gaps in the regulatory framework and establish a forum for agencies to identify risks to preempt, precipitate, and preempt the identifiable risks that could contribute to the next financial crisis. An overwhelming majority of Americans support regulation of Wall Street. They know that Wall Street did serious damage to our country. But in May the Senate banking committee reported out a sweeping financial deregulation package along party lines. I tried to negotiate with Senator Shelby during the spring. They broke down once it became clear that the effort wasn't about negotiating; it was really about rolling back the most important parts of Wall Street reform. Senate Republicans are now working to move this controversial bill-- this repeal, this rollback, this slicing of Wall Street, of Dodd- Frank--to roll back these reforms through the appropriations process. This move, unprecedented in its scale, shows the Republicans will try to ram their agenda through Congress any way possible. Last year, Republicans slipped a repeal of section 716 of Wall Street reform into the end-of-year funding bill. They have tried the same stealth strategy to undermine Wall Street reform, only this time it goes far beyond one provision. Under the guise of so-called regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions, Republicans are trying to undermine consumer protections, sensible regulations for larger bank holding oversight companies, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council. These are a lot of words, perhaps, but what we know is they again want to do Wall Street's bidding--not on the floor of the Senate. We are not debating these issues on the floor; they want to do back- room deals to take care of their Wall Street friends. That is what all of this is about. That is why we introduced our alternative proposal last year. Now the good news is this: Republicans and Democrats agreed with our approach in the House of moving noncontroversial bipartisan provisions. I wish to give a couple of examples. Under the Surface Transportation Conference Report, which we will be voting on later today, we included changes in the bank exam cycle for small banks--a major help for community banks. It was sponsored by Senator Toomey and Senator Donnelly, a Republican and a Democrat. It streamlines privacy notices. It is something I had worked on last session as a sponsor. This session Senator Moran and Senator Heitkamp introduced it. It allows privately insured credit unions to become members of the Federal Home Loan Bank system, something I have worked on for some time. We have put these in the Transportation bill. We have done what we should do for community banks--not everything we should do, but we have done much of the agenda for the community banks and the small credit unions. Our goal is to do this right, to debate these issues on the floor, and to help those institutions under $10 billion. They didn't cause the financial crisis; we know that--nor did banks the size of Huntington, $55 billion; of Fifth Third Bank, $130 billion. KeyCorp was $90 billion and is about to do an acquisition that will make them a little larger. As the ranking member of Senate banking, I have heard time and again the calls for legislation to undermine the new financial rules. Let's help these community banks, but let's not do the bidding of Wall Street. In this bill, we are helping those community banks be more efficient, be able to cut some of their administrative costs, and still protect consumers. What people want to do in the back room on the omnibus bill is jam all kinds of issues through the Senate that, frankly, are weakening Dodd-Frank. It will challenge and undermine the financial stability of our system. It is pretty clear to me that far too many Members of this body have forgotten the lessons and forgotten what happened in 2007 to our country and to people in our great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have the floor for Senator Enzi and myself. Amendment No. 2883 to Amendment No. 2874 (Purpose: To maintain the 100 percent FMAP for the Medicaid expansion population) I call up amendment No. 2883.